The necessities of survival for a people wandering in the desert close to starvation.
It really is amazing how far from reality people in some countries in modern times have become.
I guess talk them to sense wasnt exist back then? Im sorry but your argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Matt 5: 3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Godly character applies to all. In the husband and wife situation, the wife is subject or under the authority of the husband as the children are under the parents, as we are under Christ and Christ is the Father.
God commanded the execution of those who committed certain sins. So we should take heed, because God will execute His judgment in the end on all who continue to oppose Him. Remember, we are creatures of a Holy, Righteous, Almighty God. We must conform to His Holiness and Righteousness, not God to ours.
What scripture are you talking about when you say the children would die because they didn’t gather food?
As for Bible commentaries, I have Logos software on my computer that allows me to look at all different ones from different perspectives and traditions. And I have access to a library that has a large commentary collection. I don’t own many commentaries of my own because they are usually sold by book of the Bible and are pricey. The ones I have are from Zondervan’s Story of God series.
But my suggestion would be to use a library and save the money. 
But I don’t know if they have them in Greece.
1 Like
It is one thing to wonder why God would require the death of someone because you want to understand Him better. It is another thing to say, “If God is like that, I wouldn’t serve a God like that”. The later is foolishness. No matter what the true God is like, He deserves our trust, love and obedience.
God is Holy! God requires holiness from the people he has created. It is not for the creature to tell God what Holiness and Righteousness is. It is for the creature to look to God to see what they are. He has exposed Himself enough for us to see that He is Righteous, Just and Merciful.
If I remain faithful to the end and enter the Kingdom of Heaven, I will rejoice at God’s condemnation of those who continued in rebellion against Him and in the mercy He showed those who repented and remained faithful to Him.
Jesus dying in our place is enough to show God’s Justice and Mercy.
OHHH! RIGHT! We don’t need to put criminals in prison. We just need to talk to them and make them see reason.
LOL LOL LOL
Like I said, it really is amazing how far from reality people in some countries in modern times have become.
I think we can take it for granted that the whole talk to them and make them see reason routine has already been tried before it moves on to more severe responses.
By the way… do you have statistics on how many times such sentences were actually carried out?
Text says disobedient not criminals though
Does it matter? Didnt God said that? The argument is not if the Isralites carried out these but that God himself said it to them
Huh?!? This was the law. Secularism doesn’t get invented for more than three thousand years after this.
Ah! So you only think it matters when it props up your argument.
I can totally see God giving highly pragmatic commandments which He knows is necessary for a people’s survival in their particular circumstances. Disastrously unrealistic idealism is more of human specialty.
It is no different back then as it will be in the final judgment.
If you or I continue in disobedience, we disrespect our parents, are drunkards and rebellious and lovers of pleasure, we will receive a just condemning judgment. We will be cast out of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Those who fear the LORD will be safe. Those who rebel will be condemned.
Repentance from sin and trust in Jesus are our only hope.
Are you sure Cody those people were given the cance to repent before getting stoned to death?
Repentance at its most basic root is a change of heart affections. If they would be like the man who died next to Jesus and they turned to God in sorrow for their sins, then even though they died, God could still have accepted their repentance and faith. But there is the warning in Hebrews 12:14-17. Esau sold his inheritance for food and was unable to get it back even though he sought the blessing with tears.
The point is, you don’t mess around with the all powerful God.
Do you dislike Deuteronomy 5:17?
As for 1 Timothy 2:11-12, something to consider is that women weren’t even allowed into the Temple in first-century Judaism. So to the Jews of his day, Paul would have been considered an outrageous progressive for even allowing women to sit and learn in that capacity. Cultural context is incredibly important when we are trying to understand what Scripture is saying.
Just something to consider. 
1 Like
I meant all the “hard to swallow” ones in Deutetonomy . I forgot to add leviticus
It was just a tease, my friend. I knew what you meant. I’m being playful.
The answer is not to swallow anything as divine when it’s human. And not human as you are human. You are worlds apart. Further than an Afghani, Mongol or Ituri mountain settlement. Further than your ancient Greek ancestors. It takes immense historical, linguistic, psychological, sociological, anthropological intellectual effort to put oneself in such shoes.
Ah Nick, fancy meeting you here again!
First, I have to ask whether your statements are correct. I want to deal with women covering their heads. I cannot think of any place in the Bible where women cannot be welcomed into the church unless they cover their heads. However, there is a place where women are asked to cover their heads when they lead the congregation in prayer or prophecy, namely, 1 Corinthians 11. Paul’s statement here seems weird until we discover the cultural issues at play. But before I explain that, let me share an illustration.
A friend shared with me a story from his university days. Back in the days of “flower power”, “make love not war”, and “burn the bra 'cause it’s all about male chauvinism”, his fellow female student had decided to burn the bra. She was a large-breasted woman and in summer her choice was rather obvious. One day a feminist theologian invited the female students to join her for afternoon tea during which she told his female friend that dressing in that manner would contribute to her being perceived as a sexual object instead of a respected academic. She followed the advice and became a respected academic. I don’t think that this story requires any explanation in the West.
However, the early Church existed in the Mediterranean/Near Eastern world of the first century where a woman’s uncovered and let-down hair could constitute a sexual invitation. For confirmation of this take a look at what a Spartan wrote:
“When someone enquired why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, ‘Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep those who have them!”
