Interpreting the Old Testament

[theophilus]

When Christians engage in online discussion of the Bible we are often accused of choosing Bible verses that support our postion and ignoring those that oppose it. Usually this takes the form of quoting some law found in the Old Testament and asking why we don't practice it. Since we consider all of the Bible, including the Old Testament, to be the Word of God this is a reasonable response and I will try to answer it.


God has given two kind of commands in the Bible. One kind consists of moral laws that are given to all people and are always in effect. Jesus said that these laws can be summarized in two commands:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

All of the other moral laws of the Bible are simply detailed instructions on how to carry out these commands.

In addition to giving universal commands that apply to everyone God also gives commands to specific individuals and groups that apply to them but to no one else. For example, he told Noah to build an ark to keep all life from being destroyed in the flood. This command was for Noah and his family alone and God never intended for anyone else to obey it.

After he had delivered the Israelites form slavery in Egypt he chose them to be his people and gave them laws which they were required to obey. These laws included all the moral laws which apply to everyone but they also include commands which weren't ever given to anyone else. The question is, which of these commands must we obey today and which were only for Israel and don't apply to us?

Israel was a nation but the Church isn't a nation but is a body of believers who are subject to the laws of the nations in which they live. A nation has the authority to enforce its laws and punish those who violate them, even executing them if their offenses are serious enough. A church doesn't have the authority to impose any kind of physical punishment but is limited to expelling from its membership those who continue in sin and refuse to repent. A nation has the right to engage in military activities to protect itself against other nations. Christians are engaged in warfare but it is spiritual, not physical. If church leaders in the past had kept this distinction in mind the Crusades and the Inquistion probably wouldn't have taken place.

God commanded the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices to atone for their sins and he established a priesthood to carry out these sacrifices. These sacrifices were intended to show what Christ would do when he died for our sins and now that he has done this they are no longer needed. The book of Hebrews explains how he fulfilled the sacrificial laws.


The fact that we are not required to follow some of the laws in the Bible doesn't mean that we shouldn't study them. Second Timothy 2:16,17 says,

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Many of the commands were intended to illustrate spiritual truths. For example, Deuteronomy 25:4 forbids muzzling an ox which is treading out grain. In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul quoted this command to show that Christians are to financially support those who work full time at preaching the gospel. When you read a command in the law you should think not just about its literal meaning but what spiritual truth it illustrates.

Here are some some other examples of commands which we no longer have to follow literally but which teach principles which we should follow.


"When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it." Deuteronomy 22:8.

When this was written houses were built with flat roofs and the roof was used as another room in the house so obviously a railing was needed to protect the people on it. Since we don't build houses like this today we don't have to follow this law literally but we can learn something from it that does apply today. If God had wanted to do so he could have used his power to protect the people from falling off their roofs and a railing wouldn't have been necessary, but he has chosen not to do this. We learn from this that he expects us to foresee possible dangers and take precautions to guard against them. We should not use the fact that he has promised to protect us as an excuse for carelessness.

"You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed." Deuteronomy 22:9.

When Jesus explained the parable of the sower he said that the seed was the Word of God. When we are telling the gospel or teaching the word we must be careful to teach only what the Bible says and not allow any human views to become mixed in with our teaching.

"You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together." Deuteronomy 22:10.

An ox was a clean animal which could be eaten or offered as a sacrifice. A donkey was unclean and couldn't be sacrificed to God. Paul might have had this verse in mind when he wrote 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers." The work of God is to be carried out only by Christians and we must avoid anything which we bind us too closely with unsaved people. This verse has often been used to show that a Christian shouldn't marry a nonChristian, and while this is true it applies to other situations as well. One area where Christians have violated this principle in the past is in making Christianity the official religion of a nation. The result has always been that the unsaved citizens of the country have been able to use this union to lead the church away from following the Bible. Christians should use their influence to ensure that the laws of their country are in accord with God's standards of right and wrong but they should never seek or accept government in the primary work of the church, which is preaching the gospel and teaching the Bible.

