Understanding the Old Testament

[theophilus]

When Christians discuss the Bible we are often accused of choosing Bible verses that support our position and ignoring those that oppose it. Usually this takes the form of quoting some law found in the Old Testament and asking why we don’t practice it. Since we consider all of the Bible, including the Old Testament, to be the Word of God this is a reasonable objection that should be answered.

God has given two kind of commands in the Bible. One kind consists of moral laws that are given to all people and are always in effect. Jesus said that these laws can be summarized in two commands:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

All of the other moral laws of the Bible are simply detailed instructions on how to carry out these commands.

In addition to giving universal commands that apply to everyone God also gives commands to specific individuals and groups that apply to them but to no one else. For example, he told Noah to build an ark to keep all life from being destroyed in the flood. This command was for Noah and his family alone and God never intended for anyone else to obey it.

After he had delivered the Israelites form slavery in Egypt he chose them to be his people and gave them laws which they were required to obey. These laws included all the moral laws which apply to everyone but they also include commands which weren’t ever given to anyone else.

The question is, which of these commands must we obey today and which were only for Israel and don’t apply to us?

Israel was a nation. The Church isn’t a nation but is a body of believers who are subject to the laws of the nations in which they live. A nation has the authority to enforce its laws and punish those who violate them, even executing them if their offenses are serious enough. A church doesn’t have the authority to impose any kind of physical punishment but is limited to expelling from its membership those who continue in sin and refuse to repent. A nation has the right to engage in military activities to protect itself against other nations. Christians are engaged in warfare but it is spiritual, not physical. If church leaders in the past had kept this distinction in mind the Crusades and the Inquistion probably wouldn’t have taken place.

God commanded the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices to atone for their sins and he established a priesthood to carry out these sacrifices. These sacrifices were intended to show what Christ would do when he died for our sins and now that he has done this they are no longer needed. The book of Hebrews explains how he fulfilled the sacrificial laws.

The fact that we are not required to follow some of the laws in the Bible doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t study them. Second Timothy 2:16,17 says,

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Many of the commands were intended to illustrate spiritual truths. For example, Deuteronomy 25:4 forbids muzzling an ox which is treading out grain. In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul quoted this command to show that Christians are to financially support those who work full time at preaching the gospel. When you read a command in the law you should think not just about its literal meaning but what spiritual truth it illustrates.

Here are some some other examples of commands which we no longer have to follow literally but which teach principles which we should follow.

When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it. Deuteronomy 22:8.

When this was written houses were built with flat roofs and the roof was used as another room in the house so obviously a railing was needed to protect the people on it. Since we don’t build houses like this today we don’t have to follow this law literally but we can learn something from it that does apply today. If God had wanted to do so he could have used his power to protect the people from falling off their roofs and a railing wouldn’t have been necessary, but he has chosen not to do this. We learn from this that he expects us to foresee possible dangers and take precautions to guard against them. We should not use the fact that he has promised to protect us as an excuse for carelessness.

You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed. Deuteronomy 22:9.

When Jesus explained the parable of the sower he said that the seed was the Word of God. When we are telling the gospel or teaching the word we must be careful to teach only what the Bible says and not allow any human views to become mixed in with our teaching.

You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. Deuteronomy 22:10.

An ox was a clean animal which could be eaten or offered as a sacrifice. A donkey was unclean and couldn’t be sacrificed to God. Paul might have had this verse in mind when he wrote 2 Corinthians 6:14,

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.

The work of God is to be carried out only by Christians and we must avoid anything which we bind us too closely with unsaved people. This verse has often been used to show that a Christian shouldn’t marry a nonChristian, and while this is true it applies to other situations as well. One area where Christians have violated this principle in the past is in making Christianity the official religion of a nation. The result has always been that the unsaved citizens of the country have been able to use this union to lead the church away from following the Bible. Christians should use their influence to ensure that the laws of their country are in accord with God’s standards of right and wrong but they should never seek or accept government help in the primary work of the church, which is preaching the gospel and teaching the Bible.

You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together. Deuteronomy 22:11.

Revelation 19:8 says that find linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. Ezekiel 44:17,18 says that when priests enter the sanctuary that must wear only linen and not wool, because wool will cause them to sweat. This seems to show that this law is a warning not to try to approach God on the basis of what we deserve because of our works, but to rely entirely on the righteousness which comes from faith in Christ.

This is just a small sample of the things that we can learn from a study of the commands that God has given.

