Which Laws

[Crabtownboy]

What laws in Leviticus should we abide by and which ones should we ignore?

 

[Revmitchell]

I am curious as to the political motivation for asking such a question.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I am curious as to the political motivation for asking such a question.

I thought it a theological question.

Regardless, what is your answer to the question Rev?

 

[Revmitchell]

I thought it a theological question.

Regardless, what is your answer to the question Rev?

I do not answer vague questions from folks like yourself. The reason is that you like to try to frame discussions to your liking and ask gotchya questions. Now if you would add some background to the reason you are asking such a question I might be enticed to answer it but lack of trust of you keeps me from giving any answers to vague questions.

 

[Scarlett O.]

What laws in Leviticus should we abide by and which ones should we ignore?

CTB, for me to answer your question, I have to change your words “abide by” and “ignore”.

We don’t abide by any of them and we also don’t ignore any of them. To abide by them means that we depend upon them for righteousness’ sake. Paul said, “For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." He also said, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” and "Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." and“You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

To ignore them means that we miss out on the blessing of reading them and understanding God’s plan from beginning to end. In particularly, I love Leviticus 14. A Christian should never ignore or disregard any of the Bible. Not the Law, not the begats, not any of it. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All scripture is inspired of God and is beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

However, with that being said, one has to understand the purpose of each portion of the scriptures to the New Testament Christian.

Are some of the sins in the Law still sins? Yes. But NOT because they were in the Law.

Are there some sins today that cannot be found in the Law? Yes. The Law was not an exhaustive list of “do’s and don’ts”. It was much more than that. Lesbianism and child abuse are two examples of sins today that cannot be found in the Law. If they are sins today, but they weren’t in the Law, how could they be sins then?

What makes things sins today for the New Testament Christian are things that are opposite of the nature of God. Things that are sins today were sins LONG before the Law.

Because LONG before there ever was a nation of Israel and LONG before the law was every born:

• murder was a sin and it still is.
  
• Adultery, lying, cruel treatment of others, homosexuality, and more were sins from the beginning and are still sins today.
  
• It was a sin when Cain killed Abel.
  
• It was a sin when Rueben has sex with his father's concubine.
  
• It was a sin when the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah participated in homosexuality. That wasn’t their only sin, but God said that they were haughty and overfed and did not help feed the poor and did “detestable” things. That word is the same word that God uses to call homosexuality an abomination in Leviticus.
  
• It was a sin when Abraham and Sarah lied to two different kings and led them to believe that they were not married.
  
• It was a sin when Joseph's brothers allowed their anger at their father to torment them to a hatred of their brother.
  
• All of this took place centuries BEFORE the law ever existed.

How could they be sins when there was no law?

Because of God's Holy Nature. We are to emulate Him. God does not murder, steal, lie, and covet. He cannot be cruel, unjust, unmerciful, or unloving. He will not turn his back on his people and seek out another people to love. God does not do detestable things. Ergo, we are to be just like Him as close as we can.

 

[carpro]

What laws in Leviticus should we abide by and which ones should we ignore?

https://answersingenesis.org/christ...christians-follow-all-the-old-testament-laws/

Two Major Schools of Thought

Now here is the tricky part: developing a theological basis from the Bible on the subject regarding law changes. Let’s look from a bird’s-eye view at the change from the Mosaic to New Covenant. From a big picture, there are two popular theological schools of thought (with many variations). They are dispensational and covenant theology.4 These views have similarities and differences. They differ in the way they look at how the laws change. There is more to it than this, but we will get to that in a moment:

Covenant Theology:
rules apply unless done away with in the next covenant. In other words, each covenant is seen as part of a greater covenant that now has modifications where the rules are still in effect unless abrogated or modified ultimately by the New Testament by God.5

Dispensational Theology:
previous rules tend to be done away with in the New Covenant unless reiterated in that covenant. In other words, the New Dispensation generally does away with previous Mosaic rules because those rules were given to a specific group of people, and new rules need to be stated.6
Both of these schools of thought affect the way Old Testament laws are viewed. Both sides agree on many laws because so much was reiterted, changed, or commented on in the New Testament.7 But some things went away, such as the sacrificial stuff in Leviticus 5:5–6, which Christ fulfilled. Both of these schools of thought answer why Christians do not adhere to all the Mosaic laws.

