What Theonomy? Which Laws still apply, and which do not?

[The Unassumed]

After reading some works on Theonomy, I am left wondering: :huh:

1. Which laws in the Old Testament still apply? and
2. Of the laws which do not apply, what is the reason in each case for their not applying (e.g. the law refers to sacrifice which is superseded by Christ's sacrifice; the law is time or location bound, etc)?

If there exists a list of laws still applicable, and a list of explanations for inapplicable laws, could you please refer me to these lists.

Alternatively, perhaps somebody who favors Theonomy could go through a list of commandments, and identify whether each commandment applies or not and, if not, provide the reason it is no longer applicable. Here's one list of the 613 mitzvot: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm. However, you may well have another list.

[dizzle]

It is my understanding that theonomy deals with the civil aspects of the law and not any of the ceremonial aspects thus the mitzvot would largely be irrelevant.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Are my ears burning? :wink:After reading some works on Theonomy, I am left wondering: :huh:


1. Which laws in the Old Testament still apply? and

2. Of the laws which do not apply, what is the reason in each case for their not applying (e.g. the law refers to sacrifice which is superseded by Christ's sacrifice; the law is time or location bound, etc)?


If there exists a list of laws still applicable, and a list of explanations for inapplicable laws, could you please refer me to these lists.The fact that the law applied today would be different from the law applied then is not dependent on whether or not a list of the changes could be accurately drawn up. That would be a very difficult and arduous task, probably. But there are some basic principles to help us figure out which is which on a case by case basis.

Basically, the laws that existed solely for the purposes of identify and distinguishing one covenant nation do not apply. This is not because they have just disappeared or been abolished, but because there is nobody to whom they apply, as there is no such thing today as a nation that is in covenant with God, and hence no reason to distinguish any nation as such. From this follows most fo the change, for example food laws, circumcision and so forth. The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 handled this very issue. In other words, people don't have to become Jews to be in covenant with God, because God does not any longer have Israel as His covenant nation. His covenant promises were directed at Christ, and if you are in Christ, you inherit the promises.

Secondly, laws that served a typological function only, pointing to Messiah and His saving work, are not applicable, not because the truths to which they attest are no longer true, but because the perfect act has now been acomplished. In a way then, we still do require a sacrifice for our sins, but any sacrifice on our part would be redundant in light of what has transpired on the cross.

So I guess the two over-arching principles shpowing a change in the application of God's law today are national-covenant specific precepts on the one hand, which have no group to whom the apply anymore, and typological shadows on the other, which would now be redundant.
Alternatively, perhaps somebody who favors Theonomy could go through a list of commandments, and identify whether each commandment applies or not and, if not, provide the reason it is no longer applicable. Here's one list of the 613 mitzvot: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm. However, you may well have another list.Thsat would take a very long time, and it could also be misleading, as it would imply that Theonomy is committed to a particular view of exactly which laws would no longer apply and why. Theonomy is not a list of specific conclusions like this, it is a general approach to the use of God's law today.

Best wishes!

[The Unassumed]

It is my understanding that theonomy deals with the civil aspects of the law and not any of the ceremonial aspects thus the mitzvot would largely be irrelevant.

I don't understand your answer. Are you saying that there are only a few commandments in the Old Testament which are not ceremonial, yet the theonomist application of laws is exclusively civil, and therefore the commandments in the Old Testament do not - by and large - apply? Or is your answer altogether different, and I don't get it? :blush:

[The Unassumed]

... there are some basic principles to help us figure out which is which on a case by case basis.

Basically, the laws that existed solely for the purposes of identify and distinguishing one covenant nation do not apply. This is not because they have just disappeared or been abolished, but because there is nobody to whom they apply, as there is no such thing today as a nation that is in covenant with God, and hence no reason to distinguish any nation as such. From this follows most fo the change, for example food laws, circumcision and so forth. The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 handled this very issue. In other words, people don't have to become Jews to be in covenant with God, because God does not any longer have Israel as His covenant nation. His covenant promises were directed at Christ, and if you are in Christ, you inherit the promises.
Thank you for your helpful explanations, Theonomy.

So you accept the emphasis of Dunn and others that circumcision was a mere national 'marker'? And that circumcision was nothing more? ...

On a different tack, have you read Bauckham's article which shows how the four requirements in the Apostolic letter derived from Lev. 17-18, which comprise the four laws applying to Gentiles BTWK (“in the midst”) of Israel, use either the BTWkkM or BTWkM formula? i.e., James arrived at the rules, unparalleled in other Judaisms, by gezera shawa (R. Bauckham. ‘James and the Jerusalem Church’. In R. Bauckham (Ed.). The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4; The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.). What did you think of that suggestion?



Secondly, laws that served a typological function only, pointing to Messiah and His saving work, are not applicable, not because the truths to which they attest are no longer true, but because the perfect act has now been acomplished. In a way then, we still do require a sacrifice for our sins, but any sacrifice on our part would be redundant in light of what has transpired on the cross.
Do you argue from sacrifice as an example of a typology that has been fulfilled/completed in the sacrifice of Christ, to a general rule that typological laws no longer apply? Or does it depend on each case, so that you have to provide definite NT proof of supersession for each law interpreted typologically in the NT, as Hebrews provides proof for the fulfillment of sacrifice in Christ?



The fact that the law applied today would be different from the law applied then is not dependent on whether or not a list of the changes could be accurately drawn up. That would be a very difficult and arduous task, probably...

... Thsat would take a very long time, and it could also be misleading, as it would imply that Theonomy is committed to a particular view of exactly which laws would no longer apply and why. Theonomy is not a list of specific conclusions like this, it is a general approach to the use of God's law today.
I hear what you say about Theonomy providing more of a methodology or approach than a final list. But, if the principles or methodology to be applied is at all pragmatic, I would have thought that there would be a large proportion of Old Testament laws that could be easily classified as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'. I can appreciate that there would be another group of Old Testament laws which either apply or don't apply only in a carefully qualified sense, but that the majority of laws would be more easily categorised as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Thank you for your helpful explanations, Theonomy.I'm pleased you found them helpful.
So you accept the emphasis of Dunn and others that circumcision was a mere national 'marker'? And that circumcision was nothing more? ...It was a national marker, but I don't think I'd want to commit myself to the claim that this is all it ever was. For example I also see it as typological of the "circumcision" of the heart.
On a different tack, have you read Bauckham's article which shows how the four requirements in the Apostolic letter derived from Lev. 17-18, which comprise the four laws applying to Gentiles BTWK (“in the midst”) of Israel, use either the BTWkkM or BTWkM formula? i.e., James arrived at the rules, unparalleled in other Judaisms, by gezera shawa (R. Bauckham. ‘James and the Jerusalem Church’. In R. Bauckham (Ed.). The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4; The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.). What did you think of that suggestion?Actually no, I'm fairly certain I haven't read Bauckham's comments on this, but my memory could be failing me (I'm not terribly well at the moment and I have a headache).

I concur however with Conzelmann, who noted in his commentary the way the commands of the Apostolic letter resulting from the Jerusalem Council reproduce the commands on Leviticus 17-18. Without going into the detail (I did a chapter on this issue in my Thesis on Theonomy), I reconstruct the Jerusalem Council as arising because the judaizers were trying to insist that Gnetiles become Jews in order to enter the church, and they were inisting on the entire Levitical code, or at any rate a substantial amount of it. The Apostolic resolution, in my view, was that only those commands that already applied to Jew and Gentile alike, with no specific nationa-covenant connection, should be insisted on, since the distinction has been broken down in Christ.
Do you argue from sacrifice as an example of a typology that has been fulfilled/completed in the sacrifice of Christ, to a general rule that typological laws no longer apply? Or does it depend on each case, so that you have to provide definite NT proof of supersession for each law interpreted typologically in the NT, as Hebrews provides proof for the fulfillment of sacrifice in Christ?That's one of the best questions I've ever been asked about Theonomy. I go with the former, just because of what typology is. I think it all points to what was accomplished, directly or indirectly, in Christ, so I apply it as a fairly general rule. Of course I'm always open to the argument in any specific case that actually a law served an important moral/civil purpose beyond typology, in which case I'd happily concede that the principle of general equity require a similar law be enacted today.
I hear what you say about Theonomy providing more of a methodology or approach than a final list. But, if the principles or methodology to be applied is at all pragmatic, I would have thought that there would be a large proportion of Old Testament laws that could be easily classified as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'. I can appreciate that there would be another group of Old Testament laws which either apply or don't apply only in a carefully qualified sense, but that the majority of laws would be more easily categorised as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'.I don't know if there is such a list of specifics, no. In most cases it's fairly intuitive, e.g. rules about temple worship differ from rules about theft, etc. I'd prefer never to be the person to do the job of making such a list, but perhaps one day somebody will do it.

[dizzle]

I don't understand your answer. Are you saying that there are only a few commandments in the Old Testament which are not ceremonial, yet the theonomist application of laws is exclusively civil, and therefore the commandments in the Old Testament do not - by and large - apply? Or is your answer altogether different, and I don't get it? :blush:

No..... I am saying that the OT gives us a philosophy of God's law as the ultimate law-giver, and that the NT tells us explicitly that certain portions of that law (the ceremonial and typological ones) were fulfilled in Christ but that does not abrogate the civil principles. For example, murder is wrong and deserves death because it pollutes the land and man is made in the image of God, thus the importance of individual life. Paul affirms that God still has given that power to the state - thus at least in the one limited example civil law has been affirmed.

[dizzle]

PS I am enjoying reading this conversation.

[The Unassumed]

On a different tack, have you read Bauckham's article which shows how the four requirements in the Apostolic letter derived from Lev. 17-18, which comprise the four laws applying to Gentiles BTWK (“in the midst”) of Israel, use either the BTWkkM or BTWkM formula? i.e., James arrived at the rules, unparalleled in other Judaisms, by gezera shawa (R. Bauckham. ‘James and the Jerusalem Church’. In R. Bauckham (Ed.). The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4; The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.). What did you think of that suggestion?

Actually no, I'm fairly certain I haven't read Bauckham's comments on this, but my memory could be failing me (I'm not terribly well at the moment and I have a headache).
You should give Bauckham a read. I think you would find it very useful. Although there will always be some doubt as to whether gezera shawa was being applied or not - given the inherent nature of the Jewish heremeneutic - Bauckham makes a strong case for it being applied by James in Acts 15. And this only strengthens the link between Acts 15 and Lev 17-18 - which already is fairly clear in itself.



