Harsh old testament law

[Bonocorium]

How do we respond to questions about the harsh laws of the Old Testament? for example, the various death penalty crimes, which in modern terms, are no big crimes at all, such as failure to keep sabbath etc? A lot of people and liberals are saying that the God of the Old Testament is evil and too strict etc and are asking if Christians actually support such Old Testament laws.

Basically:

1. Why did God given the Jews such harsh laws regarding “innocent-looking”/“minor” crimes?
2. Does the church support such harsh laws?
3. If a Christian was a writer of a constitution of a new Theocracy nation, should they add such harsh laws? Surely it would have no place in modern society, would it?
4. Why does Jesus seem to condemn the “eye for an eye” law (lex talionis) [Matt 5:38-39] when it was clearly stated as law in the old testament?

Thanks.

 

[padrepio_2012]

The only reason God punished the Israelites for breaking such laws was to keep them on course for what He had in plan for them. He wanted to bring about the salvation of man through the kingdom of Israel and He wanted to give them the promised land however they often strayed from God and complained against Him so to keep them on track He punished them. The Israelites were like a little child who keeps running away and God is the parent who has to scold the child for doing that, not because He’s harsh but because He loves the child and wants to teach it the right path. The Israelites were also very susceptible to falling into paganism so as I said God had to keeo them on the right path by punishment or else they’d fall to paganism

 

[MichaelHowling]

Some people find it “harsh” that we can sin over and over…and god keeps forgiving us and gives us the chance to enter heaven …while the angels were given 1 chance and they chose their place in one choice (the angels that stayed loyal and the demons that were dammed).

The angels were created as highly intelligent pure spirit and were in eternity…so when they chose, it had infinate certitude.

Man, being “in time” and not given the amount of forknowledge and light has been given a proportionatley = amount of mercy to how much knowledge and strength to master ourselves (remember…we have a wounded nature now) .

That being said…remember the scripture passage: " the more to whom is given, the more will be required of them"

The people in the old testiment had a special relationship with God… they heard His voice in thunder!, they witnessed the red sea split apart, the watched as God literally went to war the with egyptian army to save them etc etc etc …so a very high standard was theirs! We live without seeing God (for the most part) in such revealing ways.

Also, you have to think as the people of God as God’s own precious child collectivley.
God even calls them so …His “first born” ! Being, the first born (we believe “salvation is from the jews” ) …they have certain rights. They are in line for kingship…so being that their destiney is this…the father holds the “first born” child to a high standard to meet what they will one day become. They were in a growing stage. You see lots of evidence of their weakness and how God permitted them to grow. For instance…they were told to put to death their defeated enemies. This was not god being mean…He knew where His people were. By having them put immediatley to death…their prisioners were not raped, tortured etc etc.

As a child …a child gets rules by parents… "dont cross the street! " when the child fouls up and does…it get’s a spanking! Later as the child grows and comes to understand danger and such, they become more responsible.

In the fullness of time… Jesus comes on the scene and teaches them to respond to the laws not from just the head…but moves obedience into the heart… “love your enemies”.

God does not change…we Humans do.

As a parent…I deal with my 16 month old in specific ways…and it will change as the child learns and grows and is able to accept more responsibility…but my love and fatherhood remains constant.

God bless

Michael

 

[Dolezal]

How do we respond to questions about the harsh laws of the Old Testament? for example, the various death penalty crimes, which in modern terms, are no big crimes at all, such as failure to keep sabbath etc? A lot of people and liberals are saying that the God of the Old Testament is evil and too strict etc and are asking if Christians actually support such Old Testament laws.

There have been a number of threads about this in past week, maybe you want to take a look at them.

Basically:

1. Why did God given the Jews such harsh laws regarding “innocent-looking”/“minor” crimes?

The laws were necessary because without them the Jews would have lapsed from the practice of their religion. We read that the Jews broke the covenants many times (which resulted in the new covenant). The death penalty for refusing to keep holy the Lord’s day may seem hard, but the Jews, by breaking the Sabbath, also broke their bond with God. The severity of the punishment was in proportion to the gravity of the crime and in accordance with the hard morality of the times. We should not judge the past from a modern perspective, but put things in context.

1. Does the church support such harsh laws?

Mostly no, and of course the Old Testament laws do not directly apply to anyone anymore.

1. If a Christian was a writer of a constitution of a new Theocracy nation, should they add such harsh laws? Surely it would have no place in modern society, would it?

Catholic governments have in the past enforced the death penalty for persistent heretics, but, remember, this was in a time when stealing an apple was a capital offense.

St. Thomas reasoned, “every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).”

Interestingly, in our time we are actually following St. Thomas’ reasoning by opposing the death penalty for (minor) crimes.

