Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Provide the references and I'll address it.

TySixtus

If you could tell me the 'context' in which these versus are okay, I'd appreciate it. Also, some explanation of the verse ordering parents to kill their child if they worship other gods besides Yahweh.

Ty

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Ty,
The passages in Leviticus discuss the civil law that was specific to the theocracy or nation state of Israel. In the O.T., you find three types of law, the civil, ceremonial, and moral law. While the moral law continues, the majority of Christians agree that the civil and ceremonial laws do not continue, though the principles found in them carry over, but with different application. (For those who are not Christians, I know this sounds confusing... so let me explain...)

God, in the Old Testament period sought to display holiness by calling and bringing out a people from the remainder of the nations who would be called by his name and known as his children. It was therefore necessary for them to learn holiness and to put aside their former attitudes and practices. In doing so, God would not only provide a blessing to them in leading them from a life of pollution and sin to a life of purity, but also would display his holiness before the world as his people would serve as a witness through lives of righteousness and holiness.

So, in the process, God provided laws, commands, decrees, etc. not only to show them and teach them what is holy and what is not, but to provide a system of reward and punishment for those who obeyed/disobeyed, which served as a measure of grace to commend obedience, but also as an instrument of punishment for those who did not. It is in this context that Lev. 20:9, 13, 15 are found. Through the different punishments in the chapter, one can see that while all sins are condemnable before God, there are those that are more hideous in his sight than others.

One must note that these laws were given SPECIFICALLY for the theocracy or nation state of Israel.

Christians acknowledge that Christ has fulfilled both the civil as well as ceremonial law, though the moral law continues in the church age.

That being said, the question must be asked: Do these laws still apply today, and if so in what context?

What you find is that the definition of what is holy or unholy is timeless and does not change. However, since the church today is not the same as the nation state of Israel, the handling of the matter is different. While the nation state of Israel possessed civil power (along with ecclesiastical authorities in the church), the church today possesses no civil authority but only ecclesiastical authority. Additionally, what you find is that the physical punishments of the Old Testament serve as a picture of the greater reality found in the spiritual realities of the New Testament. For example, while in Leviticus, a homosexual was to be put to physical death, it was only a picture of the greater truth that is found today, that if one denies the teaching of God and persists in their sin, not looking to Christ, but choosing the way of unholiness, then it is not the physical punishment of Christians they must fear, but the ultimate judgment of God, who in his word states that no sexually immoral person will enter heaven (referring to those who deny Christ and choose rather to live in unrighteousness.) The Christian today is not to go out and put such a person to death, but is to warn the person of impending judgment and encourage them to turn from such sin. At the same time, we are called to promote righteousness, which we can do by supporting our political representatives. Finally, Christians possess ecclesiastic authority for excommunicating from the church those who are contumacious and bring into question their submission and obedience to Christ, whose word commands against such behavior. Our power in the church though is ONLY spiritual and ecclesiastical in nature.

As far as Exodus 32:27, this too occured in a former dispensation in which God unveiled his truth and redemption differently than he does today in the church age. In this passage, God displayed his holy wrath through his people that he uses as instruments of his own wrath against those who denied him and served idols instead. Those who exercised God's wrath on his command did not sin, because they were acting in accordance with the clear command of God through the prophet Moses. However, Christians today do not believe God acts through these same means, but rather governs and guides his people through the Scripture (which when considering the progress of revelation does not now command the physical killing of idolators). That incident was to serve as a warning for all ages that God will not allow the guilty to go unpunished who reject him and serve other gods. Again, though they are not subject to immediate physical death today, the greater spiritual judgment and punishment is something they/we should be concerned with. That's why we are exhorted to live our lives here and now in reverent fear.

TySixtus

You’re right. I’m confused. Who/when/how was it decided that the civil and ceremonial laws were ‘fulfilled’ and the moral ones were not?

What does it mean to ‘fulfill’ a law? No offense, but this really sounds like Christian hooey. It makes no sense. In what way does a law become fulfilled?