... I reconstruct the Jerusalem Council as arising because the judaizers were trying to insist that Gnetiles become Jews in order to enter the church, and they were inisting on the entire Levitical code, or at any rate a substantial amount of it. The Apostolic resolution, in my view, was that only those commands that already applied to Jew and Gentile alike, with no specific nationa-covenant connection, should be insisted on, since the distinction has been broken down in Christ.
Something troubles me about this interpretation of the Jerusalem Council, although I think I largely agree with it. It may not constitute an objection, but just a puzzle. Firstly, I note that the Council seemed to apply to the whole Law of Moses, the Torah as a whole, not the Levitical code - as it was circumcision (entry into the covenant) and following the whole Law that was at issue. If the Judaizers were insisting that Gentiles become Jews by following the requirements of the whole Law of Moses (Acts 15), and there was a prima facie continuation of the Law for Israel/the Church (subject to supersession by the new testament, per Theonomy), why does James specify these particular 4 laws? Are they all that is left, after the new testament reshaping of the Law? And if Conzelmann and Bauckham are right about the application of Lev 17-18, as I think they are, why has James chosen the basis of 'Gentiles living in the midst of Israel', rather than accepting Gentiles as Israelites, as they are in the New Israel (the Church)? And, what is the exact basis of James' rationale in Acts 15.21 ("For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues."), and does this have a bearing on the other questions I raised? I'm just wondering as I consider these questions, and haven't come to an answer yet. :wink:



Do you argue from sacrifice as an example of a typology that has been fulfilled/completed in the sacrifice of Christ, to a general rule that typological laws no longer apply? Or does it depend on each case, so that you have to provide definite NT proof of supersession for each law interpreted typologically in the NT, as Hebrews provides proof for the fulfillment of sacrifice in Christ?

That's one of the best questions I've ever been asked about Theonomy. I go with the former, just because of what typology is. I think it all points to what was accomplished, directly or indirectly, in Christ, so I apply it as a fairly general rule.
I think there are fairly good grounds, particularly in Paul's letters, to support a wide-ranging typological/symbolic supersession/redefining of the Law, e.g.:
2 Cor 3:3&6 “You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts… He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
Phil 3:3 “For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh”
Col 2:11-14 “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 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 cancelled 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.”
But, if the principle is so general, doesn't this mean that Theonomy's conclusions (as to applicability of the laws of Torah) will be practically the same as the more extreme Lutheran or Reformed positions, even? Sure, the way you get there may be fundamentally different, but your end-point is about the same(?)

The idea, in Paul's letters, seems to be that there was a spiritual dimension of the Law that was always behind the Law, and which now comes into full effect, as was announced to the patriarchs and the prophets (Rom 3:21; Gal 3:8a). Christ's work is an apocalyptic revelation – revealing the universally true meaning which always subsisted within the Law of outward signs. So, in suggesting that there may be a deeper meaning to the Law that the Galatians claimed to be following, Paul taunts them with his ‘deeper’ understanding of the Law: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?” (Gal 4:21). That is why Paul considers that Jews reading the very same Law as Christians read, cannot grasp its true significance: "But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed" (2 Cor 3.14-16). This spiritual dimension, this general principle, is broad enough to redefine everything in the Law.


Of course I'm always open to the argument in any specific case that actually a law served an important moral/civil purpose beyond typology, in which case I'd happily concede that the principle of general equity require a similar law be enacted today.
Right.



I hear what you say about Theonomy providing more of a methodology or approach than a final list. But, if the principles or methodology to be applied is at all pragmatic, I would have thought that there would be a large proportion of Old Testament laws that could be easily classified as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'. I can appreciate that there would be another group of Old Testament laws which either apply or don't apply only in a carefully qualified sense, but that the majority of laws would be more easily categorised as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'.

I don't know if there is such a list of specifics, no. In most cases it's fairly intuitive, e.g. rules about temple worship differ from rules about theft, etc. I'd prefer never to be the person to do the job of making such a list, but perhaps one day somebody will do it.
One reason I think it should be done (if it hasn't already) is to show that there is some pragmatic difference for a theonomic approach. While the theory is certainly different from the majority of Christian approaches, it is not so clear that application of Theonomy would yield so different a result. Or, it is not clear whether the general principles for identifying laws which should be applied today are definite enough to defend the conclusions of theonomistic approaches against the conclusions of other (Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, etc) approaches.

I'm just thinking through the challenges that Theonomy provides...

[The Unassumed]

No..... I am saying that the OT gives us a philosophy of God's law as the ultimate law-giver, and that the NT tells us explicitly that certain portions of that law (the ceremonial and typological ones) were fulfilled in Christ but that does not abrogate the civil principles. For example, murder is wrong and deserves death because it pollutes the land and man is made in the image of God, thus the importance of individual life. Paul affirms that God still has given that power to the state - thus at least in the one limited example civil law has been affirmed.
I see! Thank you for 'unpacking' your earlier statement. :teeth:

[dizzle]

I see! Thank you for 'unpacking' your earlier statement. :teeth:

No problem. Just so that you know, I am not personally theonomic yet. However, I am openly very sympathetic to the view. The reason I am not is that I don't think that I have taken enough time to thoroughly study both sides (most of what I have read is pro-theonomic as most orthodox preterist authors are theonomic, and eschatology is my thing) - I feel that in order to state a position definitely it would be irresponsible without studying the opposing side.

It is refreshing to have a thread that (so far) has not based objections to theonomy on emotional appeals such as ("So now are you going to drag all homosexuals out to the street and start stoning them now or would you save that until after dinner?"). To anticipate a possible question from you my approach to those sorts of arguments is to ask a Christian (I don't debate theonomy with non-Christians):

1. Are such laws as capital punishment for adultery, rape, homosexuality, witchcraft etc inherently evil at any time or place?

If the person answers yes, they have just denounced God. If they say no, then the emotional argument disappears, and we are left where I am at right now in my study - which is - is there a valid reason that such laws would be moral/right then and not now.

I believe that most Christian misunderstand what absolutism is and what relativism is, and when I raise such a question I am immediately labeled a relativist which of course is wrong.

Biblical absolutism is such that the same choice/action is good/moral/commanded for ALL people in the SAME (or similar) circumstances. However the "right" act may change if the circumstances change. For instance (and I at this time refuse to debate this particular thing too far because it gets me at odds with dear friends and no debate is worth that), I believe that the Egyptian midwives were moral/right/just in lying to the Pharaoh about the birth of the Hebrew males although in nearly every other circumstance lying is wrong.

Relativism does not teach that one's actions are relative to the circumstance (as I advocated above) but relative to the person - meaning that facing the exact same situation what is moral/right for me is not necessarily at all moral/right for you.

I just wanted to clear that up.

So my study is leading me to decide if there is some reason now why God's "good" law is not something to be emulated in civil affairs. Notice: civil affairs. Not the Church's affairs. Not a Church-ran state (for those offices were demanded to be separated in the OT) - which is another common strawman against theonomy.

So when you see my posts, just know that I am speaking as one studying the issues, and am not a reliable spokesperson for theonomy when I throw things out there.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Something troubles me about this interpretation of the Jerusalem Council, although I think I largely agree with it. It may not constitute an objection, but just a puzzle. Firstly, I note that the Council seemed to apply to the whole Law of Moses, the Torah as a whole, not the Levitical code - as it was circumcision (entry into the covenant) and following the whole Law that was at issue.It's difficult to say, because we aren't given details of all that transpired at the council, just very broad summary comments. Certainly the claim that Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the whole law entails that they should keep the Levitical laws. I consider it probable that for most of the laws there would be no controversy at all. For example none of the Gentiles would have objected to the prohibitions on theft or false witness. The Apostolic decision then would only need to deal with the cases where there was significant disagreement, which would primarily arise in the case of the Levitical laws (which includes circumcision, even though this command is present elsewhere as well), since it was these things that were seen chiefly as symbols of national identity.
If the Judaizers were insisting that Gentiles become Jews by following the requirements of the whole Law of Moses (Acts 15), and there was a prima facie continuation of the Law for Israel/the Church (subject to supersession by the new testament, per Theonomy), why does James specify these particular 4 laws? Are they all that is left, after the new testament reshaping of the Law? And if Conzelmann and Bauckham are right about the application of Lev 17-18, as I think they are, why has James chosen the basis of 'Gentiles living in the midst of Israel', rather than accepting Gentiles as Israelites, as they are in the New Israel (the Church)?Well that's not what Conzelmann says, he just notes that the commands are those in the Levitical code that apply universally, to Jew and Gentile alike. In other words, since Jew and Gentile are now alike and there is no distinction, the only laws that can apply are those that applied originally to all alike, since the covenant nation no longer exists as a covenant nation, the covenant is now not a national thing at all.
And, what is the exact basis of James' rationale in Acts 15.21 ("For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues."), and does this have a bearing on the other questions I raised? I'm just wondering as I consider these questions, and haven't come to an answer yet. :wink: That's a bit of a curveball. I don't really know why that was added. One plausible answer is given by J. H. Ropes, whome F. F. Bruce cites in his commentary: "[T]he words are taken to mean that since synagogues where Moses is proclaimed are to be found everywhere, the expression 'all the nations upon whom My Name is called' evidently covers the whole known world." But again, I don't think I know the answer, that's just a possibility.
I think there are fairly good grounds, particularly in Paul's letters, to support a wide-ranging typological/symbolic supersession/redefining of the Law, e.g.:
2 Cor 3:3&6 “You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts… He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

Phil 3:3 “For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh”
Col 2:11-14 “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 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 cancelled 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.”
But, if the principle is so general, doesn't this mean that Theonomy's conclusions (as to applicability of the laws of Torah) will be practically the same as the more extreme Lutheran or Reformed positions, even? Sure, the way you get there may be fundamentally different, but your end-point is about the same(?)Well, I would hope that most Christians come to similar ethical conclusions, e.g. don't defraud, don't commit incest and so forth. But the difference is important.

For example, a very large number of Christians believe that the death penalty is wrong. A very large number of Christians support the concept of prisons. A very large number of Christians do not believe that there should be any civil penalty possible for adultery.

Additionally, while a lot of Christians share many ethical conclusions in common with Theonomy, my challenge to some of them is that their hermeneutical method cannot support those conclusions. A particularly stark case is this: How does the dispensationalist know, on biblical grounds, that sex with a dog counts as sexual immorality? His intuitions will tell him this, and rightly so, but can he claim biblical support? What about sexual relationships between very close relatives? Or even kidnapping? The only parts of Scripture that deal with issues like this are found within the Old Testament law.
The idea, in Paul's letters, seems to be that there was a spiritual dimension of the Law that was always behind the Law, and which now comes into full effect, as was announced to the patriarchs and the prophets (Rom 3:21; Gal 3:8a). Christ's work is an apocalyptic revelation – revealing the universally true meaning which always subsisted within the Law of outward signs. So, in suggesting that there may be a deeper meaning to the Law that the Galatians claimed to be following, Paul taunts them with his ‘deeper’ understanding of the Law: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?” (Gal 4:21). That is why Paul considers that Jews reading the very same Law as Christians read, cannot grasp its true significance: "But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed" (2 Cor 3.14-16). This spiritual dimension, this general principle, is broad enough to redefine everything in the Law.I don't know about "re-define." The outward commands still remain, but their meaning is amplified, and the underlying principle is explained more fully. For example we should not murder, that hasn't changed at all, but the state of heart is emphasised more. We should be careful, though, that we don't imagine that such spiritual dimensions were absent from the Old Testament as well. I don't think they were. Circumcision of the heart is explicitly mentioned in Dt 10:16, Dt 30:6 and Jer 4:4, for example.
One reason I think it should be done (if it hasn't already) is to show that there is some pragmatic difference for a theonomic approach. While the theory is certainly different from the majority of Christian approaches, it is not so clear that application of Theonomy would yield so different a result. Or, it is not clear whether the general principles for identifying laws which should be applied today are definite enough to defend the conclusions of theonomistic approaches against the conclusions of other (Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, etc) approaches.

