Liberty's Light

A Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of how a nation based entirely off of biblical principles ought to be like. We believe that Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, and that God's righteous hand is necessary for the blessing of any nation.
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Old Testament Law

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:52 am

von wrote:

Actually even in the OT civil government adultery was not 'within' his jurisdiction in the way we might think nowadays. Indeed that is one major switch that we need to make in our thinking.

Adultery was, as I understand it, a family jurisdiction matter that *could* be brought before the civil magistrate if the offended party (husband, wife) so wished.

What I was pointing out in my above paragraph was that you seemed to be switching the two around... seeming to insist that divorce should now be a civilly punishable crime, and that adultery not be. Contrary to the law.

I stand on the law on this point. Indeed, if you were going to punish divorce, according to Jesus it would be because it was... adultery Smile

I agree with your statements. No sin is ever a crime (within the civil magistrate's jurisdiction) until it is brought to the civil magistrate. And adultery is punishable by the civil magistrate when brought before him, so it is a crime. But if it is a crime (I see no reason why it shouldn't be), divorce, polygamy, homosexuality, and incest would be also. Am I thinking right on this? Am I missing some reason why adultery is not a NT crime? Am I adding in a faulty connection between the above sins and adultery?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:55 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
von wrote:

Actually even in the OT civil government adultery was not 'within' his jurisdiction in the way we might think nowadays. Indeed that is one major switch that we need to make in our thinking.

Adultery was, as I understand it, a family jurisdiction matter that *could* be brought before the civil magistrate if the offended party (husband, wife) so wished.

What I was pointing out in my above paragraph was that you seemed to be switching the two around... seeming to insist that divorce should now be a civilly punishable crime, and that adultery not be. Contrary to the law.

I stand on the law on this point. Indeed, if you were going to punish divorce, according to Jesus it would be because it was... adultery Smile

I agree with your statements. No sin is ever a crime (within the civil magistrate's jurisdiction) until it is brought to the civil magistrate. And adultery is punishable by the civil magistrate when brought before him, so it is a crime. But if it is a crime (I see no reason why it shouldn't be), divorce, polygamy, homosexuality, and incest would be also. Am I thinking right on this? Am I missing some reason why adultery is not a NT crime? Am I adding in a faulty connection between the above sins and adultery?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Ummm... polygamy? Surely you know your OT law better than that?!

And, as I said, divorce is also excluded, by God himself, in His civil code.

So you will have to work very hard with me to show me that they are punishable civil crimes.

To be a crime something must be BOTH a sin, and given to the civil magistrate to judge. Not just given by the witnesses, but given in the law. So while hating our brother may be the moral equivalent of killing him... it is NOT the civil equivalent. Ditto divorce, lust, etc.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:14 am

In a recent pm exchange I had with Mr. Ohlman he asked a very good question which I thought I would post along with my reply. It goes along with what I was saying earlier. (I did use the New King James Version because I didn't think I would be posting it. If you would like me to change translations, I'm more than willing to.)

Quote :
Please Explain Deut 17:14 and following in light of your understanding of the 'theocracy', particuarly verse 18.


Excellent question and thank you for asking me. I think the answer can be found in verse 19 through the end of the chapter.

"And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel."

There are a couple of reasons why God wanted the king to copy down the law. First, is it fulfilled the purpose of the law outside of the context of a theocracy. "that he may learn to fear the LORD his God" As I stated in a post on the forum, the civil law that was given to Israel was only to be applied by Israel while she was a theocracy. This law protected the holiness of God Who was in direct office in the government. Thus, there was a need for "vertical" laws. When God removed Himself from direct office in the government, such laws where not kept in the civil government because that purpose no longer existed. Rather, only "horizontal" laws remained. As I said in the post, the law that God gave to Israel for her theocracy is still very useful today in that it allows us to "learn and fear the LORD [our] God" because we better see His incredible holiness. The Pentateuch is largely, though certainly not entirely, a descriptive portion of Scripture rather than a prescriptive portion. Thus, proper hermeneutics must be applied to each situation.

The text also uses such pronouns as he and his. The much of the law is still applicable today in an eternal sense. For instance, we are told that all blasphemers, idolators, and liars will be through into Hell. God will still judge men by the "vertical" and the punishment for breaking this law is Hellfire. But it is no longer the civil government's role to punish such laws. The text indicates that the king is to teach these laws to his children. Why? Because that is his role as a father. He must teach them the things of the Lord so that perhaps they too would be numbered among those whom God saves. But this text does not indicate that the king is to apply this law to his kingdom. It only uses the singular pronouns which indicate a personal accountability before God, never plural pronouns indicating the jurisdiction over the people.

I hope this helps. Thanks again for asking me.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:12 pm

As I pointed out in PM... useless now that we are doing it on the forum itself...

Problem with your answer is that the text does indicate that he should do 'all' the law. Yet you say, 'all the law except'. Surely you see the difficulty?

But the other problem, which you don't address, is that God is His law plans for the kingdom. Thus the kingdom was not a repudiation of His rule, but one form of it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue May 12, 2009 4:58 am

The original question of this post had to do with the application of the Old Testament Law. Here are my thoughts. The Pentateuch (since that seems to be the focus of most of this discussion) is a descriptive portion of Scripture not prescriptive. This means that its purpose for us today is 1) give us insight into the nature and character of God, 2) give us a history of the first few thousand years of the earth, 3) explain the fall of man and his need for a Savior, and 4) give us principles (not commands) to live by. There are other portions of Scripture which are prescriptive (the epistles would be one example) which give us both principles and commands to live out. For the most part, every command from God in the Pentateuch is directed only to Israel or the Patriarchs and is not directly applicable today. (One exception would be some of God's commands to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-3 since they represented all of mankind. [I say some commands because He did command them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; a stipulation we don't need to worry about applying today.])

Some commands in the Pentateuch, though descriptive, do need to be directly applied even today such as the Ten Commandments. This is because all of the Ten Commandments except keeping the Sabbath day holy is affirmed in prescriptive passages in the New Testament. Thus, I believe that the Laws given in the Pentateuch are not to be directly reenforced today unless they are affirmed in the NT as well. Again, these laws are vastly important to us today (see my above 4 points) but they are not intended for us to practice today because they were written descriptively. This is seen by the purpose of the law, the original intended audience of the law, and the use of the law. (Deuteronomy 11:19- "You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.")

