The Bible's Laws concerning Mildew

[Frost Wraith]

Bear in mind that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, as God basically said 'This isn't working, so I'll set up a new system.' Much of the Levitical law was made obselete when Jesus rewrote the rulebooks to better reflect the spirit of the law rather than so many legal entanglements. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Golden Rule, which completely encompasses the Ten Commandments.

He didn't set up a new system because the current one wasn't working. The current one was working, however the whole system wasn't laid down. Jesus came and then it was complete. The whole thing still isn't done. But one part isn't a mistake or tossed out its fulfilled, and changed.

[Aurrin]

Bear in mind that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, as God basically said 'This isn't working, so I'll set up a new system.' Much of the Levitical law was made obselete when Jesus rewrote the rulebooks to better reflect the spirit of the law rather than so many legal entanglements. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Golden Rule, which completely encompasses the Ten Commandments.

He didn't set up a new system because the current one wasn't working. The current one was working, however the whole system wasn't laid down. Jesus came and then it was complete. The whole thing still isn't done. But one part isn't a mistake or tossed out its fulfilled, and changed.

By 'not working', I don't mean that it wasn't correct. What I mean was that it wasn't fixing the problem. People were trying their best to be sinful within the laws and dragging it into ever-increasing niggling trivialities for every little facet of life. Even so, even with everything spelled out to painful detail, people still couldn't get it right. What needed to be fixed was that a simpler system was needed, and one that didn't depend on peoples' ability to do right to make them righteous.

Jesus said that he wasn't there to condemn the law, but to uphold it. That's what I meant: Jesus reformed (usage: remolded, reshaped, rephrased) the law into something that people could more easily follow, a 'thou shalt' to replace a hundred thousand 'thou shalt not's. Further, he paid the price for them, the ultimate sacrifice to replace the need for sacrifices, and bridged the gap. Afterward, one no longer had to be paranoid about volumes of rules to obtain righteousness, but had to focus on loving God and listening to Him. Jesus didn't redefine perfect, but rather He changed the way people can be reconciled with perfection and made it easier to understand all in one.

I'm not sure if I made what I'm saying entirely clear, as it's something of a subtle distinction and hard to completely convey.

[LoneWolf23k]

The commandments in the bible were never "amended." Other scriptures expanded on or clarified various points.

As to "slavery,"

What the scriptures referred to as "slave" is more accurately translated today as INDENTURED SERVANT.

Be that as it may, I think that, sadly, more modern slavery, such as that practiced by the Southern states before the civil war, misused those passages to justify the cruel trade of african slaves.

Nonetheless, I have to thank you, and the others here, for clarifying these points to me.

I wondered about some of the Old Testament rules after seeing them quoted at The Brick Testament*, depicted in ways that sometimes make you wonder what those guys were really thinking.**

*There is depiction of violence and nudity using lego bricks, so view with discretion.

**Before you ask why I didn't look them up myself, the only testament I have at home is the New Testament. Which is good, but lacks the older material.

[Narnian]

Bear in mind that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament, as God basically said 'This isn't working, so I'll set up a new system.' Much of the Levitical law was made obselete when Jesus rewrote the rulebooks to better reflect the spirit of the law rather than so many legal entanglements. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Golden Rule, which completely encompasses the Ten Commandments.

Gotta split with you here - the NT is a continuation of the OT as both are about Jesus. The Law wasn't provided as a means to salvation - it was provided to show man his sinful nature, a teacher so to speak as Paul stated in the NT, so he would turn toward God. And salvation in the OT is identical to salvation in the NT, the only difference is the OT was in the promised to messiah to come while the NT in the messiah who came.

In both testaments it is faith. No more, no less.

[Aurrin]

Please read my previous post for clairification.

[Narnian]

Jesus didn't redefine perfect, but rather He changed the way people can be reconciled with perfection and made it easier to understand all in one.

Still take issue - He didn't change anything about how people are reconciled with God - OT/NT both are faith. The Gospel is there throughout the OT. People made the mistake of concentrating on the Law as the means, not the teacher it was designed to be.

By the way, hello! <waves> Pleased to meet you (enjoyed your post in "Prepared for Battle").

I agree with Dorothy Sayers, "The dogma is the drama". Hence theological discussions are the only really important ones.

[Aurrin]

Pleased to meet you as well. ^_^

Jesus didn't redefine perfect, but rather He changed the way people can be reconciled with perfection and made it easier to understand all in one.

Still take issue - He didn't change anything about how people are reconciled with God - OT/NT both are faith. The Gospel is there throughout the OT. People made the mistake of concentrating on the Law as the means, not the teacher it was designed to be.

And there as well I must disagree. If Jesus changed nothing, what then would be the point? Faith has remained constant, that is true. But the OT focused on works and abiding within the law as the primary method of expressing that faith, whereas the NT shifts the focus to love as the expression of faith and allowing the works to simply flow from that. It's a subtle shift, but very profound. Jesus eliminated the need for people to take sacrifices to the temples by being the sacrifice. He eliminated the need for so much ritualization by dwelling in our hearts and giving us direct access to God.