I'm just thinking through the challenges that Theonomy provides...That's a worthwhile endeavour. I wish somebody else all the best in doing it. :teeth:

[magus]

Reading through the posts above, I am reminded of something else I've read on another site concerning ethics and actions. Basically, the idea is that whenever a particular action needs to be considered under moral grounds as moral/ethical or otherwise, ALL of the relevant factors have to be weighed. An action may be considered 'wrong' under a particular imperative, but 'right' under another one, and the question then becomes which imperative you follow.

For example, using Dee Dee's midwives-and-Pharoah issue; lying is wrong. But telling the truth in this instance will lead to great loss of life. So, do you tell the truth, or do you avoid the great loss of life? In this instance, the higher imperative was to avoid wholescale murder, and thus lying was the lesser of the two evils.

I could off the top of my head posit something far more difficult to resolve; suppose an armed robber comes into your house, surprising you and your sister. And he insists that you have carnal relations with your sister, otherwise he blows both your brains out. Which is the higher imperative? Incest, or getting killed? Even better, suppose you're armed too. Can you shoot the robber when he turns his back on you?

Not to say that morals aren't absolute. They are. It's a question of which one is weighed more during the situation.

My stand on the Jerusalem Council rulings would have been that those minimum requirements were necessary for continued intercourse between Jew and Gentile. Of course, the Deuteronomy laws included the 10 Commandments, and we still keep all of them today. However, wrt the 4 laws, it was so that the Gentile believers could go out amongst the Jews and preach. Keeping in mind that Paul in his later epistles reminds us that idols are nothing, but don't stumble your weaker brethren. I still don't know about the blood issue; I like my steaks medium rare, which means a certain abount of redness comes through. And as a Chinese, dried pork blood cubes is something that does get served (though I hate the stuff and won't touch it).

Love in Christ,
Magus

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

For example, using Dee Dee's midwives-and-Pharoah issue; lying is wrong. But telling the truth in this instance will lead to great loss of life. So, do you tell the truth, or do you avoid the great loss of life? In this instance, the higher imperative was to avoid wholescale murder, and thus lying was the lesser of the two evils.I prefer not to see it in terms of breaking one fo God's commands in order to fulfil another. I think the solution is to say that it's incorrect to say that lying is always wrong. In other words, we are supposed to read the commands with wisdom. It would be too arduous to spell out all the necessary qualifications in exhaustive detail, so, at the risk of being subjective, we just have to read them wisely/sensibly.
I could off the top of my head posit something far more difficult to resolve; suppose an armed robber comes into your house, surprising you and your sister. And he insists that you have carnal relations with your sister, otherwise he blows both your brains out. Which is the higher imperative? Incest, or getting killed?I'm not sure what would be the right course of action, but with the incest command, like other commands I read them as qualified along the lines of "unless it is forced upon you against your will, in which case you're not choosing to do it." Take rape for example, the law doesn't old a wife guilty of adultery if she is forced to have sex with another man. So if this example does count as an example of being forced to do the act, then I rally don't think the command would condemn it. If it does, however, then the right thing to do is get killed. After all, there is no sin in being murdered. WHich option is the case? I don't know, but I don't think it's a case of being morally required to break a lesser command.
Even better, suppose you're armed too. Can you shoot the robber when he turns his back on you?
Yes, definitely. That doesn't violate any command.
Not to say that morals aren't absolute. They are.Agreed.
My stand on the Jerusalem Council rulings would have been that those minimum requirements were necessary for continued intercourse between Jew and Gentile. Of course, the Deuteronomy laws included the 10 Commandments, and we still keep all of them today. However, wrt the 4 laws, it was so that the Gentile believers could go out amongst the Jews and preach.So why did the four commands include the command not to engage in sexual immorality? Was that a command just given to prevent them from offending Jews?

[The Unassumed]

Additionally, while a lot of Christians share many ethical conclusions in common with Theonomy, my challenge to some of them is that their hermeneutical method cannot support those conclusions. A particularly stark case is this: How does the dispensationalist know, on biblical grounds, that sex with a dog counts as sexual immorality? His intuitions will tell him this, and rightly so, but can he claim biblical support? What about sexual relationships between very close relatives? Or even kidnapping? The only parts of Scripture that deal with issues like this are found within the Old Testament law.
Thank you for your answers. :wink: I understand where you are coming from. However, I didn't find your reason, above, particularly convincing. Inevitably, there will be contemporary ethical issues not directly covered by either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Is artificial insemination explicitly covered in the Bible? No. Yet the 'biblical support' is still there for a decision on this ethical issue, yet it is provided in broader principles, not by direct laws. As you yourself said, to derive a list of applicable laws from the Old Testament to contemporary situations involves being "fairly intuitive." You can't just woodenly apply the literal laws.

So to argue for theonomy from explicit gaps in moral teaching in the New Testament is therefore a weak argument.




I hear what you say about Theonomy providing more of a methodology or approach than a final list. But, if the principles or methodology to be applied is at all pragmatic, I would have thought that there would be a large proportion of Old Testament laws that could be easily classified as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'. I can appreciate that there would be another group of Old Testament laws which either apply or don't apply only in a carefully qualified sense, but that the majority of laws would be more easily categorised as 'applicable' or 'non-applicable'.

I don't know if there is such a list of specifics, no. In most cases it's fairly intuitive, e.g. rules about temple worship differ from rules about theft, etc. I'd prefer never to be the person to do the job of making such a list, but perhaps one day somebody will do it.

One reason I think it should be done (if it hasn't already) is to show that there is some pragmatic difference for a theonomic approach. While the theory is certainly different from the majority of Christian approaches, it is not so clear that application of Theonomy would yield so different a result. Or, it is not clear whether the general principles for identifying laws which should be applied today are definite enough to defend the conclusions of theonomistic approaches against the conclusions of other (Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, etc) approaches.

That's a worthwhile endeavour. I wish somebody else all the best in doing it. :teeth:
Could you provide your opinion on a few Old Testament laws, just to give me an idea on whether Theonomy can be pragmatically carried through, please?

Could you tell me:
A) Whether the law in the Old Testament should still apply today, in your country? and
B). What is the reason in each case for the law applying or not applying?

Here are the laws:
1. The law against eating meat with blood (Lev 17:10-14)
2. The law against sleeping with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19)
3. The law against male homosexuality (Lev 18:22)
4. The law against bestiality (Lev 18:23)
5. The law against cross-bred animals, fields sown with two types of seed, and garments with two types of material (Lev 19:19)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

However, I didn't find your reason, above, particularly convincing. Inevitably, there will be contemporary ethical issues not directly covered by either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Is artificial insemination explicitly covered in the Bible? No. Yet the 'biblical support' is still there for a decision on this ethical issue, yet it is provided in broader principles, not by direct laws.The question, however, is how we know that a borad principle does prohibit a specific act. For example, how dos, say, the dispensatinalist justify the claim that incest is covered by the general principle that sexual immorality is wrong? In the case of artificial nsemination, I put it to you that unless it does violate some command of Scripture, it's not wrong. As it turns out I can;t think of any that it oes violate, but it is possible. So the act itself needn;t be mentioned at all. But the act entails a lot of things that are mentioned. For example if a reproductive technology - say, cloning - involved killing, then it would be wrong not because it was cloning, but because it involved killing.
As you yourself said, to derive a list of applicable laws from the Old Testament to contemporary situations involves being "fairly intuitive."What I said is that distinguishing which laws were covenant-nation specific and which were not was "fairly intuitive." I certainly never said we can just intuitively decide which acts today break specific requirements of the law. That's a different question, and it has to be determined carefully.
You can't just woodenly apply the literal laws.I'm not really sure what this means. Theonomists have always said that cultural and historical change needs to be taken into account. Bahnsen, for example, used the example of having a railing around one's rooftop. This obviously doesn't apply to houses that don't have flat rooves, but if would apply to, say, decks or swimming pools for the same reason. But unlike things like artificial insemination, things like bestiality are mentioned specifically in the Bible, and were known to the New Testamrent audience, hence the basic difference. So if a believer doesn't acknowledge the moral authority of the Old Testament Law, they have no claim, on biblical grounds, to say that bestiality counts as sexually immoral, because the NT authors new of th epractice and condemned sexual immorality along with a whole bunch of specific acts, but they never condemned this one.

The beauty of Theonomy is that in spite of what people might say about it, it operates on the presumption of liberty. We may do what God does not forbid.
Could you provide your opinion on a few Old Testament laws, just to give me an idea on whether Theonomy can be pragmatically carried through, please?OK.
Could you tell me:
A) Whether the law in the Old Testament should still apply today, in your country? and
B). What is the reason in each case for the law applying or not applying?I will have a go at A. Bear in mind that when I say that a law "should apply," I would not endorse some sort of revolution whereby the law is imposed on a nation that never wanted it. When I say that it should apply, I mean that the people should accept it. I'm not sure how wise it is for me to attempt B. I would never presume to know the mind of God and to know why He gave each law that He did, so I can;t say wit authority why a law does apply. If you just mean "what is the hermeneutical reason for this law not applying, if it doesn't apply," then I'll answer that.
Here are the laws:
1. The law against eating meat with blood (Lev 17:10-14)Yes this should apply. In fact, it is one of the Levitical laws specifically mentioned in Acts 15 as still applying. Even a non-theonomist could accept this, since it is also mentioned in God's covenant with Noah. I'm not sure what the response would be, in a society that embraced this law, to a person who broke it however. In Leviticus the additional issue is added of being "ceremonially unclean" (the person who consumes the blood, that is, not the blood itself). Because I hav a natural tendency - which may be mistaken - to view refernces to ceremonial uncleanliness as a covenant specific thing, I'm not sure how this part would apply, if at all.
2. The law against sleeping with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19)I honestly don't know, since this law is given solely on the gounds of the clean/unclan distinction, so I'm not sure if it falls under the prohibition of sexual immorality as one of the Levitical categories to be followed in Acts 15 or not. I could go one way or the other, although there's no civil response associated with this law, interestingly.
3. The law against male homosexuality (Lev 18:22)Yes, certainly. This is sexual immorality.
4. The law against bestiality (Lev 18:23)ditto.
5. The law against cross-bred animals, fields sown with two types of seed, and garments with two types of material (Lev 19:19)I am inclined to think not, largely because of my understanding of Acts 15 and what this implies about the Levitical laws not covered by it. Secondly, and I acknowled this is a subjective judgement which might be mistaken, those laws have the appearance of emphasising the principle of separation, keeping distinct, which may well be a part of the continuing emphasis Israel on being different from the surrounding nations. And again, there is no civil response associated with this law.

I hope this is useful.

[The Unassumed]

The question, however, is how we know that a borad principle does prohibit a specific act. For example, how dos, say, the dispensatinalist justify the claim that incest is covered by the general principle that sexual immorality is wrong?
Hermeneutically, the New Testament prohibitions of sexual immorality must be read within their Jewish context, of which the Old Testament (and Lev 18) has the foremost relevance. All that is needed is a contextual hermeneutic which recognises the interpretative importance of the Old Testament; the Old Testament law need not be treated as having continuing authoritative force (although, it may!). So, there is little practical difficulty in interpreting the scope of New Testament commands against sexual immorality.