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue May 12, 2009 9:23 am

Quote :
The Pentateuch (since that seems to be the focus of most of this discussion) is a descriptive portion of Scripture not prescriptive.

This is an interesting statement. A part of the Scripture that is traditionally called 'The Law' and that uses the phrases 'thou shalt' and 'thou shalt not' repetively is 'descriptive not prescriptive'.

Hmmm. I might agree. It is 'descriptive' of what God 'prescribes' for us.

I have already posted my statement on the four uses of the law. I stand by that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue May 12, 2009 9:43 am

Quote :
Thus, I believe that the Laws given in the Pentateuch are not to be directly reenforced today unless they are affirmed in the NT as well

I can find dozens of NT verses that deny this. can you find any that affirm it?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue May 12, 2009 12:33 pm

von wrote:

This is an interesting statement. A part of the Scripture that is traditionally called 'The Law' and that uses the phrases 'thou shalt' and 'thou shalt not' repetively is 'descriptive not prescriptive'.

Hmmm. I might agree. It is 'descriptive' of what God 'prescribes' for us.

I have already posted my statement on the four uses of the law. I stand by that.

I think you misunderstand me a little. The law in which God said 'thou shalt' most certainly was prescriptive to ancient Israel. However, given the context of the passages, the audience who received the commands, and the styles of the first five books, these commands are descriptive to us (see my above four points) unless ratified in the New Testament. (As nine of the ten commandments are for example.)

von wrote:

I can find dozens of NT verses that deny this. can you find any that affirm it?

Interesting. I'd like to see the verses that specifically say that the OT Laws are just as applicable today without the need of reenforcement from the NT.

In anticipation of your reply, I will say that Romans 7 and 1 Timothy 1:8 speak of the law in regards to salvation. The laws referred to here talk about the law that determines whether or not we go to heaven. They show us that we are radically corrupt before God and need a Savior. These laws are seen in Romans 1-3 which are all derived from the ten commandments. Thus these laws are certainly good and readily applicable today. But the use of the word law in these two passages of Scripture do not refer to every law given in the Pentateuch. Also 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is absolutely correct. However, the application of Scripture today may be different now than it was to its original audience. Regardless of the intended modern application, the Pentateuch is still "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." But that doesn't mean that it must still be directly applied today as it was when it was first given.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue May 12, 2009 8:04 pm

von wrote:
caleb wrote:
]Thus, I believe that the Laws given in the Pentateuch are not to be directly reenforced today unless they are affirmed in the NT as well
I can find dozens of NT verses that deny this. can you find any that affirm it?

Missed my question Caleb. Can you show me any verses that say " the Laws given in the Pentateuch are not to be directly reenforced today unless they are affirmed in the NT as well."

I have never found a verse even remotely like that.

If you said 'the law should be continued except where specifically changed' I could understand, and even agree, given the correct meanings.

If you said, "the law should be all ignored/denied" you could find verses to support that, altho I would disagree with the interpretation of them.

But:

Quote :
the Laws given in the Pentateuch are not to be directly reenforced today unless they are affirmed in the NT as well

No verses say or even imply that. No 'affirmed' verses.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Thu May 14, 2009 11:27 am

I have to disagree with my past self a little here.

Quote :
Thus, I believe that the Laws given in the Pentateuch are not to be directly reenforced today unless they are affirmed in the NT as well.


Not quite right buddy.

We do have passages of Scripture that specifically some of the OT laws are now fulfilled and no longer need application. (Hebrews for example.) So these laws can only be used in the aforementioned four ways I gave before. Secondly, the NT doesn't have to restate every OT law that still applies as this would be impractical and nullify the need to read the OT law. This isn't the case. The NT does affirm some of the OT laws but only to convict the reader of sin and his depraved condition.

So what about the rest of the OT laws? Which do we apply; all of them, or just some? This is a study I will be delving into next. I'm going to try to tackle all of the OT laws or commands given by God in the Pentateuch and determine if they still apply to us today. (A daunting task, I know.) But, here's one thought to chew on as you await my results. Look at the specific audience that God assigns to His commands of covenants. Do they apply to all humanity or only a specific people? Example:

Quote :
Exodus 19:3- And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

Exodus 34:10- And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou [art] shall see the work of the LORD: for it [is] a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

Notice the very specific "second party" that God stipulates with these covenants. It is "the house of Jacob," "the children of Israel," "thy people," and not any other nation in all the earth. In fact, they are the outside observers of these covenants and the marvels of the Lord. This means that only ancient Israel, not any other nation, was bound by these covenants. We cannot say that we should abide by these covenants today, because they were not made with all humanity, but only a specific called out people whom God chose. Yet, as I said before, one command that does apply to us today is God's commands to Adam and Eve (for the most part)) in Genesis 1-3 because they are given to all humanity.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Thu May 14, 2009 2:41 pm

Quote :
I have to disagree with my past self a little here.

Quote:
Thus, I believe that the Laws given in the Pentateuch are not to be directly reenforced today unless they are affirmed in the NT as well.


Not quite right buddy.

Hey, if you are going to argue with yourself, I guess I can take a nap Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Jonathan S.
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 58
Age : 24
Location : Indiana
Registration date : 08/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Fri May 29, 2009 9:42 pm

I can't wait to see what you come up with Caleb. I studied the New Testament references to the Law, to see what they said, but haven't even been on this forum recently to post my results.

_________________
~Jonathan S.
For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power and love and discipline. --2 Tim 1:7
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Sat May 30, 2009 6:09 am

Jonathan S. wrote:
I can't wait to see what you come up with Caleb. I studied the New Testament references to the Law, to see what they said, but haven't even been on this forum recently to post my results.

Well, post them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:20 pm

Here is my study which I promised to post earlier. It was also used for the crime thread, so I refer everyone to Jay's latest posts there for a more brief post. This post may be dry or redundant, but it is written in study format for those wanting to examine the Pentateuch chapter by chapter, not an interesting read in a book or something.

