OT Law v NT sin

[Kirby D. P.]

Hello, friend believers. A friendly atheist here. This community has become my go-to source for considered perspective from the sincerely faithful. So, here I am again.


Today, my question regards Biblical law. I am well versed in Old Testament doctrine and Levitical law’s role in covenantal Judaism. I also understand that Jesus modified these requirements. For instance, relieving the requirement to keep kosher, but expanding the notion of adultery to include internal lustfulness.


But, with such exceptions where the Gospels make specific amendments to Old Testament doctrine, if a Christian CHOOSES to continue to adhere to Old Testament law, can any of those actions be seen as sin? And, if so, what is the scriptural rationale for such re-interpretation?


For instance, obviously it’s not a sin to refuse to eat bacon. (Though, honestly, I don’t know how any sane person could refuse to eat bacon.)


But I think anyone would agree that putting an engaged virgin who is raped in a city to death (Deut 22:23-24) or chemically inducing a forced abortion (Ordeal of bitter water, Num 5: 19-23 ) are both hideous sins. But what is the Christian doctrinal basis for calling them so?


Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

 

[B-A-C]

Even in New testament times many of these practices were in effect.
In John 8:3-5; In fact even today some remote cultures practice this.
Stoning people and such weren't considered "hideous sins" in those days.
In Deut 21:18-21; children were stoned for being disobedient.

After Israel became a nation again in 1948, some orthodox Jews had a much trouble with "man's law" over riding
"Jewish religious law" about things like stoning. (the police arrested you if you did this).
Much like in the US today where everyone is forced to support gay rights whether they agree with it religiously or not.

In the old testament, it seems that Israel as a nation depended on leaders to connect them with God.
Prophets, Judges, Kings, etc... the relationship with God wasn't really on a personal level for most people.
Also in the time of Moses (the first five books of the Bible are attributed to him) the law was a relatively new thing.
The importance of following it had to emphasized. Whenever people didn't do what God commanded...
(this could be even one single person... such as Achan - Josh 7:10-24; ) God did not bless them.

In the New Testament things changed quite a bit... mostly the way individuals can have a relationship with God.
An entire nation is not held to the consequences of one individual.
No longer is it an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth ( Matt 5:38; ) but now we are to leave vengeance for
breaking the law up to God. Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30;

That's why stoning someone now would be a sin.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Even in New testament times many of these practices were in effect...

... That's why stoning someone now would be a sin.

Okay. I see how that obviates worldly revenge. But what about things like pricing and terms of slavery and indentured servitude? Is it a sin now to sell my daughter into slavery (or servitude or however one might define it)?

 

[B-A-C]

This is another area where you will get differing answers for various perspectives.

My take on it is this...
Slavery is and always was a sin. People did it in the Bible (they also committed adultery, lying and murder)
but that doesn't make it any less of a sin. Jesus talked about slavery, but I don't see Him condone it anywhere.
This is a difficult subject because of the way "slavery" is used.
Many times in the new testament, the word "slave" could be interchanged with "servant".
In the culture of that time, people became slaves to pay off debts.
Paul speaks of making his body his slave to discipline. He also says we are slaves of Christ.
Finally he says we used to be slaves to sin. In a way this is figurative language. We are slaves in the sense
that we do what God/Jesus say to do even though we aren't getting paid to do it.
Also we sinned even though we didn't want to... so in effect we were slaves to sin.
In Rom 11:32; the Bible says we were bound to sin... everyone has sinned.. ( Rom 3:23; )
But Christ has the power to set us free from sin if we let Him.. ( Rom 6:6; )

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Thank you, B-A-C.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

Today, my question regards Biblical law. I am well versed in Old Testament doctrine and Levitical law’s role in covenantal Judaism. I also understand that Jesus modified these requirements. For instance, relieving the requirement to keep kosher, but expanding the notion of adultery to include internal lustfulness.

Before the law of Moses there was the covenant made with the whole world through Noah after the flood.

The law of Moses was given only to Israel and they considered it a privilege to have the laws.

Abraham was told that his children would possess the land of Canaan.
However he told him that the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.
That may be an indication that he had some sort of covenant with the Amorites or at least recognized their right to possess the land.

The Mosaic law was based on the insane notion that the guilty could transfer their guilt to something that was not guilty.That same notion caused child sacrifice in the nations that Israel was to dispossess.
They saw sin as an energy or entity that would eventually lead to death when it reached it's fullness.
They did not believe there was anything beyond this life and that death was an end of existence.
There was no concept of an afterlife.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

In the new testament Jesus said:
John 10:8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them.

The old testament claims God gave the law to moses but the new testament says
it was delivered and is maintained and carried out by angels until the arrival of a certain seed to whom a promise was given.

