Question: How Does One Determine Whether OT Laws are Cultural vs. Objective?

[JSDileo]

Now, I know what many of you are probably thinking, but allow me to explain.

Oftentimes, when people discuss the Law given by Moses and written down in portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoromy, they talk about the situation that the Israelites were in and how the Israelites were dealing with...'pressure' that meant that certain laws were made and enforced strictly in order to keep order in the Israelite 'camp'. For instance, in Deutoronomy, a woman would have her hand cut off if she grabbed the testicles of a man. This could be said to possibly cause sterility which would have endangered the existence of the tribe (Although I would assert that it also has to do with the 'honor' tied into making descendants to carry on one's bloodline). Oftentimes one might hear someone say that this or that law was made specifically for the Israelites to make sure that they didn't harbor what would be considered self-destructive habits (such as eating shrimp and pigs, which would have carried disease into the Israelites due to the times.).

So, my question is, how do we determine which laws are specifically cultural and which laws are universal? I mean, there are some obvious examples, such as the ten commandments, but even things like incest were practiced earlier in Biblical history and could be considered to have been banned because of its negative effects. So, again, how do we determine what was meant only for the Israelite situation and what was meant for everybody? How do we determine the scope of many OT laws? Is there a set of criterion that we could use for this?

To whoever responds, thanks to you beforehand. :smile:

[Tladatsi]

None of the 613 commandments has an experation date or geographical limit. Deu 25:11 says "If two men are fighting and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the testicles of the other man, her hand must be cut off without pity." It does not say unless you live in an urbanized setting several centuries from now with an organized criminal justice system. Nowhere does it say, some of these commandments are temporary and some permanent.

What would be the textual basis for selecting which commandments were temporary and which universal?

It seems to me, there is no basis for "picking and choosing" which commandments are in force and which expired. In another thread Thistle argued that none of the commandments are in force per se but they were rather guidelines which informs our inate sense of morality. It seems to me, it is all or nothing.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1563614#post1563614

Now, I know what many of you are probably thinking, but allow me to explain.

Oftentimes, when people discuss the Law given by Moses and written down in portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoromy, they talk about the situation that the Israelites were in and how the Israelites were dealing with...'pressure' that meant that certain laws were made and enforced strictly in order to keep order in the Israelite 'camp'. For instance, in Deutoronomy, a woman would have her hand cut off if she grabbed the testicles of a man. This could be said to possibly cause sterility which would have endangered the existence of the tribe (Although I would assert that it also has to do with the 'honor' tied into making descendants to carry on one's bloodline). Oftentimes one might hear someone say that this or that law was made specifically for the Israelites to make sure that they didn't harbor what would be considered self-destructive habits (such as eating shrimp and pigs, which would have carried disease into the Israelites due to the times.).

So, my question is, how do we determine which laws are specifically cultural and which laws are universal? I mean, there are some obvious examples, such as the ten commandments, but even things like incest were practiced earlier in Biblical history and could be considered to have been banned because of its negative effects. So, again, how do we determine what was meant only for the Israelite situation and what was meant for everybody? How do we determine the scope of many OT laws? Is there a set of criterion that we could use for this?

To whoever responds, thanks to you beforehand. :smile:

[James Peter]

The Sinatic Law was given to national Israel. If we were part of national Israel (which no longer exists of course) then the issue might have more weight. The Jews have never (not today, and not in the first century) considered the Sinatic Law to be binding on all nations.

So anything given to the nation of Israel, as part of their covenant with God, is not 'binding' on us. That would actually include the Ten Commandments. They are certainly good guidelines to follow but we are not part of that covenant. Read the 'preamble' to the Sinatic Law if you want to see exactly why.

Paul makes it clear that we are adopted into the Promise to Abraham and yet he rejects the need for circumcision and ceremonial purity laws (e.g. food laws).

The most consistent explanation of what is required of Christians is that we live as 'righteous gentiles' rather than having to 'become Jews' - large parts of the NT are dedicated to rejecting the need to become Jewish in order to be saved. So, basically, determine who the commandment was given to and you determine whether it is relevant to us or not. You're right that the cultural-objective divide doesn't really exist, but rather than us being subject to the whole Law we are subject to none of it (instead just to the commandments given to Noah and Adam...aka Noahide Law)

[A Cup of No]

The Sinatic Law was given to national Israel. If we were part of national Israel (which no longer exists of course) then the issue might have more weight. The Jews have never (not today, and not in the first century) considered the Sinatic Law to be binding on all nations.