This is an exhaustive study of the OT law from Exodus 20- Deuteronomy. I will examine each section of laws or commands given by God in regards to right living and government, looking at the context, audience, understood meaning, and purpose of each passage in order to determine whether or not it must still be directly applied in modern government. If you think of such a law or command by God preceding Exodus 20 or following Deuteronomy, let me know and I’ll look into it.

I realize that this document is rather lengthy and can be monotonous or boring at times. Please let me know how I can change it to be more interesting. You will need to have your Bible at hand, especially from the middle to the end of this study, as I only included references in order to cut down on the length of the piece. Please feel free to offer editing suggestions.

Exodus
Beginning with Exodus 20 where God gives the Ten Commandments, we must first look to chapter 19 to find the context and audience of these laws.

Exodus 19:3-6- “And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”

This is followed by the people agreeing to make a covenant with God, God telling them what to do to prepare to hear His law, and the people obeying. This passage clearly shows us whom God was making this covenant with. Notice the phrases: “say to the house of Jacob,” “tell the children of Israel,” “ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people,” and “ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.”

These statements clearly reveal to whom God is making this covenant or giving this law. He first identifies them twice with particularly specific names which clearly distinguishes them from any other nation in the world in all times. The “house of Jacob” and “children of Israel” cannot mean or include any other nation but Israel. The next two phrases exclude all other nations in this covenant. This means that the following laws are given only to Israel and not to any other nation on earth in any time. Anyone who reads this passage at face value should understand that the following covenant and laws are directed only to Israel and are thus only to be directly applied by Israel. We can also see the purpose of this covenant in the phrases “if ye will... keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me... And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” This means that these laws are only for Israel. They are not prescriptively given to any other nation because God is not setting aside any other nation to be a “peculiar treasure” to Himself or “kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” This is clearly the purpose of these laws.

The whole purpose of the Mosaic covenant given by God on Mount Sinai, was to make Israel a specially called out nation from all other nation, “a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” God was extremely careful to specifically say who He was commanding and for what purpose. He made it clear that He was not talking to any other people at any other time in history when He laid down these rules of government. Therefore, we cannot say that ‘Since God ordained this government, this is the way we should run government.’ or ‘Since God gave these laws, we need to still apply them or enforce then in our government.’ No, this is not the context or intent of Exodus 20-23. It may not be wrong to enforce some of these laws, but we cannot do so because Exodus 20-23 commands us to. These chapters are not prescriptive to us, but to ancient Israel. Thus, we are not bound by these commands, at least from these chapters. There are numerous other passages of Scripture which do affirm that most of the Ten Commandments are prescriptive to us today, however, it is not that way from this passage.

Again, if we use the rest of Scripture, I think we can enforce some of these laws in modern government. For instance, Hebrews and other passages specifically say the the Jews no longer need to have sacrifices or priests. The reason for this is quite plain as Christ is now our great High Priest and is our complete satisfying sacrifice to God. So these laws should not be enforced. But other laws given in these four chapters are affirmed elsewhere in Scripture, so it would be OK to enforce them. But if we do put some of the Exodus 20-23 laws into effect, we can’t say that we’re doing it because these passages command us to. This would be directly contradicting Scripture.

Chapter 24 is a chronicle of the people agreeing to the law and God giving the law to Moses. Chapter 25 begins another section of laws. However, God again stipulates that they are only to Israel when He says in verses 1-2a- “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel,...” Chapters 25-31 are laws that God gave only to Israel in regards to the priesthood, tabernacle, sacrifices, sabbaths, etc. Again, these chapters are specifically not meant for us to apply today. They were only prescriptive to ancient Israel.

Chapter 32-34a chronicles Israel’s idolatry and the punishment inflicted on them by God as a result. God then renews the covenant in the middle of chapter 34 where He is again careful to say to whom He is making the covenant and giving the laws. Verses 10-14 include many phrases which identify the recipients of this covenant as ancient Israel. Chapter 35-40 chronicles Israel obeying God and making the tabernacle, priestly garments, and everything else that God had commanded. These are the laws given by God in regards to government in Exodus. We can see that God specifically told us who He intended to follow these laws. This group does not include us today. We can gain other benefits from these passages, but they are not for us to apply directly. After I go through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, I will examine how we can apply these laws today.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:21 pm

Leviticus
I will not address the priesthood, sacrifices, and other such worshipful and ceremonial commands. Rather, my focus will be on the civil governmental aspects of this book. To begin, chapters 1-7 lay out the laws concerning sacrifices and the priesthood. Chapters 8-10 chronicle Israel obeying God’s commands and also the consequences of disobedience to His laws.

In chapter 11, we read in vs. 1 and 2- “And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.” First of all, notice that the LORD is speaking not only to Moses, but also to Aaron, the high priest. This infers that the following commands will link not only to the civil government of Israel, but also the priesthood. God again specifies to command “the children of Israel.” This means that the following is a command only to Israel, not mankind. This list of clean and unclean animals in regards to consumption is a more detailed list from that found in chapter 7. This and the link with Aaron being addressed lends itself to the idea that these commands are under the priestly jurisdiction of Israel, not the civil. However, this is not concrete evidence of such. So, do these laws still apply or not? Thankfully, God clears up this problem in Acts 10 when He says that these laws are no longer in effect because He cleansed them. (v. 15)

In chapter 12, we have the laws concerning childbirth. This time we see that God is only speaking to Moses (v. 1) to tell the children Israel (v. 2). This lends itself to the idea that these laws may be under civil jurisdiction. But again, God is careful to stipulate that these laws are for Israel. He does not include any other nation in His command. It seems logical that God does this because He would know that we would try to say that these commands are to also be applied today. He repeatedly says that these laws are for the children of Israel. Thus, we can’t say they apply to us.