In a sense, the entire OT has been building up to the NT like a legal case. People have done something bad, and God needs to punish them. However, He love them. People say that if God loves them, He should give them a chance to not be bad. God agrees, and thus begins a series of attempts to reconcile people to God and God's righteousness.

First, the people (in this courtroom drama) say that God should simply wipe out all the bad people and leave only the 'good' people. So He does, picking out the only righteous family in existence at the time. However, that doesn't fix the problem. The last we see of Noah, he's laying naked, drunk, and disgraced in his tent. Sin lives on in even the best of people.

So, on to the second attempt. This time, the people say God should take a good line of people and guide them. So, He does. He picks out a 'good' man, Abraham, and starts guiding him and his family as His 'chosen people'. Fast forward a few centuries to where Moses finds them: faithless and bound in Egypt. That didn't work either.

Third strategy: legalism. The people say, 'Okay, give us rules. Spell it out so there can be no doubt about what it is you want.' So He does. It starts as ten, easy-to-follow rules. But then, people start to push the envelope and ask about other situations. It gradually spirals into a huge set of immensely complicated laws to govern every tiny detail of every possible situation. And still, people find ways to push it, trying their hardest to live sinfully within the law. That quickly devolves into outright violations of the law, despite God repeatedly telling them what needs to be. That clearly didn't fix it either.

Fourth strategy: personal relationship. God finally says 'No, there is no system of rules that can fix this. You cannot legislate love.' So instead, He sends His son to show them love, that they might have a personal relationship with him. It's not so much changing the requirements as it is reprioritizing and refocusing what people should concentrate on.

Now, you might be thinking, "But God doesn't make mistakes!" The thing is that this is a legal argument. They HAD to be attempted, even though they were doomed to fail (on account of man) because if they were not, people would always point to that and say "But we could have done it ourselves if you had only..." God has shown definitively that we can come to him only through love. Specifically, the love of Jesus.

That is HOW the law 'proves' that we cannot attain righteousness ourselves. None of the methods were flawed, but the people simply were unable to go through them. A door is a viable way into a building, but if it's on the second story and you're outside on the ground, then there's no way for you to enter it.

And as I said, the central tennets haven't changed, but the way they're presented and the prioritization has. It's sorta like (I never once thought I'd say this...) football. The aims of the game don't change, but there's more than one way to focus and prioritize the goals. Jesus gave us a much easier way to do them, and took out alot of the red-tape.

Does that make what I'm getting at any clearer? I think, from what I've seen, that we are in fact talking about the same thing, but we're wrapping the thoughts in words that seem to conflict when in fact they really don't. A language barrier, of sorts.

[Bolo Unit_BRL of the Line]

A language barrier, of sorts.

Magic?
No, Lux.
Magic?
No, I told you. It's lux.
Magic?
All right. Fine. It's magic.
Ooooo, aaaahhh.

Seriously, I believe your point has merit. Another example is the story of how Isreal became a monarchy. The Isrealites were at first a theocracy, and the only "leader" aside from the priests was the Judge. These Judges came to power always in response to hostile invasion and subjegation, and continued to lead the Isrealites for the remainder of thier lives. Famous judges include Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and Samuel. But to the Hebrews, the judges were not enough.

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel, so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: "Listen to all the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." - 1st Samuel Ch. 8, vs. 6-7

The result was a line of kings that for the most part actively led the people to sin, not out of it. There were exceptions, like David, Hezekiah, Uzziah, and Josiah, but the system was flawed, and it was the humans who introduced the flaws into the system. God gave us what we claimed we wanted, and we still continued to live in sin. It is our sinful nature, and it is literally the Grace of God that shall save us, not our works.

[Aurrin]

Ah yes, I missed the part about wanting a monarchy. Good catch!

[Starfury]

Okay, I have been thinking about this topic for a while now, and wondering how to say what I want to say. Hopefully this sounds clear.

I recall this being called "Covenant Theology," But I'm not sure. Anyway, here's the deal.

Abrahamic Covenant= Faith saves Abraham. Abrahams kiddos (and grandkiddos down the line) become a blessing to all nations, and so on and so forth. Lots of stuff in there. Its a loaded passage, its 11 PM, and I have class in the morning... Maybe later...

Mosaic Covenant= Follow this Law in Faith, your saved. Purpose is to show the Israelites how sinful they really are.

New Covenant (Christiac?)= Faith in the payment for sin by Christ's death brings salvation. Mosiac Law has been (as Prof Wheeler likes to say) ABROGATED! Gone. Fin. It is no longer in force. In fact, when you read Paul's letters, in Galations I believe he says that anyone who follows part of the law, is bound to follow ALL of the Law, and condemned to death (Because in essence, thats what the law does.)

So... the Mosiac Law gone, we go back to the Abrahamic, which becomes the New Covenant.

