OT Law was for the Jews only

OT Law was for the Jews only

by RebelSnake | Published on January 18th, 2007, 12:54 pm | Religion

http://members.aol.com/h777888999/otvsnt.htm

With the exceptions of a few passages in Aramaic, the O.T. was written entirely in Hebrew (language of the Jews). About the 6th Century, B.C., Greek texts came into being with the most famous being the early Greek translation of the Pentateuch, or the first 5 books of the O.T. called the Torah (Hebrew) or the Law, called the Septuagint, named for the 70 elders of Israel. Mentioned in history as companions to Moses, the Lords appointed one to Israel in 250 B.C.

These texts were written by the Jewish scribes for the Jews and Jews only. It was their way of life.....the Law. The scroll of Moses, the Torah, was kept in the Ark of the Covenant.

The OT laws were never meant for anyone but the Jewish people. No where in the OT will you find any verse saying otherwise.

But you will find verses saying it applied to the Jews.

Deuteronomy 4:7-8
King James Version

7For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?

8And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Deuteronomy 5
1And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

2The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

3The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

I'm not real sure where you are going with this or the motive behind the question but how do you explain the following? Jesus was very clear in His position. He stated:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"

How do you explain that verse?

BecauseHeLives wrote:I'm not real sure where you are going with this or the motive behind the question but how do you explain the following? Jesus was very clear in His position. He stated:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"

How do you explain that verse?

What are you talking about? That verse doesn't explain who the law applied to. However the verses I cited in Deuteronomy specifically state the law applies to the Jews.

Maybe you should refer to this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=996

That's the one where you hashed this up before.

Deuteronomy 5
1And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

2The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

3The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

If I'm wrong, then explain these verses that clearly state that the "covenant" applied to Israel, not the gentiles. BTW, I remember that thread. That's what got me looking around for more information.

Jews = God's chosen people = Christians

BecauseHeLives wrote:Jews = God's chosen people = Christians

Jews are not christians. You jst can't admit when you're wrong.

Well I did take a look at that thread and can't see what you're referring to.

The difficulty I have (and many others) is the whole Old Testament Law thing. (Actually the whole Old Testament - but that's another topic)

The Old Testament is chock full of laws and commandments. Some are reasonable, many are too general to be useful, others are ridiculous and some just nasty and vicious.

Christians seem to pick and choose which bits of OT law they feel should apply to them (and others) and which don't. Even Jesus only seems to think that some of the commandments are worth keeping. I have studied the Bible and I can find little Biblical authority to back up the 'salad bar' Christian view. Why is one of the sets of the Ten Commandments to be obeyed, while the other ignored? Why is some of Leviticus to be obeyed but not others?

BTH, you have talked of the Dispensation of Law and of Grace, but I don't follow the argument, unless it is that you need not obey the Law because of Jesus' sacrifice.

Please help me understand.

Jews are not christians. You jst can't admit when you're wrong.

That's a fine "I know you are so what am I?" attitude. Its not that I can't admit I'm wrong. Its just that I'm not wrong. Can you fathom that idea?

Jews are God's chosen people even though they rejected Jesus the Christ. The Christian church is the bride of Christ and inherits the title of "chosen". Christ was for everyone. The old testement was for anyone who would "listen". Otherwise the Jewish people would not have alowed converts.

Anyways...WHY do you bring it up? What is the point that you are trying to make that is so easily evading me?

Well I did take a look at that thread and can't see what you're referring to.

Its on the 3rd or 4th page somewhere.

http://www.tentmaker.org/oldandnew.htm

Israel was the only nation which had a covenant with the God of the Universe for over 1600 years. And after all that, they didn't recognize their Messiah even though the whole Old Covenant pointed to Him.

Anyways...WHY do you bring it up?

The acquisition of knowledge.

The Christian church is the bride of Christ and inherits the title of "chosen".

Support this statement with the proper scripture please. Frankly I think you're just making it up.

(1) The Holy Spirit choses the bride, and brings people to God through repentance.
OT: Gen 24:2-4,12-21,27, Judges 14:3,4, Deut 7:6,7
NT: John 16:7,8, Matt 22:14, John 15:16, 2Thess 2:13, 1Peter 2:9

(2) A bride price (dowry) is established, Christ gave his life to purchase and redeem us.
OT: Gen 12:16, Gen 29:18, Gen 34:12,26,31, 1 Sam 18:25, 2 Sam 3:14, Ruth 4:10
NT: Eph 5:25, 1Cor 6:20, Matt 13:44, Galatians 3:13; 4:5, Rev 5:9

(3) Consent: the bride agrees and chooses to accept her husband's offer.
OT: Gen 24:8, Gen 24:58, Deut 30:19, Joshua 24:15,
NT: 1Pet 1:8, John 20:29, 1Cor 2:9, Matt 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5