In the case of artificial nsemination, I put it to you that unless it does violate some command of Scripture, it's not wrong. As it turns out I can;t think of any that it oes violate, but it is possible. So the act itself needn;t be mentioned at all.
Do you assume that the Scriptures contain a comprehensive list of ethical wrongs? If so, or if you are holding to something fairly similar, please could you let me know the basis for holding to such an assumption.


So if a believer doesn't acknowledge the moral authority of the Old Testament Law, they have no claim, on biblical grounds, to say that bestiality counts as sexually immoral, because the NT authors new of th epractice and condemned sexual immorality along with a whole bunch of specific acts, but they never condemned this one.
Likewise, for you to reach this conclusion, you must assume the Scriptures contain a comprehensive list of ethical wrongs, or it becomes an inconclusive argument from silence.




Could you tell me:
A) Whether the law in the Old Testament should still apply today, in your country? and
B). What is the reason in each case for the law applying or not applying?

I will have a go at A. Bear in mind that when I say that a law "should apply," I would not endorse some sort of revolution whereby the law is imposed on a nation that never wanted it. When I say that it should apply, I mean that the people should accept it.
That is what I thought you would mean.


I'm not sure how wise it is for me to attempt B. I would never presume to know the mind of God and to know why He gave each law that He did, so I can;t say wit authority why a law does apply. If you just mean "what is the hermeneutical reason for this law not applying, if it doesn't apply," then I'll answer that.
I was only ever after a hermeneutical reason for the law applying or not applying.




1. The law against eating meat with blood (Lev 17:10-14)

Yes this should apply. In fact, it is one of the Levitical laws specifically mentioned in Acts 15 as still applying.
So do you ensure your meat is drained of all the blood before you eat it? I know that some of the meat I buy at the supermarket still has quite a bit of blood in it, and I tend to make gravy out of it. You don't have gravy, either, huh?


In Leviticus the additional issue is added of being "ceremonially unclean" (the person who consumes the blood, that is, not the blood itself). Because I hav a natural tendency - which may be mistaken - to view refernces to ceremonial uncleanliness as a covenant specific thing, I'm not sure how this part would apply, if at all.
Does this example demonstrate the difficulty in excluding any law merely on 'ceremonial' grounds? How do you know whether a law is 'merely' ceremonial, or having another ethical foundation, as in the case of Acts 15? Can you in fact distinguish applicable and non-applicable laws at all?




2. The law against sleeping with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19)

I honestly don't know, since this law is given solely on the gounds of the clean/unclan distinction, so I'm not sure if it falls under the prohibition of sexual immorality as one of the Levitical categories to be followed in Acts 15 or not. I could go one way or the other,
That this command appears within a list of forbidden sexual relationships (Lev 18:6-23) makes it quite clear that 18:19 is a forbidden sexual relationship. There's not really any doubt here. If you separate out this one command from all of the others, when all of them refer to sexual intercourse with a forbidden partner, then you will need a good reason (and the temporary nature of the forbidden relationship would only be a tendentious reason, so I trust you won't go there...).

Incidentally, do you refrain from sex with your wife during the week of her menstruation, given that you have some doubt as to the applicability of this law, being about 50:50 on whether this law applies to you? I must say, if I thought "I could go one way or the other" on whether God had issued a command to me to refrain from sex during menstruation, I certainly wouldn't play fast and loose with God's command, but would err on the obedient side! :teeth:


although there's no civil response associated with this law, interestingly.
I'm not sure how this would alter your obligation to follow the law, even if there were a civil penalty prescribed in Leviticus. How would theonomy distinguish such laws?

However, as I read it, there is in fact a civil penalty: exile. Lev 18:30 prescribes "For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people." This was the same penalty as in the earlier laws in this series of laws begun in Lev 17 - such as the law against eating blood.




3. The law against male homosexuality (Lev 18:22)

Yes, certainly. This is sexual immorality.

4. The law against bestiality (Lev 18:23)

ditto.
So homosexuality and bestiality are "certainly" sexual immorality, but another item in the same list of sexual immoralities might not be? I was worried about the pragmatic ability of theonomy to actually identify laws that applied, because there seemed to be a great deal of subjectivity and fuzzy logic involved in working this out. But when two items from one list of sexual immoralities are treated in quite different ways, how can this fail to involve subjective application of Torah, based in part at least on one's cultural bias? And, as such, how is theonomy different from any other approach that struggles to establish which Old Testament laws are applicable today and which are not?




5. The law against cross-bred animals, fields sown with two types of seed, and garments with two types of material (Lev 19:19)

I am inclined to think not, largely because of my understanding of Acts 15 and what this implies about the Levitical laws not covered by it.
This either assumes that the Bible provides a comprehensive list of moral wrongs, or is an argument from silence - as noted above - so, this depends on your response to the same point I made above.

Secondly, and I acknowled this is a subjective judgement which might be mistaken, those laws have the appearance of emphasising the principle of separation, keeping distinct, which may well be a part of the continuing emphasis Israel on being different from the surrounding nations.
I can excuse your subjectivity. I don't think it is possible to apply the Old Testament law without subjectivity, without some degree of illogic (in a strictly deductive sense), and therefore without risk of error. In this, of course, theonomy is unexceptional.



I hope this is useful.
I am finding this very interesting, and your responses very useful in addressing the initial concern I had in raising this thread, thank you.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

waaa! I just typed a very long reply, and TWeb ate it! I'm going away to sulk for a while.

[The Unassumed]

waaa! I just typed a very long reply, and TWeb ate it! I'm going away to sulk for a while.
I sympathize!

I always highlight and Control-C stuff that I'm sending via the internet, such as e-mails and posts here - having learned from bad experience!! :wink:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hermeneutically, the New Testament prohibitions of sexual immorality must be read within their Jewish context, of which the Old Testament (and Lev 18) has the foremost relevance. All that is needed is a contextual hermeneutic which recognises the interpretative importance of the Old Testament; the Old Testament law need not be treated as having continuing authoritative force (although, it may!). So, there is little practical difficulty in interpreting the scope of New Testament commands against sexual immorality.Unless the said moral judgements in the OT are true, there is no reason for the Gentile NT reader to see "sexual immorlaity" as including those things specificed in the Torah. I agree with the above except for the reference to the authority of those commands. Yes, the NT comments about sexual immorality need to be read against the backdrop of the New Testament, namely the Old Testament. But for the one who presumes the disonctinuity of the OT law, as some profess to do, such is not available to them.
Do you assume that the Scriptures contain a comprehensive list of ethical wrongs? If so, or if you are holding to something fairly similar, please could you let me know the basis for holding to such an assumption.Yes, I do make an assumption like this. I refer to it (and I'm pretty sure some others do as well) as the presumption of liberty. It means that unless it can be shown that God disaproves of an act, it is permitted. The disaproval need not, of course, be in the form of a simple "thou shalt not," it might be a good inference from a command of Scripture. For example cloning isn't mentioned in Scripture, but killing is, and if a cloning practice involves killing, then obviously Scripture has something to say about it.
Likewise, for you to reach this conclusion, you must assume the Scriptures contain a comprehensive list of ethical wrongs, or it becomes an inconclusive argument from silence.It's not an argument from silence, it is an argument that biblical silence exists. Remember that my claim was only that the one who prsumes the discontinuity of the law has no biblical grounds on which to declare with any authority that incest or bestiality are included in the NT warning against sexual immorality. They might still know it is wrong - in fact I'm sure they do know it is wrong, but they can't appeal to Scripture to say so.
So do you ensure your meat is drained of all the blood before you eat it?[quote]Well, not all of it of course. In the OT it simply wasn't possible to get every drop out, nor was it necessary. The intentional consumption of blood is what is at issue. And yes, I do avoid the consumption of blood, and if meat that I buy obviously has a lot of blood I try to get rid of the blood.
[quote]I know that some of the meat I buy at the supermarket still has quite a bit of blood in it, and I tend to make gravy out of it. You don't have gravy, either, huh?mmmmmm, gravy. The juices that come out of cooked meat are not blood. Maybe we make our gravy differently. But actually I'm just lazy, I use packet gravy.
Does this example demonstrate the difficulty in excluding any law merely on 'ceremonial' grounds? How do you know whether a law is 'merely' ceremonial, or having another ethical foundation, as in the case of Acts 15?Why would this case illustrate such a diffculty? In Leviticus something is added to the earlier prohibition on eating blood, namely a clean/unclean distinction (not clean and unclean food, but a state of uncleanness entered by eating blood). This does not mean the earlier rationale has been replaced. And in the case of Acts 15, if my reconstruction is correct, then the basis for that distinction was not incredibly difficult. It might not have been obvious, but certainly discernable, namely a distinction between laws that applied to covenant Jews only, and laws that applied to all equally.
Can you in fact distinguish applicable and non-applicable laws at all?I'm unsure why you asked me that, but my answer is yes. I wouldn't be attempting it if I thought otherwise.
That this command appears within a list of forbidden sexual relationships (Lev 18:6-23) makes it quite clear that 18:19 is a forbidden sexual relationship. There's not really any doubt here. If you separate out this one command from all of the others, when all of them refer to sexual intercourse with a forbidden partner, then you will need a good reason (and the temporary nature of the forbidden relationship would only be a tendentious reason, so I trust you won't go there...).Always beware of declaring that something is certain or that there is no doubt. Secondly, location is not the be all and end all. The fact that a list of prohibitions that have something in common (i.e. sex) appear toether is not proof that the prohibitions all have the same rationale. Only one of these commands is said to exist because of the issue of cleanliness, which makes it different in at least one regard from the others. You might be right that this is just equal to the fact of a certain relationship itself being an "abomination", but I'm not convinced. Again, I could be wrong, and maybe there is another reason lurking behind the command beyond what Leviticus actually says.
Incidentally, do you refrain from sex with your wife during the week of her menstruation, given that you have some doubt as to the applicability of this law, being about 50:50 on whether this law applies to you? I must say, if I thought "I could go one way or the other" on whether God had issued a command to me to refrain from sex during menstruation, I certainly wouldn't play fast and loose with God's command, but would err on the obedient side!Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to make a point: Do you masturbate in the shower? :whistle: Some questions are not really forum material!
I'm not sure how this would alter your obligation to follow the law, even if there were a civil penalty prescribed in Leviticus. How would theonomy distinguish such laws?A theonomist would apply the following method to distinguish between laws with a penalty and laws without a penalty: Read through the law and note which have penalties mentioned and which don't.
However, as I read it, there is in fact a civil penalty: exile. Lev 18:30 prescribes "For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people."Fair comment, I stand corrected.
So homosexuality and bestiality are "certainly" sexual immorality, but another item in the same list of sexual immoralities might not be? I was worried about the pragmatic ability of theonomy to actually identify laws that applied, because there seemed to be a great deal of subjectivity and fuzzy logic involved in working this out. But when two items from one list of sexual immoralities are treated in quite different ways, how can this fail to involve subjective application of Torah, based in part at least on one's cultural bias?See above. There is at least a prima facie case for distinguishing between the two. It might be wrong, but this doesnlt mean Theonomy is wrong, of course.
And, as such, how is theonomy different from any other approach that struggles to establish which Old Testament laws are applicable today and which are not?Theonomy is different in its method and presumptions (continuity rather than discontinuity), and it is therefore different in many of the conclusions that it reaches. It iscertainly not difficult because it is easy rather than complicated. Of course it isn't easy.
This either assumes that the Bible provides a comprehensive list of moral wrongs, or is an argument from silence - as noted above - so, this depends on your response to the same point I made above.Well, I don't think it needs to be seen as an argument from silence. It was based at least in part on my view of what Acts 15 shows. So I'm using the NT to help me interpret the OT.
I can excuse your subjectivity. I don't think it is possible to apply the Old Testament law without subjectivity, without some degree of illogic (in a strictly deductive sense), and therefore without risk of error. In this, of course, theonomy is unexceptional.Right.
I am finding this very interesting, and your responses very useful in addressing the initial concern I had in raising this thread, thank you.Excellent!

