Do Christians Still Have To Follow OT Laws?

[+Link of Hyrule]

I don't know, why does he? It seems like a giant contradiction to say that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till heaven and Earth disappear and then a few lines down make exactly that happen.

Because of what it means to "fulfil" the Law. As a Christian, not only should I not "murder" (being the first example Jesus uses), but I should strive to even not be angry with my brother, for that is the same as committing murder in my heart. The physical law (murder) has been "fulfilled" to provide a new spiritual understanding (do not show anger to others).

Much the same can be said for all of the Laws. None of it has been "done away" with, but it is not necessarily practised in exactly the same way today. Without specific examples I can only speak in general terms, but that's the simple answer to it (for the record, I don't claim to have specific answers to all the different laws, I'm not perfect, you know).

The punishment is a law, it's a law on how to punish.

I'm afraid there is no possible way I can agree with you on that. If I commit murder, I have broken the LAW. In sentencing, I am then being PUNISHED for breaking the Law. If that punishment happens to be death by whatever means, then it is not a Law in itself, but only a punishment. Though every legal system does provide certain ground-rules with which to punish a person according to their crimes, this is part of the legal system's basis of punishment, not the Law itself.

Law: "Do not participate in homosexual acts in ritual worship to false gods" (still very much applicable)

Punishment: "Execute those who do" (not necessarily transferable to today, especially not in a modern world which has its own set of laws which forbids us to use vigilante justice).

Laws are not punishments, simple as that. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll disagree with my post again, but this makes perfect sense, in my opinion.

~ Regards,

[MARAB0D]

Executing homosexuals is not a Law, it is a punishment. This is a common misconception and people don't often realise that a Law and a punishment are not the same. Thus at the micro-level, we are only told to keep the laws, not necessarily the punishments associated with not following those laws.

Though to be clear, the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 (from whence I assume you are getting your comment here) are not directed at all homosexual sex, but rather homosexual sex as done within the context of idol worship (a common practice among many ancient Mesopotamian deities, which is presumably what Leviticus is aimed at). Thus unless someone has sex in a ritual act of worship to ancient deities there is no feasible way to execute a homosexual today, even were it a "Law" (which I have already suggested it is not, only a punishment, and punishments and laws are not the same).

Sorry, PA, but your explanation appears extremely unclear: the book says in a direct way

Leviticus 20:13

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.

In context this would be:

10And 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.

11And 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.

12And 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.

13If 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.

14And 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.

so the book just talk about sexual crimes, not about some worshiping to some pagan god. It sets the law and determines the punishment. I guess on this you are a bit confused, just find the mesopotamian deities in this context, please!

[Wootloops]

Because of what it means to "fulfil" the Law. As a Christian, not only should I not "murder" (being the first example Jesus uses), but I should strive to even not be angry with my brother, for that is the same as committing murder in my heart. The physical law (murder) has been "fulfilled" to provide a new spiritual understanding (do not show anger to others).

Much the same can be said for all of the Laws. None of it has been "done away" with, but it is not necessarily practised in exactly the same way today. Without specific examples I can only speak in general terms, but that's the simple answer to it (for the record, I don't claim to have specific answers to all the different laws, I'm not perfect, you know).

That might work for the murder law, as it's not changing the law not to murder, it's just changing what is considered murder. But when you get down to what he says about an eye for an eye, he has gotten rid of the law and made it "turn him the other cheek also", and so Jesus is still contradicting himself. And if the fulfilling of the law really meant just giving further understanding of it, then why would Jesus just list like five and say that they won't all be fulfilled until heaven and Earth disappear, when he could have done it right then and there? I think it's likely he means something else by fulfilled.

I'm afraid there is no possible way I can agree with you on that. If I commit murder, I have broken the LAW. In sentencing, I am then being PUNISHED for breaking the Law. If that punishment happens to be death by whatever means, then it is not a Law in itself, but only a punishment. Though every legal system does provide certain ground-rules with which to punish a person according to their crimes, this is part of the legal system's basis of punishment, not the Law itself.

Law: "Do not participate in homosexual acts in ritual worship to false gods" (still very much applicable)

Punishment: "Execute those who do" (not necessarily transferable to today, especially not in a modern world which has its own set of laws which forbids us to use vigilante justice).

