Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

[Zzyzx]

.
Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

From a current thread:

.

Most of the 600+ OT laws are(were) good and positive (in their time). Obviously cynics would rush to pick a difficult example for me, rather than pick one fairly, t random, but if I stick a pin in somewhere, and come up with, say, the 'Do not eat Shellfish' law, that one is(was) massively good and positive in it's time.

You see, mostly every law kept the tribes as healthy and as strong as possible.

Easy......... easy.......

Perhaps you refer to Leviticus 11:9-12 ESV “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

Aquatic animals without fins and scales include lobster, crabs, shrimp, squid, crawdads, catfish, eels, sturgeon, etc.

First, let us name the commonly known unclean fish -- these are scaleless fish -- which are not fit for food: catfish, eels, paddlefish, sculpins, sticklebacks, sturgeons, and swordfish. These fish do not have true scales. Together with these creatures are other forms of sea life unfit for human consumption: abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, whale. http://www.giveshare.org/Health/cleanunclean.html

Kindly explain to us (easy, easy of course) WHY a law against eating such things "is (was) massively good and positive in its time".

AND explain why prohibition against eating such things is not (or is) applicable now.

Questions for debate:

Does or did the prohibition against eating aquatic animals "without fins and scales" make sense? WHY?

Of the 600+ (or whatever number) OT laws, how many / what percentage can be identified as being "massively good and positive in it's time"?

[Elijah John]

Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

ABUSE OF POWER UNDER THE HEBREW SYSTEM

# WHY DOES THE MOSAIC LAW NOT CONDEMN BEATING SLAVES (Ex 21:20)?

It is false to say that the law does not condemn beating slaves. The Mosaic law specifically instructs the Hebrews to treat others as they would themselves want to be treated - thus brutality and beatings were ILLEGAL under the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 19:18 ) It is false to say the law had nothing to say about beating slaves or that it encouraged mistreatment of anyone (foreigner or native, slave or freeman/woman)since the offer of protection against mistreatement and brutality was one of the legal systme's underlying principles.

Punishment however was legislated in a way that reflected what was practical, provable and enforcible. Basing a complaint on eyewitness testimony would only result in those bent on abuse doing so in private, so, the law then, as is the case today in most societies, required that physical proof of abuse be produced - - a broken tooth, bone, loss of an eye etc - before matters could be taken to the authorities; Any such injuries would result in the the AUTOMATIC LIBERATION of the slave (This brings to mind the fictional American TV drama "Roots" where an African slave has his foot cut off to stop him running away, such brutality would never have been permitted under Mosaic law.)

The above law would also have served as a strong deterrent against abuse since it is didfficult to severely beat somone and not damage their bodies in some way. Furthermore beating your slave could lead to a substantial financial sanction for the master since the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32) and his liberation would therefore have represented considerable financial loss. In short, the clear message being sent by such a law was "If you beat your slave, you run a strong risk of losing your slave. He walks home a free man and you lose 30 shekels!"

# Why would a Master not be punished if his slave died a few days after a beating?

Premeditated murder of a slave (or free man) automatically carried the death penelty. However, unintentional manslaughter (of slave or freeman) did not. If a slave owner wanted to kill his slave (which is unlikely because slaves represented significant financial benefits) it is unlikely he would chose a method that meant the slave died several days after the attack. The slaves lingering for some time indicates that the beating was not intended to kill him and the master would not be executed. If of course the slave lingered and eventually pulled through, he would be freed and would escape such a tyrant, but if unfortuately the slave died, it would as stated be judged as unintentional manslaughter and the death penalty not demanded.

It seems ridiculous to me for us to debate this considering that right up to 1865 slavery was allowed in this country and beating them was allowed, as well. In fact, I am not sure that an owner here couldn't beat his slave to death without any penalty. Our law allowed their abuse! Why should we be so harsh in judging people who lived 3000 years ago in an early civilization as to the "positive" quality of their laws.

I think it is good enough that they began a system of law and once a system is established, it provides the means to begin to examine the laws and improve the system. What would be a crime would be to continue to apply those ancient laws as though they were God's perfect will up to the present day. In other words, I am more concerned about the Fundamentalists who want to reinstate slavery NOW.

That WOULD be a grave concern if some Fundamentalists want this. I know of none who do. Certainly not here on these boards anyway.

