This never gets old.
The same logic that COG leaders pick and choose from.
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
45 comments:
Keep calm everyone.
Dr Bob Thiel will be speaking on these very subjects this coming weekend.
Answers will be forthcoming.
My understanding is that these laws were part of the Law of Moses, given only to the Israelites. They are a package, if you break one law, you broke them all (James 2:10). The Old Covenant has expired, no longer in force for anyone. Only those laws that are repeated for the church are to be obeyed today under the New Covenant. Of the Ten Commandments given to the Israelites, only nine are repeated for the church. The Sabbath commandment is absent. The New Covenant doesn't dwell so much on specific laws, but on principles. Love your neighbor covers a lot of ground, especially if you understand "love" to be a verb, not a noun, an action, not a feeling. Always do the loving thing when dealing with others, whether you like them or not. As I said, that's my understanding. Now, go and enjoy a ham and cheese sandwich (but don't offend someone by eating it in their presence).
No, I don't think it's funny. The letter is like Christ being asked whether it's right to pay taxes to Caesar. I wouldn't answer since they are not sincere questions but rather a hostile attack on a persons beliefs. People who ask such questions hide or lie about their true beliefs, so why should I submit to a double standard and throw my pearls before swine.
Absolutely amazing what a total lack of understanding of the difference between physical and spiritual Israel can lead to!
The lack of understanding 8:50 lies entirely in the hands of those who preach that the law is still required. It is not.
"Keep calm everyone.
Dr Bob Thiel will be speaking on these very subjects this coming weekend.
Answers will be forthcoming."
LMAO! So true! The issue with Bob is that he can't explain why he gets to pick and choose what he wants to keep from the law either.
As long as I get a Canadian with some Molson or some Labatt, I'll be happy.
A Canadian with a glass of Moosehead is good too!
I too shall glorify God with my Canadian slave and some good beer
1 Corinthians 10:31 ESV
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
As Jesus supped with the sinners, I too shall sup with the Canadians with some good beer.
Matthew 11:19 ESV
"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”"
"Dr Bob Thiel will be speaking on these very subjects this coming weekend."
Oh, I can't wait for Bob Thiel to set us "straight"!!!!! What would we do without him???????
NO2HWA writes the strangest posts.
That is one of best articles ever. So funny yet true. I have contacted Mr. Thiel and Mr. Flurry on some of the same subjects just for the fun of it. They replied back with their own interpretation which I pointed out and again they came back with their own interpretation. It's kind of fun to shoot off a law question to these guys to see how they answer them. I am always polite so then don't black list me.
Your readers might give it try, it's fun!
eh, that's an old argument...points taken out of context to try to get around the homosexual abomination, or any other of God's commands that they don't like.
Anon 8:18 uses the magic word, "New Covenant" and like sooo many others offers no Biblical reference.
If a first-century Christian wanted to know about dealing with homosexuality, where would he go? Jesus said nothing about it. Only Paul.
Paul did say you don't simply replace one covenant with another without mutual agreement. Galatians 3:15. Where's God asking Israel to agree to the New Covenant? And if it applies to Israel it applies to Gentile Christians as well because we are grafted in. Romans 11.
So the God of the old testament was just a big buffoon making this ridiculous stuff up as he went? Thanks for setting us straight!
"The Sabbath commandment is absent."
This is often said but is mistaken. The seventh day Sabbath commandment was transformed. The Sabbath was always just a shadow of Christ who is the substance (Col 2:16-17). In that sense, Christ is now our Sabbath. The Sabbath symbolizes resting in God. When the NT speaks of this kind of rest (in Hebrews, for example), it is speaking of Christ as the New Testament instantiation of that rest, not the spiritually insubstantial and transient seventh day Sabbath.
Partisans will look at the above statement with alarm and allege that I am speaking against the Sabbath. I am not. I am speaking in advocacy of the Sabbath. And that rest is now in Christ.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I'm surprised that NO2HWA thinks that ACOG members will be challenged by Dr. Laura's simple-minded piece. The answers are easy.
1. Of COURSE you can own Canadians as well as Mexicans. You just need to be mindful of the Biblical admonitions that mandate different treatment for your Gentile slaves vs. your Israelite slaves. But if you live in a nation that forbids slavery, you need to obey the civil law and do without slaves.
2. Again, that's a matter of civil law. If slavery ever becomes legal again, as many ACOG members believe will happen during the Millennium, we can talk about price and economics.
3. Why would you need to contact a menstrually unclean woman? Your wife should be doing all the shopping and other menial tasks that would expose her to women who might be menstruating. It shouldn't be a problem for you.
4. Christians understand that Christ is the NT sacrifice. Ask your Jewish friends to answer this one, as it's not a problem for Christians.