Chapter 13 begins with God commanding both Moses and Aaron. This time God doesn’t stipulate that these laws are to the children of Israel. However, there are a couple of pointers which lend itself to the fact that He was commanding only Israel. First, and most minor, the chapter begins with “And” instead of “Then.” The conjunction “and” refers to a continuation from the last thing said where as “then” begins a new thought. But more importantly, we see that throughout this chapter, Aaron or another priest is continually involved in these laws. The laws determine whether or not a person is unclean. Both of these aspects show us that Israel can be the only audience for these laws and that they should fall under the priestly jurisdiction, not the civil.

The same can be said for chapter 14. Again, God does not specify that He is speaking only to Israel, however He continually brings in the priesthood, offerings, and tabernacle. The purpose of these laws are to affirm that someone is clean before God and can worship Him. These contextual earmarks tell us that, again, Israel is the audience for these laws and that they should not fall under civil jurisdiction. In chapter 15, God is speaking to both Moses and Aaron. This time He does specify that He is commanding “the children of Israel.” These laws also deal with cleanness and uncleanness. Again, priests are used throughout. This, then, is a priestly command.

Chapter 16 is a chronicle and command concerning the sacrifices and priests in regards to the day of atonement. Chapter 17 are laws concerning the consumption of blood. Here God specifies that He is speaking to Israel and makes this clear throughout the chapter. However, anyone outside Israel who is with the Israelites must also abide by these laws. (vs. 10, 12, 13, 15) Thus, these laws do apply not only to Israel, but also the gentiles who were with Israel. But again, this would exclude us today. (One exception being that the consumption of blood is still considered a sin. See Acts 15:20, 29)

Chapter 18 deals with laws concerning sexual morality. In verses 1-5, God is very very specific in whom He is commanding. Again, we see that it is only to Israel. However, in verses 24 through 29, we read- “24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.”

Here we again see that this not only applies to Israel, but also the gentiles who are with Israel. Again, this would exclude us. However, we also see that previous nations were defiled and cast out because of these sins. The last verse, based on the context of the previous ones, does seem to indicate that any nation which practices these abominations is defiled. So these laws do seem to be applicable to modern nations. But then again, why would God be so specific in the beginning of the chapter to use three verses to stipulate that He is talking to Israel alone, instead of His customary one verse? I think that verses 24-29 in conjunction with the New Testament can lead us to safely apply these laws in modern civil practice. So here they are: (vs. 6-23)

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Chapter 19 is specifically commanded to “the children of Israel.” This is verified throughout the chapter with references to Israel regarding her history. This chapter is again, not intended for us to apply today. (At least, we can’t take this chapter and say that it tells us to apply these things. Some of these laws are verified elsewhere that does include us.)

Chapter 20 begins like the rest, in that the Lord specifies that He is talking to Israel along, however, after giving another section of the Law, He says in verses 23- “And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.” Therefore, the previously mentioned laws do apply to all nations. These are:

2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

These laws are applicable to all nations, though not all of these laws are punishable by civil magistrate. (See below.) All of these are certainly punishable by God in eternity.

Chapters 21 and 22 are commanded only to the priests in Israel. They do not even include the other Israelites. Chapter 23 is commanded only to Israel and is in regards to the Sabbath and feasts. Chapter 24 begins with more laws concerning the tabernacle. Starting in v. 10 through the end of the chapter, we see the law concerning blasphemy and punishments to other laws. But again, God specifies that these are only to Israel throughout the entire middle to end of the chapter. Chapter 25 is filled more miscellaneous laws directed only to Israel. This is evident throughout the chapter, not only at the beginning, but also with specific references to Israel’s history. Chapter 26 is a continuation of chapter 25 seen by the fact that there is no time break given such as “Then God said,” or other such phrases. Verse 46 again states that these things were made to “the children of Israel” specifically. The same goes for chapter 27.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:22 pm

Numbers
Actually, the whole book of Numbers is made up of one of several kinds of passages. 1. A chronicle of the actions of Israel, the Canaanites, and God. 2. God’s direct rulings as head of the government of Israel. Most of these rulings were one time commands for that time such as a census. 3. Commands only to Israel in regards to offerings, the priests, and purification. All of the Commands that God gives Israel in this book, are only for Israel at the time of the command and do not need to be applied today. If you happen to think of a command that would not fall under this category, please let me know. I’d love to look into it. I didn’t want to go through each chapter and show this though, so as not to be redundant or boring.

Deuteronomy
The book of Deuteronomy contains some chronicle of events, but is mostly filled with one long passage of law. God lays out the law in basically one chunk, unlike Leviticus, where He broke it up at nearly every chapter change and many times in between. However, in Deuteronomy, the law is again directed only to Israel. Throughout this passage of law God uses historic, geographic, and nominative terms. These include terms referring to deliverance from Egypt, the promise of Canaan, entering the promised land, and names such as “children of Israel.” Priests and the names of the tribes are also used throughout. Clearly this law is only prescribed to Israel. Some or many of these laws may be OK to practice today, but we cannot do so by saying that these passages of Scripture command us to obey them. If a law is not said to be one that shouldn’t be practiced in another passage in Scripture, I think it’s OK to individually practice it if you want to.

Example: The practice in Leviticus 12:2-5 of the husband and wife abstaining from coming together intimately x amount of days after a boy or girl was born. I'm not saying that the part of uncleanness or cleanness is still in effect, but rather that the specific practice isn't pronounced to be sinful in the NT. Practicing this does not make a person clean or better than someone who doesn't do it. It's just something you can do if you would like. Since this law isn’t “discontinued” elsewhere in the Bible, I think it’s OK to practice this under the following circumstances: 1. You are not doing it to be more pleasing to God. 2. You aren’t doing it because Scripture commands you to do it. 3. You do not condemn, look down on, think yourself more pleasing or obedient to God, or ridicule someone else for not doing it as well. If you can do all this, it’s up to you to decide if this is something you want to practice.

