If you keep Lev 15:22, how do you go about doing it?

[KohenMatt]

That sounds good for husband-wife situations... How about out in public? Do you try to find out if a chair has been sat in by a woman with a discharge?

You're right, it's much easier in a marriage. But in public, you can't tell without looking like a sick pervert. "Excuse me m'am, are you in your period right now?" That's something I can't control and so I don't worry about it honestly. Because when you think about it, Israel didn't have public chairs or transit, etc.

If the answer is yes, or uncertain, is waiting until that evening good enough? Suppose one was in a society that rarely washed clothes, and bathed, like, one a week... Would waiting till the end of the week be OK? My impression from the law was to wash soon, make an effort to wash quickly...

In general, I try to wash regularly whenever I've been out in public, regardless of whether it's for bleeding issues.

And if I were live in a society that rarely washed clothes or bathed?

I think I'd find a different society.

 

[just-me]

Is it a Biblical command to wash your hands before eating a meal?

I didn't see that in the original law matt because I looked for it months ago. It was an added statute to the original law invented by the Pharisees as I see it. The Pharisees did that a whole lot. (add and subtract to the original law) That's why Jesus had a major problem with them, and they with Him. That's why Jesus didn't demand the disciples to wash before they ate.

By wanting the original law to disappear is also hypocritical Pharisees like, ain't it?

I do, however wash my hands before I eat.

 

[KohenMatt]

Yes, pretty much need the community, I think... If one wants to keep that law physically, which is what I understand you mean by legalistically... So I wonder then, for Christians who want to keep this law physically, do they live in a separate community?

As an aside, the thought of a community of women all going through their monthly periods at the same scares me to no end!

 

[JaumeJ]

When someone is not aware of infringing on any law, he is not guilty of sin. This law was an oral law previous to the giving of the law as demonstrated when Rachel told Laban the time of woman was upon her so she did not have to raise up fromher saddle. The oral tradition "is said" to date back to Adam.

 

[tribesman]

Just avoid "it" during "those days". This is mainly for our hygiene and health. Not a "must we keep all OT law?" matter.

 

[Elin]

I wondered what you were asking, so I took a little time to look at Lev 15.

First, I would like to say that Jesus did not change the law, he fulfilled it. In short, he sacrificed himself so that you would not be bound to the Law for your Salvation. You have to realize that
much of the Law was addressed to a huge group of people in exile.

The people were not in exile when the law was given, they were in deliverance.

It was much like a refugee camp. God used it to keep his people safe.

The law was not given for health purposes, it was given for holiness purposes.

Now with that in mind 15:22 addresses an issue that involved blood. Shed blood is a means of transmitting disease.
God used 15:22 to prevent the transmission of diseases.

The law was not given for health purposes, and Lev 15:22 is not about transmission of diseases.

The whole chapter is about bodily discharges, all bodily discharges were
defiling--semen, spit, menstrual blood, diarrhea, urethral--not just menstrual blood.

Just about all of Leviticus is symbolic or a pre-figure.

God didn't give animal sacrifice because he hated animals.
It was a symbol or prefigure of Christ's sacrifice.

And God didn't give the defilement laws of Lev 15 for health reasons.
They were a symbolic picture of the corruption of man (Ro 3:9-11),
where everything which proceeds from unregenerate man is defiled.

They were to teach the meaning of moral defilement as spiritual uncleanness,
which separates from God, and must be cleansed.

 

[just-me]

The people were not in exile when the law was given, they were in deliverance.

The law was not given for health purposes, it was given for holiness purposes.

The law was not given for health purposes, and Lev 15:22 is not about transmission of diseases.

The whole chapter is about bodily discharges, all bodily discharges were
defiling--semen, spit, menstrual blood, diarrhea, urethral--not just menstrual blood.

Just about all of Leviticus is symbolic or a pre-figure.

God didn't give animal sacrifice because he hated animals.
It was a symbol or prefigure of Christ's sacrifice.

And God didn't give the defilement laws of Lev 15 for health reasons.
They were a symbolic picture of the corruption of man (Ro 3:9-11),
where everything which proceeds from unregenerate man is defiled.