So anything given to the nation of Israel, as part of their covenant with God, is not 'binding' on us. That would actually include the Ten Commandments. They are certainly good guidelines to follow but we are not part of that covenant. Read the 'preamble' to the Sinatic Law if you want to see exactly why.

Paul makes it clear that we are adopted into the Promise to Abraham and yet he rejects the need for circumcision and ceremonial purity laws (e.g. food laws).

The most consistent explanation of what is required of Christians is that we live as 'righteous gentiles' rather than having to 'become Jews' - large parts of the NT are dedicated to rejecting the need to become Jewish in order to be saved. So, basically, determine who the commandment was given to and you determine whether it is relevant to us or not. You're right that the cultural-objective divide doesn't really exist, but rather than us being subject to the whole Law we are subject to none of it (instead just to the commandments given to Noah and Adam...aka Noahide Law)

Good, clear answer, JP.

[dizzle]

good thread - I think this may better belong in Biblical Ethics, any objection to moving it JS?

[Crow]

The Sinatic Law was given to national Israel. If we were part of national Israel (which no longer exists of course) then the issue might have more weight. The Jews have never (not today, and not in the first century) considered the Sinatic Law to be binding on all nations.

So anything given to the nation of Israel, as part of their covenant with God, is not 'binding' on us. That would actually include the Ten Commandments. They are certainly good guidelines to follow but we are not part of that covenant. Read the 'preamble' to the Sinatic Law if you want to see exactly why.

Paul makes it clear that we are adopted into the Promise to Abraham and yet he rejects the need for circumcision and ceremonial purity laws (e.g. food laws).

The most consistent explanation of what is required of Christians is that we live as 'righteous gentiles' rather than having to 'become Jews' - large parts of the NT are dedicated to rejecting the need to become Jewish in order to be saved. So, basically, determine who the commandment was given to and you determine whether it is relevant to us or not. You're right that the cultural-objective divide doesn't really exist, but rather than us being subject to the whole Law we are subject to none of it (instead just to the commandments given to Noah and Adam...aka Noahide Law)

Great answer!

[JSDileo]

good thread - I think this may better belong in Biblical Ethics, any objection to moving it JS?

Thanks, and no, I have no objection. :smile:

[NeilUnreal]

So, my question is, how do we determine which laws are specifically cultural and which laws are universal?

My approach is so simple that, though I am serious, it may sound flippant:

You use that big, round thing that sticks up between your shoulders.

-Neil

"Use the targeting computer, Loke, that's why it's there..."

-Voice of Oobedoob Benubi to Loke Groundrunner in Thumbwars during the attack on the Deaththumb.

[JSDileo]

My approach is so simple that, though I am serious, it may sound flippant:

You use that big, round thing that sticks up between your shoulders.

-Neil

Thanks for your sarcasm. :ahem:

[JSDileo]

The Sinatic Law was given to national Israel. If we were part of national Israel (which no longer exists of course) then the issue might have more weight. The Jews have never (not today, and not in the first century) considered the Sinatic Law to be binding on all nations.

So anything given to the nation of Israel, as part of their covenant with God, is not 'binding' on us. That would actually include the Ten Commandments. They are certainly good guidelines to follow but we are not part of that covenant. Read the 'preamble' to the Sinatic Law if you want to see exactly why.

Paul makes it clear that we are adopted into the Promise to Abraham and yet he rejects the need for circumcision and ceremonial purity laws (e.g. food laws).

The most consistent explanation of what is required of Christians is that we live as 'righteous gentiles' rather than having to 'become Jews' - large parts of the NT are dedicated to rejecting the need to become Jewish in order to be saved. So, basically, determine who the commandment was given to and you determine whether it is relevant to us or not. You're right that the cultural-objective divide doesn't really exist, but rather than us being subject to the whole Law we are subject to none of it (instead just to the commandments given to Noah and Adam...aka Noahide Law)

As ACON said, great explanation James Peter. :yes:

[NeilUnreal]

Thanks for your sarcasm.

No sarcasm intended (seriously*), just mild humor. :teeth:

I meant that we really do have to make decisions about these things in the same way we make decisions about anything else. We have to use our brains, experience, prayer, etc. -- all these things -- and try to figure out what is the best thing for our situation. That is the beauty of being free from the law: we can do what makes sense.

-Neil

*"Thanks. I wish it didn't require the 'seriously,' but thank you."

-- Steve Zissou in The Life Aquatic

[JSDileo]

No sarcasm intended (seriously*), just mild humor. :teeth:

-Neil

*"Thanks. I wish it didn't require the 'seriously,' but thank you."