First of all, this isn’t relevant. As far as Christians (and the Jews, in the OT) were concerned, their Messiah was a going to kick out the bad guys and establish some hard line Jewish (Christian) rule. Their god would rule the world, as is stated, and his Chosen People would be his favorites. Those that didn’t fall in line were going to be tossed into a lake of hellfire (according to the NT, anyways).

So for all intents and purposes, these rules applied to EVEYONE the Israeli state had, and would, conquer. Since they planned on ruling the entire world under the guidance of Yahweh, these rules were for everyone.

Saying that these laws only apply to the Israelite theocracy is like saying the laws of the US only affect the US. This is wrong. Our laws, by their consequences, affect the whole world. Laws aren’t contained by the country they are formed. They reach out, affecting trade, justice, warfare, economy… the list is endless.

Matthew 5: 17

Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the Law of Moses or the writings of the Prophets. No, I came to fulfill them. 18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God’s law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

There’s that word again. How does one ‘fulfill a law’? And lest you say their purpose was achieved, I ask you this:

What is the point of making something illegal, and punishable by death, if, eventually, it won’t be illegal and punishable by death? Does this not make your Christian morality subjective, and completely open to change and upset?


So in other words, you don’t follow some of the laws, but some of them you do. And you came to this conclusion how, exactly?

Especially disturbing is your explanation of why it was okay to kill a homosexual in the time of Leviticus, which amounts to “To show that homosexuality is bad, morally.� I still don’t see your explanation holding much water.

Again I ask, how do you make homosexuality non-punishable by death now, when in Leviticus it was punishable by death, without making your morality as a Christian totally subjective?

Ty

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Ty,
Your questions are good ones. It is the answer to these questions that help distinguish between what Jesus was saying and what he wasn't, what laws apply now and what ones don't, etc. However, your questions are also extensive, in that they involve questions of how to interpret all of Scripture, something not easily expressed in a few sentences. I'll provide a little.

In Matt 5:17, Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. You have to ask what law did he fulfill. The remainder of the N.T. shows the moral law is still in place, because the apostles state it is still sinful to lie, steal, commit adultery, etc. However, in the N.T., you do not find it necessary for God's people to sacrifice cows, but rather, you find texts where God says "Sacrifice and offering I do not desire, but a body I have prepared for you (referring to Christ). In other words, the O.T. ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ. Believers no longer are to sacrifice a bloody animal, but rather Jesus Christ, a spotless lamb, has now been shed for us, and serves as our offering before God, providing acceptance for his people. At the same time, in the N.T., the apostles do not continue to encourage the civil judgments of O.T. Israel as a nation state, but rather point to the greater reality of the present and final judgment of God upon those who commit sin.

The point being, one must recognize the progression of God's revelation and redemptive relationship and works among his people over time. This is referred to as biblical theology. It takes a subject and sees how that subject is treated throughout Scripture, noting differences between various passages, various books, various authors, various time periods, various covenants, etc.

To fulfill a law means that the requirements of the law are met. God requires perfect obedience of us in his law. Jesus met or fulfilled this requirement on behalf of his people. Those who look to him will be accepted before God has having met the requirements of the law not only through the forgiveness found as Christ has paid the penalty for our sins, but also as his perfect righteousness is imputed to us. The law remains in effect, however, for those who are not found in him. That does not mean you and I will be judged for the civil law given to the nation state of Israel; however the same laws are found in summary form in the moral law, which not only applied then, but remains in effect today. The civil law of Israel, was simply the application of the moral law in their context.

I do not deny the greater influence and effect of Israel's civil law. However, you miss the fact that God's ultimate plan for NOT for the physical conquering of the world, but this too, was a picture of the greater spiritual reality found in the gospel of Christ, through which God is now bringing people from around the world under his rule and righteousness.



As explained above, only by application of methods of hermeneutics can one rightly interpret the Scripture.

As far as homosexuality, it remains just as sinful as it always has been. The only difference, is that now for a time, rather than execute immediate judgment, God chooses for a time to be patient, that those live in such sin may turn from it and live. If not, he will bring about final and consumate judgment, which in the end, will be the same for both those of the O.T. and N.T.

Julian

Reverend, it is clear that you want to bible to carry a message of tolerance and love. Unfortunately, it doesn't. For some reason you believe you can make up any rules you like to re-interpret the text into your own image.