1. Why does Jesus seem to condemn the “eye for an eye” law (lex talionis) [Matt 5:38-39] when it was clearly stated as law in the old testament?

Thanks.

Christ did not condemn or oppose the principle, but perfected it.

 

[dmar198]

How do we respond to questions about the harsh laws of the Old Testament? for example, the various death penalty crimes, which in modern terms, are no big crimes at all, such as failure to keep sabbath etc? A lot of people and liberals are saying that the God of the Old Testament is evil and too strict etc and are asking if Christians actually support such Old Testament laws.

Basically:

1. Why did God given the Jews such harsh laws regarding “innocent-looking”/“minor” crimes?
2. Does the church support such harsh laws?
3. If a Christian was a writer of a constitution of a new Theocracy nation, should they add such harsh laws? Surely it would have no place in modern society, would it?
4. Why does Jesus seem to condemn the “eye for an eye” law (lex talionis) [Matt 5:38-39] when it was clearly stated as law in the old testament?

Thanks.

The Law of Moses did not meet the high moral standards which God planned to reveal in Christ. It was not the perfect law but a preparation for it. This why the New Testament says that the Old Covenant had imperfections: Hebrew 8:7, 7:18, 10:1. This is also why the Old Testament promises a new covenant and a new law. “For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second.” Heb. 8:7.

Throughout His ministry Jesus goes through the Old Covenant and raises the standards. Instead of stoning adulterers, Jesus forgives them in John 8:2-11; by this He did away with the death penalties of the Old Covenant. Instead of an eye for an eye, Jesus says to be passive when someone wrongs you in Matthew 5:38-39. Jesus consistently raises the Old Testament standards.

The Old Law was a preparation for the New Law not because it teaches us how to handle the various kinds of sins but because by its very harshness it teaches us how serious the various kinds of sins are. For example, part of the reason why we call serious sins “mortal” is because in the Old Covenant they merited the death penalty. We are not supposed to enforce that literally, as the Jews did, but we are to learn from this very harshness that these sins kill the life of the soul. Therefore, in answer to your second question, the Church does not support enforcing the Old Laws according to their literal meaning. Rather we look to their spiritual implications, in which the Old Covenant finds its fulfillment in the New. “For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” 2 Corinthians 3:6.

In answer to your third question, a state that acts according to the Christian law would not use force and violence to bring people do what is right, except in response to violent acts and theft and things like that, since those types of things obviously need suppressed by the civil authorities. Rather, the Christian law tries to bring sinners to repentance through persuasion and prayer. This is why in Dignitatis Humanae the Church declared: “This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that [moral] obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” “In spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion… Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one’s right and a violation of the right of others.” The Documents of the Second Vatican Council consistently call for governments to respect the freedom of every man and woman and therefore not to use harsh laws to punish sinners, except obviously those actions that really need civil suppression (like murder, rape, and theft).

Re: whether the Old Laws make God evil, no they don’t. God is not like man, and He has an authority that men do not have. If God commanded certain people to be killed, in order to show us the horror of sin, that is His right since He is the author of life; but it is not man’s right to take life, it is God’s. And God has done away with the permission, given to the civil authority of the Old Covenant, to use violence to suppress error. Not because He may not do it, but because He does not want men to take the wrong lesson from it, and instead of learning to hate the sin, to learn to hate the sinner, which would be contrary to His will.

 

[chosen_people]

How do we respond to questions about the harsh laws of the Old Testament? for example, the various death penalty crimes, which in modern terms, are no big crimes at all, such as failure to keep sabbath etc? A lot of people and liberals are saying that the God of the Old Testament is evil and too strict etc and are asking if Christians actually support such Old Testament laws.

Basically:

1. Why did God given the Jews such harsh laws regarding “innocent-looking”/“minor” crimes?
2. Does the church support such harsh laws?
3. If a Christian was a writer of a constitution of a new Theocracy nation, should they add such harsh laws? Surely it would have no place in modern society, would it?
4. Why does Jesus seem to condemn the “eye for an eye” law (lex talionis) [Matt 5:38-39] when it was clearly stated as law in the old testament?

Thanks.

The first problem is that many of the things that are thought to be “harsh” are merely misunderstandings of the Jewish scriptures

some examples:

A Christian reads Judges and believes that a man turned his daughter into a human sacrifice

Of course, she could not be sacrificed, but she also could not work in any capacity, or marry, or be “used for breeding”, for the rest of her life. She lived the rest of her life in seclusion, devoted herself to prayer, never married or had children and never knew a man.

