Some of the moral laws in the OT really do apply to us.
Not all of them.
Not all of them.
Not all of them.
Did I mention not all of them?
Some do apply, some do not.
YOU DISCONNECT MORAL FROM LOVE. You should not.
It sounds like you are arguing the OT is not the go-to set of instructions for the church.
I thought you disagreed with that.
If only some of it applies, it canât be the go-to instructions.
We have gone full circle. You are now arguing the case for Andyâs sermons.
It isnât all or nothing. Why canât you understand that?
God forbid.
That day of wrath shall consume the world in ashes
I am still waiting on you to identify which of the 600+ laws apply to the church and which donât.
If only some do, then the OT canât be the go-to set of instructions for the church. And you agree with Andy.
By the way, beaglelady, when you start that thread on divorce, be sure to add Ezra 10 to the discussion. If the OT is the go-to instruction for the church, then anyone who has married an unbeliever should begin divorce proceedings.
Ezra 10 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The Peopleâs Response
10 While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children gathered to him out of Israel; the people also wept bitterly. 2 Shecaniah son of Jehiel, of the descendants of Elam, addressed Ezra, saying, âWe have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. 3 So now let us make a covenant with our God to send away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. 4 Take action, for it is your duty, and we are with you; be strong, and do it.â 5 Then Ezra stood up and made the leading priests, the Levites, and all Israel swear that they would do as had been said. So they swore.
Foreign Wives and Their Children Rejected
6 Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God, and went to the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib, where he spent the night.[a] He did not eat bread or drink water, for he was mourning over the faithlessness of the exiles. 7 They made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, 8 and that if any did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all their property should be forfeited, and they themselves banned from the congregation of the exiles.
9 Then all the people of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. All the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. 10 Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, âYou have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. 11 Now make confession to the Lord the God of your ancestors, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.â 12 Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, âIt is so; we must do as you have said. 13 But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for many of us have transgressed in this matter. 14 Let our officials represent the whole assembly, and let all in our towns who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every town, until the fierce wrath of our God on this account is averted from us.â 15 Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levites supported them.
16 Then the returned exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men,[b] heads of families, according to their families, each of them designated by name. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to examine the matter. 17 By the first day of the first month they had come to the end of all the men who had married foreign women.
18 There were found of the descendants of the priests who had married foreign women, of the descendants of Jeshua son of Jozadak and his brothers: Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah. 19 They pledged themselves to send away their wives, and their guilt offering was a ram of the flock for their guilt. 20 Of the descendants of Immer: Hanani and Zebadiah. 21 Of the descendants of Harim: Maaseiah, Elijah, Shemaiah, Jehiel, and Uzziah. 22 Of the descendants of Pashhur: Elioenai, Maaseiah, Ishmael, Nethanel, Jozabad, and Elasah.
23 Of the Levites: Jozabad, Shimei, Kelaiah (that is, Kelita), Pethahiah, Judah, and Eliezer. 24 Of the singers: Eliashib. Of the gatekeepers: Shallum, Telem, and Uri.
25 And of Israel: of the descendants of Parosh: Ramiah, Izziah, Malchijah, Mijamin, Eleazar, Hashabiah,[c] and Benaiah. 26 Of the descendants of Elam: Mattaniah, Zechariah, Jehiel, Abdi, Jeremoth, and Elijah. 27 Of the descendants of Zattu: Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, Jeremoth, Zabad, and Aziza. 28 Of the descendants of Bebai: Jehohanan, Hananiah, Zabbai, and Athlai. 29 Of the descendants of Bani: Meshullam, Malluch, Adaiah, Jashub, Sheal, and Jeremoth. 30 Of the descendants of Pahath-moab: Adna, Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezalel, Binnui, and Manasseh. 31 Of the descendants of Harim: Eliezer, Isshijah, Malchijah, Shemaiah, Shimeon, 32 Benjamin, Malluch, and Shemariah. 33 Of the descendants of Hashum: Mattenai, Mattattah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, and Shimei. 34 Of the descendants of Bani: Maadai, Amram, Uel, 35 Benaiah, Bedeiah, Cheluhi, 36 Vaniah, Meremoth, Eliashib, 37 Mattaniah, Mattenai, and Jaasu. 38 Of the descendants of Binnui:[d]Shimei, 39 Shelemiah, Nathan, Adaiah, 40 Machnadebai, Shashai, Sharai, 41 Azarel, Shelemiah, Shemariah, 42 Shallum, Amariah, and Joseph. 43 Of the descendants of Nebo: Jeiel, Mattithiah, Zabad, Zebina, Jaddai, Joel, and Benaiah. 44 All these had married foreign women, and they sent them away with their children.[e]
Ruth may have been written to refute this error, this grave injustice: the story of a Moabitess more righteous than the vast majority of Israel.
A man who doesnât take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:8 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
8 And whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Vance, @beaglelady has repeatedly told you already that she doesnât take an âall-or-nothingâ stance toward the old testament. So it remains for you to answer her why those are the only two options (all or nothing) instead of the vast and real world in between those two extremes. If you keep ignoring where sheâs at and instead keep throwing more O.T. stuff at an argument that nobody here is making, you begin to make it look like you donât have any good answers for her.
Why should somebody be obliged to only accept either 100% of something or 0% of it? Do all the numbers between 1% and 99% just not exist for you? That would be a real problem because that latter range is where most of reality is. Do you insist that something must be 100% perfect before it can be thought of as useful or even needed?
3 Likes
Marvin, she disagreed with Andyâs statement that the OT was not the go-to instructions for behavior in the church.
That means she thinks it is the go-to instructions.
