Evangelism, Empathy, and Christian Nationalism...

[GaryK]

I may be drawing a blank, but where does the OT law permit people to have multiple wives? I know it was practiced but is there an OT law that permits it?

Many of the spiritual heroes of the Old Testament had multiple wives, and the text never tells us that was wrong. There is no OT law that explicitly gives us permission to eat mushrooms, either. Do you interpret that as a ban on mushrooms?

Galatians tells us that the Law of Moses was given to us as a tutor, until Jesus came. I don't think it represents God's perfect way, not even for Israel.

But you said the OT law certainly permitted people to have multiple wives. I don't think that's true. And I'm not sure where you got it that I implied the absence of a law permitting it means it was banned. Mushrooms and marriage...quite the comparison.

[Bootstrap]

I may be drawing a blank, but where does the OT law permit people to have multiple wives? I know it was practiced but is there an OT law that permits it?

Many of the spiritual heroes of the Old Testament had multiple wives, and the text never tells us that was wrong. There is no OT law that explicitly gives us permission to eat mushrooms, either. Do you interpret that as a ban on mushrooms?

Galatians tells us that the Law of Moses was given to us as a tutor, until Jesus came. I don't think it represents God's perfect way, not even for Israel.

But you said the OT law certainly permitted people to have multiple wives. I don't think that's true. And I'm not sure where you got it that I implied the absence of a law permitting it means it was banned. Mushrooms and marriage...quite the comparison.

If the law does not ban something or speak against it, it is permitted, isn't it? I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. I think American law allows me to eat mushrooms. So do the Jewish dietary laws, though the Old Testament does not tell me that explicitly. I think I am allowed to take a shower in my home, though no law says that.

Do you have a different approach to determining what Old Testament law allows? If so, what is it?

[Bootstrap]

Continuing to quote from the book as I read ...

Moore says this is a chance for us to return to pure, biblical Christianity. Some old wineskins will not survive, but the Gospel is not about our institutions and wineskins. We need to return to our "first love". If we do not, our lampstands may be taken away.

That promise is not to build “the evangelical movement,” whatever that is. It’s not a promise that institutions will continue to exist as they are, any more than “For God so loved the world” means that a person can enter the kingdom without taking up the cross. Any church can lose its lampstand, Jesus told us, and flicker out. We are more vulnerable than we know. Even so, there is still power in the blood. Maybe, like the old altar calls, this is a moment of decision—decisions about what to seek and what to flee, what to save and what to lose. Maybe “losing our religion” is just another way of saying what Jesus commanded a first century church in crisis—a rekindling of our first love (Rev. 2:4). If the stories are true—and I believe they are—then maybe we should listen to what they’ve told us all along. Only when something is lost can it be found. Only when something dies can it be born again.

Moore, Russell. Losing Our Religion (pp. 25-26). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[Joy]

Maybe God allowed polygamy to show us that it does not work. Remember Abram's wife Hagar.

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman Gal. 4:30

[GaryK]

Many of the spiritual heroes of the Old Testament had multiple wives, and the text never tells us that was wrong. There is no OT law that explicitly gives us permission to eat mushrooms, either. Do you interpret that as a ban on mushrooms?

Galatians tells us that the Law of Moses was given to us as a tutor, until Jesus came. I don't think it represents God's perfect way, not even for Israel.

But you said the OT law certainly permitted people to have multiple wives. I don't think that's true. And I'm not sure where you got it that I implied the absence of a law permitting it means it was banned. Mushrooms and marriage...quite the comparison.

If the law does not ban something or speak against it, it is permitted, isn't it? I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. I think American law allows me to eat mushrooms. So do the Jewish dietary laws, though the Old Testament does not tell me that explicitly. I think I am allowed to take a shower in my home, though no law says that.

Do you have a different approach to determining what Old Testament law allows? If so, what is it?

The OT Jewish law was not the equivalent of American law. It was a law given by God. A law that was supposed to turn their hearts and minds toward what God wanted for His people. I am not aware that God ever wanted or directed His people to have multiple wives.

Do you take the same stand as it relates to the NT? If the NT doesn't ban something does that mean it permits it?

[Bootstrap]

The OT Jewish law was not the equivalent of American law. It was a law given by God. A law that was supposed to turn their hearts and minds toward what God wanted for His people. I am not aware that God ever wanted or directed His people to have multiple wives.

Do you take the same stand as it relates to the NT? If the NT doesn't ban something does that mean it permits it?

If heroes of the New Testament like Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John do something, such as drinking wine, and it is prominent in the New Testament narratives, and the New Testament never says its a bad thing, then I think that implies that the New Testament does permit it.