Similarly, an “eye for an eye” in Judaism is not mutilation of a person who has blinded another (nor impunity to the offender if he happens to be blind) but monetary compensation

The Christian reads of a “death penalty” for a particular sin, but has no knowledge of the almost impossible conditions (committing the act in front of at least two witnesses, being warned and continuing to commit the act despite the warning) which made a conviction in a Jewish court virtually impossible. Nor do they have knowledge of the Jewish Sages attitudes against the death penalty Often they do not differentiate between a “Divine punishment” from God and one to be carried out here on earth.

However the main problem,the basis for these and similar threads concerning God in the Jewish scriptures as opposed to the God of the Christian scriptures, has to do both with the different concept of God in the two religions as well as the differences in the perceived relationship between God and man.

God in Judaism has no limitations. The same God who has absolute powers of forgiveness, mercy and justice, also has the absolute power to decide not to forgive, that justice and the benefit of mankind and creation, demand that there will be no forgiveness. This is something that is very difficult, if not impossible for the Christian to accept.

Judaism demands the conscience choice of obligations and responsibilities, it demands the understanding of consequences.

The relationship of the Christian to his God is similar to that of a child to a loving father. No matter what the child does, he/she knows that if they are truly sorry, the father will always forgive them, will always love them.

 

[aidanbradypop]

As we look at Scripture with "human eyes, things may come off as “harsh.” We plae God in a box according to our own concepts of right and wrong. By placing God in a box, we want him to be what we need or would like him to be viewed as. Doing this will create much inner conflict. God trancends all reality and “boxes” that we place him in. These laws in the OT were to prepare the Israelites for things to come. Some may seem “harsh” in our human eyes but who are we to judge God’s purpose? If man would submit to the will and authority of God, such laws would not be in place. However, our sinful nature makes us “brats”

If you view ancient history, you will discover that almost every civilization had such laws. The Code of Hammurabi, Cuneiform Law, Roman and Greek Law, Law of Ur-Nammu and Code of Nesilim were all almost exactly like the Law of the OT. Many non Christians will use the Law of the OT to speak against a loving God, but they often look past that of every nation who had such laws.

When I was in college and studying the OT, it too made me question things, but then I noticed that it is not for me to question the motives or God. I should rather try to live as Christ commanded.

 

[Della]

How do we respond to questions about the harsh laws of the Old Testament? for example, the various death penalty crimes, which in modern terms, are no big crimes at all, such as failure to keep sabbath etc? A lot of people and liberals are saying that the God of the Old Testament is evil and too strict etc and are asking if Christians actually support such Old Testament laws.

Basically:

1. Why did God given the Jews such harsh laws regarding “innocent-looking”/“minor” crimes?

In modern times keeping the Sabbath holy (the obligation having been moved to Sunday by the Church) is still in effect and those who do not keep it who know they should keep it and who deliberately don’t keep it commit a mortal sin that cuts them off from God’s love. None of the Ten Commandments is a “minor” thing, but very important for the well being of mankind.

1. Does the church support such harsh laws?

The Church supports the Ten Commandments, which are the morals laws upon which the laws of Western civilization were built due to the Church keeping them and teaching them.

1. If a Christian was a writer of a constitution of a new Theocracy nation, should they add such harsh laws? Surely it would have no place in modern society, would it?

Every generation of man that has ever existed thinks of itself as “modern”. The Ten Commandments have made and still would make an excellent basis for a Theocracy.

1. Why does Jesus seem to condemn the “eye for an eye” law (lex talionis) [Matt 5:38-39] when it was clearly stated as law in the old testament?

Thanks.

He didn’t condemn it, he went beyond it. And eye for an eye was a limitation on how much retribution could be demanded. A person couldn’t be killed for putting out another man’s eye–the punishment had to be no worse than the injury. It was most often paid by monetary recompense, as chosen people cited. Jesus taught that we should not demand payment, but that we should forgive the debt. His Gospel was a fulfillment of the ordinances of the law, but not a setting aside of the Ten Commandments.

 

[sw85]

How do we respond to questions about the harsh laws of the Old Testament? for example, the various death penalty crimes, which in modern terms, are no big crimes at all, such as failure to keep sabbath etc? A lot of people and liberals are saying that the God of the Old Testament is evil and too strict etc and are asking if Christians actually support such Old Testament laws.

Basically:

1. Why did God given the Jews such harsh laws regarding “innocent-looking”/“minor” crimes?
2. Does the church support such harsh laws?
3. If a Christian was a writer of a constitution of a new Theocracy nation, should they add such harsh laws? Surely it would have no place in modern society, would it?
4. Why does Jesus seem to condemn the “eye for an eye” law (lex talionis) [Matt 5:38-39] when it was clearly stated as law in the old testament?

Thanks.

Those people think infanticide is A-OK. Forget 'em.