[hensatri]

I've never heard anyone claim that you can't come up with ad hoc rationalizations, justifications, exemptions, and reasonings for which laws and or endorsement you wish to follow from the bible. Clearly believers are very good at doing this. But there is no consistency, and the next believer down will have a reason just as justified for following the rule you just explained you don't have to follow.

I would be content if people would just admit that they are using their own judgment of what is good and spare themselves the effort of trying to square their own judgments with an ancient book.

Instead what we get is people who will rationalize and justify all day long to explain why they don't follow the parts of the bible they don't want to, and then make a strong appeal to the authority of God to justify those hatreds, rules, or social conventions they do favor out of the book.

In short they are perfectly content to rationalize away why they don't stone children, and then turn around and appeal to divine authority to prevent gays from marrying.

[Thanatos]

Since we don’t build houses like this [with flat, occupied roofs] today we don’t have to follow this law literally but we can learn something from it that does apply today.

Nearly every aspect of life has changed. Human beings have gone forth and multiplied more than adequately and I subsist on whatever horrible stuff is in Pop Tarts instead of the products of goats and sheep. You can fill in the blanks and reinterpret stuff, but because the world has moved on that's all it will ever be - your reinterpretation.

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

All of the other moral laws of the Bible are simply detailed instructions on how to carry out these commands.

Except the ones where your neighbors wind up dead, conquered or on fire. Furthermore, by your own quotations unbelievers like me don't seem to count as neighbors.

Your moral laws are as frighteningly arbitrary as mine and come from your own heart whether you know it or not. Hensarti is right.

[Peter]

Your moral laws are as frighteningly arbitrary as mine and come from your own heart whether you know it or not.

Why do theists refuse to see this simple fact? It would obviate the need for their god I suppose. Can't have that!

[Apeman81]

I've never heard anyone claim that you can't come up with ad hoc rationalizations, justifications, exemptions, and reasonings for which laws and or endorsement you wish to follow from the bible. Clearly believers are very good at doing this. But there is no consistency, and the next believer down will have a reason just as justified for following the rule you just explained you don't have to follow.

I would be content if people would just admit that they are using their own judgment of what is good and spare themselves the effort of trying to square their own judgments with an ancient book.

Instead what we get is people who will rationalize and justify all day long to explain why they don't follow the parts of the bible they don't want to, and then make a strong appeal to the authority of God to justify those hatreds, rules, or social conventions they do favor out of the book.

In short they are perfectly content to rationalize away why they don't stone children, and then turn around and appeal to divine authority to prevent gays from marrying.

Christian's enjoy a personal relationship with Jesus, the Christ, their Savior, who, through his blood, are saved from the fate our actions would earn us.

A personal relationship allows for many variations of practices. The covenant of the Law, handed down to Israel, was replaced by a new covenant given to followers of Christ. Luke 2:20 the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you

Hebrews 8:5-6 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

The personal relationship with Jesus is the new covenant, which, superior to the old one, upon repentance, absolves our sins, leading to God's grace.

However, as stated earlier, the law remain "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)

Romans 8:1-4 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Faith in Christ fulfilled the law. But that fulfillment does prevent us from following those aspects of the law that we as individuals believe help us to be Christ-like. If we choose not to have sex out of marriage, are we to be accused of adhering to the law? Of course not!

Galatians 5:13-21 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So while we may choose to employ aspects of the law to draw us closer in our relationship with Christ, we are reminded not to allow the pursuit of the law to supplant our relationship with Christ. Gakatians 5:4-6 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Perhaps now you can understand that the freedom granted us by our faith in Christ (Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.) allows for the variation of which you express concern

[finder]

I've never heard anyone claim that you can't come up with ad hoc rationalizations, justifications, exemptions, and reasonings for which laws and or endorsement you wish to follow from the bible. Clearly believers are very good at doing this. But there is no consistency, and the next believer down will have a reason just as justified for following the rule you just explained you don't have to follow.

I would be content if people would just admit that they are using their own judgment of what is good and spare themselves the effort of trying to square their own judgments with an ancient book.

Instead what we get is people who will rationalize and justify all day long to explain why they don't follow the parts of the bible they don't want to, and then make a strong appeal to the authority of God to justify those hatreds, rules, or social conventions they do favor out of the book.

In short they are perfectly content to rationalize away why they don't stone children, and then turn around and appeal to divine authority to prevent gays from marrying.

