How do we interpret old Mosaic law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coop13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coop13

Guest
So I was reading and watching some stuff by atheists and I came across an argument on contradictions within the Bible and between the christian faith. For example a verse quoted often against homosexuality is in Deuteronomy but then a few chapters later talks about stoning your child. There are also passages about selling your daughter off and all kinds of things that as christians we teach against.

So how do we defend the claim that we take some parts out of the bible to teach and then throw out others? Where do we draw the line?

And just fyi this is honest questions. I am not questioning the faith at all. But I’m going off to college soon and I have a feeling I am going to face a lot of questions along these lines
 
Tell them, very politely, that you find such conversations rather confrontational and that you object to being “put on the stand” because of your Catholicism.
If they persist, ignore them and walk away.
Pray for them, of course, but more importantly, pray for yourself–that God grants you the patience and grace to put up with them for four years of college.

I’d use rather strong language if I were berated for something I believed in, but you may be a more gracious person than I.
 
So I was reading and watching some stuff by atheists and I came across an argument on contradictions within the Bible and between the christian faith. For example a verse quoted often against homosexuality is in Deuteronomy but then a few chapters later talks about stoning your child. There are also passages about selling your daughter off and all kinds of things that as christians we teach against.

So how do we defend the claim that we take some parts out of the bible to teach and then throw out others? Where do we draw the line?

And just fyi this is honest questions. I am not questioning the faith at all. But I’m going off to college soon and I have a feeling I am going to face a lot of questions along these lines
I’d recommend starting with reading and reflecting on the Catechism para 101-119.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#III

It’s important that you understand what the Church teaches about how Catholics interpret Scripture.
 
So I was reading and watching some stuff by atheists and I came across an argument on contradictions within the Bible and between the christian faith. For example a verse quoted often against homosexuality is in Deuteronomy but then a few chapters later talks about stoning your child. There are also passages about selling your daughter off and all kinds of things that as christians we teach against.

So how do we defend the claim that we take some parts out of the bible to teach and then throw out others? Where do we draw the line?

And just fyi this is honest questions. I am not questioning the faith at all. But I’m going off to college soon and I have a feeling I am going to face a lot of questions along these lines
There is nothing in the Old Testament that contradicts the Christianity.

You’ve got to remember Christians are under the New Covenant of Grace from the Mosaic Law. The Law was put into effect to show the Israelites that the wages of sin is death and to look for the Messiah to deliver them from their sins. The feast days given to Israel, the Tabernacle/Temple sacrifices and worship was a picture of the Messiah to come. We Christians know that is Jesus.
 
There is nothing in the Old Testament that contradicts the Christianity.

You’ve got to remember Christians are under the New Covenant of Grace from the Mosaic Law. The Law was put into effect to show the Israelites that the wages of sin is death and to look for the Messiah to deliver them from their sins. The feast days given to Israel, the Tabernacle/Temple sacrifices and worship was a picture of the Messiah to come. We Christians know that is Jesus.
Yes I agree with this. But does that mean we should stop looking to the old law for moral teaching? I guess the main argument is picking and choosing proof texts and throwing out others because Christ brought about the New Covenant.

I’ll start reading through the CCC. I also have an mp3 of John Martignoni on interpreting Scripture but I haven’t listened to it for awhile maybe he has a bit on this subject.
 
Yes I agree with this. But does that mean we should stop looking to the old law for moral teaching? I guess the main argument is picking and choosing proof texts and throwing out others because Christ brought about the New Covenant.

I’ll start reading through the CCC. I also have an mp3 of John Martignoni on interpreting Scripture but I haven’t listened to it for awhile maybe he has a bit on this subject.
Hi coop13:

Its a good question, but a slippery slope. Many Torah Observant Christians use this approach (looking to the old law for moral teaching) to support continuation of the dietary laws (for example), as unclean foods are described as an abomination. Yet, the NT talks about all animals being “clean”.