5. Ask the police to do it. You wouldn't have done it yourself in ancient Israel, either. There is government for that, and it's up to the government whether or not to follow the laws God has given.
6. Scripture makes it clear that if you've sinned in one point, you've sinned in them all. Dr Laura, as a Jewess, may be caught up in Talmudic disputations over "degree" of sin, but for Christians it is clear that all sin is sin, and Christ's sacrifice saves from all sin.
7. Again, this is a question for Jews, as Christians have Jesus to approach the altar on their behalf. Though it's true that you don't see too many blind people giving sermons.
8. Like circumcision, which is now of the heart and not required of the foreskin, this ceremonial command has become spiritual because of Christ's grafting the Gentiles into Israel. However, if the civil authorities mandate certain hairstyles, as a Christian you must comply.
9. NFL footballs are made from cow leather. Most ordinary footballs nowadays are either made from synthetic materials or from cow leather. Yes, you should stay away from footballs made from pig skin. Not hard at all.
10. You aren't the government. Lobby to have the laws of your country changed to match those of civil Israel, and maybe you'll get to participate in a stoning. Until then, lay off your uncle. He's in enough trouble already for taking God's name in vain, so if he's that disrespectful it's really no surprise that he's also violating the mixed garment statute. The farm/planing problem should resolve itself quickly, though, as if he is trying to follow Biblical injunctions on the farm he will soon enough find out that he isn't faithful enough to get by while letting his field lay fallow every seven years.
Oh, my! Why do I get the feeling that I just dictated a sermon outline that we may soon hear from Bitter Bwana Bob?
The Pope is visiting Canada.
After completing his visit, the Canadian government gives him a chauffeur-driven car to see the natural beauty of Canada. After 20 kilometers through Canada, he says to the driver:
"Oh, let me get behind the wheel. I'm from the narrow Papal States, and I always have to sit in the back of the popemobile. even though I am such a passionate driver!" So the chauffeur swaps seats with the Pope.
After a few kilometers, the Pope is stopped by a police officer. The Pope winds the window down and the policeman immediately runs back to his car. From there he calls his superior:
"Lieutenant , i have a problem. I have a speeder here."
"What is the problem? Just fine him!"
"I think he is a big shot though."
"Is he higher ranked than me?"
"Lieutenant, i believe that is the case."
"Is he higher ranked than the prime minister?"
"Lieutenant, i am afraid that is the case."
"Who is he then?"
"I don't know, but the Pope is his chauffeur."
Some of the statements in this letter are clearly parody, but an important issue is raised. The OT was never scaled up to be a global body of litigation for mankind. And that is not a matter of the misfortunes and impediments that beset the Jews. God himself did not scale it up but superseded it. He instead scaled up a form of Late Second Temple Judaism called, later, Christianity. This points to the concept that the OT was really meant for the ancient Jewish nation-state - a nation-state that resided among other ancient Middle Eastern cultures. The OT was tenaciously connected to the people, land and Temple and scalability was limited.
Much of the scalability of present Judaism is thanks to the Academy of Jamnia under the direction of Yohanan ben Zakkai (No, I am not a Millerite Judaism weenie) who became active after the great tribulation in 70 AD.
Dr. Laura hearkens back to the OT and it is easy for critics to point to issues where the OT does not scale. We don't have institiutional slavery in the USA anymore although we only recently, in the perspective of human history, got rid of it. This is not to deny that the OT was a particular instantiation of Gods eternal moral law. It was - for a people, time and place.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I perceive sarcasm........answer not.....
The issue with Bob is that he can't explain why he gets to pick and choose what he wants to keep from the law either.
He's got some lulu's.
In a sermon he said the laws are written on his heart. So I guess he only keeps the laws that are on his heart. If it's not on his heart, he doesn't need to keep it. But he still has some whacky reasons why he doesn't keep them.
Bwana Bob is a false prophet and people should denounce him for who he is.
The cogs always choose the law they want to obey and avoid, and even the UCG does, so Bwana Bob is just one among many.
God’s law is not done away, because if you tried to do away with the law, we really wouldn’t understand what sin is. And so God’s law is a revealer. God’s law reveals. And so we can get a better understanding of what covetousness is all about because God’s law spells it out. You cannot get your prayers answered if you don't keep the ten commandments. Because God does answer the sinners he only answers the righteous.
Anon 8:58 who says "The lack of understanding 8:50 lies entirely in the hands of those who preach that the law is still required. It is not."
The scriptures don't back that up. Paul himself, while explaining salvation through grace and faith in the book of Romans, evidently was concerned that some might think he was preaching against the law, so he said, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31). He makes it clear that there is still "sin" that Christians must continue to abhor and resist. Romans 6:1,12-18,23.
I would have to disagree that Jesus did mention homosexuality in Matthew 19:4-6. It states "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
So does this mean the Canadians can own us as well?
Canadians are not Mannasites. They are of a lesser tribe. God only works through his one faithful tribe of Manassah.
Canadians are a part of Ephraim! The younger and superior brother to Manasseh. Not to mention more handsome.
Eh?
The southern part of the USA originally comes from the rough part of England, which is why they have a much higher crime rate than the north. I assume WWE wrestling is more popular in the south.
Originally voted from the rough part of England ? What the ancestors of Scarlett O'Hara got rounded up from gin alley and exported ???
8:11pm I bet you're a lot of fun at parties. NOT!!!
June 11, 2021 at 6:43 AM
"If a first-century Christian wanted to know about dealing with homosexuality, where would he go?"
I suppose they would go to the scriptures. Oh yeah, that would be the writings that we refer to as the Old Testament.
Paul did write that the scriptures (OT) were able to make one wise unto salvation...
Well said 8:49!
And wait…what? The law isn’t required 8:58? So can I murder, lie, steal, have sex with kids, or animals or anyone or thing I want to? And actually whose law is required if it’s not God’s law anymore?
The humorous part of this old internet essay is that its aimed squarely at people who love to cite the law in order to beat other people with it, but aren't remotely interested in applying it to themselves.
You would think even the most uptight COGlodyte would appreciate that.
You've never seen a Philadelphia crowd.
6:26,
When people here talk about the Law they are generally referring to the law of the Sinai covenant which is analogized in Gal. 4 to the handmaid, the handmaid that should be put away.
That new covenant is analogized to Sarah and the Jerusalem above and should be embraced.
There is nothing in the new covenant that would lead one to believe the sins you listed are acceptable. In fact all the 10 commandments were repeated in the New Testament except the physical sabbath which Neo correctly states became the rest we have in Christ.
There is a reason that Christ called Himself our rest; it was meant to replace/diminish the physical nature of the old covenant and its use as an identifier (sabbath and circumcision) of God’s people. Just as circumcision is of the heart and our rest is now in Christ these spiritual elements now identify those that are Christ’s.
It was with intention that the New Testament diminishes the idea of law being the law of Moses within the Sinai Covenant. Consider why else law is now described as Law of the Spirit of life, Law of liberty, Law of Christ, Law of love, Law of faith, Law of righteousness, etc. This was done with intention. As was the teaching of the “Two great Commandments”. It changes our responsibility from tablets of stone to a converted heart that worships in spirit and truth.
Earl,
A very concise and articulate statement of the TRUTH of this matter!
Anonymous 6/11 @ 6:48,
Are you kidding? Christ's remarks in Matthew 19:4-6 have absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality - NOTHING! He was talking about divorce - talk about taking something out of context!
Wrong, 10:12, the commanded Sabbath rest hasn't been done away. All of Heb 4:3-11 is an argument in favour of keeping the Sabbath commandment, concluding in v9 with: "there remains therefore a Sabbatismos (Sabbath-keeping) for the people of God". Some were falling into unbelief (v2,6,11) in that day and so this testimony was given. As quoted above, Rom 3:31 teaches that Christians must uphold the law (AS DEFINED BY CHRIST). Most people don't believe this because they are blind. Both Is 66 and Ezek 46 prove that the Sabbath will be kept in the millenium once we get past this age of ignorance, violence and depravity.
As for "resting in Christ", if Christ said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath, why don't you keep it holy if you are "resting by faith in Christ (your supposed Lord)". One does so by ceasing from his works (Heb 4:10)
And why would Christ take on such a title if He has rendered the Sabbath obsolete, for God does not say or do things in vain the way we do? Do we make Christ a respecter of persons for bearing this title by suggesting that He was only telling only the carnal Jews on how to keep it, seeing that Is 66 and Ezek 46 prophesy that all nations in the millenium will one day observe it.
" I assume WWE wrestling is more popular in the south."
Huge fan population here in Los Angeles area. Even Herbert Armstrong watched it in between his Westerns and Lakers basketball.
Law and Covenant
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
The new/renewed covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah is yet future. This is the time when the twelve tribes will inherit the holy land (Eze 47:13ff) and waters will flow from the Temple to the eastern and western seas (Eze 47:1-12 with Zec 14:8).
Building on Paul’s allegory in Galatians, Keturah, the third woman (wife/concubine) in Abraham’s life needs to be added to the mix. Abraham had one son to both Hagar and Sarah. But to Keturah he had six sons (Ge 25:1-2), which points to the abundance of peoples [goyim] joining themselves to the Lord (Zec 2:11), that is “taking hold” (Isa 56:6) of, using terminology from Hebrews, the “second” covenant (Heb 8:7).
Heb 9:28b and unto them that look for him shall he appear [future tense] the second time without sin unto salvation.
This covenant will be made at Christ’s second coming. At Christ’s first appearance/coming he made a covenant with the church which is a covenant within the new covenant just as the Levitical and Davidic covenants are covenants within both the first and second covenants.
Ge 14:18 And Melchizedek KING of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the PRIEST of the most high God.
1Ch 15:27 And David was clothed with a robe of fine linen [“linen ephod,” 2 Sam 6:14], and all the Levites that bare the ark,
David was king seven years in Hebron before he became a priest after the order of Melchizedek when he captured the stronghold of Zion.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
The Melchizedek/Church covenant is a combined priestly and kingly covenant within the overall new covenant. Christ and the saints will be priests and kings in heaven during the second covenant with Israel.
The fault with the first covenant was with the people, so that the second covenant has to address this problem.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Jer 31:33b I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;
What are some of the ‘instructions’ these ‘spirit’-filled people will be keeping? Ezekiel’s program of restoration in 40-48 provides some details. Looking at a few:
Eze 20:40b For on mine holy mountain ... I will require your offerings...
The five major sacrifices - the burnt offering, grain offering, well-being offering, purification offering and reparation offerings - are still there (40:39, 45:15).
There will be required and non-required sacrifices (46:12).
The purification offering is for sin and ritual impurity. The priest who becomes unclean because of the death of a close family member before entering the temple he will be required to undergo seven days of cleansing and then offer a purification offering, over and above the first covenant’s requirements for laypeople (44:26-27).
To enter the Temple one must be circumcised in both heart and flesh (cp. Eze 44:19).
The Sabbath will be kept (46:1, 4 & 12). There is an increase in the number of sacrifices required for that day. On the Sabbath day the inner east court gate will be open all day (46:1).
New moons will be observed (46:3). There will be a decrease in the number of sacrifices on these days - to highlight the importance of the Sabbath? The inner east gate will also be opened for the day (46:1).
Passover will be observed with a bull as a public purification offering (45:22). Unleavened Bread will be kept (45:23) as will the Feast of the seventh month (45:25), which is the feast of tabernacle (Zech 14).
(cont next post)
Under the first covenant at the FOT there were seventy bull burnt offerings, over and above the weekly burnt offerings. In the second covenant there will be instead 49 bull burnt offerings required, as well as at UB.
The cleansing of the Temple will be required as under the first covenant. But instead of this taking place in the seventh month this will occur on two days in the first month. The counter parts to the three places where blood was applied in the first covenant - the most holy place, holy place and altar - are “the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court” (45:19).
The Jubilee will also be kept (46:17).
“When the items of continuity found in the New Covenant are tabulated in this passage (Jer 31:31-34) [the largest piece of text to be quoted in extenso in the NT, viz., Hebrews 8:8-12], they are (1) the same covenant-making God, “My covenant”; (2) the same law, My torah (note, not a different one than Sinai); the same divine fellowship promised in the ancient tripartite formula, “I will be your God” (4) the same “seed” and “people,” “You shall be my people” and (5) the same forgiveness, “I will forgive their iniquities.”
“Even the features of inwardness, fellowship, individualism, and forgiveness had been either hinted at or fully known in the covenant made with the fathers...
“Thus the word “new” in this context would mean the “renewed” or “restored” covenant (cf. Akkadian edesu “to restore” ruined temples, altars, or cities; Hebrew hds connected with the new moon and Ugaritic hdt, “to renew the moon”). We conclude that this covenant was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise renewed and enlarged.... Thus the new is more comprehensive, more effective, more spiritual, and more glorious than the old - in fact, so much so that in comparison it would appear as if it were totally unlike the old at all. Yet, in truth, it was nothing less than the progress of revelation” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, pp.232-34).
Gal 4:24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants...
Gal 4:25 Now Hagar ... corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother
Eze 48:35 It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.
Keturah corresponds to the city of Jerusalem of the Millennium/NC, (cp. Zec 8:3; 14:16).
Your comment actual proves my point. How can two people from the same sex procreate? If at the beginning God made them male and female as v4 states, and they are to be one so they are are to be fruitful and multiply. How can you do that with a same sex couple?
Anonymous 6/13 @ 5:39,
You have inserted the language about being fruitful and multiplying into Christ's remarks. Christ is very clearly making the point that the sexual union of two people is an integral part of the Divine institution of marriage, and that the sexual union which God has sanctioned cannot be sundered by any institution of humans (like divorce). Childless heterosexual couples are comprehended in this statement by Christ on marriage and divorce - the production of children has NOTHING to do with the point he was making here!
Post a Comment