So I have some issues that are now biting at me as of now. When it comes to being faithful to Scripture, how can we know if what is ancient and no longer bound to us moral and rules (obviously the OT can be ruled out with a few exceptions pending) but when it comes to the NT then that is the fuzzy line for me. How can we tell what is bound for an ancient 1st century audience and what is universal for us for all times? The reason why I say this because I want all my boxes marked and T crossed. I want to take Scripture faithful and true and believe in what it says but how can I know what I can apply to me today and take what the text says. I am wondering how I can alleviate this tension and know I can be faithful with Scripture and know what is to be taken in a faithful manner and what I can leave behind as ancient background noise?
In other words if my rambling didn’t make sense, is this: How can I know what is to be taken in either a literal and/or universal application for me today and what can be seen as symbolic and/or ancient and thus not bound for me today. Thank you all for putting up with my mad scrambling in trying to get myself back in spiritual shape and fumbling with all the puzzle pieces. Thanks and God bless.
I have had similar questions that I have mostly explored in the realm of “women in ministry” debates. That is where you have a lot of arguments about what women can/cannot or should/should not do or be based on a particular verse or even a particular word in a verse.
Many of these arguments are countered by arguments that a particular directive was “cultural” or “situational,” not universal. Also many of the best arguments (in my opinion) take into account what happened in the narratives and read specific directives in light of other facts. (So for example, instead of arguing over what the obscure word authentein really means and implies in 1 Tim 2:12, they say, look what Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe did.)
I think what bothers me sometimes is that, in response to people wanting to impose culturally conditioned directives on everyone for all time, one “side” does seem to want to throw out all the stuff that they deem “cultural” as totally irrelevant or sometimes even damaging. But I think a more responsible approach is to try to figure out what the directives meant in their context and if there is a relevant principle of love or godliness that we can derive from it, even if our application of that principle today might look totally different.
So, instead of just saying, “of course women can wear gold and braid their hair, that doesn’t apply today so just ignore it,” we should be asking what concerns and problems that directive addressed and what can we learn from that, and what parallels we have in our own culture that we should be paying attention to. This is a more challenging and messy exercise, one that I think requires wisdom and discernment of Christian community, and one which will always have tensions and gray areas.
In all of our wrestling with how to live out our faith, it’s good to know that overwhelming God’s grace will always abundantly meet us in our failures to get things perfectly right and our misunderstandings of what God wants.
I can agree with that. Thanks for the advice.
Limiting myself just to one of Paul’s letters:
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 1 Cor. 11:4-5.
I don’t see a lot of churches practicing this.
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 1 Cor. 15:29.
Unless you’re Mormon, I don’t see a lot of churches baptizing the dead.
If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 1 Cor. 10:27-28
Not a lot of meat sacrificed in pagan temples these days.
In short, it’s usually not difficult to determine what is ancient and what is universal. The same happened in Israel over time. John 8 aside, there is no evidence that adulterers were stoned in the first century, nor did they stone blasphemers (Lev. 24:16), those who gathered wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36), or idolators (Deut. 13:6-11). Despite the Pharisees best efforts, a great deal of the Torah was ignored as “culturally/historically irrelevant” by the first century. This is not a new problem or phenomenon. The people of God have always wrestled with what applies or doesn’t apply to their own time and place.
You can take it as faithful and true, but all your boxes marked and T’s crossed takes time and effort. It’s okay to admit you don’t have every answer. And if something in particular is bothering you, then do as Christy said …
Paul’s worry about the meat offered to idols has no cultural relevance today, but the principle he was illustrating is certainly applicable. Study the historical context, and make your own judgment according to your conscience.
Thanks for the advice and God bless.
Hang in there, brother. You’re not alone in wrestling with God:
24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
Okay so first off, lets go over why we no longer follow the OT laws. There are two main reasons, the OT commandments were part of the Mosaic covenant whereas we are under the Christian covenant (in other words, we follow the argreement made between us and Christ) and because the OT law wasn’t the perfect and final law. Passages like Matthew 19:7-8, 1 Samuel 8, and Numbers 27:1-11 imply that God allowed revisions, additions, and comprimises to the law in order to get Israel to a better place than they were prior. Essentially, the law was meant to be a temperary solution until they were ready for the final law (read Galations). Now, for the Christian covenant, Jesus stated in Matthew 22:36-40 that the entire law is summarized in the commandments “Love the Lord thy God with all you heart, soul, and mind” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. The way I see it, these are the commandments christians are called to live by. But if you wanted more specifics, Christy’s advice about finding the reasons behind the laws and applying it to our modern day situations seemed like pretty solid advice.
This can be difficult, especially for those of us who are natural rule followers. On the one hand it’s very important to be consistent and to take scripture seriously. On the other hand, I know my own pharisaical tendencies to just follow a “letter of the law,” and if I can just nail down exactly what that means to all people in all times, it will make me feel more righteous than it would otherwise.
I agree with Christy that “women in ministry” is a tricky topic in the NT. The same goes for marriage. In 1 Peter 2, Paul tells slaves to obey their masters, even harsh ones. It’s easy enough to say that’s not relevant for us today because slavery has been abolished in our country. But then in the next chapter he tells wives to submit to their husbands. Is this still relevant since marriage hasn’t been abolished? Should any consideration be made for the fact that marriage tends to follow a very different process in a very different social setting as when this book was written? Those who insist on reading everything at face value will have to grapple with the similarities that these two subjects seem to have here (well, and so will the rest of us). Like with slavery, the larger, broader context of scripture, especially the gospel Jesus preached, is moving in the direction of “freedom for the prisoners.” That plus the commands of love would lead me to be careful not to try and topple such broad principles with a prooftext.
But you’re right… it’s not easy. That’s probably one reason why there are so many denominations.
How do we know if we are loving God or not?
The entire law is summarized in those two commandments.
And that is the issue, I wish and desire to take Scripture seriously as the Word of God, and since my prodigal son event took place I have been serious in trying to follow the Bible and apply it seriously to my life. I have been following the advice of what others and agree with what @Jay313 said,
We have had a long discussion of this over at Unhitching the OT from the NT. If you have an answer to the question, maybe you should post it over there. (No one has been willing to answer it so far.)
I thought it was a rhetorical question. It’s really a two-parter, anyway. I have to know what “loving God” is before I can know whether I’m doing it or not. So, if you’re asking what “loving God” means, I find the answer in John 14. If someone wants to know whether they actually are “loving God,” I would point them to 1 John for self-examination.
Good answer. The point is, there remain do’s and don’ts, rules to examine and measure ourselves by. Unhitchers typically maintain that there are no rules.
Yet, one can follow a list of rules perfectly and entirely lack love. As Paul said of his former life: “in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.”
No argument with that. But if we convince ourselves that we are loving God and yet are being profane, for instance, we better recognize that we aren’t.
And maybe someone else should ask us, as well.
I will have to agree with you on that. A relationship with God should produce some type of change. As a person who would somewhat ascribe to the Wesleyan-Holiness understanding of living, a changed life should at least be pursued, though its not dependent on salvation, it should be a lifestyle change any Christ follower should at least pursue and this change is brought out by the Holy Spirit when we surrender to His leanings. That’s how I understand the issue.
Profane in the sense of using profanity? That’s mostly cultural and generational – like Baptists and dancin’ – and that’s a whole 'nother thread.
Just as an example, I’ve known people rescued from alcoholism and drugs. Their lifestyle is completely changed … and most cuss like sailors. If you didn’t know the change the Lord had brought about in their lives and just met them on the street, how would you view them?