I heard Tim Staples discussing Catholic doctrine recently and he suggested that Catholics believe the 10 commandments (original law given to moses before the golden calf) continues, but the new law (mosaic law) given to them after the golden calf (which was the 10 commandments supplemented by the remainder of the 613 commandments) were superceded by the new covenant.

I believe that under that thinking, we are no longer bound by the mosaic law, although the moral law (the 10 commandments continues). I agree with this, but I think the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews) and Sunday is not the sabbath, but the Lord’s day.

To be fair, we do (as Christians) appear to cherry pick old testament verses that support God’s view on morality (and appear to ignore others). But I think the better view is that the Old is superceded by the New as Lev23 suggested with the moral law continuing (new covenant).

The Old testament can be instructive on God’s view on morality captured within the 10 commandments, however.

Blessings,

Brian
 
So I was reading and watching some stuff by atheists and I came across an argument on contradictions within the Bible and between the christian faith. For example a verse quoted often against homosexuality is in Deuteronomy but then a few chapters later talks about stoning your child. There are also passages about selling your daughter off and all kinds of things that as christians we teach against.

So how do we defend the claim that we take some parts out of the bible to teach and then throw out others? Where do we draw the line?

And just fyi this is honest questions. I am not questioning the faith at all. But I’m going off to college soon and I have a feeling I am going to face a lot of questions along these lines
First, as a Theist, and a Catholic at that, you believe in an an all-powerful, all-loving God. Nothing can change that. Scripture can in no way contradict that. Furthermore, scripture is the inerrant Word of God; it cannot be mistaken. So you have been given a problem - namely, how to reconcile an all-loving God with a God who mandates that parents stone their children, in the case cited, for cursing them, if I remember correctly. There are other Old Testament examples that non-Christians will point out, like obliterating entire nations or, my favorite example, when God killed Uzziah when he tried to save the Ark of Covenant from falling to the ground when he was not permitted to touch it (under penalty of death for all non-priests). How can an all-loving God do this which for us humans would certainly be grave moral sin?

First of all, have faith. Even if we do not understand, faith comes before understanding. It doesn’t matter if we understand or not as long as we have faith. That said, I don’t think it is impossible to provide a rational explanation for this particular scripture problem. I don’t know God’s intentions, so this would be of course mere speculation on my part, but here goes.

God chose the Judeans to be his people, making a series of covenants with them. Why them? I haven’t the foggiest, but he did. He promised to be like a father to them, providing for their needs with a father’s loving care. He needed to teach them good and evil, and also his holiness and how they were utterly dependent upon them. Let it be known that in doing so, he can (and must) also still be loving to the other peoples. If God orders and gives power to the Judeans to wipe out an entire populace, including women and children, that is His right (He created them), and perhaps the only way, now that sin has entered the world, of freeing them from evil influences. Note, we don’t know that those people were condemned to eternal Hell, God may have very well been able to rescue the souls of these people he ordered to be killed. As Christians, we must certainly hope they were saved, but regardless, we trust in God’s judgment. When God ordered the stoning of a parent’s child for cursing them, it is again possible to say that God is being loving here too, in His infinite wisdom preventing rebellion and setting up a society where we learn to love and respect our elders. We don’t know if God condemned the children to Hell (or if He did, that they didn’t deserve it or would not have wound up there eventually), and really, that’s the only bottom line - they were going to die anyways after a long life. At least here, they would have died to teach the Israelites the power of cursing. Also, I point out that as a non-Biblical scholar, it may have been understood that this law was to be only applied to unrepentent children; probably not, but if no one will correct me for certain, I’d like to at least think so. But either, way it doesn’t matter - I have faith in God’s awesome love, that he even loved so much those who at that time he deemed to merit death.