They were to teach the meaning of moral defilement as spiritual uncleanness,
which separates from God, and must be cleansed.

Very well put. You are right on target!

 

[Elin]

No one is saying righeousness and salvation is through the law God gave to Israel through Moses.

All I am saying is that fulfillment doesn't happen if one throws away the first work that is to be completed.

What fulfillment--the law was fulfilled at the death of Christ.

Christ fulfilled them in his first work of obeying them, for he was born under the law (Gal 4:4),
then in delivering on their promises, fulfilling their types, perfecting them with his additions
and explanations of their meaning, amending them (Mt 22:37-40).

What completion--the work of the law is completed.

God has now set aside the Mosaic law because it was weak and useless
to obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19), right standing with God,
which is obtained now only by faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus has amended the law of Moses to the law of Christ (Mt 22:37-40),
which grows us in the righteousness of sanctification by obedience through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the creator of all things. This includes the Mosaic law. Colossians chapter 1

It also includes the sacrificial system, the old covenant, and circumcision.
They have all, including the Mosaic law (Heb 7:18-19), been set aside in the new covenant.

 

[RedTent]

The people were not in exile when the law was given, they were in deliverance.

The law was not given for health purposes, it was given for holiness purposes.

The law was not given for health purposes, and Lev 15:22 is not about transmission of diseases.
The whole chapter is about bodily discharges, all bodily discharges were
defiling--semen, spit, menstrual blood, diarrhea, urethral--not just menstrual blood.

Just about all of Leviticus is symbolic or a pre-figure.

God didn't give animal sacrifice because he hated animals.
It was a symbol or prefigure of Christ's sacrifice.

And God didn't give the defilement laws of Lev 15 for health reasons.
They were a symbolic picture of the corruption of man (Ro 3:9-11),
where everything which proceeds from unregenerate man is defiled.

They were to teach the meaning of moral defilement as spiritual uncleanness,
which separates from God, and must be cleansed.

I am SO impressed with this post. You have always told me you are solidly against all that is obsolete and done away with, and here you say you understand this as not "obsolete" and not done away with!! And with such clear understanding that it is impressive!

 

[Elin]

Let's try again:
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be "accomplished" in earth, as it is in heaven. Makes sense.
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be "become actualized" in earth, as it is in heaven. Make sense too.
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be "complete" in earth, as it is in heaven. Make sense also.
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be "fulfilled" in earth, as it is in heaven. Make much sense because it's exactly the translation in Matthew 5:17 in my bible.
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be "brought to an end" in earth, as it is in heaven. Does one see the problem?
Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be "set aside" in earth, as it is in heaven.
Does one see the problem?
Does one see it's not brought to an end or set aside?

So let's try again.

Does one see the problem?
Does one see that it's not every meaning of a word that will fit its use in a text?

You're grasping at straws. . .

 

[Elin]

While we've been over this before....

just because I can't do them all perfectly doesn't mean I should try to obey them anyway. But as always, if I'm doing them to earn salvation or right standing before God, you're right.

I'd better do it all. Fortunately, that's not the standard set by God when He gave the Law,
nor is it a standard held by me.

Contrare. . .that is the standard set by God when he gave the law (Gal 3:10; Dt 27:26).

 

[Elin]

While I recognize that there was a certain element of tongue and cheek there, there is obviously a difference there between an instruction God gave in the Bible, and one that He didn't (nose-picking).

If you look back at the posts, I think you're notice that no one is saying that is "one of the most spiritually deep events in all of Scripture", just that it has a spiritually deep meaning. We can't cherry pick which commands we think have a spiritual message and which ones don't. As I've mentioned before,
I sure hope Paul's command to cut off your hand if it causes you to sin has a spiritual message to it because if it doesn't, well

I'm pretty sure Paul didn't say that.

 

[Elin]

As an aside, the thought of a community of women all going through their monthly periods at the same scares me to no end!

As another aside, you might be interested to know that women living together under one roof in a community causes their menstrual cycles to sinc together.

 

[Elin]

Very well put. You are right on target!

Thanks, just-me.

 

[Elin]

The people were not in exile when the law was given, they were in deliverance.