Civil laws for a nation should be made the same way. I found only one section of laws that may or may not be made not only for Israel, but all nations. Thus, every other law must be put through the same grid. 1. Is there anywhere else in Scripture which says this law is no longer to be practiced? 2. Does this law match other principles and commands in the Bible that are made for us today? 3. Does enforcing this law still fulfill its originally intended purpose? 4. Can we enforce this law without saying that we are commanded by Scripture to obey it, and thus not think ourselves a more holy nation for practicing this law? If we can answer no to the the first question and yes to the rest, I think that it is OK to enforce the law if we want to. Thus, I would like to again, go through the same chunk of Scripture and show which laws I believe are OK to enforce, and which are not. I will only give the Scripture references instead of quoting the passage so as to try to shorten this lengthy study. Bear with me as I do my best to apply proper hermeneutics. Also keep in mind the previous conclusion about all these passages. Theses laws are not prescriptive to us. You will probably want to have your Bible at hand to give clarity to the rest of this study since I don’t write out the verses but rather give only the references. Also note that the following is not a complete list of Constitutional laws that will be needed, but rather those from the Pentateuch.

Exodus
Chapter 20 is basically the Ten Commandments and instructions on making an alter. The NT does affirm all of the Ten Commandments except keeping the Sabbath day. The primary use of the other nine, however, are always used to condemn man before God. They are not used civilly. (Obviously some are, however, they are more specific than just “Thou shalt not murder” for example. We will look into this later in the study.) Therefore, I’m going to submit that, for right now, we will not use the Ten Commandments to be applied in our civil law. Again, I believe that they are vastly important and applicable. Some of these commandments will end up being added to my list of applicable laws in the end.

Chapter 21:1-11 speak about servanthood. Based on our definition of property, among other reasons, I don’t think this specific set of laws should be enforced. This passage can be interpreted as a contract for servanthood which may be applicable. This is a difficult subject and one that is beyond the scope of this study.

Here I would like to submit a proposition which will also allow the rest of the study to be shortened by quite a bit. Please realize that I am using these verses somewhat out of context (at least their primary context) but am intending to apply the principle behind them in regards to the rest of the laws.

Exodus 21:19- “If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.”

Leviticus 24:17-21- “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.”

Numbers 35:11- “Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.”

Deuteronomy 22:23-25- “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.”

There is the basic principle which, I believe, we can take from these verses and apply to modern government. Keep this principle in mind as it is the basis for the rest of this study and one I continually refer to. The government can only punish those sins which are crimes against another person’s life, liberty, or property. If found guilty, the criminal must pay for full restitution (this would include extra restitution mentioned in Scripture). If the crime is found to be purposeful, he must receive the same thing that he did. If no restitution can be made in any way, capital punishment must be used. Here are some examples to clarify.

1. A person steals someone’s dog. He is found guilty, thus must give the dog back plus extra restitution.

2. A person kills someone else’s dog; whether by accident or on purpose. He is found guilty, thus must buy a new dog for the person who’s dog he killed plus extra restitution.

3. A person breaks someone’s leg by accident. He is found guilty, thus must pay for all the medical expenses and any loss of income as a result. If he did this on purpose, he must not only pay for all of these costs and extra restitution, but also have his leg broken.

4. A person puts someone’s eye out by accident. He is found guilty, thus must pay all medical expenses, any loss of income, extra restitution, and for any expenses in assisting that person in sight. (Example: a seeing-eye dog, etc.) If he did this on purpose, his eye must also be put out.

5. A man is found guilty for committing adultery with a virgin. No restitution can be made to replace the woman’s virginity. Thus, the man must be put to death. If the woman is found to have done this against her will and made effort to protect herself, she will not be punished. If she did not do this, she must be put to death.

I hope these examples help illustrate my point and use proper hermeneutics with these passages. So, using this proposition, let’s look at Exodus 21-Deuteronomy.

Exodus 21:12-14 should be applied directly as they go in accordance to the above principles. Verse 15 is the same as the above. Rather, any physical harm that comes as a result of the strike must be paid for by the son. Any other punishment falls under the jurisdiction of God and the father as head of the family. Verse 16: The kidnapper must restore the man to his original position. Any medical or job related expenses must be paid. Any physical defects must be administered to the kidnapper as well. If he cannot restore the man, he must be put to death. Verse 17 should not be applied in the governmental jurisdiction but only under God and the father. Verses 18-19 are to be applied literally. 20-21 should only be applied with the above principles. Slavery itself would be illegal. 22-25 should be applied literally under the aforementioned principles. 26-27 would not be applied as slavery would be illegal. 28-29 should be applied literally, though not restricted merely to oxen, but anything that has the potential of killing someone. 33-36 should also be applied literally.

Chapter 22: Verses 1-15 regard property and theft. They should be dealt with using the above principles. Any bloodshed or death caused by a person in defense of himself or his property should only be payed for monetarily. (i.e. any medical expenses or the such. Capital punishment or physical mutilation will not be administered.) Verses 16-19 have been dealt with in the example. The sexual offender should be put to death. The victim, human or animal should also be put to death if there was any compliance on their part to the adultery. Verse 20 would not be enforced by governmental jurists. Verses 21-27 would be enforced while 28-31 would not.

Chapter 23: Verses 1-9 would be enforced. The rest of Exodus through Leviticus 10 would not be applied directly because of the New Covenant. Christ fulfilled the role of the priesthood, sacrifices, and sabbaths. Hebrews is replete with verses which testify to this fact. Therefore, we will move on to Leviticus 11.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:23 pm

Leviticus
Chapter 11 deals with those foods which are to be eaten and those that should not. These regulations were in effect to make the Israelites consecrated before God. There is much scientific evidence which shows that they also helped to prevent widespread disease because of cooking and preparation practices that didn’t come into effect until later. Regardless, God removes this stipulation in Acts 10 and Hebrews. Therefore, though it is OK to practice these laws on an individual status, they are no longer mandatory. They also no longer effect life, liberty, or property. Therefore, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the government. The same can be said for chapters 12-15. Chapters 16 and 17 would not be applied. As already stated, chapter 18 would be applied using the above principles.

Chapter 19: Verses 1-10 would not be applied while 11 would. Verse 12 would not be enforced by the government while 13 would. As already stated verse 14 would not be enforced but 15 would. Verses 16-19 would mostly not be enforced. The only exception being if they fell under the above principles. The rest of the chapter has pretty much already been dealt with. Chapter 20 has been dealt with in that it focuses on the punishments of certain crimes. I don’t think I need to go through this again.

