Cleanliness of the Old Testament

[kbwall]

I’m not sure if this fits under Moral Theology, but if it’s wrong, I guess it can be moved.

In the Old Testament, there are many rules and regulations that are no longer followed by Christians today. Now, I know the laws about eating were done in the New Testament, but there are many that have nothing to do with food.

I remember this being brought by somebody when talking about homosexuality. He brought up that in the Old Testament, if you touch a woman during her period, you’d have to go through a ritual to be considered clean again. This is not followed, and I had no idea how to respond to him.

 

[broconsul]

It’s a matter of ritual versus morality.

 

[Ruthie_again]

Of course you didn’t. He was changing the subject. How menstruating women were treated in the OT has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Besides, about the laws of the OT, so what? We are no longer bound by them, except the Commandments. And:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food" -- and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Cor 6:9-13 (RSV)

“sexual perverts” is wishy-washy. In Greek, it says, “nor catamites nor sodomites”.

But anyone can be washed, and sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[NHInsider]

“sexual perverts” is wishy-washy. In Greek, it says, “nor catamites nor sodomites”.

But anyone can be washed, and sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Ruthie- while I tend to agree with you, I don’t believe the Greek says anything about catamites, and even “sodomites” is something of a derivation. . . .

οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Anyway, to the OP’s point, we (Christians) are not subject to the Law but we are subject to Apostolic Authority.

 

[NotWorthy]

The difference between the ritual laws and homosexuality is that God calls homosexuality (and things of that ilk) “an abomination”. I’m thinking that God is not changing His mind on what is and what is not an abomination.

 

[melchesidechpio]

I’m not sure if this fits under Moral Theology, but if it’s wrong, I guess it can be moved.

In the Old Testament, there are many rules and regulations that are no longer followed by Christians today. Now, I know the laws about eating were done in the New Testament, but there are many that have nothing to do with food.

I remember this being brought by somebody when talking about homosexuality. He brought up that in the Old Testament, if you touch a woman during her period, you’d have to go through a ritual to be considered clean again. This is not followed, and I had no idea how to respond to him.

its a matter of taboo like. Leporacy and such was considered unclean because the Lamb of God hadn’t come yet to heal. One might even say that Cleanliness of the OT is to have a pure heart.

Note:these are opinions not facts

 

[rcjones]

The difference between the ritual laws and homosexuality is that God calls homosexuality (and things of that ilk) “an abomination”. I’m thinking that God is not changing His mind on what is and what is not an abomination.

Le 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Le 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Le 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Le 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Le 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
Le 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Le 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

You can see that many of the offenses of the dietary laws are called abominations. The differences is that there is no penalty for the dietary laws since they were intended to be allegorical teaching. As the Hebrews practiced the laws, they were to meditate upon them and discover things about God.

Homosexuality was not only allegorically wrong, it was morally wrong and had a penalty. That it is wrong is also repeated in the New Testament under ‘fornication’ which prevents one from entering the Kingdom of God.

Things that made one unclean could generally be mitigated by washing with water and waiting until evening. This is a foreshadow of having our minds renewed by the washing of the word, and a reminder that we would be unclean until death separates us from sin nature of the flesh (the evening).

 

[rcjones]

its a matter of taboo like. Leporacy and such was considered unclean because the Lamb of God hadn’t come yet to heal. One might even say that Cleanliness of the OT is to have a pure heart.

Note:these are opinions not facts

Leprosy was considered to be unclean because the law said it was.

The law has a shadow of the good things coming (Heb 10.1)

The law of leprosy was a shadow of the coming Christ.

The leper shaved his head / Jesus lost his ‘covering’ when the Father left him on the cross.
The leper covered his upper a lip, an action taken when your prayer has not been heard / Jesus prayed ‘remove this cup…’
The leper was avoided / Jesus died desolate
When leprosy covered the person completely (completely white) he was declared clean / After Jesus bore our sin completely he rose from the dead in Glory.
Then the leper went through a ritual the same as the priest / Jesus was made our High Priest.

The law of the leper was an allegorical prophecy of Christ.

 

[Vince1022]

Besides, about the laws of the OT, so what? We are no longer bound by them, except the Commandments.

Debatable.

As Jesus says in Matthew, he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. He didn’t specify only parts of the Old Testament law.

