Results 141 - 160 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Does the Mosaic Law apply to gentiles? | Leviticus | MJH | 156059 | ||
wordoer, Is the Mosaic Law still in effect? If so, is it just for the Jew, or for the Gentile also? Are Gentile christians subject to the Mosaic Law? Before we can quote Lev. 19:28 as a standard, one must know if such law is meant to apply to us now. MJH |
||||||
142 | Does the Mosaic Law apply to gentiles? | Leviticus | MJH | 156680 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the chastisement of sorts. You are right that my comment did little...okay, did no help in answering the question. Your note does raise some interesting issues, however. "Antinomianism" I am sorry to say, I had to look that one up, and no no no no I am not that in the least. If anything, I tend to side on the opposite. I have been asking these questions of myself (and others that will discuss them) for about 4 years now. What of the Mosaic Law applies today....to Israel and/or to Gentiles. (I do think there is a distinction.) Where I am today (and may not be tomorrow) is that I believe that none of the Mosaic Law is abandoned, but parts are altered after the Resurrection. Example: I believe that Mark 7 does NOT say that Jesus declared all animals clean, nor does Peter's Acts vision mean to say that there are no longer "unclean" foods. The Levitical sacrificial system has been altered, but I am unable to clearly state how and why at this time. See the book of Hebrews. Galatians is speaking of “works of the Law†not the Law itself. To me, this is a way of saying “legalistic acts of the Law†(see David Stern). Also, the whole argument was “What do the Gentiles have to do?†and never “What do the Jews have to do?†(See Acts 21-22.) I do not buy the argument that, "If the New Testament restates the Old Testament command, then it is still in effect, but otherwise it is not." (My brother’s favorite comment) That to me is a copout. Some in my study group think all of the Mosaic Law applies to Gentiles today, including circumcision, tassels, etc… (I remind them that until they wear tassels, they don’t believe it, because to believe it is to do it.) Now we are actually going over the 613 laws listed by the Jewish scholar in, I believe, the 1200’s one at a time and asking, does this apply to us now? Am I dispensational? I never thought I was. I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, but have not been in it since 1995. I do not have any significant negative issues with the church that helped raise me in the faith. They did a wonderful job. They were Covenant Theology and Replacement Theology of which I no longer am. I also do not baptize my children as babies. Now I attend a church that recently has hit the church news wires with various pro’s and con’s concerning the Pastor, so I will remain anonymous in that, suffice it to say I am in a non-denominational church. I long to spend time with those who really know the Text and have lived it for decades. If they are willing to be authentic with relating their journey, I would soak it up. (I am 34 now.) I hesitate to relate this information because I have found that once you do so, people tend to peg you into a certain group of thought and assume you are coming from a certain point of view. It hinders honest communication. A recent Pastor I served with knew my background and no matter how hard I tried, he always argued with me from the assumption that I was in lock step with the reformed church. You said, “You respond asking if the Mosaic law is applicable Christians, more specifically Gentile Christians. (An extra distinction that is, perhaps, telling, but I will not delve into at this time.)†Please delve into this….. MJH (PS - I hope this is helpful in knowing where I come from and why I ask certain questions.) |
||||||
143 | animal that can't be killed | Leviticus | MJH | 217458 | ||
The Bible does not restrict raising any animals. It also does not restrict slaughtering them with the exception previously noted. It does restrict which can be used as a sacrifice and where a sacrifice could be made as well as which can be eaten by a member of the Assembly of God. If you are interested in which can be "eaten" see Leviticus 11. This may be what you were seeking. MJH |
||||||
144 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | MJH | 174595 | ||
I have recently been telling people that when a person was "unclean" this did not mean that one had sinned. It was simply of state of being in relation to a Holy God. But to be unclean for some reason was impossible to avoid (ie. a woman's monthly cycle). Also, could Jesus avoid being “unclean” his whole life? We know he was sinless, yet uncleanness was practically a certainty. These verses in Leviticus (can you believe I was reading Lev. for the fun of it?) seem to make a different argument. Does anyone have thoughts on this? One thing I also noticed was that this is in the portion that required a "guilt offering" and not a "sin offering", yet in verse 7, it is said such a person was guilty of sin. I'm confused..... MJH |
||||||
145 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | MJH | 174792 | ||