Chapters 21-24:9 deal with the priesthood, sacrifices, festival, and sabbaths. Chapter 24:10-23 largely deals with the sin of blasphemy. As this does not effect someone’s life, liberty, or property, it would not be enforced by the civil government. God will certainly punish the blasphemer on the day of judgment however.

Chapter 25:1-22 would not need enforcement. Verses 23-34 would also not be enforced as these were special laws because of the fact the the land was the Promised land belonging to God. Ultimately God owns all of the earth, however, He was taking special ownership over the Promised land. Verses 35-37 would be applied. The rest of the chapter would not as it involves slavery; a practice which would be illegal. The rest of the book would also not be enforced.

Numbers
This book is filled with passages that fall under one of many categories. 1. Narrative about events that took place to the Israelites. 2. Ceremonial laws. 3. Censers and other specific one time rulings given by God. These would not need to be enforced today as they were not meant to be ongoing laws. 4. Other laws which we have already dealt with. 5. Laws which no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the government in that they do not effect someone’s life, liberty, or property. Thus, the entire book would not need to be enforced outside of those laws already dealt with above. If you find any law that you would like me to deal with, I would be willing to explain this point.

Deuteronomy
Chapters 1-14:21 are either narrative, ceremonial laws, or laws already covered above. Starting in chapter 14:21-29 we see that laws concerning tithing. As seen in this passage and others, the purpose of the tithe was to support the Levites. Being a theocracy, with the Levites not being included in the inheritance, and also being part of the judicial system, this would be like modern taxation. For the purpose of this study, I will not go into taxation, but I do believe that some taxation is not only Biblical, but also necessary. For now, we will just leave it at that. Chapters 15-18 are again either narrative or laws already covered.

In Chapter 19:1-13 we see the laws concerning the cities of refuge. This would not need to be applied as the avenger of blood would no longer be applicable. In Romans 13:3-4, we seen that God has instituted the civil magistrate as the avenger of crime. Rather, the above principles regarding murder or manslaughter would be enforced. Verse 14-21 would be applied minus the part about the priests and standing before the Lord for judgment in verse 17.

Chapter 20 would not be enforced. 21:1-17 would not be applied because of religiously ceremonial reasons or reasons concerning the sanctity of marriage. I would be happy to clarify if you would like. Verses 18-21 belong under the jurisdictions of God and the father of the family. The child would not be put to death unless guilty of a crime that was already mentioned as being punished capitally. Verses 22-23 would be applied, although other methods of capital punishment can be used as well. Chapter 22 has already been dealt with earlier. Chapter 23:1-14 would not be enforced. Verses 15-18 would not be enforced do to the circumstances being illegal. Verses 19-20 deal with charging interest. They are special in the fact that they were for Israel in regards to other Israelites or gentiles. I believe that interest should not be enforced at all based on certain passages of Scripture and justice. I would be happy to share them with you if you desire. While I’m at it, I also do not believe having debt should be legal. However, I will not go into that here. I just thought I would mention it.

Chapter 24:1-4 deals with divorce. Jesus also dealt with this in the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, Matthew 5:32 takes precedence over this passage. Divorce should only be allowed in situations of adultery. Adultery in turn would be dealt with using the above principles. Verses 5-25:4 have already been dealt with. Verses 5-10 would not be applied while 11-16 would be enforced. Verses 17-Chapter 34 would not be applied as they are either narrative, ceremonial, or already dealt with.

I hope this helps you see which laws and consequences should be enforced in modern government. Again, if there is any passage you would like me to be more specific on, I would be more than willing to. Keep in mind, however, that we should not apply these laws because these passages tell us to. We can use principles from this portion of Scripture to guide us in making just laws which properly use the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. God bless you.

-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:39 pm

This study looks a lot bigger on the forum than in my writing application. Sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused. The whole thing is kind of a conclusion, so if you agree (or disagree) with its interpretations, please signify so we can try to move this thread out.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:15 pm

Quote :
The next two phrases exclude all other nations in this covenant. This means that the following laws are given only to Israel and not to any other nation on earth in any time. Anyone who reads this passage at face value should understand that the following covenant and laws are directed only to Israel and are thus only to be directly applied by Israel. We can also see the purpose of this covenant in the phrases “if ye will... keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me... And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” This means that these laws are only for Israel. They are not prescriptively given to any other nation because God is not setting aside any other nation to be a “peculiar treasure” to Himself or “kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” This is clearly the purpose of these laws.

Here is your first flaw, which reflects your understanding of the rest of the text.

To say that something is addressed to someone is not to say that it does not affect anyone else. Nor, given II Tim 3 can you possibly say that it is not addressed to everyone else.

If I write a letter to my son on how to raise piglets, address it how I will, the subject 'how to raise piglets' still applies to other people... i. e. those that need to raise piglets. The only part of the subject that woudl be limited would be those parts that were limited. IE if I said, "since we have acidic ground'... then that part of my letter would not apply to those with basic ground. It would apply to others with acidic ground, however.

More later, if I remember. I am very busy with my books and my class.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:33 am

Von,

Your question regarding the applicability of the Old Testament Law system to New Testament Biblical governments is answered in this thread. If you disagree after reading it, then please formulate a exegetical, biblical response, detailing why you consider it un-biblical. Simply stating your disagreement will not amount to a refutation.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:19 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
Von,

Your question regarding the applicability of the Old Testament Law system to New Testament Biblical governments is answered in this thread. If you disagree after reading it, then please formulate a exegetical, biblical response, detailing why you consider it un-biblical. Simply stating your disagreement will not amount to a refutation.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Smile

Dear Jay,

(And Caleb).

There are several serious problems with what you have posted. I wish I had the time and energy for the full refutation that Jay requests.