Perhaps if you used the same objectivity to see God's love as you do to believe your ancestors mated with chimpanzees, you wouldn't feel the need to project your bias self rationalizations onto the points of view that others have.

[hensatri]

[you] project your bias self rationalizations onto the points of view that others have.

Example?

Unless you are refering to the gay marriage/stoning children example, which I never said the OP believed in, I mearly brought it up as an example of how inconsistant and ad hoc the authority of the Old Testament is interpreted by most.

But yeah, if you're going to accuse me of somthing, kindly provide a citation.

[hensatri]

Christian's enjoy a personal relationship with Jesus, the Christ, their Savior, who, through his blood, are saved from the fate our actions would earn us.

A personal relationship allows for many variations of practices. The covenant of the Law, handed down to Israel, was replaced by a new covenant given to followers of Christ. Luke 2:20 the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you

Hebrews 8:5-6 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”[a] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

The personal relationship with Jesus is the new covenant, which, superior to the old one, upon repentance, absolves our sins, leading to God's grace.

However, as stated earlier, the law remain "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)

Romans 8:1-4 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Faith in Christ fulfilled the law. But that fulfillment does prevent us from following those aspects of the law that we as individuals believe help us to be Christ-like. If we choose not to have sex out of marriage, are we to be accused of adhering to the law? Of course not!

Galatians 5:13-21 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So while we may choose to employ aspects of the law to draw us closer in our relationship with Christ, we are reminded not to allow the pursuit of the law to supplant our relationship with Christ. Gakatians 5:4-6 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Perhaps now you can understand that the freedom granted us by our faith in Christ (Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.) allows for the variation of which you express concern

That’s all well and good, I see you know your Bible passages, and that’s great. (I don’t mean that facetiously, I do respect literacy on this subject), but I could easily post up this essay of yours on a Christian message board and get a dozen equally well cited, written, educated, and reasoned responses explaining why you are totally wrong, and, depending on the theologian, possibly going to Hell as a consequence.

As I said above, there is no consistency, and how can there be, the source text is horrifically contradictory. You are not following the Bible, you are following the parts of the bible that mesh with your own good sense and reason, and then back filling in long explanations for why you follow the parts you do and don’t follow the parts you don’t.

[finder]

Example?
But yeah, if you're going to accuse me of somthing, kindly provide a citation.

Just one out of a pattern of many I've noticed...

I would be content if people would just admit that they are using their own judgment of what is good and spare themselves the effort of trying to square their own judgments with an ancient book.

Instead what we get is people who will rationalize and justify all day long to explain why they don't follow the parts of the bible they don't want to, and then make a strong appeal to the authority of God to justify those hatreds, rules, or social conventions they do favor out of the book.

[Apeman81]

That’s all well and good, I see you know your Bible passages, and that’s great. (I don’t mean that facetiously, I do respect literacy on this subject), but I could easily post up this essay of yours on a Christian message board and get a dozen equally well cited, written, educated, and reasoned responses explaining why you are totally wrong, and, depending on the theologian, possibly going to Hell as a consequence.

As I said above, there is no consistency, and how can there be, the source text is horrifically contradictory. You are not following the Bible, you are following the parts of the bible that mesh with your own good sense and reason, and then back filling in long explanations for why you follow the parts you do and don’t follow the parts you don’t.

The reason you cannot find uniformity of belief is due to the fact that the individual Christian has a personal relationship with Christ. We are free to walk with Christ with or without orthodoxy.

Some Christian "churches" have doctrine. Christians are free to join or not join a church based upon the doctrines they hold.

Freedom is the key.

[hensatri]

Freedom is the key.

In a system in which "Do as I say or burn in conscious eternal torment" is a primary teaching, Freedom is most certainly not key. Let’s not pretend that the world-view doesn't outline explicit and extreme consequences for taking your particular personal walk the wrong way.

I find it disingenuous to claim freedom is some primary value being preserved by that set up.

[hensatri]

Just one out of a pattern of many I've noticed...

What part of that is me injecting one of my own rationalizations into the OPs point of view? I restated the op's stance on the subject, then offered my criticism of his view, as he presented it. At no point in anything you just quoted did I "project [my] bias self rationalizations onto the points of view that others have."

Is disagreeing with the OP the same as injecting my bias into his point of view?

I'm afraid you've lost me. But this point isn't particularly important to me, so unless you are going somewhere with it I'm content to let you have it.