"You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together." Deuteronomy 22:11.

Revelation 19:8 says that find linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. Ezekie 44:17,18 says that when priests enter the sanctuary that must wear only linen and not wool, because wool will cause them to sweat. This seems to show that this law is a warning not to try to approach God on the basis of what we deserve because of our works, but to rely entirely on the righteousness which comes from faith in Christ.

This is just a small sample of the things that we can learn from a study of the commands that God has given.

Originally Posted by theophilus

When Christians engage in online discussion of the Bible we are often accused of choosing Bible verses that support our postion and ignoring those that oppose it. Usually this takes the form of quoting some law found in the Old Testament and asking why we don't practice it. Since we consider all of the Bible, including the Old Testament, to be the Word of God this is a reasonable response and I will try to answer it.

The reason commandments in the Hebrew Bible are not binding on Christians is because the Old Covenant has been made obsolete (Hebrew 8.13).

Reading the Hebrew Bible (OT) certainly has value to understanding the ways of God (or the ways in which men understood God). However, in the NT, people's relationship with God is not predicated on law, but on grace :) The Spirit is given, and thereby people can have a relationship with the Creator.

God bless.

Originally Posted by theophilus

"You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together." Deuteronomy 22:10.
An ox was a clean animal which could be eaten or offered as a sacrifice. A donkey was unclean and couldn't be sacrificed to God. Paul might have had this verse in mind when he wrote 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers." The work of God is to be carried out only by Christians and we must avoid anything which we bind us too closely with unsaved people.

Enjoying your post theophilus,

Deuteronomy 22:10 can also state that Christians are not to run harnessed with idol worshiping--unbelievers, as Paul urged the Corinthians not to do. That is to say that there are certain things which were never meant to be, and never meant to be brought together. What is to become of a stone mason if he received a contract to build a shrine to a Roman god? What is to become of a Taylor, that was hired to sew garments for priests of the Greek gods?

There's a story about F.W. Charrington. He was the heir to a fortune made by brewing. He was passing a bar one night. There was a woman waiting at the door. A man, obviously her husband, came out, and she was trying to keep him from going back in. With one blow of his fist the man knocked her down. Charrington started forward, and then he looked up. The name above the bar was his own, and Charrington said: 'With that one blow that man did not only knock his wife out, he also knocked me clean out of that business forever.' And he gave up the fortune he might have had, rather than touch money earned in such a way.

When Jesus explained the parable of the sower he said that the seed was the Word of God. When we are telling the gospel or teaching the word we must be careful to teach only what the Bible says and not allow any human views to become mixed in with our teaching.

Proverbs 30:5-6 in principle, also states the same thing,,,

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

I think the Bible is largely allegory. After all, Jesus taught in parables all the time. The Bible even says that he opened not his mouth without uttering a parable.

Even many Jews believe the writings of the old testament were allegory and told a larger, spiritual story. But of course, there are Jews who believe it is literal as well.

Think about the stories in the old testament where God told the Jews to go into the promised land and kill and slaughter everyone who was there before they took possession of it. Yet God commanded the Jews in the ten commandments; Thou shall not kill.

So what happened? Did contradict himself? Did he find ways to bend his own rules and even dash infants against a stone? Was the loving father of Jesus a blood thirsty killer? Or were those stories more allegorical than literal?

Perhaps the promised land is our own consciousness, and when it is filled with God's wisdom and light... it is a peaceful, wonderful place. And maybe all the heathens in the land are those lower, sinful thoughts that we must slay in order to make room for more peace, love and light within. After all, Jesus said that the Kingdom of heaven is within us.

Maybe God did not contradict himself or bend his own rules... maybe the story just means something that we in the western world have overlooked in our ignorance.

[theophilus]

Originally Posted by The Sphinx

I think the Bible is largely allegory. After all, Jesus taught in parables all the time. The Bible even says that he opened not his mouth without uttering a parable.