Laws are not punishments, simple as that. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll disagree with my post again, but this makes perfect sense, in my opinion.

~ Regards,

I smell semantics. Those "ground-rules" are the laws about how you can punish people!! It is a law that you can't put someone to death that pleads guilty (I think). That is a law of punishment. The act of executing someone for something is a punishment, but that thing which says to inflict that punishment for that action is a law, not a punishment, or else you'd be calling it a punishment of punishment, which makes no sense.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Wootloops

[eight bits]

... doesn't this verse say quite clearly that you still have to follow the laws of the Old Testament?

No, it says he, Jesus, fulfilled the law.

By the way, when do you think "heaven and earth passed away?" Note the past tense; recall that Isaiah is part of "the law," review 65:17

Lo, I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; The things of the past shall not be remembered or come to mind.

As Matthew says, Jesus' public teaching was carefully and artfully phrased lest Jesus be prematurely hauled before a religious court for blasphemy. What your quote says is blasphemy as his enemies view the law: Jesus is equating himself with Isaiah's Lord. Jesus should be stoned then and there.

But the humor is that the "scribes and Pharisees" don't get it; they hear Jesus sidestepping some lesser included charge. Curses, foiled again.

Whatever else, Jesus knows his Bible. You got rooked, woot.

[Wootloops]

No, it says he, Jesus, fulfilled the law.

By the way, when do you think "heaven and earth passed away?" Note the past tense; recall that Isaiah is part of "the law," review 65:17

Lo, I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; The things of the past shall not be remembered or come to mind.

As Matthew says, Jesus' public teaching was carefully and artfully phrased lest Jesus be prematurely hauled before a religious court for blasphemy. What your quote says is blasphemy as his enemies view the law: Jesus is equating himself with Isaiah's Lord. Jesus should be stoned then and there.

But the humor is that the "scribes and Pharisees" don't get it; they hear Jesus sidestepping some lesser included charge. Curses, foiled again.

Whatever else, Jesus knows his Bible. You got rooked, woot.

What exactly are you saying Jesus is saying when he says "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."?

[randomhit10]

(Matthew 5:17-18): Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.

Christians, doesn't this verse say quite clearly that you still have to follow the laws of the Old Testament? I've never really heard an answer to this, so I'm interested in what people will say.

i believe that Jesus made this reference also to calm the ruling priesthood...that He had not come to destroy them (the lawyers of that time)...be He had come to fulfill the prophecy that He would become our mediator...

there are many laws on the books but as a gentile who was brought in after the fact we are only given just a few to follow by Peter and his brothers....

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

as far as what is expected for Jews i really don't know...

randomhit10

[eight bits]

What exactly are you saying Jesus is saying when he says "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."?

Actually, I was writing about the entire passage quoted in the OP,

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.

That means that he, Jesus, says he is the one whom Isaiah prophesied, the one who will establish the new relationship between man and God which Isaiah foretells.

Jesus alludes to Isaiah in order to say something about himself and his mission. Jesus is speaking neither to nor about "Christians," a word and concept that was at least a century yet to come when Jesus spoke, if he actually ever did speak.

BTW, the reason why you think "till heaven and earth pass" would mean "in perpetuity" of all things is that you speak a language whose corpus of cliches stands on the twin pillars of Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

Like every other word and phrase, once this religious term passed into the language, it came to mean whatever the linguistic community took it to mean, regardless of the original intent, which was to describe renewal within history rather than crispy critters at the end of history.

"Knowledge of good and evil" or "My God, My God, why have you foresaken me?" are two other examples of phrases which, divorced from their Old Testament context, come to mean "what they sound like," or sound like in some "least common denominator" sense.

So, from time to time, we get breathless threads about each of them, and what a crisis for Christianity it is - or would be if only they really did mean what they sort-of sound like.

To which there is only one answer. The startling phrase means something else: an idiom, an opening line of a Psalm, or, as in the present case, a key prophecy being announced as fulfilled.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Sorry, PA, but your explanation appears extremely unclear: the book says in a direct way

In context this would be:

so the book just talk about sexual crimes, not about some worshiping to some pagan god. It sets the law and determines the punishment. I guess on this you are a bit confused, just find the mesopotamian deities in this context, please!