The law has been observed well after the nations of Israel and Judah fell. Unless you are going to imply that those christians weren't True Christians(tm)?

By adding your own words to the bible, under the guise of 'interpretation,' you are changing the message to what you think it should say. You don't like the fact that it is anti-family so you bend backwards to show that that is not what it says which, of course, is exactly what it does say. Although I agree that the word hate is used to make the message extra strong, it is clear that all adherence should be to god. "Let the dead bury their dead." This world is not important, it is the kingdom of god that matters. That doesn't sit well with the touchy-feely christians crowd nowadays so it gets changed.

People use the bible all the time to show that gays are bad. Who are you to say that your interpretation is the proper one? The people who wrote the bible didn't have modern sensibilities. You say:

You're just making this stuff up. You really have no shame. How do you know what god chooses to do? Or are you seeeing god's inaction as patience where a rational person would see it as non-existence?

The bible represents many different cultures and communities over many years. It is impossible to find a consistent message in the OT and NT. This forces christians to cherry-pick and 'interpret' but one would have hoped that a god could spell out a clearer message if he was really serious about making us understand...

Don't get me wrong, Reverend, I understand what you are trying to do and respect that your intentions are good. I also appreciate that you are participating on this board. But your interpretations smack of equivocation and self-delusion. I know you will disagree with this but the message you are delivering is your own and not that of the bible. Probably a good thing, since no one could possibly live according to the conflicting rules of that book.

Julian

TySixtus

Julian,

You took the words out of my mouth. (Or, fingers.)

Ty

Fortuna

Ty and Julian,

Thank you for asking. I was becoming quickly confused by the reverends explanations as well. I still dont quite get that "fulfill the law" bit, but here I think we start to get to the heart of the matter.


So, is he saying that since the penal requirement of many of these laws was death, that one death, that of Jesus, pays it for all time ? I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I suspect that there is something more going on here.

Here we see it, the idea of blood sacrifice, the idea that sacrifice can somehow atone for sin. But, here is where I see the conincidence of historical events. The Jews of this period were sacrificing in their temple, specifically making blood sacrifices of animals to their god for atonement, purification, etc. Thus, the idea of substitutionary atonement for sin is not new. Heck, they were substituting animals for as long as the second temple stood. That was after all, one of its primary purposes.

But , about 70CE the temple where these sacrifices were made was leveled to the ground (well, except for the west wall and the towers according to Josephus). Now, at this point, I can see how the idea of Jesus as a once and for all sacrifice becomes necessary. They have no adequate place to offer sacrifice in their minds. So, to give some continuity, they theologically suggest that Jesus made this ultimate sacrifice, so the temple was no longer necessary. I can see how politically and theologically necessary (to them) this whole Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice idea became. This I beleive, is the origin of this idea. It was a plausible theological and political explanation.

Correct me if I've got something wrong here, but I think the events of the time provide the adequate explanation for this idea.

TySixtus

Oh, you're absolutely correct, with regards to matching up the varied theological ideas. It's the fact that it's all made up, and has no bearing on reality, that makes me wonder at the sanity of it all.

But with regards to an omnimax god, killing people for a crime, and then not killing people for a crime, takes away the objectivity of the Christian Moral system. Reverend Tim just won't come out and say that it was okay to kill homosexuals, but now it's not, simply based on the writings of some 2,000 year-old goat herders.

Ty

Fortuna

Certainly. It's nothing more than relative morality following the standards of the time and locale. But, let's face it, this really isn't the work of an omnimax god. Those laws were the work of the theocratic bureaucrats of the goatherder nation. As moral standards change over time, becoming progressively more humanistic, religious believers have to rationalize it somehow and thus the explanations the good reverend is dispensing.

It's the slavery issue in reverse. In goatherder, Greco-Roman and medieval periods, slavery was acceptable. When humanistic standards began to see slavery as unjust, Christians had to follow suit. I've often heard the argument that Christianity was responsible for the elimination of slavery, especially in the USA. However, it took Christianity about 1500 years to "interpret" the NT such that it also saw slavery as unjust.

See, it's all in the "interpretation".