Since I did start this thread, let me jump in here. Thanks to both of you for spending so much time on this. It has benefited me greatly. Doc, your statement about the use of the Mishnah et. al. is well stated. 1)"The order of the Laws" was a very common argument among the rabbis in the time of Jesus. You see it in the question to Jesus, "Which is the greatest commandment." They actually went deeper then the fist 3 or 4, but Jesus answer is in line with the Pharisees up until the Samaritan is called a neighbor. The question I like to ask people is, "If your donkey falls into a hole on the Sabbath, do you help it out?" Either way you break one of the commandments. "Life" is the controlling standard. You save the donkey; otherwise it dies, so breaking the Sabbath is justified. 2) The woman who touches the tassel on Jesus robe is showing an amazing act of Faith. She believes in Micah 4:2 that the Son of Righteousness will come with "healing in his corners." Num 15:38 says that all Israel must wear tassels on the corners of their robes. Corners equals Kanaph; Micah says the Messiah will have healing in his (wings, corners) equals Kanaph. The woman obviously understood this passage to mean that if she touched the tassel of the Messiah, she would be made well. So her act, becoming well, superseded the unclean law because to become well was to promote life. She took a great risk in following her faith...if she were wrong she could be exposed of sinning intentionally by touching so many people as well as a respected Rabbi. If she was correct, then her actions would be justified and she would be healed. Note: the word in the Greek text about the woman touching the tassel is the same Greek word used in the LXX to translated Kanaph. 3) It is still my understanding that to become unclean, while limiting your access to the Temple worship for a time did not mean you had “sinned.” But the Lev 5 text does use the word for sin when someone becomes unclean, even unintentionally. I have since had time to study this more and every commentary I found said the following: “The sin was that the person entered the Temple in an unclean state and/or did not do the purification necessary.” Therefore the sin was not being unclean, but in not following the law of purification. Also: In the Jewish Misnah (w) it is said, the word "hidden" is twice used, to show that he is guilty, for the ignorance of uncleanness, and for the ignorance of the sanctuary. (w) Misn. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 5. I like this explanation much more since one does not have to look at the New Testament and then back track to the old to justify an understanding of scripture. Even though this may work, it doesn’t say “why” it works. Paul and the others didn’t change the meaning or understanding the Old Testament texts. They were working from an understanding of the texts based on their scripture at the time. Not to mention that the Text must mean what it says in the original transmission. MJH |
||||||
146 | Baptism ritual before John | Lev 8:6 | MJH | 141974 | ||
No, John the Baptist was not doing anything radically new in his day. The idea of water being used to make a person or object clean is written about all over the book of Leviticus. See Lev 14:8 and the whole chapter of Lev. 15 for a sample. The temple itself has many, many baptismal pools. (Singular they were called a Mikvah.) You can do a search at google with the word mikvah and find a host of information. They have excavated these pools outside the temple which explains why 3000 could be baptized at one time. The dead sea scrolls have a lot written in their societal order about their Mikvout (I think this is how you spell the plural of Mikvah.) Also the Jewish oral law, the Talmud or Mishnah, has a lot to speak of about these baptisms. John used the Jordan because it was a source of living water. A baptism required a certain amount of living water defined as water that fell from heaven, or water that was moving. A cistern or well (unless also a spring) was not living water. The people usually baptized themselves and did not get dunked by a rabbi or other person; however, that does not mean rabbi’s didn’t physically baptize also. Jesus did not baptize. Many wealthy Jews in Jerusalem has their own Mikvah in their homes. A person immersed themselves for many reasons such as to enter the Temple, to become ritually clean after becoming unclean for any reason, and then to signify a returning back to “Torah” or the written (and probably the Oral) law of Moses. John was calling people back to following Torah, or the books of Moses. To repent was to turn back to something. This something was the “Way” of God. (Way is another interpretation of the word Torah which also means teaching, law, commandments, etc..) “Biblical Archaeology Review” magazine has an in-depth article on this in one of their 1986 issues. Should you be so inclined to study this more, you can check it out at your local college or university library. Also, go to Amazon.com and type Mikvah in the search area and several books on the subject will come up, then check them out at your local library. It is quite fascinating. Too much to post here unfortunately. MJH |
||||||
147 | What caused two of Aarons sons to die. | Lev 10:2 | MJH | 212839 | ||
