Question about the Law of Moses

[siliconwafer]

I have a question about the Law of Moses. How do you know which commands of the Law of Moses apply to us today and which ones don't? I was just wondering because the dietary laws don't apply to us today, but the prohibition against murder does apply to us today.

[Chappie]

God's moral comands are eternal.

[dan p]

I have a question about the Law of Moses. How do you know which commands of the Law of Moses apply to us today and which ones don't? I was just wondering because the dietary laws don't apply to us today, but the prohibition against murder does apply to us today.

Hi , and I have a post om why the Law of Moses and its 613 have been set aside in Heb 9:15 !!

Paul in Gal 3 , deals with this question , which law keepers refuse to believe .

In Rom 13:8-10 , with 5 of those laws and does not quote the OTHER 5 , because we now are " in Christ " a phrase used only by Paul , dan p

[theblueprint_Ni]

I have a question about the Law of Moses. How do you know which commands of the Law of Moses apply to us today and which ones don't? I was just wondering because the dietary laws don't apply to us today, but the prohibition against murder does apply to us today.

Hi siliconwafer, and welcome to the TWeb. That is a great question that people are still in disagreement about. It isn't an easy question to answer with certainty when you get into some of the specifics.

There are many views, for example, on the Sabbath. There are those who take a Hebrews 4 approach and say that the Sabbath for those who have been set free from the law takes a spiritual meaning whereby we "rest" in Christ, no longer working and striving toward perfection. Others say that the Sabbath is still in effect just as it was in the days of Moses. They say that the Sabbath was instituted in the very beginning on the very first seventh day in the creation week, thus the literal seventh day has great significance. Although, it does runs into problems when you take into account that the Lord's day is on the first day of the week, not the seventh, yet many contend that the seventh has been replaced by the first due to the resurrection. Still others have a Lord's day view of the Sabbath, meaning that the Sabbath has indeed been replaced to the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection and the traditionally celebrated day to worship. The Lord's day view differs from the Sabbatarian view in that one is not so restricted that he cannot go to the store to buy groceries or go out to lunch after church.

Observance of the other OT laws are more or less addressed by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The gentiles were not compelled to observe any of them except for a few things that would help them to not offend the Jews. Other moral obligations would have been implicit. The Jerusalem council is a very important historical event in Scripture that helps us to shed some light on this issue. There are, however, still more questions that need answering.

For starters, the laws of Moses did not establish the beginning of God's formal law, so which laws are still in effect? For instance, the death penalty for murder and the command to abstain from consuming blood were established even prior to Abraham, the founder of Judaism. So there are still questions that don't quite have certain answers. Yet we know this for sure, we are allowed to eat BACON, as well as lobster tail, and that's enough for me.

[siliconwafer]

Hi siliconwafer, and welcome to the TWeb. That is a great question that people are still in disagreement about. It isn't an easy question to answer with certainty when you get into some of the specifics.

There are many views, for example, on the Sabbath. There are those who take a Hebrews 4 approach and say that the Sabbath for those who have been set free from the law takes a spiritual meaning whereby we "rest" in Christ, no longer working and striving toward perfection. Others say that the Sabbath is still in effect just as it was in the days of Moses. They say that the Sabbath was instituted in the very beginning on the very first seventh day in the creation week, thus the literal seventh day has great significance. Although, it does runs into problems when you take into account that the Lord's day is on the first day of the week, not the seventh, yet many contend that the seventh has been replaced by the first due to the resurrection. Still others have a Lord's day view of the Sabbath, meaning that the Sabbath has indeed been replaced to the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection and the traditionally celebrated day to worship. The Lord's day view differs from the Sabbatarian view in that one is not so restricted that he cannot go to the store to buy groceries or go out to lunch after church.

Observance of the other OT laws are more or less addressed by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The gentiles were not compelled to observe any of them except for a few things that would help them to not offend the Jews. Other moral obligations would have been implicit. The Jerusalem council is a very important historical event in Scripture that helps us to shed some light on this issue. There are, however, still more questions that need answering.

For starters, the laws of Moses did not establish the beginning of God's formal law, so which laws are still in effect? For instance, the death penalty for murder and the command to abstain from consuming blood were established even prior to Abraham, the founder of Judaism. So there are still questions that don't quite have certain answers. Yet we know this for sure, we are allowed to eat BACON, as well as lobster tail, and that's enough for me.

Thank you for your input. You brought up a good point regarding the Jerusalem council.

[Phat8594]

For instance, the death penalty for murder and the command to abstain from consuming blood were established even prior to Abraham, the founder of Judaism. So there are still questions that don't quite have certain answers. Yet we know this for sure, we are allowed to eat BACON, as well as lobster tail, and that's enough for me.