[dizzle]

I prefer not to see it in terms of breaking one fo God's commands in order to fulfil another. I think the solution is to say that it's incorrect to say that lying is always wrong. In other words, we are supposed to read the commands with wisdom. It would be too arduous to spell out all the necessary qualifications in exhaustive detail, so, at the risk of being subjective, we just have to read them wisely/sensibly.

I agree both with what you said and The Unassumed. I have "unpacked" this before (Unassumed, are you a STR listener?) by stating the perhaps Biblically speaking the midwives didn't lie at all if we take the implicit understanding of a lie as witholding the truth state of affairs from someone who has an inherent right to know the truth. Murderers don't. Nazis looking for Jews hiding in your basement don't. Your opponent in a sports tournament doesn't (i.e. leading your opponent to think you are going to run right, but instead running left) - but that is a whole another situation. I can gladly say that I in my life have never been in the position of having to decide to tell a "moral lie." I think such situations would be exceedinlgy rare.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I can gladly say that I in my life have never been in the position of having to decide to tell a "moral lie."You've never led someone to believe that you know nothing about a surprise party? You've never faked a pass in footbal? (Well, ok maybe you haven't done that one) You've never had a neighbour clear you mail while you are away, to make it look like you were home in order to discourage thieves?

[dizzle]

You've never led someone to believe that you know nothing about a surprise party? You've never faked a pass in footbal? (Well, ok maybe you haven't done that one) You've never had a neighbour clear you mail while you are away, to make it look like you were home in order to discourage thieves?

Good questions. I was referring to things of greater importance, but let me see. I have never been involved in a surprise party, but I am the straight man in a great many practical jokes which may qualify. I have never played football, but I have played bombardment so that would qualify. I don't want my neighbors reading my mail - we would have the postman hold it at the office.

I have been though in actress in some plays would is pretending like I am someone I am not.

I was more meaning in a real serious way I suppose.

[The Unassumed]

Hermeneutically, the New Testament prohibitions of sexual immorality must be read within their Jewish context, of which the Old Testament (and Lev 18) has the foremost relevance. All that is needed is a contextual hermeneutic which recognises the interpretative importance of the Old Testament; the Old Testament law need not be treated as having continuing authoritative force (although, it may!). So, there is little practical difficulty in interpreting the scope of New Testament commands against sexual immorality.

Unless the said moral judgements in the OT are true, there is no reason for the Gentile NT reader to see "sexual immorlaity" as including those things specificed in the Torah.
In fact, heremeneutically there is such a reason: the OT was the most relevant contextual interpretative tool for any Christian - whether Jew or Gentile - because the entire New Testament is soaked with allusions to the Old Testament, and only properly understood as such. All Christians were evidently immersed in the scriptures of Israel - which comprised the Old Tesament at that stage. This in itself provides the warrant for reading "sexual immorality" in terms of Old Testament and Jewish understandings.

Yes, the NT comments about sexual immorality need to be read against the backdrop of the New Testament, namely the Old Testament. But for the one who presumes the disonctinuity of the OT law, as some profess to do, such is not available to them.
This would only be true if the "discontinuity" were hermeneutical as well as authoritative. But, as already argued, the "discontinuity" involved in dispensational and other interpretations is only authoritative. And that is the basis for this point I am making.


Do you assume that the Scriptures contain a comprehensive list of ethical wrongs?

Yes, I do make an assumption like this. I refer to it (and I'm pretty sure some others do as well) as the presumption of liberty. It means that unless it can be shown that God disaproves of an act, it is permitted. The disaproval need not, of course, be in the form of a simple "thou shalt not," it might be a good inference from a command of Scripture. For example cloning isn't mentioned in Scripture, but killing is, and if a cloning practice involves killing, then obviously Scripture has something to say about it ...
... It's not an argument from silence, it is an argument that biblical silence exists. Remember that my claim was only that the one who prsumes the discontinuity of the law has no biblical grounds on which to declare with any authority that incest or bestiality are included in the NT warning against sexual immorality. They might still know it is wrong - in fact I'm sure they do know it is wrong, but they can't appeal to Scripture to say so.
To make theonomy an actual argument from Scripture, you would need to identify something in Scripture that stated "the laws of Torah are comprehensive of God's commands for humankind," or something to that effect. Without that, there is no way you can argue, from Scripture-based assumptions alone, to your conclusion ("unless it can be shown that God disaproves of an act, it is permitted"). If you assume that Scripture says X, and that Scripture claims to be complete in its ethical commands, then you can rightly conclude from Scripture that "unless it can be shown that God disaproves of an act, it is permitted." But without the claim in Scripture that the laws therein are a complete statement of all of God's laws for humankind, for all time, your implied syllogism is not entirely grounded on Scripture, but is only at best grounded in some sort of inferential assumption of the comprehensiveness of ethical laws in Scripture. And as such, it relies on an assumption from outside Scripture. Now, theonomy may be right in that assumption. But it cannot claim to be a merely Scriptural assumption.




So do you ensure your meat is drained of all the blood before you eat it?

Well, not all of it of course.
I agree - that would be unreasonable! :lol:
... I do avoid the consumption of blood, and if meat that I buy obviously has a lot of blood I try to get rid of the blood.
Well, that's in accordance with Acts 15, anyway.

Does this example demonstrate the difficulty in excluding any law merely on 'ceremonial' grounds? How do you know whether a law is 'merely' ceremonial, or having another ethical foundation, as in the case of Acts 15?

Why would this case illustrate such a diffculty? In Leviticus something is added to the earlier prohibition on eating blood, namely a clean/unclean distinction (not clean and unclean food, but a state of uncleanness entered by eating blood). This does not mean the earlier rationale has been replaced. And in the case of Acts 15, if my reconstruction is correct, then the basis for that distinction was not incredibly difficult. It might not have been obvious, but certainly discernable, namely a distinction between laws that applied to covenant Jews only, and laws that applied to all equally.
The difficulty is not with this particular case, but with all laws with a ceremonial significance. For, as long as it is theoretically possible for other laws to have a non-ceremonial significance, which can continue in the new covenant, there is no way to make a general rule disqualifying laws merely for having a "ceremonial" aspect.

It is still unclear which laws (apart from circumcision) James excluded, when he included 4 laws as having continuing effect for Christians. Unfortunately, this issue was not definitively addressed in Acts 15 (hence the present debate), and while reasons may be adduced in favor of one position or the other, a definitive answer will not be easily produced.

Incidentally, what is the legal requirement for Jewish Christians regarding circumcision, and other laws in Torah, from your reading of Acts 15?


2. The law against sleeping with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19)...

... That this command appears within a list of forbidden sexual relationships (Lev 18:6-23) makes it quite clear that 18:19 is a forbidden sexual relationship. There's not really any doubt here. If you separate out this one command from all of the others, when all of them refer to sexual intercourse with a forbidden partner, then you will need a good reason (and the temporary nature of the forbidden relationship would only be a tendentious reason, so I trust you won't go there...).

Always beware of declaring that something is certain or that there is no doubt.
I am wary of declaring there is no doubt, which is why I said "There's not really any doubt here." My interpretation was certainly highly probable, and only provides minimal reason for doubt. There is no "real" doubt, only a small, theoretical doubt.

On the other hand, one must also beware of seeking out quite improbable intepretations of a verse, just so one may reconcile the Bible's commands with one's own cultural practices. You might be able to identify a possible reason for considering this one item in a long list of condemned sexual practices as something other than a sexual practice. But, the attempt starts to look highly tendentious when it just happens to coincide with your own practice, and also happens to disagree with the way the verse has generally been interpreted by scholarship.


You might be right that this is just equal to the fact of a certain relationship itself being an "abomination", but I'm not convinced. Again, I could be wrong, and maybe there is another reason lurking behind the command beyond what Leviticus actually says.
Your recourse to "I'm not convinced" and "maybe" suggests some level of uncertainty in interpreting the applicability of this command. Given the fact that the majority of commentators do treat this as an instance of sexual immorality (and, if requested, I could provide references, although you are probably already in agreement with the position of commentators), don't you think you should err on the conservative side, and abstain from sex with your wife for a week each month?

Please don't take offense, I'm just trying to make a point: Do you masturbate in the shower? :whistle: Some questions are not really forum material!
The Bible doesn't mention masturbation, but does condemn the sexual immorality of having sex with one's wife during her week of menstruation. So, the analogy is bad. But, in any case, surely you can answer the substance of my question. Is Lev 18:19 a command that one must follow today?



So homosexuality and bestiality are "certainly" sexual immorality, but another item in the same list of sexual immoralities might not be? I was worried about the pragmatic ability of theonomy to actually identify laws that applied, because there seemed to be a great deal of subjectivity and fuzzy logic involved in working this out. But when two items from one list of sexual immoralities are treated in quite different ways, how can this fail to involve subjective application of Torah, based in part at least on one's cultural bias?

See above. There is at least a prima facie case for distinguishing between the two. It might be wrong, but this doesnlt mean Theonomy is wrong, of course.
My main question in this thread is not with the theoretical rightness or wrongness of theonomy, but with the practicality of applying it. Oddly, you seem to be able to distinguish the sexual immorality of having sex with a menstrual woman from the sexual immorality of having homosexual or bestial sex, even though Leviticus 18 refers to the whole list as abominations, and makes no distinction between them concerning their sexual immorality. The fact that this is the way commentators have almost universally understood the list shows this approach to be heavily biased. Added to that, the fact that your own culture happens to also treat homosexuality and bestiality as ethical issues, yet treat menstrual intercourse as a non-ethical issue, raises deep suspicions about the application of theonomic theory. Do you think that an improbable, yet possible, interpretation of Lev 18 should determine whether you believe Lev 18.19 should be followed or not? Or should the interpretation be widely accepted, before a law of Torah is rejected? Should you really rest on such an improbable, speculative, merely possible interpretation in order to disregard a law of God?

[magus]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but Dee Dee brings up an interesting statement;

I have been though in actress in some plays would is pretending like I am someone I am not.

I was more meaning in a real serious way I suppose.
Is it really lying when the context is known and people will interprete your statements likewise? I mean, sarcasm in context means people will roll their eyes and assume automatically you mean the opposite of what you've said. Storytelling (or which acting is a part) automatically entails fiction (unless you quote directly from the Bible). I guess context is important in determining whether a literal 'not-truth' is a lie or not.