Aaron's sons died because they offered strange fire. That is what the Scriptures state. There, of course, is debate on what was wrong. To sum up, they were in the service of God in his Holy temple. They did something to render themselves unclean and therefore dead. Whether they did so with malace, or they made a bad mistake with good intentions is irrelevant (otherwise it would say.) The fact is, they made a mistake where one should not make one. Imedaiatly following this event we learn about clean and unclean, leaving some to assume they did something to render themselves "unholy" in a holy place. Our God is a consuming fire (as the book of Hebrews remindes us). It is a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of a holy God. It is dangerous to serve God on Earth in His Holy Tabernacle when He is present. I hope that helps some. MJH (Sorry, I don't have spell check) |
||||||
148 | What caused two of Aarons sons to die. | Lev 10:2 | MJH | 212844 | ||
It's been awhile since I studied this text and I remember discussing the possibilities of what might have happened. Since at that time we did not have a definitive answer, I choose to answer what I did know at the very least. I’m not in a place at this time on this forum to speculate . Even facts, those stubborn things, get me in trouble. However, your note is the very kind of small group discussion that I am so fond of and remember well. I've been away for 6 months and I miss it. Thanks for the added info. MJH |
||||||
149 | what is/are the discharge(s) referred to | Lev 15:2 | MJH | 214234 | ||
The "issue" is this text is only seen here in Lev 15. The Hebrew word "zobe" means, a seminal or menstrual flux: - issue (according to Strongs). The primary reason this is associated with penal discharge is because the second half of the chapter referrers to a woman's menstrual flow and uses the same word. Some commentators believe the man's problem is gonorrhea. In either case, for the man this is something that is not natural, where as for the woman it would be menstrual OR if it lasted longer than seven days, something unnatural. Normal seminal flow, whether in intercourse or not, would only render a man unclean until evening. Please note that “unclean” is not a “sin state.” Being unclean was not in any way a statement on the person’s personal failings. It had primarily to do with whether they could approach a Holy God in His Tabernacle/Temple. While sin can make you “unclean”, being unclean does not usually mean you sinned. MJH |
||||||
150 | hebrews 12:24/1peter 1:2 | Lev 16:14 | MJH | 214134 | ||
Only the priests can sprinkle the blood of a Sacrifice, and as far as Heb 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:2 is concerned, only the High Priest can sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat. In the World to Come (aka Heaven), Jesus is the High Priest who sprinkled his own blood once and for all cleansing the sinner. MJH |
||||||
151 | Wise Christian spending? | Lev 19:18 | MJH | 140051 | ||
Lev 19:18 ". . .you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." I think this is the best verse that applies. They could be child laborers in sweat shops. OR they could be making a good living wage in their culture. Often companies actually bring economic renewal and help to area of the world by setting up shop. Not all companies are greedy money grubbers out to harm the little guy. I mention this because I have friends on a board of a non-profit mercy organization that tries to find companies that will set up in poor nations to help them. So by not buying you may be “loving your neighbor.” But then you may be “loving your neighbor” by buying the products. It’s not always so clear. Also you said, “. . .countries that are against Christianity.” I don’t think that applies, since you may be hurting the wrong people. If we do something against a country specifically, and not just a company or product, the best way would be for the United States to impose sanctions. MJH |
||||||
152 | Wise Christian spending? | Lev 19:18 | MJH | 140168 | ||
I am not the best person to speak to on these things. But if in China, 50 cents can buy you food for a day, then 50 cents an hour is a lot. If 50 cents can't buy you a gum ball, then it is slave labbor. I am not familur with the economy in China. Simply comparing with American Dollars in a seperate culture and economy doesn't work. For example. My mother-in-law has a home worth about 40,000 dollars in a small town in Upper Penisulla Michigan. The same home in the Chicago Suburbs would cost some 250,000 dollars. (And she has a natural waterfall in her back yard.) She makes less than people in Chicago, but the economy in Upper Michigan is far different. I do not think you will find scriptures to make a political point about Walmart, or any other company in the USA that is successful. MJH |
||||||
153 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193406 | ||
If the law of God said that you are not to wear a garment of linen mixed with wool because this was the garment worn by the priests serving in the Temple, then in the New Covenant where we are all a Kingdom of Priests, are we permitted to wear linen and wool mixed? Yes, any time. No, never. Yes, but only when. . . Curious what you think. My question assumes that the Law of Moses is still valid, that the prohibition was because the priests wore wool and linen mixed. MJH |
||||||
154 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193414 | ||
the "we" includes any who call Jesus Lord and Savior. This would include both Jews and Gentiles in our current period. MJH |
||||||
155 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193462 | ||