Well I have a theory that the fruit in the garden that Adam and Eve ate was actually bacon. I mean what else would be so tempting...its like Genesis says:

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes,

I mean...clearly the passage is referring to bacon. :P

[theblueprint_Ni]

I mean...clearly the passage is referring to bacon. :P

Do not torment me so...does this not speak volumes about those of us that eat bacon!?

[dan p]

God's moral comands are eternal.

Hi , and all Jews were required to give Sacrifices , and I have never given one nor do I have Levite Priest that I can give my 30% tithe , so who will get me from out of this Dilemma ?

dan p

[rhutchin]

Hi , and all Jews were required to give Sacrifices , and I have never given one nor do I have Levite Priest that I can give my 30% tithe , so who will get me from out of this Dilemma ?

If a person were Jewish and rejected Christ as the Messiah, then that person should see himself as still being under the authority of the OT and its laws. The person not providing the required sacrifices for their sins would not have their sins atoned for and is subject to God's judgment. So, it is interesting that God allowed Jerusalem, and the temple, to be destroyed in 70 AD basically taking away the sacrificial system (at least, it seems to have disappeared about that time).

[rhutchin]

I have a question about the Law of Moses. How do you know which commands of the Law of Moses apply to us today and which ones don't? I was just wondering because the dietary laws don't apply to us today, but the prohibition against murder does apply to us today.

A we read in 1 John 4, "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loves is born of God, and knows God." If the Christian takes this to heart (as he certainly will seek to do), then the laws of Moses are inconsequential. The person who loves even his enemy will not murder, steal from, lie to, covet the property of, etc. anyone. Thus, the proactive based love cancels out the reactive based commandments.

So, given that the Christian has been commanded by Christ to love his neighbor, the only real commandment the Christian can break now is not to love his neighbor (which then may manifest in the person murdering, stealing from, lying to, coveting the property of, etc. his neighbor).

[siliconwafer]

Hi siliconwafer, and welcome to the TWeb. That is a great question that people are still in disagreement about. It isn't an easy question to answer with certainty when you get into some of the specifics.

There are many views, for example, on the Sabbath. There are those who take a Hebrews 4 approach and say that the Sabbath for those who have been set free from the law takes a spiritual meaning whereby we "rest" in Christ, no longer working and striving toward perfection. Others say that the Sabbath is still in effect just as it was in the days of Moses. They say that the Sabbath was instituted in the very beginning on the very first seventh day in the creation week, thus the literal seventh day has great significance. Although, it does runs into problems when you take into account that the Lord's day is on the first day of the week, not the seventh, yet many contend that the seventh has been replaced by the first due to the resurrection. Still others have a Lord's day view of the Sabbath, meaning that the Sabbath has indeed been replaced to the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection and the traditionally celebrated day to worship. The Lord's day view differs from the Sabbatarian view in that one is not so restricted that he cannot go to the store to buy groceries or go out to lunch after church.

Observance of the other OT laws are more or less addressed by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The gentiles were not compelled to observe any of them except for a few things that would help them to not offend the Jews. Other moral obligations would have been implicit. The Jerusalem council is a very important historical event in Scripture that helps us to shed some light on this issue. There are, however, still more questions that need answering.

For starters, the laws of Moses did not establish the beginning of God's formal law, so which laws are still in effect? For instance, the death penalty for murder and the command to abstain from consuming blood were established even prior to Abraham, the founder of Judaism. So there are still questions that don't quite have certain answers. Yet we know this for sure, we are allowed to eat BACON, as well as lobster tail, and that's enough for me.

We are supposed to look to the New Testament to see which Old Testament laws apply to us today. I think this is a good starting point.

[Andius]

And here's a little something that might help you distinguish which moral statutes still carry on to this day;

Keep in mind that both the New and Old Testament contain Covenants (or another way to describe, they are contracts). All commands are bound by covenant. The Covenant brokered by Moses (The Law of Moses) is a covenant that we are no longer bound to, ergo, we don't have to follow it's every commands. The Covenant brokered by Jesus on the other hand, is the one we Christians are bound to, ergo, we are to follow it's every commands.

Case in point, how can you tell which commands from the Old Testament to follow? Quite easy, merely see the ones that Jesus cite (The Gospel of Mathew is the biggie one, where Jesus skillfully cites the the Law of Moses). Since both covenants come from a common emitter (God), it's not surprising to see that many commands have not really changed.