(4) Written document, Covenant agreement, written registry:
OT: Nehemiah 7:5, Mal 2:14,
NT: Hebrews 12:24, 2Cor 1:20, Mark 10:4, Matt 5:31; 19:7

(5) Drinking a glass of wine; a toast, a communion, seals the covenant agreement.
OT: Genesis 34:6,8,20,1 Samuel 18:20-25, 1 Samuel 25:36-39, Exodus 25:22
NT: Luke 22:16-20, Matt 26:28,29, John 2:1-11, 1Cor 10:16, Luke 24:35, Acts 2:42; 20:7

(6) Betrothal [espoused/engaged/promised]
OT: Leviticus 19:20, Hosea 2:19
NT: Matthew 1:18, Luke 2:5, Mat 10:32, 2Cor 11:2

(7) Ritual Cleansing bath; a Mikveh or Baptism
OT: Leviticus 15:18, Ezekiel 16:9
NT: Ephesians 5:26,27, Acts 1:5; 2:38; 8:38-40

(8) Gifts given to the Bride:
OT: Genesis 24:22,53, Genesis 34:12,
NT: Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:13, 1Cor 2:9; 12:4; 14:1,12

(9) The bridegroom departed, going back to his father's house to prepare the bridal chamber, closet (many mansions).
OT: Joel 2:16, Judges 15:1, Judges 16:9,12, 2Samuel 13:10,11, 1Kings 1:15, Song of Solomon 1:4; 3:4
NT: John 14:2,3,
The chamber of the temple is also a picture of heaven, in which God's people are hid.
1 Kings 20:30, 1 Kings 22:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Matthew 24:26, 1 Chronicles 28:11, Hebrews 9:6,7,
Matt 23:20-22, Hebrews 9:23,24, Psalm 27:5; 31:20, Isaiah 26:19-21,

(10) The bride was consecrated, set apart, and kept herself ready for the bridegroom to return, and wore a vail which is like the blood of Jesus covering our sins, the righteousness of the saints.
OT: Gen 24:64-67, Isaiah 1:18,
NT: Hebrews 10:20, Revelation 1:5, 1 John 1:7, Mat 22:11-14, Revelation 7:14, Rev. 19:7,8, Romans 3:22, Philippians 3:9, Romans 10:6, Mat 25:1-13, Mark 13:34-37,
Veil also covered the temple, which is the body.
Exodus 26:33, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45 1 Corinthians 6:19, Romans 12:1
Christians are set apart from the world, as a bride is set apart, and supposed to be ready and watchful.
John 15:18,19, John 17:14,15, 1 John 2:15, 1Cor 5:8-10, Mat 25:1-13, Mark 13:34-37

(11) Bridegroom comes for his Bride on a "day or hour no man knows, but my father only" with a shout, command, last trump, trumpet blast.
Mat 24:36, Mark 13:32,33, 1 Thess 4:15-18, 1 Thess 5:1-11, Mat 25:6, 1Cor 15:52, Revelation 4:1

(12) Jesus comes to take his Bride as a Thief
OT: Judges 21:19-25, Deut 22:25-29, Exodus 22:15-17, 1 Sam 8:11-16, 2 Samuel 5:13
NT: John 10:10, Matthew 24:43, Luke 12:39, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 3:3, Revelation 16:15

(13) Going through the open door into heaven, the wife being taken up by the groom as they cross the threshold of the door into the new house.
John 14:2,3, Revelation 4:1, Ezek 46:1, Mat 25:10, Revelation 3:8,10,

(14) The bridal week (a day for a year) in the wedding chamber as the tribulation week of Daniel.
OT: Genesis 29:22-28, Judges 14:1-18, Joel 2:15,16, Num 14:34, Ezek 4:6, Dan 9:24,27,
NT: Ephesians 5:29, Rev 3:10
The seven year tribulation:
Dan 11:31, Dan 12:11, Rev 13:4-7 Dan 7:25, Dan 7:21, Rev 11:1-7, Rev 12:6, Ezekiel 38, 39, Ezek 39:9, Jer 30:7, Dan 4:16, Dan 12:7, Rev 12:14

(15) (Marriage supper / Wedding Feast) when the bride and groom emerge from the bridal chamber at the end of seven days, and the Lord returns with the Bride at the end of the seven year tribulation.
OT: Esther 1:5,10,11, Joel 2:15,16, Psalm 19:1-6, Isaiah 61:2,10,11, Isaiah 62:5,
NT: Luke 12:36, Rev 19:1,7-9,14, Zech 14:5, Jud 1:14, Rev 21:2, Rev 21:910, Col 3:4

(16) The slaughter at the marriage supper
OT: Judg 14:12,19
NT: Rev 19:17,18

(17) The bride and groom were seen as king and queen, trumpet blasts herald the reign of a new king, at the rapture at the trumpet blast, Christ and his people begin to rule in heaven.
OT: Dan 7:9, 1Kgs 1:34,39
NT: Rev 4:2, Rev 5:3,10,12

(18) The Judgment Seat of Christ, (pictured by the Feast of Trumpets, a picture of the wedding of the messiah, and rapture.)
OT: Dan 7:10, Neh 8:1-5,
NT: 2Cor 5:10, Rom 14:10, 1Cor 3:13-16

Okay let's try this again. Show me one verse that states the christian church is the bride of christ inheriting the title of chosen. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through all that cut and paste crap you put up there without so much as a link showing where it came from.

RebelSnake wrote:Okay let's try this again. Show me one verse that states the christian church is the bride of christ inheriting the title of chosen. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through all that cut and paste crap you put up there without so much as a link showing where it came from.

Dude... I gave you the answer above. When you say you want a single verse then you are asking for scripture to be taken out of context. If you really want an answer (which I don't think you do) you can do one of two things:

1) Look up the verses I gave you, or
2) Google "Bride of Christ".

If I thought you really wanted an answer I might humor you. Unfortunately, I'm sure you are only trying to be argumentative.

It's people like you that give christians a bad name. I ask a legitimate question and you have to go and be a smart ass about it. If you can't give just one verse, fine, make it a half dozen then. What do you do? You go and cut and paste half the bible and have the nerve to call that an answer. Screw you, I'll figure it out for myself.[/quote]

RebelSnake wrote:It's people like you that give christians a bad name. I ask a legitimate question and you have to go and be a smart ass about it. If you can't give just one verse, fine, make it a half dozen then. What do you do? You go and cut and paste half the bible and have the nerve to call that an answer. Screw you, I'll figure it out for myself.

[/quote]

I think you THINK you already do have it figured out.

BecauseHeLives wrote:I'm not real sure where you are going with this or the motive behind the question but how do you explain the following? Jesus was very clear in His position. He stated:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"

How do you explain that verse?

Erm... wasn't Jesus supposed to have neen talking to a Jewish crowd in this passage?

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:I'm not real sure where you are going with this or the motive behind the question but how do you explain the following? Jesus was very clear in His position. He stated:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"

How do you explain that verse?

Erm... wasn't Jesus supposed to have neen talking to a Jewish crowd in this passage?

He was in a Jewish city. What other people would be there. Jesus came for the world. Not just for the Jewish people. Notice He didn't say :

"Do not think that I have come to abolish your Law or your Prophets..."

I've been doing some reading on dispensationalism and it explains much about BHL. Unfortunately he doesn't explain it well (or at all)

So this is what I've gleaned so far:

It's based on Darbyism and popularised by Scofield.

Scofield wrote:A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.

Under 'Dispensation of Law' just obeying the law would get you to heaven. Under 'Dispensation of Grace' the standard has been lowered - all that is required is enough "faith". If a person simply exercises his ability to believe, he will be entitled to eternal reward.

Dispensationalists have a special regard for Jews because they are (were) the chosen people. Because they rejected Christ, God's plan B had to go into effect. Who knows what would have happened if the Jews had accepted Christ

But that's why dispensationalists see Israel as having a promise from God to create Heaven on Earth and the Christian church as having a promise of an eternal Heaven. Which is why a Nazi couldn't really be a Christian - unlike Luther which holds the Jews accountable for the crucifixion.

It is taught that the Antichrist may appear as a peacemaker (hence the suspicion of Bishop Tutu and the United Nations)

So it all seems consistent. I don't see the justification in the Bible, but it does save having to obey all those weird OT Laws.

That was a pretty good try actually. I've noted some corrections as follows.

Under 'Dispensation of Law' just obeying the law would get you to heaven.

Sacrifices were required as well. Sacrifices before the time of Jesus was a ritual that represented the saviour to come. Thus, the reference to the lamb.

Under 'Dispensation of Grace' the standard has been lowered - all that is required is enough "faith". If a person simply exercises his ability to believe, he will be entitled to eternal reward.

Believing in God does not gain a person entry into heaven. Even Satan believes but he will not see heaven again. What it comes down to is repentence (which is a realization that you are a sinner and can not do it alone), ralization that Jesus died and paid for our sins and acceptance of Jesus as Lord. It sounds like I'm preaching here. What I'm trying to say is that "believing" is not enough. I also wouldn't argue that the standard has been lowered but it is indeed easier to gain entry into heaven because of Grace. Grace can not be earned otherwise it wouldn't really be Grace.

Dispensationalists have a special regard for Jews because they are (were) the chosen people. Because they rejected Christ, God's plan B had to go into effect.

I wouldn't call it plan B as I don't believe the intention of Christ's coming was just for the Jews but for all peoples. Several times during His ministry on earth He was "chided" for even talking to gentiles.

Who knows what would have happened if the Jews had accepted Christ But that's why dispensationalists see Israel as having a promise from God to create Heaven on Earth and the Christian church as having a promise of an eternal Heaven. Which is why a Nazi couldn't really be a Christian - unlike Luther which holds the Jews accountable for the crucifixion.

Christians (at least mainstream Christians) do not blame the Jews for the crucifiction. Christians feel that all of us are to blame for the crucifiction. But, the crucifiction was foretold in prophesy so it was planned to happen. Without Jesus's sacrifice none would be worthy to go to heaven. Even those before the time of Jesus.

It is taught that the Antichrist may appear as a peacemaker (hence the suspicion of Bishop Tutu and the United Nations)

Very true. Understanding that concept will take you a long way into understanding Christians. The "peacemaker" will make peace on earth for 42 months. The next 42 months after that will be hell on earth. Some of us also suspect the catholic church as well.

So it all seems consistent. I don't see the justification in the Bible, but it does save having to obey all those weird OT Laws.

I'm certainly thankful I don't have to follow the 600+ old OT laws!

Here is a listing of he dispensations in order if you are interested. Its quite interesting to me. This is a site that I reference sometimes because I think it explains the dispensations well.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/di ... ispch9.htm

BTW... I've only been saved for a couple of years so I am no "expert" on the dispensations. I'm still studying them. I've only been exposed to them for the last 18 months or so.

BecauseHeLives wrote:I'm certainly thankful I don't have to follow the 600+ old OT laws!

Here's where I've never had a satisfactory answer. I can find biblical justification for sacrificing being replaced by Jesus' crucifixion - although since YHWH likes the sweet smell of burning flesh perhaps a burning should have been in order (try resurrecting after that!), but how does a Christian justify which of the OT laws to keep and which to ignore. Why is it OK to work on the Sabbath but not to commit adultery? What about the feast of unleavened bread, homosexuality, eating shellfish and woman wearing men's clothing? Why some but not others? From the Christians I have spoken to it seems to be up to personal conscience - which is the big criticism levelled at atheists.

Here's where I've never had a satisfactory answer. I can find biblical justification for sacrificing being replaced by Jesus' crucifixion - although since YHWH likes the sweet smell of burning flesh perhaps a burning should have been in order (try resurrecting after that!),

Here is a very good explanation of animal sacrifices before and after Jesus.
http://www.bibleanswer.com/animalsac.htm

but how does a Christian justify which of the OT laws to keep and which to ignore. Why is it OK to work on the Sabbath but not to commit adultery?

Jesus did say:

Luke 14:5
Then He answered them, saying, “Which of you, having a donkey[a] or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?”

This does not give full permission to work on the sabbath but it does give leeway to do the things that are absolutely appropriate.

What about the feast of unleavened bread, homosexuality, eating shellfish and woman wearing men's clothing? Why some but not others? From the Christians I have spoken to it seems to be up to personal conscience - which is the big criticism levelled at atheists.

That's a really good question and a valid concern. I'll ask my pastor the question and get back to you because I just can't answer it right now. However I can answer some of them:

Homosexuality is mentioned in the OT and the NT as sin.

The Lord blessed all meat for food in the NT.

A woman wearing men's clothing is considered deceptive

The kicker is that we could commit any of these sins and still be forgiven. That's what baptists get hounded about by many non-believers. Non-believers figure that you can just go out and do anything you want and when you get home just ask forgiveness and its OK. Well... its not really like that. When you are truly saved you won't WANT to sin against God and you will try and do everything in your power not to sin. And we will STILL fail. I get quite discouraged sometimes because I sin against God and I just feel awful about it. I'm truly sorry that I sinned. We have to depend on the GRACE (undeserved forgiveness) that God has given us.

I'll stop right there before this turns into a sermon. :lol:

So would it be fair to say that it has to be validated by Jesus in the NT to be binding?

Jesus ony confirmed some of the OT commandments

Is adultery OK because Jesus refused to condone stoning an adultress?

If you can't rely the OT on some items how can it be trusted at all?

So would it be fair to say that it has to be validated by Jesus in the NT to be binding?

Are we talking about laws or commandments here? Either way I don't think that omission mean that old teachings don't apply.

Jesus ony confirmed some of the OT commandments

True. But what I said above applies.

Is adultery OK because Jesus refused to condone stoning an adultress?

I think that's a better example of Jesus expressing the need for mercy rather than of an endorsement of adultry.

If you can't rely the OT on some items how can it be trusted at all?

Some items in the old testement no longer apply and are not necessary. We have law books with old laws on them that are not needed any more. That didn't mean they weren't necessary at the time they were put there.

All of the above is my personal interpretation of what I know right now. I'll try and give a better explantion later on.