Acts 7:53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it."
Hebrews 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,
Galatians 3:19 Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator.
Romans 5:13
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.

So if new covenant believers are not under any law then no sin can be charged to the account of those who believe by faith that they are sons of the promise.
In this condition what ever is not faith is sin.

So sin is relative the observer.
Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

Nothing outside the body(which itself is an illusion of the observer) is impure,only mind can be impure.
It's really not just new testament,there is plenty of scripture in the old that tries to get the hearers attention in this matter.

Psalm 18:26 to the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you appear to be perverse.

But what is the Christian doctrinal basis for calling them so?

It would be difficult to do those things out of faith.
Of course I can only speak of my faith to do those things.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

But I think anyone would agree that putting an engaged virgin who is raped in a city to death (Deut 22:23-24) or chemically inducing a forced abortion (Ordeal of bitter water, Num 5: 19-23 ) are both hideous sins. But what is the Christian doctrinal basis for calling them so?

To refine my previous answer I would mention that man has an internal compass to find his way to God and that is love.
However many confuse love with desire.

The bible is a quantic (not sure if that's a word) book based on quantum principles that ancient peoples seemed to understand and that scientific experiments seem to be bearing out.
Scripture is kind of like the compass that the character Jack sparrow in Pirates of the caribbean had.
It always points to (speaks to) the desires of the reader.

Psalm 18:26 to the pure, you show yourself pure, and to the morally corrupt, you appear to be perverse.

Seek and you shall find.
To those who seek love and mercy every verse leads to more love and mercy and there will more evidence of love and mercy in their lives.
To those who seek to blame and separate every verse will lead to more blame and separation and there will be more evidence of suspicion and isolation in their lives.

God is love and Jesus said he could only do what he sees the father doing.
If the internal compass points to our desires then we will only see what the father of those desires is doing.
If the internal compass points to love we will only see what love is doing and God is the Father of that spirit(not desire).

In that analogy scripture is kind of a compass enhancer to speed you along your path.
If your path is judgement it will lead you to the logical outcome of judgement more quickly(bringing iniquity to its fullness).

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
1 Corinthians 13:5 or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged.
1 Corinthians 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
1 Corinthians 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

These are not laws but precepts or compass alignment tools.
So God does not demand his own way but waits patiently for us to fulfill and get tired of our own way.

 

[Brother-Paul]

Hello, friend believers. A friendly atheist here. This community has become my go-to source for considered perspective from the sincerely faithful. So, here I am again.


Today, my question regards Biblical law. I am well versed in Old Testament doctrine and Levitical law’s role in covenantal Judaism. I also understand that Jesus modified these requirements. For instance, relieving the requirement to keep kosher, but expanding the notion of adultery to include internal lustfulness.


But, with such exceptions where the Gospels make specific amendments to Old Testament doctrine, if a Christian CHOOSES to continue to adhere to Old Testament law, can any of those actions be seen as sin? And, if so, what is the scriptural rationale for such re-interpretation?


For instance, obviously it’s not a sin to refuse to eat bacon. (Though, honestly, I don’t know how any sane person could refuse to eat bacon.)


But I think anyone would agree that putting an engaged virgin who is raped in a city to death (Deut 22:23-24) or chemically inducing a forced abortion (Ordeal of bitter water, Num 5: 19-23 ) are both hideous sins. But what is the Christian doctrinal basis for calling them so?


Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Greetings, this morning I enjoyed my bacon butty :thumbsup:

To help understand a little more, as we are very friendly on here, may I ask, to you, who is Jesus Christ?

 

[KingJ]

Okay. I see how that obviates worldly revenge. But what about things like pricing and terms of slavery and indentured servitude? Is it a sin now to sell my daughter into slavery (or servitude or however one might define it)?

OT slavery was nothing like what you have in mind .

1. A slave could leave their master. The new master was not aloud to report this Deut 23:15.
2. Slaves were to be loved by their masters as the masters loved themselves Lev 19:34, Col 4:1.
3. Stealing and selling someone resulted in death Exo 21:16
4. It was a six year contract Exo 21:2
5. Many miss quote Exo 21:20-21 as masters having permission to abuse slaves and get away with it. But if you read the context it is referring to the death penalty Exo 21:12. Masters who beat their slaves.... and the slave survives must not be punished (ie put to death). A slave who is badly beaten can leave Exo 21:26-27.
6. Many think the worst of Numbers 31:18. But they convienantly forget that Jews lived by the harshest laws ever seen by mankind. If any Jew ''took a virgin girl for himself'' whilst married it would be adultery and he would be stoned to death for it. Now we assume the elders and Jews at the time were ok...with....rape..... Some verses cannot be read in isolation. There is so much context on this. These girls were grafted in to Jewish society and treated as fellow Jews. Any 'sex' would only be permitted through the usual / strict / fair / appropriate channels / laws.