Good points about our recent brush with slavery as a nation, and both the recent and the ancient versions need unqualified condemnation. It was a horrible evil, both in the recent and in the distant past.

Still, we do not disregard the positive contributions of the ancient nation of Israel, nor do we disregard the positive contributions of the United States of America . Certainly not on the basis of "well contamination." BOTH peoples, the ancient Hebrews and 19th century Americans, were(are) a morally evolving people.

And the Bible, as well as American history, reflects this moral evolution.

[marco]

Wrong! You seem as if totally biased....

Thank you oldbadger. I'll explain in a moment which one of us is short of truth.

An objective view might decide that:-
1. The Prophets decided upon the laws
or....
2. The prophets received the laws from the God of the Israelites.

I don't know which....... and nor, I think, do you.

This morning I found a dead magpie on the roadside. An objective view might decide that:
1. A car killed the bird
2. God killed the bird

I don't know which for certain, but I choose (1) with a big degree of confidence.

Apply this to your little puzzle:

Either God from the heavens presented rules about barley gathering OR
Ancient tribes made the rules themselves.

Tough decision, eh?

But we've already shown that these laws were good for the Israelites AT THAT TIME.

Yes, yes, yes here we go again. I SAID you did well. How often do you want praise? The rules, being made by the ancient tribes (not Yahweh) were good for the ancient tribes 'cos the ancient tribes made the rules that were good for the ancient tribes. I understand this and agree with it.
Case concluded.

[marco]

Num. 5:12-31, tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery, she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt.

CONCLUSION: The law was entirely positive

Of course it wasn't ENTIRELY positive. It takes TWO to commit adultery. We have heard only one side.

[catnip]

Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

ABUSE OF POWER UNDER THE HEBREW SYSTEM

# WHY DOES THE MOSAIC LAW NOT CONDEMN BEATING SLAVES (Ex 21:20)?

It is false to say that the law does not condemn beating slaves. The Mosaic law specifically instructs the Hebrews to treat others as they would themselves want to be treated - thus brutality and beatings were ILLEGAL under the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 19:18 ) It is false to say the law had nothing to say about beating slaves or that it encouraged mistreatment of anyone (foreigner or native, slave or freeman/woman)since the offer of protection against mistreatement and brutality was one of the legal systme's underlying principles.

Punishment however was legislated in a way that reflected what was practical, provable and enforcible. Basing a complaint on eyewitness testimony would only result in those bent on abuse doing so in private, so, the law then, as is the case today in most societies, required that physical proof of abuse be produced - - a broken tooth, bone, loss of an eye etc - before matters could be taken to the authorities; Any such injuries would result in the the AUTOMATIC LIBERATION of the slave (This brings to mind the fictional American TV drama "Roots" where an African slave has his foot cut off to stop him running away, such brutality would never have been permitted under Mosaic law.)

The above law would also have served as a strong deterrent against abuse since it is didfficult to severely beat somone and not damage their bodies in some way. Furthermore beating your slave could lead to a substantial financial sanction for the master since the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32) and his liberation would therefore have represented considerable financial loss. In short, the clear message being sent by such a law was "If you beat your slave, you run a strong risk of losing your slave. He walks home a free man and you lose 30 shekels!"

# Why would a Master not be punished if his slave died a few days after a beating?

Premeditated murder of a slave (or free man) automatically carried the death penelty. However, unintentional manslaughter (of slave or freeman) did not. If a slave owner wanted to kill his slave (which is unlikely because slaves represented significant financial benefits) it is unlikely he would chose a method that meant the slave died several days after the attack. The slaves lingering for some time indicates that the beating was not intended to kill him and the master would not be executed. If of course the slave lingered and eventually pulled through, he would be freed and would escape such a tyrant, but if unfortuately the slave died, it would as stated be judged as unintentional manslaughter and the death penalty not demanded.

It seems ridiculous to me for us to debate this considering that right up to 1865 slavery was allowed in this country and beating them was allowed, as well. In fact, I am not sure that an owner here couldn't beat his slave to death without any penalty. Our law allowed their abuse! Why should we be so harsh in judging people who lived 3000 years ago in an early civilization as to the "positive" quality of their laws.

I think it is good enough that they began a system of law and once a system is established, it provides the means to begin to examine the laws and improve the system. What would be a crime would be to continue to apply those ancient laws as though they were God's perfect will up to the present day. In other words, I am more concerned about the Fundamentalists who want to reinstate slavery NOW.

That WOULD be a grave concern if some Fundamentalists want this. I know of none who do. Certainly not here on these boards anyway.

Good points about our recent brush with slavery as a nation, and both the recent and the ancient versions need unqualified condemnation. It was a horrible evil, both in the recent and in the distant past.

Still, we do not disregard the positive contributions of the ancient nation of Israel, nor do we disregard the positive contributions of the United States of America . Certainly not on the basis of "well contamination." BOTH peoples, the ancient Hebrews and 19th century Americans, were(are) a morally evolving people.

And the Bible, as well as American history, reflects this moral evolution.

Goodness! I am beginning to change my mind about the cultural heritage of the Bible!

I first heard about this view coming from the far right fringe groups during the first Bush election. A man named Ahmanson, if I recall correctly, a very wealthy west coast fundamentalist was a proponent of it.

So today, being very lazy and rushed, I looked up a couple of links on the fly--in other words, these were quickly and hastily found as proof that this is a present day concern in our own political system:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... criminals/

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2013 ... _bible.php

But they are enough to establish that we need to talk about the historical value of early laws and why they are obsolete now and how they are NOT the will of God for Christians in our time.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 51 by Elijah John]

Note that I have two opposing points of view here and the one that was operating formerly was the disgust I have for the destruction of sites of cultural heritage by IS and, of course, legendary Bible burnings of the past, such as in the Russian Revolution. Just because we no longer believe in an ancient religion does not mean we should destroy the ancient evidence of it. We are all poorer for it.

On the other hand, this belief that the OT Law was perfect and given by God (in the Bronze age) and should be forever applied is like applying Sharia Law--same, same, same! Even if the OT law was given to the Israel word for word by God, that does not indicate that it should stand for all time--that God had no intention that we should not progress. Besides that, we have been told clearly by Paul that we are NOT under the Law and if we apply it to ourselves we give up our Covenant through Christ. IF that were the only excuse, of course--IF there hadn't been a show down against slavery and good Christians felt inspired to instigate a war to end it and WON!

But all of this is one reason I campaign so hard against Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists digging around in the Old Covenant--a system of Law given to a specific people (at best) to form a nation--and mixing oil and water. Isaiah claims that scribes with their lying pens falsified the Law. So, the Bible itself claims that the Law as it is written was falsified. (This specificity given in the possibility that some silent lurker is of this bent.)

Sorry for the mixed messages! I feel so balanced brained right now!

[marco]

It seems ridiculous to me for us to debate this considering that right up to 1865 slavery was allowed in this country and beating them was allowed, as well. In fact, I am not sure that an owner here couldn't beat his slave to death without any penalty. Our law allowed their abuse! Why should we be so harsh in judging people who lived 3000 years ago in an early civilization as to the "positive" quality of their laws.

There is a slight difference between American Law and the Law of God. We are entitled to look back at God's Law and assess it as being as true for us as it was for those to whom it was originally given. If we cannot do that, then we might as well ignore the Bible as being out of date. You are not advocating that, I assume.

[catnip]

It seems ridiculous to me for us to debate this considering that right up to 1865 slavery was allowed in this country and beating them was allowed, as well. In fact, I am not sure that an owner here couldn't beat his slave to death without any penalty. Our law allowed their abuse! Why should we be so harsh in judging people who lived 3000 years ago in an early civilization as to the "positive" quality of their laws.

There is a slight difference between American Law and the Law of God. We are entitled to look back at God's Law and assess it as being as true for us as it was for those to whom it was originally given. If we cannot do that, then we might as well ignore the Bible as being out of date. You are not advocating that, I assume.

Did you read what I wrote? Do I understand you? I had pegged you as a far more enlightened individual! Yes, the Old Testament IS out of date for Christians. The updated and NEW Covenant is in the NEW Testament and we were clearly told by Paul not to apply it to ourselves. The Old Testament almost didn't make the cut into the first fifty Bibles commissioned by Constantine.

It is a valuable historical work of literature and spells out an early example of a code of written law--a profound event in human history. But it is historical and it does not and should not apply to us.

I am still livid whenever I remember the destruction of the giant Buddha statues and I am not a Buddhist! Those were amazing! Why destroy our cultural heritage just because it is very, very, very OLD?

[marco]

Did you read what I wrote? Do I understand you? I had pegged you as a far more enlightened individual!

Goodness, I will read whatever you write three times now. Please can you peg me back to being enlightened?

Yes, the Old Testament IS out of date for Christians. The updated and NEW Covenant is in the NEW Testament and we were clearly told by Paul not to apply it to ourselves.

You see, I didn't know this. I thought we were still bound by the Decalogue. I feel quite liberated, so maybe I can go out tonight and steal or kill somebody. Paul told us, did he? Well I don't like him so that'll be why he didn't tell ME. Last Sunday he was rambling on about body parts speaking to each other. I'm sure he's not well.

It is a valuable historical work of literature and spells out an early example of a code of written law--a profound event in human history. But it is historical and it does not and should not apply to us.

Well, if you say so - you sound awfully confident about this. I'm sure that most people in this part of the world still listen to the OT. I had to endure Nehemiah when I took my mother to church last Sunday, so it seems Paul hasn't told them either. Scandalous!

I am still livid whenever I remember the destruction of the giant Buddha statues

Yes, I agree with you. It is tragic the statue survived so long and was destroyed now, in our supposed civilised society. What happened in Palmyra was even more horrendous and tragic. ISIS killed the 82-year old guardian of the antiquities there.

"After a month, the fighters realised that Mr al-Asaad knew nothing – or would say nothing – and so they decapitated the old man and strung his torso to a Roman pillar in the ancient city."

Go well.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

This allows for absolutely no questioning or doubt of any kind. Whatever happened to "free will?" For the greater part of history in the Christian controlled west, being convicted of any such doubts could bring the death penalty. This is still true in many Muslim countries. Is this law "good and positive?" I can see nothing good or positive about any of this.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

According to this rule Catholics are toast. In an extreme interpretation wearing images on your clothes, or even an American flag on your lapel or blouse, could be a violation of the law. Can someone get a ruling from God on this please? According to Exodus 32 Moses threw a severe tantrum when he discovered the Israelites in the process of creating a golden calf to worship. The God most high of Abraham and Moses, El ELyon, was known as El The Bull. Ironically, the "children of Israel" were severely chastised by Moses for attempting to worship the son of God. Is this law "good and positive?" It depends on whether you are in the process of being beaten, or executed, for wearing a Micky Mouse t-shirt.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Let's face it, virtually all of us will be slow roasted over a lake of fire for this one, and it's far too late now anyway. Damaged done. Is this law "good and positive?" I suppose we will all have a chance to discuss that question in detail at the post apocalypse barbecue and demon feed.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

I have always been a big fan of this particular law, although admittedly it means less to me since I retired. Is this law "good and positive?" I am going with YES, although I have never been subjected to being beaten and even executed for violating it. That could conceivably change my point of view.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother

My parents were nice people, but not everyone is so fortunate. Should it be a requirement to honor your parents if they physically abused you, mentally abused you, and perhaps even sexually abused you as a child? I think not! Is this law "good and positive?" As a blanket decree, no, not really.

Laws six through ten are covered perfectly well by the Golden Rule. Which everyone can see is really the only "good and positive" rule anyone needs anyway.

[Elijah John]

It seems ridiculous to me for us to debate this considering that right up to 1865 slavery was allowed in this country and beating them was allowed, as well. In fact, I am not sure that an owner here couldn't beat his slave to death without any penalty. Our law allowed their abuse! Why should we be so harsh in judging people who lived 3000 years ago in an early civilization as to the "positive" quality of their laws.

There is a slight difference between American Law and the Law of God. We are entitled to look back at God's Law and assess it as being as true for us as it was for those to whom it was originally given. If we cannot do that, then we might as well ignore the Bible as being out of date. You are not advocating that, I assume.

Are you denying our ability or the desirably of discering the timeless in the context of which it was found? The context of a barbaric time and culture and the timelessness of truth and beauty even IN that primitive context of time and place.

Does timeless truth and beauty become outdated simply because the context surrounding it was primitive, barbaric and anachronistic?