Dietery laws

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
I was asked to read this article by Gary North

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnbd/Chapter21.htm

It contains this paragraph:

These dietary laws had little immediate relevance in the wilderness; the nation survived on manna. Only when the Israelites crossed over the Promised Land's boundary, and were circumcised, did the manna cease. At that point, the dietary laws became relevant. This is why I argue that the dietary laws were tied to the land and the Levitical laws of inheritance. The dietary laws lost all covenantal relevance once the land of Canaan ceased to be an aspect of the Abrahamic promise: in A.D. 70.
My comment is that I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Even the first sentance is bizzare, since quail are clean.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
OK my take on Biblical law.

1: To interpret OT law one has first to ask "how was this particular law fulfilled in Christ".

2: The law was a school master. I can write i now for I like the kiddies do online, and I can't get in trouble for it.

3: Any sort of catagorising the law into convenient sub section like "ceremonial" which were vague, pointless and not even "good advice" and "moral" as in binding now days, is doomed to failer, and not only because the distinction is not even hinted at in Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top