First, thank you for your well thought out response. I do appreciate it any time someone seriously provides an answer to a question concerning Scripture. Curious, however, how you might view Paul in light of Acts 21 and on. James (the Righteous/Just) and Paul seem to be hatching a plan to prove something to the Jewish believers in Jesus as the Messiah who are all “zealous for the Law." What is it that they are trying to prove to the "Hebrews" or the Messianic Jews in Jerusalem? MJH |
||||||
156 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193463 | ||
Doc, How do you view: 1) Jesus Zeal for the House of God; both the prophesy and the act of clearing the temple of money changers? 2) The Apostles participating in "The Prayers" in Acts 2, and their "continually" going to the Temple? 3) Paul eager to get back to Jerusalem to participate in the Temple and the feast? 4) Paul participating in sacrificing at the Temple in Acts 21-23. 5) The Text (I am without my Bible right now so I forget the exact reference) where Paul says, "Do not let anyone judge you on account of feasts, new moon, Sabbaths, etc... These things ARE the shadow of Messiah who is the reality." (Some translations add "mere" or place this is the past tense erroneously.) I always appreciate your dedication to knowing God and serving Him on this forum. MJH |
||||||
157 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193464 | ||
Cheri, You said you are doing a study on Hebrews. Is this through your local church or something available on line through MP3 or Commentary? Just curious. I am also in a Hebrews study and the more info the better. MJH |
||||||
158 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193494 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. See my other note about the Acts verses. Colossians 2:16 and on. (I have my Bible now). vs. 16 says “Therefore”, and proceeds to mention four things prescribed by the Torah and says that they ought not to let others Judge them on these things because they are a shadow of things to come, the reality being Jesus. (ie. this isn't a Plato shadow theory. Paul is using the shadow in the since that Jesus casts a shadow, and these things are that shadow.) THEN Paul mentions two things that are taught against in the Torah (worshiping Angels and false humility) and claims these things are "based on human commands and teachings" as opposed to God's commands and teachings. Then he ends it in Chapter 3:2 with, "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." The two are here again, heavenly things (ie things from God0 and Earthly things (ie things form man--which would include the "works of the law" that Paul mentions in Galatians") I see the two as separate and not a part of the same line of thinking. Paul is contrasting. I do not see Paul saying that both worship of Angels is bad and following God's appointed times is bad. What do you think? (please disregard my original question that started all of this.) MJH |
||||||
159 | Hair cuts and beards | Lev 19:27 | MJH | 139644 | ||
. | ||||||
160 | Does the warning against tattoos apply | Lev 19:28 | MJH | 157232 | ||
Kalos, Have you heard the Midrash (story) about Solomon changing the law about Kings having many wives by removing the Hebrew letter Yod from the text? It’s a wonderful legend begun by Rabbis that pre-date Jesus. (At least that is the belief since Jesus seems to allude to it in Matt 5.) In sort (it’s a long story) the story goes like this: 1) Solomon is copying the text per the Law that Kings write a copy of the Law. 2) He comes to the offending law which says he can not have many wives otherwise his heart would turn away from the LORD. 3) He thinks, “I know the purpose of this law, and I will not turn from God, so it doesn’t have to apply to me. I will obey the ‘spirit’ of the law.” 4) He removes the letter “yod”. 5) The letter “yod” ascends on high to the throne of God, prostates itself and says, “Look what Solomon has done, if you allow this, then soon a whole word will be removed, and then whole commands, and your law will be meaningless.” 6) To this, God says, “Do not worry, Solomon and thousands like him will come and go, but not so much as a ‘yod’ will be removed from My Law until heaven and earth disappear.” The Rabbis used this story to teach that one must not think he knows more than God, and therefore think he can disregard one of his commands because he thinks he knows why it was put there. I really like this parable or legend, because it has helped me to stop justifying certain actions that in my heart I know violate God’s commands. Solomon had a good reason to think he knew why God put the command there, since the text says why it is there. But at the end of his life the text says that Solomon multiplied wives and his heart turned toward other gods and away from the Lord. (1 Kings 11:4) It is also said that it would have been better for Solomon to have cleaned latrines his whole life than for that sentence to have been written about him. In relation to the current topic, it is my personal belief that the command still stands. We may think we know why God gave this command and therefore rationalize why we do not have to obey it. But this is my opinion, and I hold no real judgments against those who arrive at a different conclusion. Just my two sense worth. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [29] >> |