So it is a sin to sell your dauther into slavery OT and NT if slavery is what we think of with regards to the abuse of Africans.

 

[KingJ]

Hello, friend believers. A friendly atheist here. This community has become my go-to source for considered perspective from the sincerely faithful. So, here I am again.


Today, my question regards Biblical law. I am well versed in Old Testament doctrine and Levitical law’s role in covenantal Judaism. I also understand that 1. Jesus modified these requirements. For instance, relieving the requirement to keep kosher, but expanding the notion of adultery to include internal lustfulness.


But, with such exceptions where the Gospels make specific amendments to Old Testament doctrine, if a Christian CHOOSES to continue to adhere to Old Testament law, can any of those actions be seen as sin? And, if so, what is the scriptural rationale for such re-interpretation?


For instance, obviously it’s not a sin to refuse to eat bacon. (Though, honestly, I don’t know how any sane person could refuse to eat bacon.)


2. But I think anyone would agree that putting an engaged virgin who is raped in a city to death (Deut 22:23-24) or chemically inducing a forced abortion (Ordeal of bitter water, Num 5: 19-23 ) are both hideous sins. But what is the Christian doctrinal basis for calling them so?


Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

One teaching from Paul that really stands out and is truly hard to miss is that we judge matters properly / use our God given brain properly and honestly / God judges hearts intent.

We need to understand that God is highly intelligent. He is not dumb nor mad. He was not mad OT. Every OT law had a reason behind it. The Sabbath was and is respected by the Jews as it is chiefly to give respect and thanks to God for helping them out of Egypt. Disrespecting this day as a Jew is seen as a serious sin by God...and understandably so. It resulted in immediate excomnnuncation for all....for a few who were more accountable, death. We, however are not Jews. We were not in Egypt. So we don't need to honour the Sabbath.

1. Jesus never modified the law. Jesus made a point separate from the seriousness of adultery. That is that no sin is in God's presence. His choice of sin to make this point is classic . What man has not thought of a woman? He qaulifies his statement (Matt 5:28) in vs 32 by saying that except for actual adultery we may not divorce. God does not change. If a sin angered Him such that He ordain the death penalty for it OT, only a fool would ignore that today.

2. Yes agreed. Both hideous sins. I see two categories of sins. 1. Sins to fellow man and 2. sins to God. Those who don't believe in God are responsible for 1 (Working brain = accountability) and those who do, both 1 Cor 5:12. All sins to fellow man are sins to God as God loves us. But there are many sins we can commit to God that may not affect our fellow man. Idolatry, homosexuality, suicide and of course for the Jews their laws like not eating bacon. The only grace for Jews today is that Paul says a Jew who accepts Jesus is no longer a Jew but a Christian. So today Jews who convert can get away with eating bacon.

 

[Brother-Paul]

LAW/JESUS

Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

LAW/JESUS - ADULTERY

Matthew 5:27-28 (NKJV)
27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

LAW/JESUS - DIVORCE

Matthew 5:31-32 (NKJV)
31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

JESUS/FORGIVENESS

Matthew 5:23-25 (NKJV)
23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

Matthew 6:12 (NKJV)
12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.

JESUS/A NEW COMMANDMENT - LOVE

John 13:31-35 (NKJV)
31 So, when he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him.
32 If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and glorify Him immediately.
33 Little children, I shall be with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, 'Where I am going, you cannot come,' so now I say to you.
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

A command to love one another is not a new commandment; see Exodus 20:12-17; Leviticus 19:18, 33-34; Deuteronomy 5:16-21; 22:1-4;

But Jesus' command was a 'new kind of love', it was a love for one another 'based on' our experience of our love of Jesus the Christ
see Matthew 5:38-48; Luke 10:25-37

Matthew 7:12 (NKJV)
12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Brother-Paul]

I also intended to include...

John 1:17 (NKJV)
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

 

[pajaro]

Hello, friend believers. A friendly atheist here. This community has become my go-to source for considered perspective from the sincerely faithful. So, here I am again.


Today, my question regards Biblical law. I am well versed in Old Testament doctrine and Levitical law’s role in covenantal Judaism. I also understand that Jesus modified these requirements. For instance, relieving the requirement to keep kosher, but expanding the notion of adultery to include internal lustfulness.


But, with such exceptions where the Gospels make specific amendments to Old Testament doctrine, if a Christian CHOOSES to continue to adhere to Old Testament law, can any of those actions be seen as sin? And, if so, what is the scriptural rationale for such re-interpretation?