-- Steve Zissou in The Life Aquatic

:ahem:

I'm sorry, but "use your brain, dimwit" is not a valid answer. It means absolutely nothing. It does not go anywhere when it comes to answering the question posed in the OP. I can use my brain and decide that the entire thing is universal and binding, that the entire thing is cultural, or a mix of the two. You answer leads me nowhere.

If you have nothing of substance to post, don't post it.

[NeilUnreal]

You answer leads me nowhere.

OK, then show me anything, in any of the other answers, that doesn't rely on someone's analyzing certain aspects of the question and then using their brain to make a decision.

My point in being so brief was: that the question was so open-ended, that there is unlikely to be a confluence of opinion on how to make determinations about the law. There will be some points of agreement (love for God and neighbor), but even these will be so general as admit no specific solution. We have to figure it out.

That's what the Apostle Paul was saying. That, along with giving examples of how he reasoned through instances of making decisions about the law. e.g. In the case of food sacrificed to idols, etc.

That's the importance of the New Testament discussion of the older law: not to give us a laundry list of what still applies vs. what does not, but rather, the elaborated thinking outlined in the New Testamant gives us exemplars of how to make these decisions for ourselves in particular circumstances.

The prophets perform much the same function in the Old Testament: they function as a counterpoint to the rigid specifics of the law. Jesus' analysis of the function of the sabbath in light of David's eating the temple bread, is clearly directly in line with the Old Testament prophets. It gets a little trickier when gentiles come into the mix, since they have no historical experience of the Judiac law, but the principles are no different.

-Neil

[JSDileo]

OK, then show me anything, in any of the other answers, that doesn't rely on someone's analyzing certain aspects of the question and then using their brain to make a decision.

My point in being so brief was: that the question was so open-ended, that there is unlikely to be a confluence of opinion on how to make determinations about the law. There will be some points of agreement (love for God and neighbor), but even these will be so general as admit no specific solution. We have to figure it out.

That's what the Apostle Paul was saying. That, along with giving examples of how he reasoned through instances of making decisions about the law. e.g. In the case of food sacrificed to idols, etc.

That's the importance of the New Testament discussion of the older law: not to give us a laundry list of what still applies vs. what does not, but rather, the elaborated thinking outlined in the New Testamant gives us exemplars of how to make these decisions for ourselves in particular circumstances. (The prophets perform much the same function in the Old Testament.)

-Neil

You see, that was an answer.:yes: What you posted earlier was not. Thanks for the input. :thumb:

[NeilUnreal]

You see, that was an answer.

(Thanks. Maybe I'm just too comfortable sitting here at the keyboard today and giving lots of short answers is a way to keep reading threads and so sit here longer. :lol: )

Another way of stating what I mean is to say that:

1) We are not under the law. No law is subjective, neither in an authoritative sense nor a cultural sense. That is, we are not "subject" to any law, we are free to objectively choose what is right.

2) So, in deciding which principles of the OT law apply to us, we have to use the same criteria we use in making any other determination about what is right to do. A Pauline way of saying this might be: "All laws are objective, but not all laws are expedient."

-Neil

[Tladatsi]

The Sinatic Law was given to national Israel. If we were part of national Israel (which no longer exists of course) then the issue might have more weight. The Jews have never (not today, and not in the first century) considered the Sinatic Law to be binding on all nations.

So anything given to the nation of Israel, as part of their covenant with God, is not 'binding' on us. That would actually include the Ten Commandments. They are certainly good guidelines to follow but we are not part of that covenant. Read the 'preamble' to the Sinatic Law if you want to see exactly why.

Paul makes it clear that we are adopted into the Promise to Abraham and yet he rejects the need for circumcision and ceremonial purity laws (e.g. food laws).

The most consistent explanation of what is required of Christians is that we live as 'righteous gentiles' rather than having to 'become Jews' - large parts of the NT are dedicated to rejecting the need to become Jewish in order to be saved. So, basically, determine who the commandment was given to and you determine whether it is relevant to us or not.



You're right that the cultural-objective divide doesn't really exist, but rather than us being subject to the whole Law we are subject to none of it (instead just to the commandments given to Noah and Adam...aka Noahide Law)

Fair enough, we each figure it out for ourselves. I can live with that.

Where everthing gets sticky however when some folks come along and say..."X must be outlawed because it is banned in the Pentateuch". In other words, it becomes not each of us deciding for ourselves but but someone group deciding for everyone and getting it enforced through the power of the state. Obviously I could pick any number of currently contentious social issues where Christians seek to make some element of the Pentateuch law or oppose the passage of a law because it contradicts something in the Pentateuch.

:uneasy: