Bible Questions

[RJ]

Live Uner Grace Not The Law

I agree with most of what is said above, but aren't we slipping around the side of the question, rather than tackling it head on.

Imagine that after a church meeting a close friends of yours confide in you that they have reached the end of their tether with their son. He's a drunkard, glutton, selfish, dishonest and lazy.

Having brought him before the pastor and elders of the church they have decided, in line with the teachings of the Bible, to publicly stone him to death.

The stoning will take place next week and you are invited along to come along and join in with throwing the rocks.

Would you feel

• honoured to be invited
• a little concerned
• horrified that they could contemplate such a barbaric thing

Most of us would consider this not simply as laws that are no longer binding, such as the food laws, but as something that is morally wrong.

We sometimes have honour killings in the UK (they are more often to do with marriage issues than disobedience) and the whole nation is appalled. But it is in the Bible. I find that difficult.

I say this in all due respect and love: If you live by such things, honor killings, or any of the Old laws of the Old Testament, then you are living under the bondage of the old laws, the covenant of law and not under the new covenant of grace and could very well be jeopardizing your own salavation.

 

[shipwrecksoul]

I agree with most of what is said above, but aren't we slipping around the side of the question, rather than tackling it head on.

Imagine that after a church meeting a close friends of yours confide in you that they have reached the end of their tether with their son. He's a drunkard, glutton, selfish, dishonest and lazy.

Having brought him before the pastor and elders of the church they have decided, in line with the teachings of the Bible, to publicly stone him to death.

The stoning will take place next week and you are invited along to come along and join in with throwing the rocks.

Would you feel

• honoured to be invited
• a little concerned
• horrified that they could contemplate such a barbaric thing

.

I am answering this in part from a born again christian stance.
I do understand your point of what you see as an offense towards the name of God. Are you saying God is not just in his ways or are you saying that man has evil in his heart and never needs to be corrected?
Because Jesus is the Lamb of God having fulfilled the whole law.

Maybe these verses may help?

Lev 16:8-10 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
We know the Old testament is the old testament right?

Bottom line God's ways are not our ways.
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Oh by the way I tackled the question head on.
I think you are looking to resolve your morality of what you think is right and just and not on what God thinks is right and just. Just a thought.
God bless you and me in his will for us.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

If the bible was breathed by God, why is there more nonsense (ie stoning disobedient kids, women cannot teach a man, slavery) than there is brilliance (fixing disobedient kids, respecting the wisdom of women, accepting responsibility for your own stuff)? And how do you decide which nonsense to ignore and which brilliance to follow. Does it boil down to how you "feel" about a particular verse?

Not all that is in the Bible is Biblical teaching. Of necessity, Biblical accounts must include their historical setting, and the historical setting for the Bible is a time when stoning was the accepted method of death penalty punishment in the Middle East. Slavery was also widespread accepted social practice there at the time.

Spirit Led Ed (SLE)

 

[Jaareshiah]

Not all that is in the Bible is Biblical teaching.

Spirit Led Ed (SLE)

Jesus, in giving the Sermon on the Mount, told his Jewish audience:"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place."(Matt 5:17, 18)

Jesus thus said that the extreme unrealism of the heavens and the earth passing away would be easier than for even "one particle of a letter" of the Law not being fulfilled. Jesus said that all of the Hebrew Scriptures, commonly called the "Old Testament", or first thirty-nine books of the Bible that had been written, is inspired of God.

The apostle Paul wrote that "all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."(2 Tim 3:16, 17)

Hence, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is to be used for "teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness", with none of it being relegated to the "background", but that all of the Bible is to be used for instruction.

To say that not all of the Bible has a valid basis for "Biblical teaching", is to say that what Jesus said regarding the Law does not carry any real weight, that what he said is a little extreme. For example, Jesus gave an illustration of a "marriage feast" of the ' king's son ', in which those initially invited, the Jews, were not only unconcerned but "treated (the king's slaves) insolently and killed them."(Matt 22:1, 6)

In the illustration, Jesus said that the "king grew wrathful, and sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned their city."(Matt 22:7) Therefore, Jesus brought justice to the fore, saying that these wicked ones were deserving of death, for their disregard for the "king", who pictures Jesus' Father, Jehovah God.

And of the uninvited "guest" that was not "clothed with a marriage garment", the king had him bound "hand and foot" and thrown "out into the darkness outside."(Matt 22:13) Many, even in the churches, fail to grasp what God's justice really is, that it means that those who are judged by Jesus as "wicked" in the final analyses, is worthy of "the second death", from which one thrown there never receives a resurrection (Rev 20:14), whereas those judged by Jesus in the final analyses as "meek", enjoy everlasting life either in heaven or on the earth.

Hence, it is vital that we see things "from Jehovah's standpoint".(1 Sam 24:6, New World Translation) God's outstanding quality is love, which balances his justice.(1 John 4:8) Hence, under the Mosaic Law, God's justice was that a son (or daughter) that was rebellious, "a glutton and a drunkard", and who was unwilling to change, was put to death.

This is in accord with justice, for at Deuteronomy 16:18, God says: "You should set judges and officers for yourself inside all your gates that Jehovah your God is giving you by your tribes, and they must judge the people with righteous judgment."

 

[Boanerges]

Jesus, in giving the Sermon on the Mount, told his Jewish audience:"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill;

Thank God our Lord fulfilled what we could not.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.


Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

To say that not all of the Bible has a valid basis for "Biblical teaching", is to say that what Jesus said regarding the Law does not carry any weight

I never said that not all of the Bible has a valid basis for Biblical teaching. I said that not everything in the Bible is Biblical teaching, meaning that not everything recorded in Scripture is according to God's will (approved by Him). Slavery, for instance, is the background of some of Paul's teaching and a good bit of the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean that slavery is a God approved practice. Sorry for the confusion.

SLE