Leviticus

Gurgle

As suggested in the Christian tolerance thread, heres a new thread about the Old Testament in general and Leviticus in particular.

Can anyone give me the who, how and why of the various bits of the Old Testament which 'no longer apply', such as burning witches and prostitutes, the various clean and unclean animals, stoning adulterers, the procedures for making sacrafices etc.

Is Christianity a matter of the new testament or the whole bible?

Who decided what was 'in' and what was 'out'?
Were all the details covered by the teaching of Jesus?

santing

There are many places in the New Testament that explain the relationship with the Old Testament. A good place to start would be the letter to the Hebrews, esp. Hebrews 9 & 10.

antiskeptic

Gurgle wrote: »

As suggested in the Christian tolerance thread, heres a new thread about the Old Testament in general and Leviticus in particular.

Can anyone give me the who, how and why of the various bits of the Old Testament which 'no longer apply', such as burning witches and prostitutes, the various clean and unclean animals, stoning adulterers, the procedures for making sacrafices etc.

Is Christianity a matter of the new testament or the whole bible?

Who decided what was 'in' and what was 'out'?
Were all the details covered by the teaching of Jesus?

You ask too large a question(s) to be answered in even a month of Sundays. Global, broad brush stroke though:


1) God chose a certain people to be the the shell/white of an egg. They were called "The Israelites". The yoke of that egg, that which was to be protected and nutured and brought about ... by the existance of the shell and yoke .. was the Messiah.

Christ incarnated and delivered up for mankinds sin. Christ living/dying/resurrected. A fulcrum of the whole history of mankind. The yoke, the centre-piece of an egg.

The purity laws in Leviticus have to do (by and large) with bringing about and sustaining the separateness of the chosen people. To ensure they'd be of the form shell and eggwhite. Christ was born into a godly-minded people by virtue of preparation arising from Israelite history. It wouldn't be fit for him to be born into the pit of depravity that is mankind at large (when it's left to it's own devices, when God permits himself to be completely excluded from the equation)

Now, because the purpose of a Christian (me, for example) isn't quite the same as that of an Israelite, the laws of Leviticus (and the like), which have a purpose in developing shell and eggwhite, have no application to me.



2) There is the law that exists in the Old and New Testament that is said to apply to all men at all times. An example of such a law is: thou shalt not kill. The thing that decides that this is the case is spiritually discerned unfortunately. If you're not born again then you simply won't be able to discern it - you'd be spiritually dead and dead people don't tend towards discerning things.

That said. A(n not unimportant) subset of such universal applicable laws is the question of whether you are ruled by (what is called) the Law of Sin and Death or whether you are ruled by (what is called) the Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ Jesus. There's a world of difference.


The Law of Sin and Death says:

"Thou shalt not murder"

If you disobey this law (either by murdering a la classic style or .. as Jesus said.. by being angry in your heart against another) then you will suffer in Hell for it. There is that law, you have broken it and the punishment you shall have.


The Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ Jesus says;

"Thou shalt not murder"

If you disobey this law (either by murdering a la classic style or .. as Jesus said .. by being angry in your heart against another) then you will enjoy less treasure in Heaven that you would otherwise have. There is that law, you have broken it and the punishment you shall have.




It's a question of which law you are governed by in other words. The lost are governed (and are subject to) the former Law of Sin and Death. The saved are governed by the Law of the Spirit of Life..

Same law (at least in letter) but different outcomes - depending on your status before God. Lost or Found

ISAW

Gurgle wrote: »

As suggested in the Christian tolerance thread, heres a new thread about the Old Testament in general and Leviticus in particular.

Can anyone give me the who, how and why of the various bits of the Old Testament which 'no longer apply', such as burning witches and prostitutes, the various clean and unclean animals, stoning adulterers, the procedures for making sacrafices etc.

Is Christianity a matter of the new testament or the whole bible?

Who decided what was 'in' and what was 'out'?
Were all the details covered by the teaching of Jesus?

Fair questions.
It would seem in the earlyu church people who were jews decided to join. But they wondered if they should be circumsised. That was the Jewish law. so they asked about it and Paul basically says "If you are already circumsises we will take you but if you are not you don't have to be" One argument was that the Jews were the chosen people but had rejected God so Jesus made a new covenant. the old laws therefore didnt apply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_law_in_Christianity

Gurgle

Thanks for the background guys, but what I'm after is the detail.