The stories Jesus told were labelled as parables to show that they weren't to be interpreted literally. If the whole Bible were an allegory and not literal this label wouldn't have been necessary.

Even many Jews believe the writings of the old testament were allegory and told a larger, spiritual story. But of course, there are Jews who believe it is literal as well.

The events recorded in the Bible were literal events but because God is in control of them they also illustrate spiritual truth.

Think about the stories in the old testament where God told the Jews to go into the promised land and kill and slaughter everyone who was there before they took possession of it. Yet God commanded the Jews in the ten commandments; Thou shall not kill.

The commandment prohibited them from committing murder. They were also commanded to execute those who did commit murder. This shows that there are some circumstance in which killing is right.

God created life and all living things are his property. This means that he has the right to end our lives if he chooses to do so. He had determined to destroy the people of the promised land because of their wickedness and he chose to do so by having the Israelites carry out the sentence he had imposed on them.

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/j...n-and-children

Originally Posted by theophilus

God created life and all living things are his property. This means that he has the right to end our lives if he chooses to do so. He had determined to destroy the people of the promised land because of their wickedness and he chose to do so by having the Israelites carry out the sentence he had imposed on them.

You enjoy that version of God that religion has forced upon you. I choose to leave those fetters broken upon the ground where they belong.

And back to the previous post by theophilus, it is also imperative to remember that Jesus too provided literal interpretation of his parables, more than a hundred prophecies about the Messiah were fulfilled literally, and Jesus rebuked those who did not interpret the resurrection literally.

Originally Posted by Shim

And back to the previous post by theophilus, it is also imperative to remember that Jesus too provided literal interpretation of his parables, more than a hundred prophecies about the Messiah were fulfilled literally, and Jesus rebuked those who did not interpret the resurrection literally.

But we do not even know who wrote those books for sure... Were they accurately quoting Jesus or just giving their interpretation of what he said. was it a first hand account, or was it a second, third, fourth or fifth account.

Many have faith that the Bible is verbatim, God's word.. and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote those books.

But the truth is... the authors are unknown. Even the book of Revelation is "CREDITED" to the apostle John... but it is a known fact that they are unsure if it was him or another person named John.

When we have evidence that the authors are not who many have faith that they are... then what about the rest of what was written?

So then it comes down to... is it literal, or allegorical? Did it really happen, or is there something more behind the words that many do not glean thanks to religion and its many spins on Christianity.

I am not discrediting the Bible .. I am however discrediting how many interpret what is written in its pages.

Again... religion tells us that certain people penned the words and they say that it is a fact. Reality and history tell us that it is not such a polished finality on the matter..... So where does that leave the rest of religions interpretations on the matter?

The Bible presupposes that one believes in God. The Bible makes many presuppositions, for eg., that people already know how to love themselves. The Bible presupposes that one will use the Bible as a historical or other record, and determine for themselves like any other record to be as credible as for a court of law. Whoever that person was who sits in the court madly typing about..

I for one won't be sharing scriptures in this forum from here on out, and that is much like not sharing the precedent, but often like the past will be using them to answer or participate in conversation. The problem with this part of the forum, is for the most part, is that no in- depth analysis ever comes about, because the threads are often interrupted by unbelievers.

So if I post something that sounds familiar but isn't found in scripture, that is because I am not going to post the scripture anymore and only offer what those who have read the Bible will recognize. And I won't be offering the opposition in defense of Christianity, if at all only what people know so that they continue believing what they want and know.

This is for me to feel more comfortable and accepted in participating in the threads...

Reminds me of taking a friend to symphony and noticing that in a very short time they are fidgeting. They gaze around about the hall extremely bored. Some friends pass along a form of judgment upon themselves, showing that they have no music in their souls. They were subjected to an experience that would bring about to them a new happiness but it has only become a form of their own judgment.

Good luck
Shim

[psychoslice]

I'm with you Sphinx, you always make the most sense no matter what thread you appear on.