Also, Christians are not bound by the Commandment to keep holy the Sabbath, obviously, as Christians worship on Sunday and not Saturday (the Sabbath).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

In Greek, it says, “nor catamites nor sodomites”.

Please explain, as these words do not exist in Greek.

 

[kbwall]

I see, thank you. It’s an issue of cleanliness versus morality.

Though, something I have wondered, why establish the kosher laws if they were just to be ignored when Jesus came?

And I was under the impression we are to keep the sabbath holy. It’s just that the sabbath moved from Saturday to Sunday.

 

[NotWorthy]

I see, thank you. It’s an issue of cleanliness versus morality.

Though, something I have wondered, why establish the kosher laws if they were just to be ignored when Jesus came?

All the ritual laws (kosher and all the other seemingly ridiculous rules) are set up to illustrate our relationship with the God’s Covenant and what happens when we sin.

Breaking the ritual laws makes us ritually unclean, just as sinning makes us spiritually unclean. By breaking these rules the Israelite was separated from the community, just as we are separated from Christ when we sin. A person who breaks a major law in the Old Covenant couldn’t worship in the Temple, just as when we commit a mortal sin, we shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. Some of the rituals that an Israelite would need to do to be made clean point to the Penances that we have to do to restore ourselves to the New Covenant.

You see, God is teaching us in many ways!

And I was under the impression we are to keep the sabbath holy. It’s just that the sabbath moved from Saturday to Sunday.

We are still bound to the moral laws… what we know as the Ten Commandments. And yes, you are correct, because of the Resurrection, the Christian Sabbath is Sunday.

 

[Crumpy]

A lot of issues are being tossed around here. Just thought I’d mention one or two ideas.

I’ve been reading Jewish commentaries which are trying to explain and rationalize what it going on.

You will read in scripture that some of those rituals of sacrificing an animal have to do with unintentional sins. The idea is that your sin defiles the tabernacle. So, you have to make the prescribed animal sacrifice and the priest tosses the animal’s blood on the altar to re-sanctify it, to re-dedicate it, as it were.

Things like leprosy compromised the sanctity and cleanliness of the entire Israelite camp, and the leper had to be expelled from the camp.

Other offenses were so severe that they required a penalty of death. At least in the Torah, there’s only one incident I recall where somebody was put to death. It was Phineas, a Levite, who killed a man and woman who were violating the Tabernacle by performing a sex act nearby or in the tent.

And, there were other things relating to ritual impurity, which made one unclean – with respect to approaching the Tabernacle.

Some of the laws were clearly intended for their deterent effect. There’s one about a useless son being put to death by his parents.

There’s another one that I can’t recall clearly, about a daughter having relations. The issue seems to be not so much the issue of a moral question, as it was the fact that her value was reduced when she was being offered in marriage. I vaguely recall that this hinged around a matter of restitution.

 

[Crumpy]

One sublety that is never discussed is who the laws of the Old Testament applied to.

Rabbinic Judaism even before the time of Christ was of the opinion that the “Law” of the Torah applied to the nation of Israel alone.

For example, in Deuteronomy, there is a discussion of the fact that the law against worshipping idols pertained only to the nation of Israel, and that, in fact, God allowed the other nations to worship idols. God did not hold them accountable for worshipping idols.

You could make a technical case for the rule about homosexuality only applying to the nation of Israel, under this theory. So, under this theory, there was no universal law against homosexuality.

Rabbinic Judaism fixed that loophole, but I don’t know when. The rabbis had to account for God’s judgment against the world in Noah’s time. They figured there must have been a covenant – not recorded in scripture – that was violated to warrant God taking that action against mankind. They apparently tried to reverse-engineer what that covenant was, and came up with, among only a few other rules, a universal prohibition of homosexuality. I seem to recall that they figured that prohibitions of idol worship, adultery, and murder were also on the short-list of God’s commands.

This is not an irrelevant topic for New Testament study. The question is, on what basis did Paul not require circumcision of new Christians? or, what was the basis for him not requiring observance of the law (instruction) of the Torah by new Christians?

Was it just some direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit? or, was Paul applying some rabbinic formalism that he might have been acquainted with, as a Pharisee? or, was it perhaps a combination of influences?