Now she has backtracked, wanting only some of the OT used and the rest dismissed. And she canât say which parts she embraces and which parts she rejects as instructions for behavior in the church.
So the explanations arenât mine to make. She is the one with a confusing, inconsistent, and untenable position.
I value the OT, yet I recognize that it was not the go-to instructions for behavior in the church. It was not in the early church and it is not now.
I think the problem is that she took a position, and now she realizes she was wrong.
No. Or at least not with what you mean by that - for you the only way somebody is allowed to see the O.T. as a âgo toâ for moral support is if they accept 100.0% of it. Sheâs made it clear she doesnât (and Iâm not convinced she ever did.) You still donât seem to be getting it that somebody can see value - even necessity - in something and yet be willing to let go of some of or even a lot of it. Iâve yet to see evidence that youâve wrapped your brain around that one, much less come up with any good or coherent response to it.
Speaking just for myself - Iâm on board with that - or would be even more completely if you allowed that the early church did recognize value in scripture as a pointer toward Christ. (which if Iâm not mistaken both you and Pastor Stanley would agree with.)
What commandments do you think 1 John 5:2 & 3 are referring to?
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
What are the commandments in John 14:21?
What do you think the law is that Paul delights in?
How about Jesus?
1 Like
I see value in the OT too. That wasnât the topic of discussion.
Of course.
I guess if you have an all or noting view of the words of Scripture you will not be able to differentiate between one âcommandmentâ and another?
Over 50% of modern fabrics use more than one type of threads. Sewing âbuddyâ crops has been proved to increase yield and sustainability. And those are just a couple of laws that come to mind.
Richard
1 Like
Are the OT laws really all-or-nothing? Hmm, letâs see. We donât observe the dietary laws, but we do keep the laws against incest and bestiality. What do you think, Vance?
Could we all here agree (or actually I think all parties already have in their own way) that the end of this matter is this: Whatever Christ made of the âlaw and the prophetsâ (our O.T.) is how we too wish to relate (or not relate) to it ⌠and that furthermore, the early apostles including Paul give us the most reliable insights to how that relationship is to be (or not to be) for the present body of Christ?
I think Iâve heard all Christian sides here try to lay claim to at least that much (and if so, then it is rightly so.) All the rest that any of you follow this up with: âbut he said ⌠but she said âŚâ is just so much juvenile squabbling as if you were feuding children in the back seat. Some of you in particular have proven not to be reliable authorities on what the other is thinking/saying.
So here is a challenge for the moment: can you limit your statements to what you think and not what you allege the other is thinking (which you are consistently getting wrong in any case)?
2 Likes
I think the OT was not the go-to source for behavior in the early church.
Also, I think the Law of Moses was an initial attempt to improve behavior, possibly all that could be done at the time.
For example:
- An attempt to completely outlaw slavery would likely have failed.
- The laws to allow beatings but not death of slaves was likely to stop the killing.
- The âeye for an eyeâ was likely a restraint on revenge that was more extreme and escalating.
And the laws of the Sabbath and circumcision and dietary laws were in part to set apart the Israelites, to keep them distinct and thereby prepare the way for the Savior.
The early Gentile church, on the other hand, was not steeped in the Old Testament. They took as their go-to source for behavior the new command, that we love one another.
And when some Jews sought to force the OT law on believers of Gentile origin, the church leaders met under the authority that Jesus had given them. The decision was the yoke of the law of Moses would not be placed on the believers of Gentile origin. And a letter was sent to them:
The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers[g] of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds,[h] 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives[i] and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled[j] and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
The rules on blood and strangulation at first might seem strange, but they had an important purpose. The believers of Gentile origin and the Jews should have fellowship, should be able to sit at a table together and eat. The Jews would have been quite put off by a blood pudding or blood sausage, just as many modern Western Christians would be by a bowl of wiggling termites. The Jews had been taught from childhood to eat certain ways.
That initial attempt at behavior change was fulfilled by Jesus. And it was always given to Israel, not all the people of the world.
I have heard many, many Christians, including clergy, exhibit confusion on these matters â preaching against tattoos, working on Sunday, and such things. AND TITHING. I think we can guess why that OT law gets preached as a requirement so frequently.
1 Like
I ran across this today, and thought it was a pretty good example of how Paul âunhitchedâ the OT from the NT, and why in todayâs society, which could be accurately described as pagan, the NT is at least the introductory go to text:
It is a short blog, so rather than pull quotes, suggest that it is worth reading.
3 Likes
LOL I think much of the character of this thread is displayed right here!
It is extremely unlikely that he is either absolutely right OR absolutely wrong. LOL
1 Like
I did not say he was right about everything.
My answer, to a very specific question, was concerning Andyâs statement that the OT was not the go-to source for behavior for the early church.
Perhaps taking things out of context is a major contributor to disagreement and diversion.
The truth is that everybody is pretty much in agreement that the laws in the OT come in many categories including inapplicable, unsupportable, unimportant, important, and undeniable. And since law is only a small portion of the OT then this is hardly justifcation for discarding all the things of value in the OT as suggested by the words âunhitching the OTâ from Christianity.
So a lot of the disagreement here is due to the semantics of people overstating their case.
Nobody is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Mostly right or mostly wrong? maybe. But is this âmostlyâ something which is measurable? Or is it colored by subject judgments of things people think are important? And isnât this suggested by the way people are overstating their case with such words as âabsolutely?â
Instead of âunhitching the OT from the NT,â I would suggest that the Christian belief that Jesus is God makes Him (as known through the NT) the lens through which the OT should be understood.
2 Likes
You imply that he should have a well-stocked bookstore. Thatâs a âwhole 'nother ministry.â Thereâs nothing wrong with making your books available without being required to stock other books.