There are Christians whose theologies do not fit into either of these camps or are variations of them. For example, within Dispensationalism there is (among others) Classic Dispensationalism, Revised Dispensational, Progressive Dispensationalism, and one theologian even used the term “Leaky” Dispensationalism.

On the other side of the coin, there is New Covenant Theology which finds some middle ground between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, but starts with a Covenant Theology basis as opposed to Dispensational basis.

So if you are interested in pursuing these theologies in more detail, then I suggest you contact your local pastor and elders and do further research to get into the finer details. This is all said to teach the reader that Christians have a biblical basis for certain law changes and can easily answer the claim that Christians are walking contradictions.

I suggest you do the same, CTB Or narrow your topic down to laws of concern to you.

 

[InTheLight]

What laws in Leviticus should we abide by and which ones should we ignore?

I do not answer vague questions from folks like yourself.

I am curious as to the political motivation for asking such a question.

Originally Posted by Revmitchell
I never actually give them an answer one way or another and I hold them accountable for why they are asking such an inappropriate question to begin with.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2239038&postcount=13

It's true!

 

[vooks]

None unless it is restated in the NT or is plain commonsensical.
I know the next question is whether because homosexuality is sin in Leviticus, it automatically applies to us.
The answer is yes and no.
Christians preach against homosexuality not merely because of its mention in Leviticus but Pauline writings summarily condemn the same. Of course they get into semantics, Paul was against sex slaves bla de bla.

When gay apologists make this fickle argument,I always ask them whether they sleep with their dogs. See, beastiality is NEVER mentioned nowhere in the NT yet nobody argues for beastiality

 

[Crabtownboy]

None unless it is restated in the NT or is plain commonsensical.
I know the next question is whether because homosexuality is sin in Leviticus, it automatically applies to us.
The answer is yes and no.
Christians preach against homosexuality not merely because of its mention in Leviticus but Pauline writings summarily condemn the same. Of course they get into semantics, Paul was against sex slaves bla de bla.

When gay apologists make this fickle argument,I always ask them whether they sleep with their dogs. See, beastiality is NEVER mentioned nowhere in the NT yet nobody argues for beastiality

Vooks, thanks for a calm, good, rational answer. I truly appreciate your reply.

Actually my second question is not about homosexuality, not did I ever intend for it to be. Rather it is about how do we balance the entire OT with the NT. The laws of Leviticus seem a central place to begin. It seems to me there is a slippery slope with any answer.

If we say none off the laws in Leviticus are to be adhered to, preached about, etc. then we have a slippery slope of ignoring those that are mentioned in one way or another in the NT.

If we say we adhere to or preach only those that are also mentioned, in some say, in the NT, then we are on a slippery slope of ignoring much of the OT and to met that is a dangerous position.

If we say we adhere or preach all the laws of Leviticus then we are on the slippery slope of legalism and also on preaching on some topics that, frankly, I doubt anyone, even the most conservative on this BB believe.

Balancing the OT with the NT is one I have mulled over for a long time and I have not found a satisfactory answer.

How do you view this topic?

 

[vooks]

Vooks, thanks for a calm, good, rational answer. I truly appreciate your reply.

Actually my second question is not about homosexuality, not did I ever intend for it to be. Rather it is about how do we balance the entire OT with the NT. The laws of Leviticus seem a central place to begin. It seems to me there is a slippery slope with any answer.

If we say none off the laws in Leviticus are to be adhered to, preached about, etc. then we have a slippery slope of ignoring those that are mentioned in one way or another in the NT.

If we say we adhere to or preach only those that are also mentioned, in some say, in the NT, then we are on a slippery slope of ignoring much of the OT and to met that is a dangerous position.

If we say we adhere or preach all the laws of Leviticus then we are on the slippery slope of legalism and also on preaching on some topics that, frankly, I doubt anyone, even the most conservative on this BB believe.

Balancing the OT with the NT is one I have mulled over for a long time and I have not found a satisfactory answer.

How do you view this topic?

There are several ways of approaching it and you definitely are not the first. I have read books, dissertations on it.

The most interesting one is that behind every law there is a principle and a Christian ought to isolate the principle therein and live it out or apply it. Very intuitive. But there are 615 laws and it would take a PhD in theology to unravel all these. A good example is the
1 Corinthians 9:8-10 (ESV)
8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake?

Here Paul making a case for supporting ministers quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. This am certain the principle would in 20,000 years have been lost to humanity had he not expounded it.