If this world was all that we had, I would agree with the Atheists, that that would seem to denote a cruel God. Those Atheists have a really hard time what to make of this story without faith. Hopefully, it won’t be too big of a stumbling block for them. But I believe in the resurrection, and in the forgiveness of sins, so I let those Bible stories serve as a good lesson, if applicable, and do not let them interfere by way of a so-called ‘proof’ with my belief in an all-loving, all-wise, all-powerful God. I’m sorry for the rambling nature of the post, but I hope there are some good insights here. All glory be to Jesus! Amen!
 
So I was reading and watching some stuff by atheists and I came across an argument on contradictions within the Bible and between the christian faith. For example a verse quoted often against homosexuality is in Deuteronomy but then a few chapters later talks about stoning your child. There are also passages about selling your daughter off and all kinds of things that as christians we teach against.

So how do we defend the claim that we take some parts out of the bible to teach and then throw out others? Where do we draw the line?
It helps to put some things into perspective first.

The Bible covers a period about 3,500 years or so from Moses to now. Putting the religious part of the argument aside for a minute, what else in the world can you point to that we do today exactly like we did 3,500 years ago except breathing? So why would anyone expect a perfect harmony between a culture that held stoning to be a perfectly just punishment and today? It isn’t sensible to expect that.

Back to the religious perspective. Perhaps an example from Judaism might help to illustrate the effect of time on some of these moral laws. You know that one of the commandments Moses received from God was to “keep holy the Sabbath.” Suppose a question was asked the day after Moses came down from the mountain, “HOW do I keep the Sabbath holy?” One obvious answer might be, well, you aren’t allowed to do any work on that day. But over time situations arose, grey areas, where it fell to those with authority (rabbis) to decide if a particular thing was or wasn’t lawful. This was passed on in oral tradition until the time of the revolts (around 200 BC) and was then committed to writing (Mishnah). It might interest you to know there are 24 chapters just dealing with the Sabbath and how to keep it holy.

So you could say that a Jew in 200 BC had the benefit of centuries of rabbinical wisdom and jurisprudence to fall back on that a Jew standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai did not have. As a result, he might face a similar question from a skeptic outside his faith - “Why are you tying a knot (on the Sabbath) with one hand? I don’t see anything in the Torah that requires it, in fact you aren’t supposed to ‘do work’.” The reality is that even on the Sabbath animals needed to be watered or fed, and there had to be some way to do it. Normally it could be done with both hands, but the rabbis determined a one-handed knot would suffice for the necessary tasks like restraining an animal while keeping other work (mending nets) from being done.

The point is that traditions and teaching of the faith direct the proper response to situations over time. As new situations arise, all religions look to their teachings or tenets of faith to provide answers.

When you read some of the writings in the Torah (first 5 books of the OT), one of the things you will notice is the severity with which sins were punished. Realize that in the days of Moses there was a much more profound sense of what a deep offense against God a sin was, and a much sharper realization of the penalty - usually death. Also recognize they had no concept of “separation of church and state.” Their religious law and their civil law were one in the same. That isn’t the case for Christians today. Civil laws are distinct from the laws of any particular faith, such as Canon law.

As someone else already pointed out in this thread, the animal sacrifices made as offerings for sins were a symbolic act; there was nothing mystical about the power of a lamb’s blood that satisfied God, but it was symbolic of an act that would happen in the future, where a Messiah’s blood would be the fulfillment of this atonement.

As a Christian, you might answer that same question about stoning in the same way you would answer the question, “How come you don’t still offer burnt sacrifices?” Well for the Christian, there is no need for that because the Messiah has already come and that blood has already been shed for sins. In the course of His coming, He also instituted new practices that take the place of the old ones. Note that these do not “invalidate” the old ones, meaning they don’t make a burnt offering in 500 BC invalid. They don’t make stoning in 1500 BC invalid, but they do, as does civil law, make them invalid for any purpose today.

I hope that helps you.
 
Ok thank you to all.

I do believe that the old was superceded by the new, not abolished but fulfilled.

So again this wasn’t a post on me questioning any teachings it was more on how to defend myself.

Again thanks, all the posts helped 👍

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top