For instance, obviously it’s not a sin to refuse to eat bacon. (Though, honestly, I don’t know how any sane person could refuse to eat bacon.)


But I think anyone would agree that putting an engaged virgin who is raped in a city to death (Deut 22:23-24) or chemically inducing a forced abortion (Ordeal of bitter water, Num 5: 19-23 ) are both hideous sins. But what is the Christian doctrinal basis for calling them so?


Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

The entire Bible is speaking of Jesus, but in parable fashion. If you look at Old Testament rules and try to follow them physically without interpreting them spiritually to relate to Jesus then you just have an empty ritual, or one that can even be bizarre or disturbing at times. The physical rituals are unnecessary and do not further a persons salvation in any way. But being in them or following them spiritually is what is real. For example, there is a cooking instruction: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." Exodus 23:19b. Following this instruction physically does not further your salvation in any way. Yet the kid (baby goat) is really a parable word for Jesus, and the milk is a parable word for the gospel (the word), and the mother is a parable word the free city above. So the instruction spiritually is really something like don't use the gospel from above against Jesus.

Further, there is a section in the Old Testament where they stone a man for simply picking up sticks. "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day...And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." (Numbers 15:32 and 35). If this were saying we must physically stone anyone that picks up sticks on the Sabbath day then how amazingly harsh and murderous the law can sound. However, when interpreted spiritually, the true believers encounter someone gathering sticks (means trying to save people - the people are the sticks by parable meaning). However, he is trying to do so by his own effort and not by Christ's work alone. The Sabbath is a picture of how God does all the work of saving persons and those who are saved do not work to save themselves, they only rest in that sense. By trusting in his own effort (picking up persons himself) he is not trusting in Jesus' work on the cross for true salvation. He therefore is subject to being unsaved, which is spirtual death according to the law (the Bible, stone). The whole thing is really just making a comment about how those who are unsaved are subject to spiritual death because they trust in themselves. It is not saying we must go physically stone someone to death. It is saying that those who are in the spirtual group of true believers (the congregation) are inside the spiritual camp so to speak and are saved. The verse is not saying you better not do any physical work on a Saturday or on a Sunday or some such idea. Rather, do not trust in yourself to do the work of saving yourself or others. God does all the work of saving.

 

[Listening]

As jesus came to reveal the full will of God the Father
Which included both Justice and mercy
Who is just?
Who is mercy?
Obviously God is.
Then Men stoning people to death Must have been wrong before jesus came in the flesh
As he reveals that as no man is without sin No man Mortal was ever righteous enough to condemn Anyone to death for sin, for they themselves were not without sin.

Even though sins deserved death to satisfy God's righteous judgement.
Isn't this correct?

 

[Listening]

The entire Bible is speaking of Jesus, but in parable fashion. If you look at Old Testament rules and try to follow them physically without interpreting them spiritually to relate to Jesus then you just have an empty ritual, or one that can even be bizarre or disturbing at times. The physical rituals are unnecessary and do not further a persons salvation in any way. But being in them or following them spiritually is what is real. For example, there is a cooking instruction: "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." Exodus 23:19b. Following this instruction physically does not further your salvation in any way. Yet the kid (baby goat) is really a parable word for Jesus, and the milk is a parable word for the gospel (the word), and the mother is a parable word the free city above. So the instruction spiritually is really something like don't use the gospel from above against Jesus.

Further, there is a section in the Old Testament where they stone a man for simply picking up sticks. "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day...And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." (Numbers 15:32 and 35). If this were saying we must physically stone anyone that picks up sticks on the Sabbath day then how amazingly harsh and murderous the law can sound. However, when interpreted spiritually, the true believers encounter someone gathering sticks (means trying to save people - the people are the sticks by parable meaning). However, he is trying to do so by his own effort and not by Christ's work alone. The Sabbath is a picture of how God does all the work of saving persons and those who are saved do not work to save themselves, they only rest in that sense. By trusting in his own effort (picking up persons himself) he is not trusting in Jesus' work on the cross for true salvation. He therefore is subject to being unsaved, which is spirtual death according to the law (the Bible, stone). The whole thing is really just making a comment about how those who are unsaved are subject to spiritual death because they trust in themselves. It is not saying we must go physically stone someone to death. It is saying that those who are in the spirtual group of true believers (the congregation) are inside the spiritual camp so to speak and are saved. The verse is not saying you better not do any physical work on a Saturday or on a Sunday or some such idea. Rather, do not trust in yourself to do the work of saving yourself or others. God does all the work of saving.

I dont not understand how any man can be trying to save others ? You mean by teaching them the law without Mention of jesus christ at all? Or do you mean teaching them another faith and trying to save them that way.?
For if any man speak of jesus as saviour how can they be doing wrong?

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.