In the meantime, I would like to note several logical flaws:

1) Your posts represent straw men. You make your own points, but, as Scripture says, that only stands until the other man comes along. I would ask, in reply, that you make and refute the theonomic position. Show that you understand it by posting, not your own best verses, but the best verses in opposition to your position. You might consider various verses of Psalm 119 that insist on the continuing validity of the law. You might consider and deal with the verse that says :
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


2) Jay, you post, but did not highlite Smile a very important theonomic verse:

And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Now, I ask you. Are you saying that God has given us a civil law that is even more righteous than Gods civil law? This verse says that all of the other nations will be jealous of Israel, not because of its special position, but because it has statutes and judgements more righteous.

In general the problem with the anti-theonomic position is this: that they replace something with nothing. You speak of 'the new covenant' (totally out of context) but in reality the 'new covenant' that is promoted is vague and formless when it comes to civil law. Indeed, it tends to disappear when crimes such as murder or theft.

We definitely have a new covenant. It is a covenant sealed with the blood of Christ. It is the only covenant which saves, the one that saves Job as well as Paul.

However we have no new civil law. Gods Law endures forever. We know sin, because sin is violation of the law. Gods Law is permanently established:

Code:
Psa 119:89  LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psa 119:90  Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.
Psa 119:91  They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants.

No one denies that much of the OT is types and shadows that point to Christ. And however perfect the type and shadow (at being a type or shadow), we no longer keep the type and shadow when the reality has come. A sign which says 'Dallas 100 miles' comes first, later we see the sign 'Welcome to Dallas'.

However the civil law of God is not a type and shadow of Christ. It is a type and shadow of the heavenly kingdom. And we are not there yet. Murder will not need to be punished by the death penalty in heaven, for there will be no murder. We are not there yet.

More than I intended to say. Basic point: You straw man. You make your own position by posting your own verse, out of context. Look at the verses which insist that the law is permanent, which state they still convict of sin, which state they are still applicable for the lawless. Refute those, and you may have a case.

Vaughn
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:12 am

I think a large bit of this disagreement stems from a different hermeneutical definition of law. You define "law" differently that Jay and I do. Thus, we are going to always disagree on this topic. Also, I don't get what you mean by

"Show that you understand it by posting, not your own best verses, but the best verses in opposition to your position."

and "You make your own position by posting your own verse, out of context"

It seems like you're saying we have our own verses, but you don't believe in them. (Which is not what I think you mean.)

Thank you for posting your beliefs here. I think we'll just have to disagree since I don't see either of us convincing the other one that our definition of the law is more accurate.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:31 am

caleb wrote:
I think a large bit of this disagreement stems from a different hermeneutical definition of law. You define "law" differently that Jay and I do. Thus, we are going to always disagree on this topic. Also, I don't get what you mean by

"Show that you understand it by posting, not your own best verses, but the best verses in opposition to your position."

and "You make your own position by posting your own verse, out of context"

It seems like you're saying we have our own verses, but you don't believe in them. (Which is not what I think you mean.)

Thank you for posting your beliefs here. I think we'll just have to disagree since I don't see either of us convincing the other one that our definition of the law is more accurate.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Scripture uses the word 'law' to mean several different things; to which definition were you referring?

If you will look at your posts, and Jays, you will see that no verses have been posted which would possibly imply that the civil use of the law continues. This is classic straw man. You read the verse I posted on 'the law is good if a man use it lawfully'. How does that verse fit into your view of the laws negation?

You have read, and I assume you know, dozens of verses that speak of the perfect righteousness of the law, and of its unchanging validity. How do you deal with those verses?

Post them, and then deal with them. Tell me why, when God says His Law is unchanging and good for today, you don't believe He really means that.

(The above sentence is a straw man on the other side, obviously. Thus I just post it as a request to you.)

Secondly, one needs to respond to the whole negation thing. Every time I have pressed you, you have run back to you 'theocracy' thing; and made distinctions which are not made by Scripture.

1) "Thou shalt not murder" is a civil law
2) The civil laws are abrogated under the New Covenant
Ergo
3) One may therefore murder under the New covenant.

eh, what?

I am sure that to you that sounds ridiculous. But I see nothing in your theory that keeps it from being true. Ergo I believe your theory to be untrue.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:33 am

Quote :
I think a large bit of this disagreement stems from a different hermeneutical definition of law. You define "law" differently that Jay and I do.

it might be helpful if you posted these definitions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:10 am

Quote :
1) Your posts represent straw men. You make your own points, but, as Scripture says, that only stands until the other man comes along. I would ask, in reply, that you make and refute the theonomic position. Show that you understand it by posting, not your own best verses, but the best verses in opposition to your position. You might consider various verses of Psalm 119 that insist on the continuing validity of the law. You might consider and deal with the verse that says :
1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

First of all, we have not used a straw man argument. A straw man argument is to represent the opposition’s argument in an extreme way that makes it ridiculous and easy to refute. We did not make our own points but instead, thanks to your challenge, went to Scripture and did some pretty in depth and involved Bible studies to find the answers to this topic. As a result, I even had to change some of my beliefs on the subject as I found they were not what Scripture said. Thus, we couldn't have made a straw man argument, because we didn't bring up an opposing viewpoint, but rather submitted and defended our own.

I will take up your challenge to use the “theonomic position’s verses” to show the errors of this belief, however, you also have the burden of proof (or rebuttal, depending on how you look at it) in regards to the verses that we submitted. You’ll need to show how they support the theonomic position. First, an important view of the law:

Galatians 3:15-18- “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”

Notice carefully what Paul says. First, he says, that if a man makes a covenant and it is confirmed, no one can then add or take away from that covenant. Only what was confirmed stands. In other-words, if I made a covenant with someone in which I covenanted to adopt all his sons and care for his pets if he died, I could not latter say, “actually, I’m only going to care for your pets,” or “I’m also going to adopt all your daughters.” Those were not made in the original covenant, thus, I’m not bound by them. I hope this makes sense. If not, just look at what Paul says. “a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Everyone following?

Next, Paul swings from his analogy to his main point about the law and the covenant. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” Paul’s point? God made a covenant with Abraham and Abraham’s seed. (Not seeds, seed.) God made a covenant with Abraham, the promise being Christ. Are we good so far?