As for laws; what about this?
Anything from Genesis, right down to (but not including) the Abrahamic Covenant should be practised. Any Mosaic law that has a purely ceremonial aspect should not be practised (but its principle should). Anything specifically mentioned in the NT should be practised. And if that means abstaining from sex during menstruation, then that means abstaining from sex during menstruation. Besides, the Pill works just fine for this, doesn't it? Not being female, I won't know.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[spitndirt]

No problem. Just so that you know, I am not personally theonomic yet. However, I am openly very sympathetic to the view. The reason I am not is that I don't think that I have taken enough time to thoroughly study both sides (most of what I have read is pro-theonomic as most orthodox preterist authors are theonomic, and eschatology is my thing) - I feel that in order to state a position definitely it would be irresponsible without studying the opposing side.

It is refreshing to have a thread that (so far) has not based objections to theonomy on emotional appeals such as ("So now are you going to drag all homosexuals out to the street and start stoning them now or would you save that until after dinner?"). To anticipate a possible question from you my approach to those sorts of arguments is to ask a Christian (I don't debate theonomy with non-Christians):

1. Are such laws as capital punishment for adultery, rape, homosexuality, witchcraft etc inherently evil at any time or place?

If the person answers yes, they have just denounced God. If they say no, then the emotional argument disappears, and we are left where I am at right now in my study - which is - is there a valid reason that such laws would be moral/right then and not now.

I believe that most Christian misunderstand what absolutism is and what relativism is, and when I raise such a question I am immediately labeled a relativist which of course is wrong.

Biblical absolutism is such that the same choice/action is good/moral/commanded for ALL people in the SAME (or similar) circumstances. However the "right" act may change if the circumstances change. For instance (and I at this time refuse to debate this particular thing too far because it gets me at odds with dear friends and no debate is worth that), I believe that the Egyptian midwives were moral/right/just in lying to the Pharaoh about the birth of the Hebrew males although in nearly every other circumstance lying is wrong.

Relativism does not teach that one's actions are relative to the circumstance (as I advocated above) but relative to the person - meaning that facing the exact same situation what is moral/right for me is not necessarily at all moral/right for you.

I just wanted to clear that up.

So my study is leading me to decide if there is some reason now why God's "good" law is not something to be emulated in civil affairs. Notice: civil affairs. Not the Church's affairs. Not a Church-ran state (for those offices were demanded to be separated in the OT) - which is another common strawman against theonomy.

So when you see my posts, just know that I am speaking as one studying the issues, and am not a reliable spokesperson for theonomy when I throw things out there.
Hi,

I'm a 'newbee' and am not familiar with 'theonomy' but you raise some interesting points on the application of law(s) through differing generations and cultures - a relevant topic for our times. In pondering these things I try and keep seperate in my mind the different institutions and their respective functions within a society. Me...I try and use pre-Christ 'Isreal' within 'the world' as a template, so to speak. This is how I see the Church within 'society' today. Society being under the rulership of the Governing Authorities (Powers), and the Church under the rulership of Christ. Christians obey Jesus' teachings as taught by Him and expounded upon by His Apostles - quickened to us by His Spirit. Non-Christians (and even disobedient Christians) are left to the 'the Powers' that be (Rom:13). The Church is to turn converts into desciples pressing them towards 'perfection' - the putting away of sin and the knowledge of God. For those within the Church who refuse to stay the course there are rebukes, warnings, shunnings....and eventually even what has become known as excommunication - which would replace the 'stoning to death' or putting to death that Isreal under Moses was commanded. - my opinion.

As far as non-believers, they are left to the Powers that be - whatever form they may take. Now, having said this I do believe that the Church, that is individual believers, is/are free under our form of Government to influence that Power to use the Law 'lawfully'. That is, in a 'moral' sense, to maintain that Part of the Decalogue that pertains to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' (which stealthily covers the 'love God' part also - an adulterer, murderer...is also an idolator, Sabbath breaker...), along with other obviously destructive practices which bring shame upon a nation. I see this as an aid to our Gospel mission by connecting these two truthes: '...the law is the school-master that LEADS men to Christ' and '...no man can come to Me (the Son) except the Father LEADS him.' - The Law - the fulfillment of which is LOVE; and God is LOVE.

Does all this make sense??? This I the template I try and apply as I do my little part to influence the cosmos - along with much prayer.

Another biblical account that is interesting is the story of Jacob and Esau. Jacob, along with mom, went to some questionable lengths to obtain the blessing from Isaac. But God did say '....and the older shall serve the younger'. Jacob was therefore 'covered' by Gods favor. In other words, Jacob, and mom, obtained the promise [by faith] - believing the Word of God. The questionable conduct of Jacob was, in my veiw, the very activity of his faith so that by his faith, being 'not alone', he obtained the promise given his mother concerning him.

Of course, I've been maligned numerous times for this view....But, it is what it is. Anyway, this is a cool website. Hope to learn much hear about many things.

Peace

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

In fact, heremeneutically there is such a reason: the OT was the most relevant contextual interpretative tool for any Christian - whether Jew or Gentile - because the entire New Testament is soaked with allusions to the Old Testament, and only properly understood as such. All Christians were evidently immersed in the scriptures of Israel - which comprised the Old Tesament at that stage. This in itself provides the warrant for reading "sexual immorality" in terms of Old Testament and Jewish understandings.Obviously I agree with that, since it just presupposes that this background is correct, which is what I believe.
This would only be true if the "discontinuity" were hermeneutical as well as authoritative. But, as already argued, the "discontinuity" involved in dispensational and other interpretations is only authoritative. And that is the basis for this point I am making.Sure, it's authoritative, which is just to say that they don't consider the OT law background relevant when approaching the NT as far as moral authority is concerned. This is why your above explanation about using the OT definitions of sexual immorality are fine - so long as we presuppose the continuity of the authority of the OT. Notice, for example, that the Apostolic exhortations to pursue holiness never led the Christian church to pursue it in the same way as the OT believers, including the rituals and types. So again, the fact that such a background does provide the definition of what we ought to do in terms of right and wrong is only a reason to do what it says if its definitions of right and wrong are still accurate.
To make theonomy an actual argument from Scripture, you would need to identify something in Scripture that stated "the laws of Torah are comprehensive of God's commands for humankind," or something to that effect.Firstly, no you wouldn't. To make an argument for Theonomy from Scripture, all you need is a declaration of the law, and then an exegetical warrant for saying that the law has not been done away with. And secondly, what you demand here can very easily be produced. You ask for something to the effect of "the laws of Torah are comprehensive of God's commands for humankind." Well, how about "Fear God and obey His commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity"? I'm sure you know where that's from.
If you assume that Scripture says X, and that Scripture claims to be complete in its ethical commands, then you can rightly conclude from Scripture that "unless it can be shown that God disaproves of an act, it is permitted." But without the claim in Scripture that the laws therein are a complete statement of all of God's laws for humankind, for all time, your implied syllogism is not entirely grounded on Scripture, but is only at best grounded in some sort of inferential assumption of the comprehensiveness of ethical laws in Scripture. And as such, it relies on an assumption from outside Scripture. Now, theonomy may be right in that assumption. But it cannot claim to be a merely Scriptural assumption." If you look back at the reasons I gave, my view that Scripture provides a comprehensive list of prohibitions, or, as I said, the basis for such a list, was based on the claim that in order for another believer to persuade me that I have a particular duty before God, he must give me a reason to believe it. have a think about this: How can you justify (that's the key word - justify) to me the claim that God requires me not to do X, if you can't appeal to Scripture? What is this other court of appeal you're thinkng of?
[quote]The difficulty is not with this particular case, but with all laws with a ceremonial significance. For, as long as it is theoretically possible for other laws to have a non-ceremonial significance, which can continue in the new covenant, there is no way to make a general rule disqualifying laws merely for having a "ceremonial" aspect.The case of the blood law wasn;t problematic at all, since we saw that the ceremonial aspect ws aded to a pre-existing law. For this reason it's demonstrably not true to say that we have a problem for all laws that have a ceremonial aspect. I also don;t see the point in saying that since it is possible for a law to have a ceremonial element added to it as a consequence of breaking it, we must simply lapse into hopelessness at the thought of being able to say that any law is simply ceremonial is nature. If you want to say in any case that there is, for a given ceremonial law, an additional non ceremonial purpose that binds us, you have to be willing to shoulder a burden of proof for that claim. So I don't see that I have created any difficulty of this nature.
It is still unclear which laws (apart from circumcision) James excluded, when he included 4 laws as having continuing effect for Christians.Yes. It would have been nice to have been there to get the whole story. Since it is pretty obvious that things like theft, kidnapping, bsphemy and so forth would not have been permitted, we can;t say he excluded the whole law apart from these four, so it must have been a smalled body of law. My position is that it was a subset of the Torah that was unique to Israelites - well actually not all of it was, these four weren't.
Unfortunately, this issue was not definitively addressed in Acts 15 (hence the present debate), and while reasons may be adduced in favor of one position or the other, a definitive answer will not be easily produced.Granted, although my answer is the right one. :wink:
Incidentally, what is the legal requirement for Jewish Christians regarding circumcision, and other laws in Torah, from your reading of Acts 15?That's not addressed at all in Acts 15 as I see it. In other words, they can do it if they like. After all, circumcision is nothing - neither good nor bad. I think the only issue addressed there is whether or not Gentiles should be required to become Jews.
I am wary of declaring there is no doubt, which is why I said "There's not really any doubt here." My interpretation was certainly highly probable, and only provides minimal reason for doubt. There is no "real" doubt, only a small, theoretical doubt.Well, there's a "theoretical" claim that sex during menstruation was not wrong because of the cleanliness issue (from what I can see, that's your claim). It's theoretical because it's a theory. And there's theoretical doubt about that because of the theory I think may be correct - as I have said, I could go either way - that this act was wrong because of the cleanliness aspect, which is what the text alludes to. Both positions are theories.
On the other hand, one must also beware of seeking out quite improbable intepretations of a verse, just so one may reconcile the Bible's commands with one's own cultural practices. You might be able to identify a possible reason for considering this one item in a long list of condemned sexual practices as something other than a sexual practice. But, the attempt starts to look highly tendentious when it just happens to coincide with your own practice,You don't even know what my own practice is. Moreover, I have changed practices in the past to align with Scripture. Why would this be different?
and also happens to disagree with the way the verse has generally been interpreted by scholarship.Well, the Word Biblical Commentary (the first one I laid hands on after seeing your comment) has no comment on vs 19 other than "See 15:20; also 12:7; 20:18." Those verses describe the ritual "uncleanness" that I referred to, and they spell out the rituals that must be undergone, the sacrifices that are to be offered, etc. if anything this scholarly commentary seems to suggest that the issue here is ritual uncleanness."

I don't know what all the other commentators say.