The law was not given for health purposes, it was given for holiness purposes.

The law was not given for health purposes, and Lev 15:22 is not about transmission of diseases.
The whole chapter is about bodily discharges, all bodily discharges were
defiling--semen, spit, menstrual blood, diarrhea, urethral--not just menstrual blood.

Just about all of Leviticus is symbolic or a pre-figure.

God didn't give animal sacrifice because he hated animals.
It was a symbol or prefigure of Christ's sacrifice.
And God didn't give the defilement laws of Lev 15 for health reasons.
They were a symbolic picture of the corruption of man (Ro 3:9-11),
where everything which proceeds from unregenerate man is defiled.

They were to teach the meaning of moral defilement as spiritual uncleanness,
which separates from God, and must be cleansed.

I am SO impressed with this post. You have always told me you are solidly against all that is obsolete and done away with, and here you say you understand this as not "obsolete" and not done away with!! And with such clear understanding that it is impressive!

Thanks, RedTent.

Sorry to disappoint you here, but I am referring to OT times only.

I didn't really say those laws were not obsolete and done away with in the NT,
for they have accomplished their purpose of teaching the spiritual meanings they were given to teach.

 

[just-me]

What fulfillment--the law was fulfilled at the death of Christ.

Christ fulfilled them in his first work of obeying them, for he was born under the law (Gal 4:4),
then in delivering on their promises, fulfilling their types, perfecting them with his additions
and explanations of their meaning, amending them (Mt 22:37-40).

What completion--the work of the law is completed.

God has now set aside the Mosaic law because it was weak and useless
to obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19), right standing with God,
which is obtained now only by faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus has amended the law of Moses to the law of Christ (Mt 22:37-40),
which grows us in the righteousness of sanctification by obedience through the Holy Spirit.


It also includes the sacrificial system, the old covenant, and circumcision.
They have all, including the Mosaic law (Heb 7:18-19), been set aside in the new covenant.

There is where we see things differntly. The old is not set aside, but properly defined by the teachings of Jesus Christ. The old then is incorporated into the new. The new cannot be put into the old however, for the old came first as a progression of events ordained by God to fulfill the purpose of the original intent. For us who are gentiles will never even start to see the gravity of this divine purpose that was planned before the world was in existence if we fail to compare the old with the new.

I refer to these scriptures.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Leviticus 26:10 And ye shall eat old store , and bring forth the old because of the new.

John 12:26-28
26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am , there shall also my servant be : if any man serve me, him will my Father honour .
27 Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid : yea, we establish the law.

 

[Elin]

There is where we see things differntly. The old is not set aside, but properly defined by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Okay. . .then could you explain to me

Heb 7:11-12 - setting aside of Aaronic priesthood, which was based on the law

Heb 7:18-19 - setting aside of the law because it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness

Heb 8:6-7, 13 - setting aside of the old covenant

 

[JaumeJ]

From Paul's teachings about faith in Jesus Christ the law is established. Now what has been established by God is not abolished. It is to be observed, albeit no longer with the curse of the law, death, for the curse of the law was crucified with Jesus Christ. Now we live in freedom from the guilt of the law by grace given by the Blood of God's most predious Lamb, amen.

Rom 3:31
(ASV)
Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law.
(CEV)
Do we destroy the Law by our faith? Not at all! We make it even more powerful.
(Darby)
Do we then make void law by faith? Far be the thought: no, but we establish law.
　
(DRB)
Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.
(FDB)
Annulons-nous donc la loi par la foi? Qu'ainsi n'advienne! au contraire, nous établissons la loi.
(FLS)
Anéantissons-nous donc la loi par la foi? Loin de là! Au contraire, nous confirmons la loi.

 

[RedTent]

Okay. . .then could you explain to me

Heb 7:11-12 - setting aside of Aaronic priesthood, which was based on the law

Heb 7:18-19 - setting aside of the law because it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness

Heb 8:6-7, 13 - setting aside of the old covenant

I did, Elin, and you said I was twisting what God said.

 

[Elin]

From Paul's teachings about faith in Jesus Christ the law is established.

Yes, Paul set the law on a right basis, subordinate to the law of grace.