You haven't been answering my questions. You seem to be saying there is a better way to determine that. What way do you propose? You seem to be implying that I am getting this wrong, without offering a proposal for what getting it right would look like.

[Bootstrap]

I am going to keep posting things on the original topic of this thread, taken from the book mentioned in the original post. Seriously, I wonder if we could take all those other topics elsewhere, it can feel like a filibuster of this topic sometimes. Anyone want to actually discuss what Russell Moore is saying?

Here, Russell Moore gets to the heart of his disillusionment. Hypocrisy. The use of religion to prop up things that Jesus would not approve of.

As I’ve written elsewhere, some of it was because of the raw racism around me in the Bible Belt, which I couldn’t reconcile with the Bible. We were told not to “conform to the pattern of this world,” except, it seemed, when “the world” was the remnant outposts of the Confederate States of America. Part of it was that, just as a journalist knows what a politician’s statement means when it says “Senator Smith has decided to spend more time with his family,” I knew what the church meant when it said, “The Lord has called Brother Jones from the pastorate into itinerant evangelism.” And in both cases it meant someone, somewhere, had proof of something shady in the bedroom or in a bank account. Part of it was politics. Even as a teenager, I could see that the “voting guides” for candidates who would support “Christian morality” and “traditional family values” all tended to mimic exactly the list of issues emphasized that year by the political party most people in the pews supported. The tactics seemed the same as any other political interest group, except with a bigger celebrity endorsement, that of Jesus of Nazareth. With the politics came apocalyptic warnings that “this is the most important election in our lifetimes,” and if these candidates weren’t elected, we would “lose our entire culture.” But when those candidates lost, no one headed for the bunkers. The culture didn’t fall—at least not any more than it had before. The real issue, though, was none of these matters on its own. Behind all of that was a dread deep within me that Christianity might just be southern culture of politics, with Jesus affixed as a hood ornament. If the gospel was just a way to mobilize voters for party bosses or to fund prostitutes and cocaine for preachers on television, that realization would be more than just an adolescent cynical awakening.

Moore, Russell. Losing Our Religion (pp. 32-33). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[GaryK]

The OT Jewish law was not the equivalent of American law. It was a law given by God. A law that was supposed to turn their hearts and minds toward what God wanted for His people. I am not aware that God ever wanted or directed His people to have multiple wives.

Do you take the same stand as it relates to the NT? If the NT doesn't ban something does that mean it permits it?

If heroes of the New Testament like Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John do something, such as drinking wine, and it is prominent in the New Testament narratives, and the New Testament never says its a bad thing, then I think that implies that the New Testament does permit it.

You haven't been answering my questions. You seem to be saying there is a better way to determine that. What way do you propose? You seem to be implying that I am getting this wrong, without offering a proposal for what getting it right would look like.

What questions have I not been answering? I thought I was giving you an alternative view about whether polygamy was permitted by OT law.

Maybe our definitions of "permitted' is different. I do not know of any place where the OT law gives specific permission to have multiple wives. I'm not aware of any OT laws that tell men how to deal with multiple wives. That's where I'm coming from.

This notion that if the Bible doesn't ban something it means it permits it goes contrary to the desires of God for His people. I'm not sure that the OT bans beating one's wife so does that mean it permits it?

[GaryK]

I am going to keep posting things on the original topic of this thread, taken from the book mentioned in the original post. Seriously, I wonder if we could take all those other topics elsewhere, it can feel like a filibuster of this topic sometimes. Anyone want to actually discuss what Russell Moore is saying?

I think you were engaging quite heavily with Josh on some subjects that are now apparently off topic. I don't understand. Were you filibustering too?

[JimFoxvog]

Are you arguing that the Bible somehow teaches that "biblical teaching on refugees" is something binding on present day governments yet simultaneously arguing present-day governments SHOULD NOT follow Biblical teaching about, for example, capital punishment for rapists? Either the OT is binding or it is not.

A principle I follow is if the Old Testament teaching is also taught in the New Testament, it is binding. If the New Testament specifically revises an Old Testament teaching, it is not binding. Teachings not addressed in the New Testament are harder, but to be evaluated by looking at what the principle behind the teaching is, Jesus' summation of the Law and Prophets (love God, and love your neighbor), and by the Holy Spirit.

On capital punishment, Jesus was asked about that and his answer was clear. Only one without sin is qualified to administer it. The sins deserving of death may not have changed, but the New Testament teaches "the wages of sin are death" and that we are all sinners. The penalty we give will be the penalty we will get.