I guess I should ask more specific questions:

Sacrifice of animals - Was this practice ended with the advent of Christianity, or later on? Is it something Jesus specifically taught was no longer required?

Unclean animals - at what point did it become acceptable to eat animals without cloven hooves? Pigs for example have been farmed for 13,000 years. (Kosher) Jews don't eat them, presumably early Christians didn't either, but I know nothing of any period in early Christian Europe when they weren't eaten.

Burning / stoning of various offenders - This is specifically prescribed in Leviticus, and certainly up to approx 1800 witches were still being burned by European Christians. Did it only cease due to intervention by more secular governments?

santing

Gurgle wrote: »

Thanks for the background guys, but what I'm after is the detail.

I guess I should ask more specific questions:

Sacrifice of animals - Was this practice ended with the advent of Christianity, or later on? Is it something Jesus specifically taught was no longer required?

Yes, sacrifices were a foretype of the perfect sacrifce - the Lord Jesus. See for instance Heb 10:8-9

When Christ said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first I]sacrifices[/I in order to establish the second I]doing God's will[/I.
(Heb 10:8-9 ESV)

Gurgle wrote: »

Unclean animals - at what point did it become acceptable to eat animals without cloven hooves? Pigs for example have been farmed for 13,000 years. (Kosher) Jews don't eat them, presumably early Christians didn't either, but I know nothing of any period in early Christian Europe when they weren't eaten.

A great example you find in Acts 9:

And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common." (Act 10:13-15 ESV)

Or more explicit:

"The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. ... For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Act 15:23-29 ESV)

This removes the requirements of the law of the Old Testament, incl. the 10 commandments!

Gurgle wrote: »

Burning / stoning of various offenders - This is specifically prescribed in Leviticus, and certainly up to approx 1800 witches were still being burned by European Christians. Did it only cease due to intervention by more secular governments?

An example you can find in John 8.

they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."]] (Joh 8:4-11 ESV)

The example set at the betrayal of the Lord Jesus:

And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" (Mat 26:51-54 ESV)

and

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." (Joh 18:36 ESV)

PDN

Gurgle wrote: »

Sacrifice of animals - Was this practice ended with the advent of Christianity, or later on? Is it something Jesus specifically taught was no longer required?

John the Baptist identified Jesus as the perfect sacrifice who was to fulfill all the temporary sacrifices of Judaism (John 1:29).

For Christians they stopped pretty soon after the Church began. This was probably because Christians began to ask themselves, "Hang on, if we believe what we do about Jesus being a sacrifice for our sin then why are we still offering these other sacrifices?" It would be a bit like having your SatNav still on when you've already reached your destination.

For Jews it ended in 70AD when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. No temple - no sacrifices.

Jesus Himself certainly encouraged His disciples to distinguish between the important moral requirements of God's Law and the ceremonial stuff like sacrifices and sabbaths etc.

I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:6-8)

Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:32-34)

Afterwards, as the Christians reflected on this and expressed it theologically, we find the writer to the Hebrews saying,

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. (Hebrews 7:23-27)

Therefore it was understood that the sacrifical system and other ceremonial stuff like circumcision etc no longer applied to Christians:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Colossians 2:13-16)

ISAW

Gurgle wrote: »

Thanks for the background guys, but what I'm after is the detail.

I guess I should ask more specific questions:

Sacrifice of animals - Was this practice ended with the advent of Christianity, or later on? Is it something Jesus specifically taught was no longer required?

Unclean animals - at what point did it become acceptable to eat animals without cloven hooves? Pigs for example have been farmed for 13,000 years. (Kosher) Jews don't eat them, presumably early Christians didn't either, but I know nothing of any period in early Christian Europe when they weren't eaten.

You refer to continuity of Kashrut.
My guess is that early Christians rescinded dietary laws.
http://www.abcog.org/food.htm
Paul's words within his short treatise on idolatry (in I Corinthians 10) are used to justify, eating unclean foods when eating out. He said "If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising questions of conscience" (v.27).
...
Paul specifically points out that certain substances, defined by God's Word, are set apart for use as food. Some are not. So around 60 A.D., almost 30 years after Christ's resurrection, the apostle Paul still hadn't got the message that Jesus had "made all meats clean"!