Hi marabod, in the context of the entirety of Leviticus 18 and 20, it is pretty clear that the command on homosexuality is indeed a reference to homosexual sex within idol worship. It is not just a series of sex-crimes. If you have a Bible to read along, I suggest reading along, since my following comment will draw heavily from Leviticus 18 (and to a lesser extent, Leviticus 20). I'll quote some of the verses, but for brevity, you're going to need to read along to see the rest that I discuss in less detail. Leviticus 18 and 20 are not so much lists of sex-crimes but rather part of a wider body of work that teaches the people of Israel to be different to the other nations, and instead follow only the God of Abraham. The opening verses of Leviticus 18 begin with this theme:

18:1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

18:2 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God.

18:3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.

Verse three puts into context the timing of when this was written (leaving Egypt, arriving in Canaan), and this is a strong command to not be like those people. The following commands from Leviticus 18 are all extensions on this statement. Verses 4-5 continue with claims of God's headship (repeated phrase, "I am the Lord" vv2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 30 is of importance to note), and is a continued reminder of WHY Israel should live not like those other nations. Verses 6-18 then deal with various forms of sexual expression towards family and relatives. The boundaries of these forbidden relations go beyond the strict biological incestuous views, with in-laws and step-relatives included - by family, if not by blood.

The size of Israelite families living under one roof is considerable, and these laws appear to be aimed at ensuring two things - the Rights of the women to not be exploited (eg, sexual abuse), and secondly (and probably more contextually accurate in light of verses 1-3) the outlawing of the kind of incestuous sexual relationships that were conducted in Egyptian and Mesopotamian royal houses. Since this is done under the context of not being like Egypt or Canaan (Mesopotamia was part of this area), it is an appropriate consideration.

Verses 19-20 address more general uncleanliness - not necessarily familial sexual relations, but extensions of forbidden sexual desires.

However, from here on, Leviticus 18 takes a sharp turn. The verse commonly used to condemn homosexuality is grouped in verses 21-25. Verse 21 is of particular note:

18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

Molech was pagan God found worshipped through Canaan - and thus a new strain emerges in this passage about idolatrous practices (specifically, do not offer your children up to Molech as an offering). This is not arbitrary, and clearly signals a new direction in the text - the text no longer focuses on forbidden sexual relations, but moves on to worship of false gods. All of this is done so that Israel can keep itself separate from the other nations (the repeated phrase, "I am the LORD" coupled with the command in verse 3 to be separate from them).

Verses 22-23 (of which we specifically get the command on homosexuality) then outline the evils of male-to-male sexual acts, and male and female sex-acts with animals. Both these practices were common in idolatrous acts of worship to gods in Egypt, Canaan, and elsewhere around the ancient world.

Verses 26-30 bookend these laws by repeating the initial commands of verses 1-3 (do not act like the other nations, keep yourself pure to Yahweh) while warning of the dangers of not doing so.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Hebrew word translated here as "abomination" (Hebrew to-ebah)is a highly religious term in Hebraic text, used frequently to denote idol worship (eg, do not worship false idols, it is an abomination.... note the similarity to Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination).

In context then of the whole chapter 18, there is the opening introduction in verses 1-3 (command to Israel to make themselves different to Egypt and Canaan), verse 21 (idolatrous practice to Molech), the religious connotation of to ebah, and the religious practices of the nations around Israel (including male-to-male sex and man-to-beast sex within various idolatrous practices) and it's pretty clear that homosexual behaviour is here being addressed in terms of idolatry, with the overriding theme being to remain true to Yahweh worship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for Leviticus 20 (the other passage used in Leviticus to support condemnation of homosexuals), there is not a great deal to say that has not been said already about chapter 18. The list here in many ways mirrors that of chapter 18, but adds an extra element of punishments to fit those crimes. It first repeats the statement about giving children over to Molech (verses 1-5), then moves into the consulting of spirits, mediums, necromancers, etc in verse 6 (another common practice of other nations, which was to be avoided by the Israelites). The passage in Leviticus 20 even uses the phrase "whoring after them" to describe Israel's action towards these practices.

