# OT Law and NT Grace



## RobertPGH1981 (May 24, 2011)

All,

I was recently in a debate forum and they asked me why I didn't adhere to the following OT laws. 

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Deu 13:6 "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 
you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. 

I don't know much about the OT as I am a new believer. Can somebody explain what these verses mean, and how they apply to us today? Why don't we do these things? They basically told me that the the bible contradicts because it tells us not to Kill and then it tells us to kill. 

Any insight would be appreciated.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 25, 2011)

I'll offer you an answer, _however_... this answer is for *your *question. No one (I speak for the masses) really wants to get into a proxy-debate, as you engage with people elsewhere--sort of like a bucket-brigade fireman squad passing the "answers" along. The fact is that bare-knuckles engagement with the mockers and atheists of the world is not a job for new Christians. The Bible describes someone like you (not uncharitably) as a "babe" and a "novice." It's just a fact. "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ," and you will be better prepared to deal with such persons in due time.

The simplest answer is that the laws _as found in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, etc._ were civil legislation for a world-kingdom that no longer exists. These statutes were issued by God, and delivered person-to-person unto the Hebrew nation, through its covenant mediator, Moses. Only the covenant-mediator and his successors--the Israelite prophets, priests, and kings--had the covenant enforcement authority for these laws, so to maintain the covenant order for the people, generation after generation.

The same Law also categorized the "10 Commandments" in a unique way. It set them off from all the rest of the laws of Israel; it was those laws that were written in stone _by the finger of God,_ and laid up in the Ark of the Covenant. They are universal moral "basic" standards, which by and large no one on earth really can dispute--not without overturning social order in general. So when we affirm the universal, general equity of the Moral Law, _as codified in the 10C,_ we are appealing to a cornerstone of Israelite law that could have been the cornerstone of almost any other society's law-and-order. The fact is, that many other nations throughout history have not only had their own, similar cornerstones, but many have actually _borrowed_ the one the Israelites obtained.

So, we no longer have a covenant-nation of Old Testament Israelites (modern Israeli nationals don't tie themselves to the Mosaic covenant). We don't have any enforcers, and no one has any covenant-authority under a covenant administration that doesn't exist anymore. The Old (Siniatic) Covenant has been superseded, and replaced. This is one of the main lessons of the book of Hebrews. It was also the message of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Mediator of a better covenant), who even while he was engaged in his public ministry hinted at the reorganization that would follow the institution of his new regime, Mk.7:15; cf. Act.10:15.

When we come, then, to our own New Testament era, we find the testimony concerning Christ by his apostles is simply full of moral dicta that correspond to the ancient moral law. Indeed, a text like Act.15:20 describes both the limits of binding the Gentiles by the now-outmoded Mosaic legislation, while at the same time _defining_ such terms as "sexual immorality" by the Law's old standards.

But defining "sexual immorality" is a far cry from reauthorizing the church to get about enforcing the Mosaic penalty associated with such breakage. On the one hand, the church is _expected_ to excommunicate and cast-out of the church such persons as misbehave in a Lev.20:13 manner. That is the kind of covenant enforcement authority they now possess. Paul terms this kind of authority a "handing over to Satan." It is a dire warning to certain recalcitrant sinners, who with contumacy refuse to heed the discipline of the church, that if they remain on this path they will most assuredly end up in hell. The church doesn't need to "hasten" anyone's trip to hell, by stoning them to death in the flesh, or any other form of execution. The people of God no longer institute social deterrents by capital examples.

It's not even remotely germane to this issue, to argue whether any given modern "state" government may or ought to outlaw the abomination of Lev.20:13, or what penalties they should institute. The church is not the state, nor an organ of the state. What the state does should be "moral," but how I think they ought to legislate is a political, not an ecclesiastical question. It's a matter for our heads of state or elected officials to figure out what basis on which to act in the public good. I have a pretty clear idea what they ought to do, but my little voice of counsel is usually just heard anonymously every so often in the voting-booth.

In this predominantly pagan country, I'm simply glad that for the moment, as a Christian I have First Amendment freedom to speak and proclaim Christ--so I can do it, knowing I'm not sure to end up in jail, or worse. In time to come, that speech may be more costly. However, it shouldn't stop the church from speaking out. Because, for us (as it was with St. Paul) politics and citizenship are merely pragmatic tools. We function within whatever system is present. Christianity, as a non-political movement, eventually changed politics for the better in the West, mostly by changing hearts. Christianity, as a distinct political force, is in immediate danger of losing single-minded focus on the eternal, replacing it with a focus on the things that can--and will--be shaken to pieces, Heb.12:25-29.
__________________

As to the alleged contradiction between "do not kill" and "they shall surely be put to death," it is a naive kind of blasé optimism that thinks a society can long endure that tolerates predators in its midst. Even if someone assuages his pacifistic conscience by advocating interminable confinement (lock em up, throw away the key) rather than the death penalty as "ultimate price" for the worst offenders, he really isn't promoting a superior system, but rather a kind of "living death," most unkind to everyone.

Only a terminal-blockhead (and there are many today) thinks there's no difference between a law that prohibits *murder* and self-appointed vengeance, but sanctions the death-penalty for those convicted by a publicly instituted jurisprudence of that crime, or of another of the same intensity (kidnapping, rape, etc.). Do the same protesters of Moses' laws also protest our modern society, on the same charge of "inconsistency"? Did they applaud the reprisal against OBL, and bemoan the falling of the WTC--that is, are they at pains to erect the same standard of "consistency" in their own thoughts and actions?

The fact is, that without capital punishment, a society reveals its general hatred of mankind. Keeping capital crimes on the books, and the willingness to exercise the ultimate power while maintaining judicial restraint, is a mark of _humanity._ It is a declaration that in general, individual lives have the highest intrinsic worth, and will be defended. Predators will be excised from the body-politic like cancer.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 25, 2011)

Nothing to add to Rev. Bruce's excellent answer, expect I'd highly recommend reading RC Sproul's classic work, "The Holiness of God." And I bet you haven't, since you are confused by such OT passages as are laid above. Sproul will explain in his book even more difficult passages than the ones you've taken up, indeed, the most difficult ones you can possibly find! I'm confident to say that anyone who has read the book in question would recommend it here as a MUST-read, as well.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (May 25, 2011)

I thought I was better prepared for their arguments, but realized their hearts were so hardened that they wanted to mock me rather than discuss. I have read the book the Holiness of God but it has been a couple years. I will have to check it out again. 

Thank you for your responses. God Bless,


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 25, 2011)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I thought I was better prepared for their arguments, but realized their hearts were so hardened that they wanted to mock me rather than discuss. I have read the book the Holiness of God but it has been a couple years. I will have to check it out again.
> 
> Thank you for your responses. God Bless,


 
Great! Read the sixth chapter, entitled, "Holy Justice." That should consicely answer to your questions.


----------



## torstar (May 25, 2011)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I thought I was better prepared for their arguments, but realized their hearts were so hardened that they wanted to mock me rather than discuss. I have read the book the Holiness of God but it has been a couple years. I will have to check it out again.
> 
> Thank you for your responses. God Bless,


 


That's okay Robert, we all convince ourselves we are fully prepared and then when you take on the real world it's a different ballgame.

Even assuming the other side cares what you have to say and are open to a reasonable discussion in the first place.


----------