Now Paul makes his point. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” What does this mean? Look at it closely. Remember Paul’s point about confirming a covenant. God confirmed the covenant with Abraham. If you look at your Bible timelines, you’ll see that four hundred and thirty years after God made the covenant with Abraham puts you at Moses and the law. Hence, Paul says “the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after.”

What’s Paul’s point? The promise and covenant with Abraham in regards to Christ came before the law. Thus, the law does not disannul that covenant or make it of no effect. We get the inheritance, not from the law, but from the promise God gave to Abraham. God started His covenant of grace before the law. The law does not override this covenant, nor are we more responsible to the law than this covenant of grace. The covenant came first and was confirmed; thus, the law cannot disannul it or make if of no effect. So, you might ask, what is the purpose of the law then. Paul anticipates this and replies.

Galatians 3:19- “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

The law was brought into effect because of transgressions. It was there till Christ would come to Whom God’s covenant with Abraham was made. The law is not against grace or the promise that God gave Abraham like many people think. The law is not the promise and does not give us life. The covenant of grace is the promise that brings life. This life is given “by faith of Jesus Christ.” This faith has been around bringing people life through the promise since the covenant with Abraham. (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:1-25, Galatians 3:6) The law was brought into effect until that faith was revealed in Christ. Thus, the law was there to bring us to Christ where we are justified by faith. The promise to Abraham and the covenant of grace through faith were given before the law, thus the law does not annul them. The law brings us to them so that we can be justified. That is the purpose of the law. Once we are justified, we are no longer under the law. The law has fulfilled its purpose. If you hesitate to agree with this, I encourage you to look at Romans 4.

This fits perfectly with 1 Timothy 1:8-10- “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” See, the law isn’t made for those who are justified (declared right, thus righteous.) The law was made for the unrighteous. Once someone is declared right, they are no longer under the law. Remember, the law did not come first, the covenant of grace did.

The law is always valid, but only when used lawfully. The law will continue to bring people to Christ until He returns. But those who are saved are no longer under the law. In Christ, we died to the law so as to live to God. (Galatians 2:19)

Quote :
2) Jay, you post, but did not highlite a very important theonomic verse:

And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Now, I ask you. Are you saying that God has given us a civil law that is even more righteous than Gods civil law? This verse says that all of the other nations will be jealous of Israel, not because of its special position, but because it has statutes and judgements more righteous.

In general the problem with the anti-theonomic position is this: that they replace something with nothing. You speak of 'the new covenant' (totally out of context) but in reality the 'new covenant' that is promoted is vague and formless when it comes to civil law. Indeed, it tends to disappear when crimes such as murder or theft.

We definitely have a new covenant. It is a covenant sealed with the blood of Christ. It is the only covenant which saves, the one that saves Job as well as Paul.

However we have no new civil law. Gods Law endures forever. We know sin, because sin is violation of the law. Gods Law is permanently established:

Code:
Psa 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psa 119:90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.
Psa 119:91 They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants.


No one denies that much of the OT is types and shadows that point to Christ. And however perfect the type and shadow (at being a type or shadow), we no longer keep the type and shadow when the reality has come. A sign which says 'Dallas 100 miles' comes first, later we see the sign 'Welcome to Dallas'.

However the civil law of God is not a type and shadow of Christ. It is a type and shadow of the heavenly kingdom. And we are not there yet. Murder will not need to be punished by the death penalty in heaven, for there will be no murder. We are not there yet.

More than I intended to say. Basic point: You straw man. You make your own position by posting your own verse, out of context. Look at the verses which insist that the law is permanent, which state they still convict of sin, which state they are still applicable for the lawless. Refute those, and you may have a case.

-Vaughn

Here I believe you are unintentionally using an equivocation on the word law. There are really two laws: 1.) Which brings us to Christ, is our schoolmaster, reveals sin, etc. 2.) The civil/ceremonial law of ancient Israel. Remember that the law is good and valid till the day Christ returns. Paul continually makes this point. However, whenever he uses the law, he includes only the Ten Commandments, or laws that could easily fall under one commandment. (Example: fornication and homosexuality both could fall under adultery.) He never, at least to my knowledge, brings up such laws as eating habits, sabbaths, festivals, cleanliness practices in regards to such times as menstrual periods, etc. except to say that we are no longer under them. We can still do them, but we are not required to do them. (See his rebuke to Peter in regards to eating or Colossians 2.)

Secondly, your passage from Psalms 119 speaks of the eternity of God’s Word, not specifically His law, and certainly not specifically the civil/ceremonial law given to Moses. This latter law is only enforced in Israel. It is not given to any other nation and was part of the institution of the Theocracy and the ramifications of that form of government. (Please see the forms of government thread in regards to this topic.) The first law is valid and lasts from the time it was given till the time it will be taken away when it is no longer needed. (Remember it’s aforementioned purpose.) This law is righteous and unchanging in its purpose and use. However, we are only under it as long as we are unrighteous. Its purpose is to bring us to Christ. Once we are in Christ, we are no longer under the law. These are the two definitions of the law to which I referred to earlier.
Secondly, one needs to respond to the whole negation thing. Every time I have pressed you, you have run back to you 'theocracy' thing; and made distinctions which are not made by Scripture.

Quote :
1) "Thou shalt not murder" is a civil law
2) The civil laws are abrogated under the New Covenant
Ergo
3) One may therefore murder under the New covenant.

eh, what?

I am sure that to you that sounds ridiculous. But I see nothing in your theory that keeps it from being true. Ergo I believe your theory to be untrue.

Keep in mind what I stated earlier about the two definitions of the law. “Thou shalt not murder” falls under both categories. It was certainly given in the civil law of Moses, but it is also part of the law which brings us to Christ as seen in many of Paul’s writings and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. This is the purpose of the law in the Bible. The other posts in this thread and the forms of government thread show why we are not under the civil laws of Moses. We are under the law of God until we are brought to Christ. The civil/ceremonial law given to Moses is clearly and exclusively given to Israel. However, we can use its principles and the eternal law of God as a foundation to building our civil laws.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Old Testament Law   Today at 4:34 pm

Back to top Go down
 
Old Testament Law
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Liberty's Light :: Biblical Government :: Bible study-
Jump to: