Thanks to my good friend, Brian Helsby for this gem of a picture (if you can't see it below, go to: http://www.futurechurch.co.za/graeme/images/gods_law_letter.jpg).

There may be reasons to be opposed to homosexuality, but I think we need to be honest enough as Christians that we cannot rely on the Old Testament prohibitions to prove this point.

The question is, are all laws in the Old Testament now outdated and can we (as Christians) ignore them? I take it the 10 commandments still apply but the laws dealing wiht slavery don't. How do we know which ones to keep and which ones to chuck?

Posted by: Roger Saner 31 Dec, 2005 - 21:06:33

Please don't misunderstand me, but I am not sure we should be as steadfast about the 10 commandments as you assert, Roger.

For example, "Thou shalt not kill." Except, of course, if (1) God tells you to, and especially if God instructs you to "go into the land and wipe them all out - men, women and children, even their animals - leave nothing alive..."

Except, of course, (2) in cases of self defense.

Except, of course, (3) in times of war or when you or your family have been taken captive.

Except, (4) if you do murder, but by mistake, you can run to a city of refuge, and if you stay there til the next Jubilee year, you will be pardoned and set free.

So, um, "Thou shalt not kill" really does not actually mean, "Thou shalt not kill". There are exceptions.

So, maybe we should say, "obey the 10 commandments, unless.... God changes His mind" (???).

Woah, there. That sounds irreverent.

Or does it?

We flip forward a few pages in our Bibles, and we see Jesus defining the "whole of the Law and the Prophets" as "Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbour as you love yourself". Love God, love others, love yourself.

The "Great Commands". The "Three Commandments." Call them what you like, but Jesus seems to be assisting us in interpreting the 10 commandments.

Then flip a few more pages to Peter, wrestling with himself about to visit a Gentile and share the Gospel with him. In a vision, a sheet comes down from heaven, filled with "forbidden" foods, and he is instructed to eat. Sensing a theological trap, he wisely declines. Then the booming instruction cuts to his core: "Do not call anything unclean that I have made clean."

Since his vision did no in fact relate to food (it related to him preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles - something he did, and got into trouble for), why should we only relate it to food today? In fact, we should not. There are many things in my opinion about which "God has changed His mind". I don't mean that in an open theology way (although it might also apply), but rather as a shorthand for saying that as God has consistently revealed more of Himself to us, and continues to work out His Kingdom purposes in the world, we as His creatures have become more and more aware of how the three great commandments must impact our behaviour and society.

This includes our very modern view of slavery (as in, "its bad") whereas Scripture condones it. It includes our modern view of the role of women in society, of apartheid, and of many similar issues.

Of course, the issue of homosexuality is this generation's big issue (in America, I'd add abortion to that list). And its more than just an issue of sexual ethics - it seems to cut to the core of who we are as Christians (and humans), and how we understand and interpret and apply the Bible to our everyday lives.

Posted by: graemec 03 Jan, 2006 - 11:14:34

I'll respond bit by bit. Firstly, your point on "Thou shall not kill" is well taken. God seems to have sub-clauses of when it's permissible. But this isn't true about all of the 10 commandments - like the prohibition against committing adultery. It's a bit difficult to commit adultery in self-defence (unless the alternatives are too ghastly to contemplate!).

And it's surely stretching past the point of no return for us to apply the same logic when dealing with "worship no gods but me." I don't think we can say that this is permissible in some circumstances...it does appear to be an absolute.

I think what you're cautioning against here is placing God's law above God i.e. placing more trust in his law (something "dead" by New Testament theology) than in God himself.

Posted by: Roger Saner 05 Jan, 2006 - 16:55:14

When you write about Jesus assisting us interpret the 10 commandments I hope you're not suggesting he say we ignore the others he didn't mention (stealing, lying, etc). I wish this was indeed the case, but he very specifically says, "I did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Posted by: Roger Saner 05 Jan, 2006 - 17:01:00

Graeme writes: "There are many things in my opinion about which 'God has changed His mind'."

I was listening to a Richard Rohr tape when he spoke about Walter Brueggemann saying[i]the[/i] great theme of the Bible is God constantly breaking his own rules - and he does it for the sake of love and mercy. For instance, God said to Adam that if he ate from the tree of good and evil he would surely die. He didn't die - not straight away.

Posted by: Roger Saner 05 Jan, 2006 - 17:15:04

Just for thought...

The Bible does not specifically forbid sex before marriage. In fact, its decress are about adultery (where both people are married to someone else) and fornication (where one of the people involved is married).

In fact, it tacitly acknowledges that under age sex is (was!) culturally acceptable, only when the "bride price" (i.e. virginity that will be tested and be part of the determination of the "price" to be paid) was not devalued.

The Bible also has been used to support apartheid, slavery, the stigmatising of left-handed people ("against nature"), the suppression of women and not allowing them the vote, the right to carry firearms and the death penalty. Some of these issues are still contentuous and find Biblical support on both sides of the respective debates.

Just a thought...

Posted by: graemec 09 Jan, 2006 - 13:43:57

Regarding sex before marriage: the Bible specifically forbids fornication. The definition of fornication is "voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other."

Here's another definition:
"Unlawful sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person; the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery."

So if the Bible forbids fornication then the Bible forbids sex before marriage.

Posted by: Roger Saner 09 Jan, 2006 - 16:55:48

In terms of deciding which Old Testament laws to keep and which no longer apply, Graeme answers this at http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/homosexuality-2-the-old-testament-law...

Posted by: Roger Saner 10 Jan, 2006 - 13:03:11

Hi Graeme

Not related directly to the issue at hand but making me think-

Is there a biblical definition of what "marriage" actually is? At what point does a mutual relationship turn into a "marriage"? (One can leave parents and cleave to another without marriage). Are our modern day determinants of marriage biblical? - i.e. the state of marriage generally arises after a state designated officer (normally a clergyman or judge) declares it to be so. OR is much of what we deem to be marriage based on tradition?
The answer obviously impacts of the questions being asked about fornication. Surely if fornication is determined by reference to marriage, but marriage is not clearly defined, then neither is fornication.

Same principle applies to your points on murder / killing. Is our definition of murder / killing the same in meaning as that of the authors of the passages?

Maybe God has not changed his mind on these issues, but rather the issues have changed in the minds of us....

Posted by: Peter Schumacher 11 Jan, 2006 - 23:51:41

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it