Verses 7-8 is yet another call to be holy and set apart for God (a clear theme of this whole section). The next few verses (9-21) cover the major sexual themes of chapter 18 (including homosexual activity), outlining punishments for each of these crimes. And after that list, is the concluding remarks:

20:22 "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.

20:23 And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.".

These claims extol again the concept of living differently to the Canaanites or the Egyptians, or anyone else - for fear that the land will "vomit you out". Do not live by the customs or religious practices of these nations, but instead follow God in purity. Verses 24-27 conclude by again reiterating the importance of keeping holy and different to that of the lands of Canaan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry for the long reply, Marabod, but you did ask me to provide evidence of reference to Mesopotamian deities. Molech was one of these deities. Mesopotamia was just one area of which the entire passage was referring to, and that is clearly addressed in Leviticus 18:3 - do not be like the nations of Canaan or Egypt. The forbidden acts of Leviticus 18 and 20 are not all related to simply sex-crimes but include idolatrous practice to the false idols of other nations.

It is beyond doubt that the author is advocating strict adherence to Yahweh worship, while simultaneously advocating avoidance of worship to the gods of neighbouring nations. That includes Molech (the example provided by Leviticus 18 and 20) and any acts of idolatrous sexuality (eg, homosexual sex within the context of idol worship) that may accompany this worship. Homosexual sex is therefore addressed in this section in terms of remaining pure to Yahweh, however it must be considered as an extension of the theme on idol worship, not as a continuation of the forbidden familial sex-acts.

I am not the only one to have come to this conclusion, it is a common view among theologians.

~ Regards, PA

[MARAB0D]

Robby, in context of the entire Bible the phrase of homosexuality talks about Lord God... One cannot expand the phrases like that at will, as they are clearly formulated in simple words and contain some individual sense. If you try to do the same to some other book, say start viewing the phrase about drunk Scarlet in the wide thematic context of Gone with the Wind, you would see what I mean. To me your method of textual analysis presents a novelty, so I suggest you to apply for intellectual property protection.

[+Link of Hyrule]

That might work for the murder law, as it's not changing the law not to murder, it's just changing what is considered murder. But when you get down to what he says about an eye for an eye, he has gotten rid of the law and made it "turn him the other cheek also", and so Jesus is still contradicting himself. And if the fulfilling of the law really meant just giving further understanding of it, then why would Jesus just list like five and say that they won't all be fulfilled until heaven and Earth disappear, when he could have done it right then and there? I think it's likely he means something else by fulfilled.

Indeed, you are right. Some of these laws seem to be direct turnarounds of what the law actually says. However, Jesus' comments were not so much aimed at the law themselves, but rather how they were being used within the cultural context, which was often inappropriate - for example, "an eye for an eye" was being used to justify all sorts of revenge (what we today might call vigilante justice) while the original law was simply meant to be a legal issue. So Jesus tempered this for the people by making it simple - fall back on Jesus' two greatest commandments - Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength, and Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commands.

I smell semantics. Those "ground-rules" are the laws about how you can punish people!! It is a law that you can't put someone to death that pleads guilty (I think). That is a law of punishment. The act of executing someone for something is a punishment, but that thing which says to inflict that punishment for that action is a law, not a punishment, or else you'd be calling it a punishment of punishment, which makes no sense.

This is not semantics. It's a simple truth of the Law - laws are those things that govern moral ways to live, punishments are the prescriptions given for those who disobey. It is not necessarily the case that just because a Law still remains in tact that we must also rely on the punishment system set out by the Hebrews. The judicial system of the Hebrews is no longer enforced (at least, not in the majority of the Western world).

Consider for a moment that for a Christian to become a Christian, then one of the first steps is to acknowledge that we are under a death penalty from God. Thus if we were to go and take our smiting rods and kill someone we believe is worthy of death, then unless we also smite ourselves for being worthy of death, then we are hypocrites. *this is of course ignoring the fact that we don't have a Jewish/Hebraic judicial council to carry out these punishments and we are not legally allowed by the Torah to carry out these punishments without such a command first*

However you look at it, and I've addressed the issue from several directions, these punishments cannot be translated into modern society.