Back to your point.
Few are honest to do admit difficulty. It is almost as if it is blasphemy. One needs to understand that limits of human understanding is not sin.
Personally, I approach it on a case by case basis understanding no attempt is perfect.

I realize that ALL God's laws are basically dos and don'ts; either you are asked to DO something or to refrain from something. So my question is should I do this or should I stop doing that?

My PERSONAL approach, some questions I ponder.
1. Is it ANYWHERE in the scriptures commanded to be done or not to be done?
2. If YES, how often and where, NT/OT? And is it to a specific group or universal?
3. If not, is there anything close to it commanded to be done or against, or would it violate a readily discernible principle?


Applying this line of inquiry, how would you answer somebody who drinks human blood with a clean conscience?
Note, she kills nobody, she meets up with friends and they draw small portions of blood,exchange them and toast to life

 

[Crabtownboy]

Again, thanks for a good, calm, clear and rational answer.

There are several ways of approaching it and you definitely are not the first. I have read books, dissertations on it.

The most interesting one is that behind every law there is a principle and a Christian ought to isolate the principle therein and live it out or apply it. Very intuitive. But there are 615 laws and it would take a PhD in theology to unravel all these. A good example is the
1 Corinthians 9:8-10 (ESV)
8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake?

Here Paul making a case for supporting ministers quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. This am certain the principle would in 20,000 years have been lost to humanity had he not expounded it.

I agree. Also this law is very practical. A farmer does not want the ox eating the grain as he treads the grain.

Back to your point.
Few are honest to do admit difficulty. It is almost as if it is blasphemy. One needs to understand that limits of human understanding is not sin.

I believe that God welcomes such questions. I also believe that many folk are afraid to voice, to them-self or to others that they have questions. God understands that we do not understand. Sometimes we do receive answers and those answers may come from others, from books, from the Bible and at times from God.

Personally, I approach it on a case by case basis understanding no attempt is perfect.

To me that is a wise approach and I agree our human approaches are never perfect even as we try to the best of our understanding and ability to be perfect.

I realize that ALL God's laws are basically dos and don'ts; either you are asked to DO something or to refrain from something. So my question is should I do this or should I stop doing that?

My PERSONAL approach, some questions I ponder.
1. Is it ANYWHERE in the scriptures commanded to be done or not to be done?
2. If YES, how often and where, NT/OT? And is it to a specific group or universal?
3. If not, is there anything close to it commanded to be done or against, or would it violate a readily discernible principle?[/quote]

Again I think that is a wise approach while knowing, at least for myself, that to give one law, or question as you will, priority over another is another slippery slope. But much of life is such and we strive as best we can.

Applying this line of inquiry, how would you answer somebody who drinks human blood with a clean conscience?
Note, she kills nobody, she meets up with friends and they draw small portions of blood,exchange them and toast to life

To me that is a hard question as we, if we take Leviticus seriously, would never eat or drink any blood. So much for rare steaks. And this takes us to the crux of the matter IMHO.

Lev. 17:10 “And if any native Israelite or foreigner living among you eats or drinks blood in any form, I will turn against that person and cut him off from the community of your people, 11 for the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the Lord.[e] It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible. 12 That is why I have said to the people of Israel, ‘You must never eat or drink blood—neither you nor the foreigners living among you.’

13 “And if any native Israelite or foreigner living among you goes hunting and kills an animal or bird that is approved for eating, he must drain its blood and cover it with earth. 14 The life of every creature is in its blood. That is why I have said to the people of Israel, ‘You must never eat or drink blood, for the life of any creature is in its blood.’ So whoever consumes blood will be cut off from the community.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[vooks]

Crabtownboy,
There is a reason I posed the hypothetical blood question.
Are you saying that had the bible not forbidden drinking blood, you would have no reason for dissuading our sister?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabtownboy,
There is a reason I posed the hypothetical blood question.
Are you saying that had the bible not forbidden drinking blood, you would have no reason for dissuading our sister?

Being who I am and where I grew up I would try to dissuade them.

Perhaps I took your comment too literally.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

CTB, I think you're just fine with that steak. God knows, better than any butcher or scientist, that it's virtually impossible to drain 100% of the blood from an animal. His directive points to obedience, much more than to the incidental consumption of a few corpuscles. Modern slaughterhouses' blood draining is at least as efficient as that of the Hebrews in the wilderness, probably better, as animal blood is now a saleable product (often as organic fertilizer) rather than something to be buried.
(And I suspect I've told you nothing that you did not already know.)