[siliconwafer]

And here's a little something that might help you distinguish which moral statutes still carry on to this day;

Keep in mind that both the New and Old Testament contain Covenants (or another way to describe, they are contracts). All commands are bound by covenant. The Covenant brokered by Moses (The Law of Moses) is a covenant that we are no longer bound to, ergo, we don't have to follow it's every commands. The Covenant brokered by Jesus on the other hand, is the one we Christians are bound to, ergo, we are to follow it's every commands.

Case in point, how can you tell which commands from the Old Testament to follow? Quite easy, merely see the ones that Jesus cite (The Gospel of Mathew is the biggie one, where Jesus skillfully cites the the Law of Moses). Since both covenants come from a common emitter (God), it's not surprising to see that many commands have not really changed.

Do you believe that if a command is not repeated in the New Testament, then it is no longer applicable to us today? Would bestiality or communicating with the dead be prohibited today? I don't think the New Testament actually condemns those things.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Do you believe that if a command is not repeated in the New Testament, then it is no longer applicable to us today? Would bestiality or communicating with the dead be prohibited today? I don't think the New Testament actually condemns those things.

Figuring that out is part of the challenge isn't it?

Sometimes there is a problem with perceiving too great a distinction between the "Old" and "New" Testaments. We can barely scratch the surface of the New without first understanding and applying the Old. Much of the NT assumes a great deal of OT historical and theological knowledge. There really is not supposed to be a gap between the prophets and the apostles. It is one fluent testament to the unfolding will of God that builds upon revelation of the past. Like the difference between the days of Abraham and the days of Moses, what we call the NT, which the Bible calls the "last days", does not make obsolete the revelations that came before, but rather adds to or fulfills.

The OT is sometimes overlooked and undervalued, resulting in errant views of NT teaching. I think some of this has to do with the connotations associated with the word "old". It sounds archaic, spent, and obsolete, and it plays into our interpretation of more than two thirds of the Bible.

[Andius]

Do you believe that if a command is not repeated in the New Testament, then it is no longer applicable to us today? Would bestiality or communicating with the dead be prohibited today? I don't think the New Testament actually condemns those things.

Yet said prohibitions stemmed primarily from the two Prime commands "Honor your God" and "Honor your neighbor", and in effect, are direct violations of said commands, and this is how;

Bestiality was a violation of both honoring God and neighbor because;
- Breached the purity distinctions between man and beast (Purity was a high concern for the ancients), a distinction God preordained. Not respecting said preordination's is to dishonor God.
- Breached the sanitary conditions that kept the community safe from disease. Having sex with some animal is to expose one self to disease. In the ancient world, a world with no modern medicine, diseases were extremely contagious, capable of wiping out entire populations (for good reason the ancients dreaded plagues). Getting sexed up with some animal was not some "private matter", it was exposing your neighbors to harmful diseases (it is no exaggeration that within the old Covenant, they were ordered to be executed, along with the animal. Survival of the community was the very thing at stake). To have engage in bestiality is to dishonor your neighbor.

*So why no mention in the New Testament? It would have been a redundancy to the audience of the time. Hell, it doesn't take a Christian to realize the grade A risks involved in engaging in such crazed acts (risks that were far far higher in the ancient world).

Communicating with the dead was a violation of the command "Honor your God" in this way;
- Communicating with the dead was NOT the thing that was wrong and prohibited in itself, it's the means that was used to contact the dead; Mediums. ( Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:10-13 )
- Mediums were in effect, brokers for other competing gods and spirits. God already has placed adequate brokers, The Clan of Levi (their role as priests). To resort to other brokers, ergo the mediums, was to pretty much spit at God and his chosen brokerers, practically calling them "inadequate brokers" with said actions (A serious act of ingratitude towards God, after all he had done for Israel). Oh... and it doesn't help that some of these mediums resorted to abominable practices such as sacrificing young children. Saul's act to resort to a medium was effectively the last straw in cementing total abandonment of fealty towards God. Mediums, NOT contact with ghosties, was the thing prohibited.

*So why no mention in the New Testament? Because by 1st Century A.D. , your average Jew was unconcerned with contact with the dead (especially since they had little knowledge about the afterlife, all they knew was the Sheol).

As a side note, many Eastern Orthodox churches operate under the belief that Church makes no boundaries amongst the living and the dead. Loved ones who died in Christ continue to be members of the Church, in effect, they ask or "pray" to their beloved dead or Saints to intercede and pray to God on their behalf on this Earth, really no different from when I ask someone to pray on my behalf. During liturgies, they operate under attitude and belief that during a worship towards God, their departed dead join in the praise experience in glorious worship towards the Lord, living and dead worshipping and serving alike. I myself don't subscribe to said practice, but it is not problematic really nor contradictory to Christ's teachings.