~ Regards, PA

[+Sherapy]

Hi marabod, in the context of the entirety of Leviticus 18 and 20, it is pretty clear that the command on homosexuality is indeed a reference to homosexual sex within idol worship. It is not just a series of sex-crimes. If you have a Bible to read along, I suggest reading along, since my following comment will draw heavily from Leviticus 18 (and to a lesser extent, Leviticus 20). I'll quote some of the verses, but for brevity, you're going to need to read along to see the rest that I discuss in less detail. Leviticus 18 and 20 are not so much lists of sex-crimes but rather part of a wider body of work that teaches the people of Israel to be different to the other nations, and instead follow only the God of Abraham. The opening verses of Leviticus 18 begin with this theme:

18:1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

18:2 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God.

18:3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.

Verse three puts into context the timing of when this was written (leaving Egypt, arriving in Canaan), and this is a strong command to not be like those people. The following commands from Leviticus 18 are all extensions on this statement. Verses 4-5 continue with claims of God's headship (repeated phrase, "I am the Lord" vv2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 30 is of importance to note), and is a continued reminder of WHY Israel should live not like those other nations. Verses 6-18 then deal with various forms of sexual expression towards family and relatives. The boundaries of these forbidden relations go beyond the strict biological incestuous views, with in-laws and step-relatives included - by family, if not by blood.

The size of Israelite families living under one roof is considerable, and these laws appear to be aimed at ensuring two things - the Rights of the women to not be exploited (eg, sexual abuse), and secondly (and probably more contextually accurate in light of verses 1-3) the outlawing of the kind of incestuous sexual relationships that were conducted in Egyptian and Mesopotamian royal houses. Since this is done under the context of not being like Egypt or Canaan (Mesopotamia was part of this area), it is an appropriate consideration.

Verses 19-20 address more general uncleanliness - not necessarily familial sexual relations, but extensions of forbidden sexual desires.

However, from here on, Leviticus 18 takes a sharp turn. The verse commonly used to condemn homosexuality is grouped in verses 21-25. Verse 21 is of particular note:

18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

Molech was pagan God found worshipped through Canaan - and thus a new strain emerges in this passage about idolatrous practices (specifically, do not offer your children up to Molech as an offering). This is not arbitrary, and clearly signals a new direction in the text - the text no longer focuses on forbidden sexual relations, but moves on to worship of false gods. All of this is done so that Israel can keep itself separate from the other nations (the repeated phrase, "I am the LORD" coupled with the command in verse 3 to be separate from them).

Verses 22-23 (of which we specifically get the command on homosexuality) then outline the evils of male-to-male sexual acts, and male and female sex-acts with animals. Both these practices were common in idolatrous acts of worship to gods in Egypt, Canaan, and elsewhere around the ancient world.

Verses 26-30 bookend these laws by repeating the initial commands of verses 1-3 (do not act like the other nations, keep yourself pure to Yahweh) while warning of the dangers of not doing so.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Hebrew word translated here as "abomination" (Hebrew to-ebah)is a highly religious term in Hebraic text, used frequently to denote idol worship (eg, do not worship false idols, it is an abomination.... note the similarity to Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination).

In context then of the whole chapter 18, there is the opening introduction in verses 1-3 (command to Israel to make themselves different to Egypt and Canaan), verse 21 (idolatrous practice to Molech), the religious connotation of to ebah, and the religious practices of the nations around Israel (including male-to-male sex and man-to-beast sex within various idolatrous practices) and it's pretty clear that homosexual behaviour is here being addressed in terms of idolatry, with the overriding theme being to remain true to Yahweh worship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for Leviticus 20 (the other passage used in Leviticus to support condemnation of homosexuals), there is not a great deal to say that has not been said already about chapter 18. The list here in many ways mirrors that of chapter 18, but adds an extra element of punishments to fit those crimes. It first repeats the statement about giving children over to Molech (verses 1-5), then moves into the consulting of spirits, mediums, necromancers, etc in verse 6 (another common practice of other nations, which was to be avoided by the Israelites). The passage in Leviticus 20 even uses the phrase "whoring after them" to describe Israel's action towards these practices.

Verses 7-8 is yet another call to be holy and set apart for God (a clear theme of this whole section). The next few verses (9-21) cover the major sexual themes of chapter 18 (including homosexual activity), outlining punishments for each of these crimes. And after that list, is the concluding remarks:

20:22 "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.

20:23 And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.".

These claims extol again the concept of living differently to the Canaanites or the Egyptians, or anyone else - for fear that the land will "vomit you out". Do not live by the customs or religious practices of these nations, but instead follow God in purity. Verses 24-27 conclude by again reiterating the importance of keeping holy and different to that of the lands of Canaan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry for the long reply, Marabod, but you did ask me to provide evidence of reference to Mesopotamian deities. Molech was one of these deities. Mesopotamia was just one area of which the entire passage was referring to, and that is clearly addressed in Leviticus 18:3 - do not be like the nations of Canaan or Egypt. The forbidden acts of Leviticus 18 and 20 are not all related to simply sex-crimes but include idolatrous practice to the false idols of other nations.

It is beyond doubt that the author is advocating strict adherence to Yahweh worship, while simultaneously advocating avoidance of worship to the gods of neighbouring nations. That includes Molech (the example provided by Leviticus 18 and 20) and any acts of idolatrous sexuality (eg, homosexual sex within the context of idol worship) that may accompany this worship. Homosexual sex is therefore addressed in this section in terms of remaining pure to Yahweh, however it must be considered as an extension of the theme on idol worship, not as a continuation of the forbidden familial sex-acts.

I am not the only one to have come to this conclusion, it is a common view among theologians.

~ Regards, PA

Robbie, at best you can claim that in your perception the OT is clearly saying homosexuality.

You are filtering through a Evangelical christian filter only. The OT is jewish and the Jewish community doesn't advocate any kind of discrimination towards gays .

I mean no disrespect Robbie JIMO on discrimination of any kind a good rule of thumb, I apply is err on the side of compassion and empathy....

Perhaps you want to do a bit of research about the history of GLTB community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

[+Link of Hyrule]

Robby, in context of the entire Bible the phrase of homosexuality talks about Lord God... One cannot expand the phrases like that at will, as they are clearly formulated in simple words and contain some individual sense. If you try to do the same to some other book, say start viewing the phrase about drunk Scarlet in the wide thematic context of Gone with the Wind, you would see what I mean. To me your method of textual analysis presents a novelty, so I suggest you to apply for intellectual property protection.

If you don't want to take my breakdown of the passage, then perhaps a general article on the concept of homosexuality in the Bible, written by a trained theologian with degrees from accredited seminaries might help better. I tried doing this the long way by doing the research and breaking it down myself, but a cut-and-paste job of a post I made in another thread might do the trick instead:

The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition, but its condemnation of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much...

... The force of the other Old Testament references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behaviour was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The stern warnings of the levitical law (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) are primarily aimed at idolatry too; the word "abomination" (Hebrew tô‛êbah) for example, which feature in both these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these Old Testament condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that.

(Quoted from the New Bible Dictionary, 21st Century edition, pp. 478-479; Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England)

I've only quoted part of the article, but if you want to read the whole article, you can find the rest from THIS POST I made about a year ago.

[Superglobe]

It depends largely on what sect you belong to.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Robbie, at best you can claim that in your perception the OT is clearly saying homosexuality.

You are filtering through a Evangelical christian filter only. The OT is jewish and the Jewish community doesn't advocate any kind of discrimination towards gays .

I mean no disrespect Robbie JIMO on discrimination of any kind a good rule of thumb, I apply is err on the side of compassion and empathy....

Perhaps you want to do a bit of research about the history of GLTB community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

I am not advocating the discrimination of gays. In fact, if you read my post again, you may notice that my overall theme was actually pointing out that Leviticus 18 and 20 are NOT statements against homosexuals, but simply homosexual sex in the context of idol worship. In other words, Christians who use these two verses to claim "homosexuality is an abomination" are doing so incorrectly.

How is this promoting discrimination?

~ PA

[+Sherapy]

If you don't want to take my breakdown of the passage, then perhaps a general article on the concept of homosexuality in the Bible, written by a trained theologian with degrees from accredited seminaries might help better. I tried doing this the long way by doing the research and breaking it down myself, but a cut-and-paste job of a post I made in another thread might do the trick instead:

The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition, but its condemnation of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much...

... The force of the other Old Testament references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behaviour was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The stern warnings of the levitical law (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) are primarily aimed at idolatry too; the word "abomination" (Hebrew tô‛êbah) for example, which feature in both these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these Old Testament condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that.

(Quoted from the New Bible Dictionary, 21st Century edition, pp. 478-479; Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England)

I've only quoted part of the article, but if you want to read the whole article, you can find the rest from THIS POST I made about a year ago.

Robbie, Let's not forget in biblical interpretation it's guess what, here's what , so what and the so what is your own perceptions of what is being interpreted it's all you and your filters...

So the better question would be why do you perceive this as a admonishment towards homosexual activity as related to idolatry?

I would not interpret that passage in that context.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Sherizzle

[+Link of Hyrule]

Actually, I was writing about the entire passage quoted in the OP,

That means that he, Jesus, says he is the one whom Isaiah prophesied, the one who will establish the new relationship between man and God which Isaiah foretells.

Jesus alludes to Isaiah in order to say something about himself and his mission. Jesus is speaking neither to nor about "Christians," a word and concept that was at least a century yet to come when Jesus spoke, if he actually ever did speak.

BTW, the reason why you think "till heaven and earth pass" would mean "in perpetuity" of all things is that you speak a language whose corpus of cliches stands on the twin pillars of Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

Like every other word and phrase, once this religious term passed into the language, it came to mean whatever the linguistic community took it to mean, regardless of the original intent, which was to describe renewal within history rather than crispy critters at the end of history.

"Knowledge of good and evil" or "My God, My God, why have you foresaken me?" are two other examples of phrases which, divorced from their Old Testament context, come to mean "what they sound like," or sound like in some "least common denominator" sense.

So, from time to time, we get breathless threads about each of them, and what a crisis for Christianity it is - or would be if only they really did mean what they sort-of sound like.

To which there is only one answer. The startling phrase means something else: an idiom, an opening line of a Psalm, or, as in the present case, a key prophecy being announced as fulfilled.

An interesting proposition. Agreed that he was not talking to or about Christians. I had not considered this in light of Isaiah 65 before. The references to Psalm 22/Mark 15's "My God, My God...." is valid, and warrants further study. I'll take a look at this some time in the next few days (need sleep, have an early morning tomorrow). Thanks for sharing, I'll let you know how it goes

~ Regards, PA

[+Sherapy]

I am not advocating the discrimination of gays. In fact, if you read my post again, you may notice that my overall theme was actually pointing out that Leviticus 18 and 20 are NOT statements against homosexuals, but simply homosexual sex in the context of idol worship. In other words, Christians who use these two verses to claim "homosexuality is an abomination" are doing so incorrectly.

How is this promoting discrimination?

~ PA

Your overall theme was not that crystal clear to me.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Robbie, Let's not forget in biblical interpretation it's guess what, here's what , so what and the so what is your own perceptions of what is being interpreted it's all you and your filters...

So the better question would be why do you perceive this as a admonishment towards homosexual activity as related to idolatry?

I would not interpret that passage in that context.

In other words, we can make the Bible say whatever we want. Sorry, I can't agree with that. I can agree that we can make it say what we want, if we let it. But proper contextual study severely limits the number of possible interpretations.

I have already shared why I consider this as an admonishment to homosexual activity in relation to idolatry, in my long post that you made a short response to earlier.

~ PA

Edited May 1, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

Your overall theme was not that crystal clear to me.

Perhaps if you grabbed a Bible and read the passage, instead of relying solely on the four or five verses I picked out things would make a little more sense. The main theme I brought up was that Leviticus 18 and 20 was a call to Israel to keep themselves different to the nations around them by not engaging in their practices that lead away from God. Leviticus 18 fits into that in terms of familial living (forbidden sexual relations) and idol-worship (forbidden idol practices). In a paragraph, that covers the theme I was bringing up.

If you know Leviticus 18 well, or if you were reading along as I suggested, this would have been clearer, I think

~ PA

[+Sherapy]

In other words, we can make the Bible say whatever we want. Sorry, I can't agree with that. I can agree that we can make it say what we want, if we let it. But proper contextual study severely limits the number of possible interpretations.