Clearly, uncovered hair was considered a sexual turn-on. Worship at Corinth seems to have followed a much more spontaneous model where people stood up and led for a moment before others did the same To translate that into Western culture, imagine a woman who spontaneously stands up in worship with her boobs clearly visible. Would your attention be on things that are above or the things that are below?
St Paul was insisting on a dress code when women led in worship. This helps us to understand that in ! Corinthians 14: 34, where Paul calls “those women to be silent in church”, he is not saying women should not speak in church generally. After all, earlier in the epistle he has given women a dress code for the times that they do. The ban in 14:34 applies to calling out questions, for these would disrupt the orderly conduct of worship.
1 Like
I think the first issue that comes up is what makes up the Bible and how do we approach that literature.
The Sadducees rejected any books beyond those of the “Law”, meaning the first five books of the Old Testament. They were not alone in this. After the first two kings of ancient Israel, the nation fell into civil war which eventually culminated in two separate nations: Israel and Judah. When Israel revolted against their Assyrian overlords they were defeated, and many were taken as slaves. We know the number taken away as slaves, thanks to an accountant in Assyria. The number shows that many northern Israelites remained in the area and may have mixed with Assyrian colonists to become the Samaritans. The Samaritans also accepted only the books of the Law and maintained that the Jews made up the other books of the Old Testament when they were exiled in Babylon.
The question becomes more complicated with the discovery that the oldest manuscripts we have of the Old Testament, those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, contain at least five different manuscript traditions. In fact, there are more than that because category 5 was “miscellaneous”. The manuscripts contain different texts and even different combinations of books.
Then, as Old Testament scholars sifted through the Old Testament texts, they realized that they were a combination of different traditions known as J, D, E and P. Genetically, the ancient Israelites were identical to the Canaanites and we cannot tell how much of Canaanite culture was absorbed into Israelite religion and reinterpreted for that purpose.
So, to my mind, the question is how do we regard the books of the Old Testament? I think there is some guidance here in that two of the authors of the New Testament books, St Paul and the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews, describe the Law as containing a shadow and no true image.
It is easy to quickly see some examples of that. The kingdom of God, in the Old Testament, is a piece of real estate in Western Asia with a very human king. In the New Testament, this idea merely serves as a metaphor for a kingdom which is not of this world with Jesus the Messiah as its king. This is not to say that there are no spiritual insights in the Old Testament. I think, on the spur of the moment, of the story of Joseph and his experience in Egypt. On meeting the brothers who sold him into slavery he says, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”
If one approaches the Bible with a view of flat inspiration and consequently sees every bit of it as equally inspired, then you will have to do a lot of fast talking to cover the difficulties. My approach is to first assess it as a historian, and in the light of that examination, make a decision about my approach to the Bible. In my view, it is Jesus who is the Word of God and all before is a shadow – an often-dim shadow.
Furthermore, I see the so-called “Pastoral Epistles” in the New Testament as letters written in Paul’s name, but not by Paul. Characteristically, they attempt to take the radical message of Jesus and Paul and make it conform more to their own worldview.
1 Like
A shadow of what is to come? How? I cant imagine people will go to hell just because they were disobedient. So what that shadow means?
Is there any historical records for this? Or better putted how did you come with that conclusion? Do others scholars support it? Thanks for your info and answers. Take care!!
Nick, it is generally believed by Biblical scholars, perhaps with the exception of Fundamentalists, that the pastoral letters were written in Paul’s name, and not by Paul, because they reflect a later stage in the development of the Christian Church.
The attempt to make the Christian New Testament conform to human culture still goes on and is quite evident in modern translations. In the examples that follow I am going to assume that, based on your name, you are familiar with the Greek language; albeit modern Greek rather than the Greek which was the common language of the Roman Empire at the time of the early Church.
You may be familiar with the translation into English of Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, and in particular the words attributed to him in chapter 14, beginning at verse 26. Here you will find the oft-quoted verse (v.34) where it says something like: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.”
The first thing is to look at this verse in context. Paul describes a situation where everyone is making contribution to worship (v.26). The result is absolute chaos. To remedy this situation, Paul appeals to God as the one who brings order out of chaos; and he maintains this is the principle in all of the churches.
To apply this principle, Paul addresses three groups of people. 1) Those who speak in tongues without an interpreter. 2) Prophets who are talking over the top of each other. 3) Women who are calling out questions during worship. In each case the same words are used: To be silent and to be subject. Let’s take a look at the original Greek.
εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος, καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω·
28 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ διερμηνευτής, σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἑαυτῷ δὲ λαλείτω καὶ τῷ θεῷ.
29 προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν·
30 ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθημένῳ, ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω.
31 δύνασθε γὰρ καθ᾽ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται
.
32 καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται,
33 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης. Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων
34 αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει. (1Cor 14:27-34 GNT)
In the above Greek text, I have bolded the people addressed; the command to be silent; and the principle of being subject to good order. The key:
γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ those who speak in tongues
σιγάτω, σιγάτωσαν be silent
προφῆται prophets
ὑποτάσσετα, ὑποτασσέσθωσαν be subject
αἱ γυναῖκες the women or those women
All three groups are commanded to be silent and both the prophets and the women are commanded to be subject. To what you ask are the women to be subject? The principle overriding this paragraph, order over chaos. There is no justification for translating the Greek text as “subject to” when applied to the prophets, but as “in submission” when applied to “those women”. Exactly the same word is used for both!
In other words, some of those difficult Biblical passages are made difficult by people fiddling with the translation from the original Greek.
1 Like