Note that Paul calls the false teaching demonic.
...
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/the-bible-diet-1.html
it needs to be acknowledged that some things were "done away with" in the New Testament. Clear scriptures record that the New Testament did abolish the need for animal sacrifices and the various rites associated with those sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9-15, 10:4). It is also clear that the requirement of physical circumcision was abolished (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Some might say: " See, that means the whole law of Moses was abolished, " but that is a recklessly broad claim. Since the Ten Commandments were part of the "law of Moses," an assertion that the whole "law of Moses" was "done away with" also asserts the Ten Commandments were "done away with." Does that mean Christians are now "free" to rob banks, lie, sleep with anyone they want to and murder at will?"

santing

ISAW wrote: »

You refer to continuity of Kashrut.
My guess is that early Christians rescinded dietary laws.
http://www.abcog.org/food.htm
Paul's words within his short treatise on idolatry (in I Corinthians 10) are used to justify, eating unclean foods when eating out. He said "If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising questions of conscience" (v.27).
...
Paul specifically points out that certain substances, defined by God's Word, are set apart for use as food. Some are not. So around 60 A.D., almost 30 years after Christ's resurrection, the apostle Paul still hadn't got the message that Jesus had "made all meats clean"!

Note that Paul calls the false teaching demonic.

Paul did get the message all right. What he refers to here is that eating of meat sacrificed to idols could mean participating in idolatry. So if your host tells you that the food is sacrificed to an idol, Paul says abstain!

ISAW wrote: »

...
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/the-bible-diet-1.html
it needs to be acknowledged that some things were "done away with" in the New Testament. Clear scriptures record that the New Testament did abolish the need for animal sacrifices and the various rites associated with those sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9-15, 10:4). It is also clear that the requirement of physical circumcision was abolished (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Some might say: " See, that means the whole law of Moses was abolished, " but that is a recklessly broad claim. Since the Ten Commandments were part of the "law of Moses," an assertion that the whole "law of Moses" was "done away with" also asserts the Ten Commandments were "done away with." Does that mean Christians are now "free" to rob banks, lie, sleep with anyone they want to and murder at will?"

Yes, Christians are free, not bound by law. But we are not free to serve our sinful nature, we are free to do the will of God. We don't "rob banks, lie, sleep with anyone we want to or murder at will" because there is a law forbidding us, but because it is not in accordance with God's will.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Paul's words within his short treatise on idolatry (in I Corinthians 10) are used to justify, eating unclean foods when eating out. He said "If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising questions of conscience" (v.27).
...
Paul specifically points out that certain substances, defined by God's Word, are set apart for use as food. Some are not. So around 60 A.D., almost 30 years after Christ's resurrection, the apostle Paul still hadn't got the message that Jesus had "made all meats clean"!

1 Corinthians 10 is referring to the specific case of where meat had previously been offered as a sacrifice to an idol as part of pagan worship (not to Jewish dietary laws). This pagan practice, extremely common in a city like Corinth, was based on the belief that consuming such meat bonded one to the deity to which the sacrifice had been made. Refusal to eat such meals could render you unemployable, since membership of craftsmen's guilds was tied into such events.

So, it would be incorrect to say that Paul 'hadn't got the message' about Jesus fulfilling the law about clean and unclean foods - but rather that he was guiding his Corinthian audience through some thorny ethical issues as to how much they could participate in a thoroughly pagan society without being guilty of idolatry.

http://www.abcog.org/food.htm & http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/t...le-diet-1.html

These websites are heavily slanted towards the teachings of the Seventh Day Adventists and their offshoots, and as such would not reflect the position of historic Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) nor of biblical scholars in the academic world.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you disobey this law (either by murdering a la classic style or .. as Jesus said .. by being angry in your heart against another) then you will enjoy less treasure in Heaven that you would otherwise have. There is that law, you have broken it and the punishment you shall have.

I didn't think being saved could be quantified like that. Does that mean all (genuine) Christians are saved, but some are more saved than others?

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

I didn't think being saved could be quantified like that. Does that mean all (genuine) Christians are saved, but some are more saved than others?

The Bible indicates that there are differing degrees of reward in Eternity - but they would appear to be just that (degrees of reward) rather than losing privileges because of sin.

Genuine Christians, I believe, do not commit murder at all. In fact the very act of committing murder would indicate that their profession of salvation was insincere.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

These websites are heavily slanted towards the teachings of the Seventh Day Adventists and their offshoots, and as such would not reflect the position of historic Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) nor of biblical scholars in the academic world.