Your recourse to "I'm not convinced" and "maybe" suggests some level of uncertainty in interpreting the applicability of this command.I'm sorry that I didn't make it clearer. I did try to say several times that I'm not dogmatic about this, and there is some doubt. I'm alittle troubled by the way you think that it's just obvious that this command isn't about ritual cleanness, given the prima facie case for that view. I could be wrong (again I add that so it isn't missed), I just don't think I am (obviously, who thinks they are wrong?).
The Bible doesn't mention masturbation, but does condemn the sexual immorality of having sex with one's wife during her week of menstruation. So, the analogy is bad.The analogy is fine, my question wasn't designed to get information, it was to illustrate that you ought not to ask a stranger about his sex life or such things.
But, in any case, surely you can answer the substance of my question. Is Lev 18:19 a command that one must follow today?Do you think that everything I have said about it up until now has not been an attempt to answer? Hopefully my somewhat but not completely certain stance is clear to you now. I'm sorry if it's a little sunsatisfactory just because I didn't include a divulgance of details of what my wife and I do in the bedroom. I have a conscience, and I attempt to do what I believe God requires of me. I'm sure it is the same for you.

[David Hayward]

2. The law against sleeping with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19)I note that in Ezekiel 18:5-9, "...does not approach a menstrual woman" is grouped with a number of impeccably acceptable modern Christian virtues, and by association (if that is a valid argument) shares their status.

These virtues appear after Ezekiel's famous call to individual repentance and salvation, appear as expected signs or proofs of repentance. (Ezekiel has two "call followed by signs" passages, with the signs lists partly different.) In Matthew, John the Baptist follows this format of "call followed by signs"; and I take it that this is an obvious (to his Jewish audience) deliberate reference to Ezekiel's passages, ie a statement that he is making the identical call; a page later, Jesus makes the identical call (minus any specific signs); in Acts there is the same call to repentance from the apostles ie from the Early Christian Church; Paul, too, calls to repentance. Therefore I take Ezekiel's call to repentance (and signs of, including on the face of it, "do not approach a menstrual woman") to be arguably essential to the message of Jesus and his disciples.

Further on, in Ezekiel 36:17 we find : "Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity." Ie. so abhorrent to God that he poured out his wrath, scattered the house of Israel (before stating He will forgive them anyway, for the sake of his holy name, in one of the loveliest passages of the OT.)

I do not here argue for or against sleeping with a menstrual woman, finding the question which OT laws should be considered still applicable to be confusing : I wish to draw attention to the difficulty of discernment.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I note that in Ezekiel 18:5-9, "...does not approach a menstrual woman" is grouped with a number of impeccably acceptable modern Christian virtues, and by association (if that is a valid argument) shares their status.I share your caution that you indicated in the word "if that is a valid argument." I just don;t know how far association takes us in man cases. Take Job for example. In the first part of the first chapter of Jon, the writer goes to some lengths to rave on about what a wonderfully righteous man Job was. God is even depicted saying to Satan that Job "is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." He goes so far as to say that "there is nobody else on earth like him!" Yet in Job 1:5 the prime examples of Job's righteouness are the fact that he engages in purity rites and offers sin offerings for his children. I don't think that the fact that these acts are associated dirctly with Job's righteousness means that we must do them today to live righteous lives.

In a similar way, even if the issue of intercourse during menstruation is just a matter of cleanliness/purity rites (which the language does suggest, but as I keep emphasising, I am open either way at this point), it could still quite easily be associated with other commands that have no such connection as part of the list of the qualifications of a righteous man. After all, just as in the mind of thw writer of Job, a rightwous man just would offer sin offerings and engage in purity rights, so for the author of Ezekiel, a righteous man in israel certainly would abide by the ceremonial commands. That's why I don't think the association here in Ezekiel tells us much one way or the other.
Further on, in Ezekiel 36:17 we find : "Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity." Ie. so abhorrent to God that he poured out his wrath, scattered the house of Israel (before stating He will forgive them anyway, for the sake of his holy name, in one of the loveliest passages of the OT.)Yes, very true. But have a look, for example, at the way the term "uncircumcised" is used in the OT as well. It depicts pagans, things offensive to God. Such terms are approrpiate in a clean/unclean context just because to be ceremonially unclean really was a big deal. The fact that unclean things were hateful to God in this covenant context dos not however show that we are bound to see al ceremonial laws, or even any particular ceremonial laws for that matter, as having direct application in the absence of those same ceremonial, ritual covenant contexts. Note that I do not say it proves the opposite either, of course. I'm being open about this issue.
I do not here argue for or against sleeping with a menstrual woman, finding the question which OT laws should be considered still applicable to be confusing : I wish to draw attention to the difficulty of discernment.Yes, you're certainly right that this particular field within biblical interpretation can be hard going.

[David Hayward]

After all, just as in the mind of thw writer of Job, a rightwous man just would offer sin offerings and engage in purity rights, so for the author of Ezekiel, a righteous man in israel certainly would abide by the ceremonial commands. That's why I don't think the association here in Ezekiel tells us much one way or the other.
...depicts ... things offensive to God. Such terms are approrpiate in a clean/unclean context just because to be ceremonially unclean really was a big deal.That's a helpful perspective.

A supporting perspective is the view I read in a newspaper some years ago, where a Jewish journalist claimed that much of the ritual purity law was to do with health; and particularly that those laws concerned with sexual purity were there to ensure OT Israel had a plentiful supply of healthy sons to fight the neighbouring warlike tribes.

[dizzle]

Is it really lying when the context is known and people will interprete your statements likewise? I mean, sarcasm in context means people will roll their eyes and assume automatically you mean the opposite of what you've said. Storytelling (or which acting is a part) automatically entails fiction (unless you quote directly from the Bible). I guess context is important in determining whether a literal 'not-truth' is a lie or not.

Context is important - but the line is not as clear as one would suppose. Not only did the Egyptian midwives blatantly tell an untruth, God commended them for it. Immoral lying is withholding the truth from someone who has a legitimate right to expect the truth and has no evil intentions. Rahab also lied about the Hebrew spies, and she is commended for her faith with no mention of a condemnation of her untruth.

Should a Christian not be a sting operative in the police? Should a Christian not be a spy for their country?

Oh boy, I will stop now. My view on this is controversial enough and this is way off topic. I have a lot of catching up to do to read this thread.

[magus]

My father, who's a really great guy, has pointed something out to me that I guess should have been obvious a long time ago.

His observation is that Jesus was asked this question; "Which are the greatest laws?" His answer, as we all know, was "Love the Lord your God...." and "Love your neighbour..." And I guess from there, we can see all the other laws flow.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[The Unassumed]

... You ask for something to the effect of "the laws of Torah are comprehensive of God's commands for humankind." Well, how about "Fear God and obey His commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity"? I'm sure you know where that's from ...
Hi Theonomy! After a weekend's break, I thought I'd resume discussions. It's often good to step back for a while when I'm considering someting. I had a read through your post today, which prompted a visit to the library, from which I've just returned.

I understand you to believe that, unless Scripture explicitly or by direct inference prohibits something, it is allowable. So, for example, as artificial insemination is not prohibited by any command, unless it involved the breaking of some other command (e.g. the command regarding culpable homicide). However, this belief requires that Scripture in fact contain a comprehensive list of commands for humankind. I then asked whether Scripture in fact states that it provides a comprehensive list of commands.

You first denied that such was necessary, because the absence of any reason to show that the law has been "done away with" showed that it continued in effect. However, while this is an argument for the continuation of the Law, and one I quite agree with incidentally, it is not an argument that the Law is comprehensive of all God's commands for humanity. That is, although the existing laws may be argued to continue, they are not necessarily comprehensive.

Secondly, you argued that Ecclesiastes 12:13 provided a basis for the comprehensiveness of the Law for all time. I can't see how. While the passage states that fearing God and following his commands is the whole [ duty ] of humankind, the verse does not address whether the commands are comprehensive for any ethical situation.

So, your 'presumption of liberty' - that what is not prohibited is allowable - does not have direct Scriptural basis.

I originally raised this point, because you were arguing that the non-theonomist could not logically support his or her ethical stance from Scripture. (I disagreed with this above, and still believe that the Old Testament can be used as a hermeneutical basis for the authoritative ethical teaching in the New Testament.) But, even if the non-theonomist's position were strictly illogical (which I doubt), the theonomist is also strictly illogical. There is no logical basis in Scripture for the comprehensiveness of the laws therein. So to argue for theonomy from explicit gaps in moral teaching in the New Testament is therefore a weak argument. For, there are also gaps in Old Testament moral teaching.



... there's theoretical doubt about that [the command against sex during menstruation] because of the theory I think may be correct - as I have said, I could go either way - that this act was wrong because of the cleanliness aspect, which is what the text alludes to ...
Although you did not hesitate to instantly condemn homosexuality and bestiality, based on the continued applicability of Lev 18:22 and Lev 18:23, you have expressed your uncertainty as to the continued applicability of the law against sex with a menstruating woman, in Lev 18.19.

Unusually, you have only raised a possible argument against distinguishing the law against sex with a menstruating woman in Lev 18:19 from the other commands in the list of sexual sins in Lev 18. Your possible argument requires that Lev 18:19 not only concern ceremonial uncleanliness, but that should not concern sexual mores at all. For, even if part of the reason for this command concerned inappropriate sexual behavior, even if there were a ceremonial aspect that was superseded in the New Testament in some way, the command should be presumed to continue in effect.

And, prima facie, there are solid grounds for treating Lev 18:19 as a continuing command against sexual behavior. Firstly, it appears in a long list of sexually prohibited behavior. Secondly, "fornication" is explicitly identified in Acts 15:20 & 29 as an Old Testament command with continuing applicability! Not only that, but the commands identified in Acts 15 as having continuing applicability to Gentile Christians are themselves based on Lev 17-18!!

So I ask if theonomy can answer this: should I abstain from sex during the week of my wife's menstruation?


... Well, the Word Biblical Commentary (the first one I laid hands on after seeing your comment) has no comment on vs 19 other than "See 15:20; also 12:7; 20:18." Those verses describe the ritual "uncleanness" that I referred to, and they spell out the rituals that must be undergone, the sacrifices that are to be offered, etc. if anything this scholarly commentary seems to suggest that the issue here is ritual uncleanness."

I don't know what all the other commentators say.
You may have missed Word's commentary on the list as a whole, which does in fact support my contention that the list of sexual sins are to be read as a whole. As John E. Hartley explains, when the list is introduced by a general law in Lev 18:6, it encompasses both the incest laws in Lev 18:7-18, and the second series of unlawful sexual practices in Lev 18:19-23. Here is what the commentary explains:

"Turing to look at the laws [of Lev 18] in detail, there is a general, categorical law (v 6) at the head of all the laws. It is formed with second person plural forms in order to establish a tie with the style of the preceding parenetic material. The use of )Y$ )Y$ addresses all the hearers ... The main verb, QRB "draw near," is more generic than the verbs of the incest decrees - GLH, "reveal," and $kB, "lie" - in order to encompass both that series of laws and the second series of laws, as the occurrence of this verb in v 19 proves."
- John E. Hartley. Leviticus. Word. Dallas: Word, 1992, p. 286.
So, the Word commentary confirms that the list of prohibited sexual behavior is indeed a united list of prohibited sexual behavior.

R. K. Harrison is clear that Lev 18:19 does not concern ceremonial issues, but moral offence:
"Carnal relations with a woman during her menses had been prohibited earlier on the basis of ceremonial uncleanness (Lv. 15:24), but here are regarded as a moral offece, and would be punished accordingly (Lv. 20:18)."
- R. K. Harrison. Leviticus. Tyndale Old Testmant Commentaries. Leicester, IVP, 1980, p. 190.