I have already shared why I consider this as an admonishment to homosexual activity in relation to idolatry (You quoted my reply, made some strange remarks about it being discriminatory to gays, still haven't worked that one out yet).

~ PA

When you are referencing the OT that's how it's done. It's an opinion that is all.

Rabbi is different, but I forget why and I'd prefer to have Michael address this as I would want the academic posit, no disrespect to you but I'll pm Mkl.

Judaism doesn't debate subjective interpretations of the OT. Or consider it relevant.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Beckys_Mom]

When you are referencing the OT that's how it's done. It's an opinion that is all.

Thats all it is.an opinion...The bible can be looked at as a book filled with countless metaphores... you can take from it as you wish... what ever suits...

If a bible study group get together.. .then they all wind up agreeing what certain parts are saying.....

[Wootloops]

Actually, I was writing about the entire passage quoted in the OP,

That means that he, Jesus, says he is the one whom Isaiah prophesied, the one who will establish the new relationship between man and God which Isaiah foretells.

Jesus alludes to Isaiah in order to say something about himself and his mission. Jesus is speaking neither to nor about "Christians," a word and concept that was at least a century yet to come when Jesus spoke, if he actually ever did speak.

BTW, the reason why you think "till heaven and earth pass" would mean "in perpetuity" of all things is that you speak a language whose corpus of cliches stands on the twin pillars of Shakespeare and the King James Bible.

Like every other word and phrase, once this religious term passed into the language, it came to mean whatever the linguistic community took it to mean, regardless of the original intent, which was to describe renewal within history rather than crispy critters at the end of history.

"Knowledge of good and evil" or "My God, My God, why have you foresaken me?" are two other examples of phrases which, divorced from their Old Testament context, come to mean "what they sound like," or sound like in some "least common denominator" sense.

So, from time to time, we get breathless threads about each of them, and what a crisis for Christianity it is - or would be if only they really did mean what they sort-of sound like.

To which there is only one answer. The startling phrase means something else: an idiom, an opening line of a Psalm, or, as in the present case, a key prophecy being announced as fulfilled.

I guess you're right, if you're right.

[Beckys_Mom]

I guess you're right, if you're right.

With Eight bits being female its a given

[Wootloops]

Indeed, you are right. Some of these laws seem to be direct turnarounds of what the law actually says. However, Jesus' comments were not so much aimed at the law themselves, but rather how they were being used within the cultural context, which was often inappropriate - for example, "an eye for an eye" was being used to justify all sorts of revenge (what we today might call vigilante justice) while the original law was simply meant to be a legal issue. So Jesus tempered this for the people by making it simple - fall back on Jesus' two greatest commandments - Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength, and Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commands.

It doesn't matter the reason for it, he still changed what the law was, which would seem to be a contradiction, but I'm not so sure after what eight bits said.

This is not semantics. It's a simple truth of the Law - laws are those things that govern moral ways to live, punishments are the prescriptions given for those who disobey. It is not necessarily the case that just because a Law still remains in tact that we must also rely on the punishment system set out by the Hebrews. The judicial system of the Hebrews is no longer enforced (at least, not in the majority of the Western world).

Then what do you call those ground rules on how to punish people? Are they not laws?

Consider for a moment that for a Christian to become a Christian, then one of the first steps is to acknowledge that we are under a death penalty from God. Thus if we were to go and take our smiting rods and kill someone we believe is worthy of death, then unless we also smite ourselves for being worthy of death, then we are hypocrites. *this is of course ignoring the fact that we don't have a Jewish/Hebraic judicial council to carry out these punishments and we are not legally allowed by the Torah to carry out these punishments without such a command first*

If you were following the law, you wouldn't be killing people you believe are worthy of death, but who God believed was worthy of death, or at least death at that moment since everyone is under a death penalty.

[Bluefinger]

(Matthew 5:17-18): Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.

Christians, doesn't this verse say quite clearly that you still have to follow the laws of the Old Testament? I've never really heard an answer to this, so I'm interested in what people will say.

Jesus followed the laws. We follow Jesus. The laws are held up in Him. If we do what He commands, we are obeying the law. The part of the law that does not apply to us is the punishment for breaking it.