Fair enough. are you saying that my guess is wrong and that Early (by say the end of the first century) Christians had not repealed dietary laws? I don't think Im wrong about that but I'll accept criticism if you can prove it.

By the way a scientologist,m Islamic scholar or atheist can make a valid academic point about Christianity even if their wider teachings are not in concert with mainstream Christianity. If you are saying the interpetation of the Bible passages I gave is wrong as far as Roman Orthodox or Anglical teaching goes then care to show where. I accept the "didnt get it " point and thought it a bit ropey myself but the non application of and laws and customs on sacrifice and on diet by the end of the first century is the main issue raised - for whatever reason given whether the underlying reason is incorrect I believe it happened. are you saying it din't happen by then and "the idea that dietary and sacrifice laws were dropped by 100AD does not reflect the position of historic Christianity" or are you saying that you agree it did happen?

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough. are you saying that my guess is wrong and that Early (by say the end of the first century) Christians had not repealed dietary laws? I don't think Im wrong about that but I'll accept criticism if you can prove it.

No, I'm saying that they had repealed (or treated them as fulfilled - which amounts to the same thing) the dietary laws - and much earlier than by the end of the first Century. Those Christians who saw themselves as still being Jewish probably would have kept the dietary rules up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD (more so out of tradition and a desire not to annoy their neigbours than anything else) but the rest of the Church had evidently jettisoned the food laws earlier than that.

By the way a scientologist,m Islamic scholar or atheist can make a valid academic point about Christianity even if their wider teachings are not in concert with mainstream Christianity. If you are saying the interpetation of the Bible passages I gave is wrong as far as Roman Orthodox or Anglical teaching goes then care to show where. I accept the "didnt get it " point and thought it a bit ropey myself but the non application of and laws and customs on sacrifice and on diet by the end of the first century is the main issue raised - for whatever reason given whether the underlying reason is incorrect I believe it happened. are you saying it din't happen by then and "the idea that dietary and sacrifice laws were dropped by 100AD does not reflect the position of historic Christianity" or are you saying that you agree it did happen?

Sorry, I evidently didn't make myself clear. I'm not disagreeing about the dietary and food laws being dropped by 100 AD - in fact I think they were dropped much earlier.

I disagree with those websites because they attempt to interpret the words of Jesus, and other New Testament passages, in a way that would make the food laws still binding on Christians today (in accordance with Seventh Day Adventist Teaching).

I think people of any religious background, or none, can study and interpret the Bible and make very valid points about its interpretation. But I get very suspicious when one sect, denomination or group start claiming that their interpretation of a passage happens to be the right one and everybody else (including those who study theology in a more dispassionate academic setting) is wrong. In such cases you find that people are not asking "What does the Bible mean?" but rather "How can I find a meaning that justifies my own church's particular stance?"

So, if almost all Christians throughout history, and biblical scholars of various stripes and affiliations, agree that Jesus and His followers saw the food laws as temporary and non-binding upon Christians - then it is unlikely that the Seventh Day Adventists' rather self-serving interpretations (arguing that food laws are still binding on Christians today) will be correct.

I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

Yeah it does but it is a habit of mine to use examples from the opposition or sources which could not possibly be biased in favour of the position I am taking.
I didn't quote them or mean to quote them saying the laws still apply . If it seemed that way I didn't intend that. I quoted the reference to show examples in support of the law being recinded.

A regards the 70 AD Im happy to accept that date but like the gospels I have no knowledge of extensive writings which survive from that period but I think there is evidence such writings existed and the Earliest parts of the Old Testament existed then. Certaqinly the oral teaching did. WE just dont have most of it in writings which survive today until about between 150 AD and 200AD but thee are New Testament writings surviving from the time of people who lived when Jesus did or from people who took dictation from them.

I'm not aware any refer to diet. In other words while the Bible may refer to such laws Im not aware that extant texts of that passage survive from say before 100AD. that does not mean however the date isn't before 100 AD just no originals from then survve and only later copies attesting to that date.


Heres something Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus [a.d. 130] Matheides Chapter IV.—The other observances of the Jews.
Mathetes is, perhaps, the first of the apologists.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iii.ii.iv.html

Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, [a.d. 110–165]with Trypho, a Jew

Chapter XXIII.—The opinion of the Jews regarding the law does an injury to God.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xxiii.html