Eilberg-Schwartz connects the moral offence to the concern with "wasted seed" - activities that cannot produce and maintain children within the socially approved family. Frank H. Gorman cites Eilberg-Schwartz and comments:
"Verse 19 prohibits sexual relations with a woman while she is in her menstral impurity (cf. 20:18 and 15:19-24). Such impurity is communicated through sexual intercourse. The activity is prohibited not just because of the risk of impurity but because it cannot be expected to produce children (Eilberg-Schwartz 1990, 182-86). For the priestly traditionalists, acceptable sexual activity should lead to conception."
- Frank H. Gorman. Divine Presence and Community: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, p. 108.

So I ask if theonomy can answer this: should I abstain from sex during the week of my wife's menstruation?



... I have changed practices in the past to align with Scripture ...
Could you please list your changed practices, for my interest. Thank you.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I understand you to believe that, unless Scripture explicitly or by direct inference prohibits something, it is allowable. So, for example, as artificial insemination is not prohibited by any command, unless it involved the breaking of some other command (e.g. the command regarding culpable homicide). However, this belief requires that Scripture in fact contain a comprehensive list of commands for humankind. I then asked whether Scripture in fact states that it provides a comprehensive list of commands.Actually, as I sought to emphasise, it contains an exhaustive list of prohibitions that another Christian can justify to me as having divine sanction. If he believes there are secret prohibitions of some sort not covered by any Scriptural authority whatsoerver, I'm sure you will understand why I would have a very hard time believing that those prohibitions really exist. Unless a believer can show me that Scipture prohibits something, and as I have said, not necessarily directly, but a sound inference will do, on what basis should I obey the rule he is offering me? This principle is also called "the sufficiency of Scripture."
You first denied that such was necessary, because the absence of any reason to show that the law has been "done away with" showed that it continued in effect.Yes, I did first deny that, but of course my view never changed, I still do deny that such is necessary, even if it is true. No amount of silence can overturn a divine command, so certainly in order for Theonomy to be true, the law need not be such a comprehensive guide.
However, while this is an argument for the continuation of the Law, and one I quite agree with incidentally, it is not an argument that the Law is comprehensive of all God's commands for humanity.

That is, although the existing laws may be argued to continue, they are not necessarily comprehensive.All of this is making me curious, because you haven't yet stated: Outside of Scripture, what moral commands from God do we have that cannot be based on Scripture?
Secondly, you argued that Ecclesiastes 12:13 provided a basis for the comprehensiveness of the Law for all time. I can't see how. While the passage states that fearing God and following his commands is the whole [ duty ] of humankind, the verse does not address whether the commands are comprehensive for any ethical situation.When the author referred to God's "commandments," which commandments do you believe he had in mind? And just what do you mean when you question whether the commandments of God are comprehensive for any ethical situation. If the whole duty entails keeping the commandments of God, then they are comprehensive. There is no duty in any sitatuation that is not connected to a commandment of God.
So, your 'presumption of liberty' - that what is not prohibited is allowable - does not have direct Scriptural basis.You can see why I don't accept this. But it only furthers my curiosity about this other source of extra moral rules, outside of the ones given in Scripture.
I originally raised this point, because you were arguing that the non-theonomist could not logically support his or her ethical stance from Scripture. (I disagreed with this above, and still believe that the Old Testament can be used as a hermeneutical basis for the authoritative ethical teaching in the New Testament.)This is still not the case. My claim was that the person who rejects the OT law cannot claim, when reading the NT commands against sexual immorality, that he has a biblical - that's the key - a biblical warrant for saying that he has been prohibited from engaging in bestiality. You rreply still looks to me like etiher an endorsement of Theonomy or an endorsement of cultural relativism. It would be an endorsement of Theonomy if we say "OK, the warrant is the fact that in his context, given his OT background, Paul would have meant sexual immorality to include incest because he knew, based on the OT, that bestality was sexually immoral." That's a Theonomic view. But if we just say "Paul forbade them from engaging in sexual immorality, and in the culture at the time, they would have though that this included bestiality just because that was the prevailing way of thinking (correct or not)," then we've endorsed cultural relativism. I assume that what you really were trying to do is argue the former position, which is Theonomy, as it only works of the authority of OT commands continues.
But, even if the non-theonomist's position were strictly illogical (which I doubt), the theonomist is also strictly illogical. There is no logical basis in Scripture for the comprehensiveness of the laws therein. So to argue for theonomy from explicit gaps in moral teaching in the New Testament is therefore a weak argument. For, there are also gaps in Old Testament moral teaching.The theonomist is not only concerned with the OT, but with the New as well. However, I'm interested in what you think these gaps are.
Unusually, you have only raised a possible argument against distinguishing the law against sex with a menstruating woman in Lev 18:19 from the other commands in the list of sexual sins in Lev 18. Your possible argument requires that Lev 18:19 not only concern ceremonial uncleanliness, but that should not concern sexual mores at all.This is confusion. It was indeed a sexual more, since it was sexually immoral to have sex with a woman who was ceremonially unclean. That is to say, the sexual immorality of the act is parasitic on the fact of ceremonial uncleanliness. In other words, the command only applies now if the fact of ceremonial uncleanliness applies now. That is the possibl reason I offered.
For, even if part of the reason for this command concerned inappropriate sexual behavior, even if there were a ceremonial aspect that was superseded in the New Testament in some way, the command should be presumed to continue in effect.But if the immorality of the act was entirely parasitic on the fact of ceremonial uncleanness, this should be reconsidered.
And, prima facie, there are solid grounds for treating Lev 18:19 as a continuing command against sexual behavior. Firstly, it appears in a long list of sexually prohibited behavior.This is not an argument against the possibility I suggested, since th epossibility I suggested already grants that the act was both sexual and prohibited.
Secondly, "fornication" is explicitly identified in Acts 15:20 & 29 as an Old Testament command with continuing applicability! Not only that, but the commands identified in Acts 15 as having continuing applicability to Gentile Christians are themselves based on Lev 17-18!!Of course, we already agree together on this. The question, however, concerns whether or not the immorality of the act in this instance is dependent on the fact of ceremonial uncleanliness or not. If it did (and as I say, I do not dogmatise, but that is what the Scripture in leviticus indicates), then things are not as obvious as you might think.
So I ask if theonomy can answer this: should I abstain from sex during the week of my wife's menstruation?My answer is still "maybe."
You may have missed Word's commentary on the list as a whole, which does in fact support my contention that the list of sexual sins are to be read as a whole. As John E. Hartley explains, when the list is introduced by a general law in Lev 18:6, it encompasses both the incest laws in Lev 18:7-18, and the second series of unlawful sexual practices in Lev 18:19-23. Here is what the commentary explains:


"Turing to look at the laws [of Lev 18] in detail, there is a general, categorical law (v 6) at the head of all the laws. It is formed with second person plural forms in order to establish a tie with the style of the preceding parenetic material. The use of )Y$ )Y$ addresses all the hearers ... The main verb, QRB "draw near," is more generic than the verbs of the incest decrees - GLH, "reveal," and $kB, "lie" - in order to encompass both that series of laws and the second series of laws, as the occurrence of this verb in v 19 proves."

- John E. Hartley. Leviticus. Word. Dallas: Word, 1992, p. 286.
So, the Word commentary confirms that the list of prohibited sexual behavior is indeed a united list of prohibited sexual behavior.What does this citation add to the disagreement? We already agree that it was a prohibited sexual act. But as Hartley notes when doing the verse-by-verse exegesis, the command appears to be entirely parasitic on the ceremonial distinction between clean and unclean.
R. K. Harrison is clear that Lev 18:19 does not concern ceremonial issues, but moral offence:

"Carnal relations with a woman during her menses had been prohibited earlier on the basis of ceremonial uncleanness (Lv. 15:24), but here are regarded as a moral offece, and would be punished accordingly (Lv. 20:18)."
- R. K. Harrison. Leviticus. Tyndale Old Testmant Commentaries. Leicester, IVP, 1980, p. 190.
One of the things to do when reading a commentary is to ask for reasons. Why does Harrison say this? We are not told. I think Hartley was wiser by simply noting the scriptural precedent for the prohibition on this act rather than seeking to add more to it.
Eilberg-Schwartz connects the moral offence to the concern with "wasted seed" - activities that cannot produce and maintain children within the socially approved family. Frank H. Gorman cites Eilberg-Schwartz and comments:
"Verse 19 prohibits sexual relations with a woman while she is in her menstral impurity (cf. 20:18 and 15:19-24). Such impurity is communicated through sexual intercourse. The activity is prohibited not just because of the risk of impurity but because it cannot be expected to produce children (Eilberg-Schwartz 1990, 182-86). For the priestly traditionalists, acceptable sexual activity should lead to conception."
- Frank H. Gorman. Divine Presence and Community: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, p. 108.Gorman is obviously correct to say that this command does prohibit one from doing something if it is ceremonially impure, but as with Harrisson, he insists on adding to it. After npoting what Scripture says about the act and the impurity, he then just asserts that there is another reason. It doesn't help a case to just quote another person asserting the same thing as you, unless they offer reasons.
So I ask if theonomy can answer this: should I abstain from sex during the week of my wife's menstruation?My answer is the same: Maybe. You have to decide what Scripture says, and live accordingly.
Could you please list your changed practices, for my interest. Thank you.No. I said this for the purposes of denying your claim that I am just out to make Scriptural commands conform to my cultural practices. I'm not willing to go into those biographical details with you. lease don't take offence.

[The Unassumed]

I understand you to believe that, unless Scripture explicitly or by direct inference prohibits something, it is allowable. So, for example, as artificial insemination is not prohibited by any command, unless it involved the breaking of some other command (e.g. the command regarding culpable homicide). However, this belief requires that Scripture in fact contain a comprehensive list of commands for humankind. I then asked whether Scripture in fact states that it provides a comprehensive list of commands.

Actually, as I sought to emphasise, it contains an exhaustive list of prohibitions that another Christian can justify to me as having divine sanction. If he believes there are secret prohibitions of some sort not covered by any Scriptural authority whatsoerver, I'm sure you will understand why I would have a very hard time believing that those prohibitions really exist. Unless a believer can show me that Scipture prohibits something, and as I have said, not necessarily directly, but a sound inference will do, on what basis should I obey the rule he is offering me?
Ah - but the "soundness" of the inference is a highly subjective thing, which makes your basis quite slippery. I am sure that Darby had a "sound" basis for deriving his dispensations from scripture, but other people would disagree. Other people have a "sound" basis from the New Testament to conclude that the Old Testament laws no longer have any jurisdiction over the Christian, but you might disagree with the "soundness", too. Likewise, there are many novel ethical situations not envisaged by the Bible, and only able to be decided biblically by inference and extension from existing laws. Does the bible have any view on artificial insemination? Maybe--but only once you make a number of logical inferences that exceed what the Bible explicitly says.


This principle is also called "the sufficiency of Scripture."
Well, I'm afraid that the "sufficiency of scripture" only concerns things which are necessary for God's glory and man's salvation.