See, Covenants are wierd creatures. The Sovreign Lord who makes it with a vassel can (when the Vassel breaks the deal) Punish the vassel and reinstate the same deal, punish and change the deal a little bit, punish and change the deal a lot, punish and compleatly change the deal, or just whack the guy. There are two, maybe three Different "Mosiac" covenants. It got changed. Then when Christ died, God simply said... "Ok, I'm gonna do away with that Covenant I made through Moses. We're going back to the concepts with Abraham, and making a new one."

I hope that was clear. This has been disstilled from about 15 class hours in teo classes on Paul's letters, and I'm tired. It may not mesh well when I write it down. Anyway. Yeah. Food for thought. Bed time. G'nite.

P.S. this thread is starting to sound like conversations here on campus. It's fun.

[Narnian]

And there as well I must disagree.

Boy we are a disagreeable bunch, aren't we!

If Jesus changed nothing, what then would be the point?

His death and resurrection. By changing nothing I meant how people are saved - through faith alone in Him. Poor choice of words originally. <Must remember to take medications before typing>.

Faith has remained constant, that is true. But the OT focused on works and abiding within the law as the primary method of expressing that faith, whereas the NT shifts the focus to love as the expression of faith and allowing the works to simply flow from that.

I think it is the same in the OT - "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings'' (Hosea 6:6). The problem was the leaders didn't get it. As a result the people focused on the Law, not God, the same as legalists do today.

It's a subtle shift, but very profound. Jesus eliminated the need for people to take sacrifices to the temples by being the sacrifice. He eliminated the need for so much ritualization by dwelling in our hearts and giving us direct access to God.

I agree with this (at last!).

*a whole bunch of good stuff*

How is that for a summary?

We need a beer and pizza to make this a perfect discussion!

Ultimately the question is "What think you of Christ". Eveything else will be put straight later. A friend of mine did a great routine back at college <mumble> years ago where everybody in heaven made a big circle around Jesus (with folding chairs) and He promptly set everybody straight while poking fun at Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. Even us Calvinists were not spared (and my friend was a Calvinist, too).

We have to rememebr to laugh at ourselves when we get too serious!

[UncleMonty]

The verses mentioned at the start of this thread are from the 13th chapter of Leviticus, in which we find laws regarding a disease organism. Most Bibles translate the name of this disease as "Leprosy", but since the actual disease apparently doesn't exist any more (perhaps due to the strictness of the sanitation laws) some Bibles use other words. It seems at least one uses the word "Mildew".

According to the description of the disease, it starts out with a scab or sore, turns infected skin and hair white and is highly contagious until it has completely covered the body with white, at which time it is no longer infectious unless raw flesh is exposed, there was no cure, it grew on almost any surface from human skin to the walls of homes, and could be destroyed only by fire.
This could indeed have been some sort of mildew or fungus, but not a harmless one.
The laws in that chapter seem quite sensible to me, actually.

[Mwalimu]

I'm not sure what you meant in your previous post, but leprosy does indeed still exist. It's pretty rare in the developed world but still occurs in underdeveloped countries. The disease is contaigous, and in Biblical times the disease was incurable, so the measures described in Leviticus were considered necessary to prevent/limit the spread of the disease to other victims. Nowadays, leprosy can be cured, at least insofar as killing off the infection; regretabbly, some of the damage it causes to the body does not heal and cannot be cured.

[UncleMonty]

I'm not sure what you meant in your previous post, but leprosy does indeed still exist. It's pretty rare in the developed world but still occurs in underdeveloped countries. The disease is contaigous, and in Biblical times the disease was incurable, so the measures described in Leviticus were considered necessary to prevent/limit the spread of the disease to other victims. Nowadays, leprosy can be cured, at least insofar as killing off the infection; regretabbly, some of the damage it causes to the body does not heal and cannot be cured.

Leprosy does exist, yes. That is not important to this discussion.
The disease described in Leviticus does not match the symptoms of leprosy.
Leprosy does not grow on the walls of your home or on your clothes, nor does it turn your skin and hair white. I propose therefore that the disease described in Leviticus was not leprosy, but some other disease which has since become extinct or dormant.

[Persephone_Kore]

What I was told, though I'm afraid I have no references for this offhand, was that the word (possibly words?) in the hygiene laws that get translated as leprosy actually covered a number of variations on flesh-damaging infectious diseases, including but not limited to the disease we currently call leprosy -- that it was a class of disease rather than a specific organism. (There are a ton of variations on the common cold, too. *shrugs*)

Having seen the effects of a bad mildew problem before, especially on porous materials, I can kind of see how the same term or a similar one might get used for a really nasty mildew without it necessarily being the same organism growing across and into a wall or across and into someone's skin. (Either that or I have too much imagination.)

I confess I have been under the impression that there were different organisms involved in the passages on human skin and on the walls. Then again, considering you can pick up fungal infections from a shower floor, maybe I shouldn't have made that assumption.

At any rate, if it's true that what's translated into English as leprosy was actually a broader term, that could cover either a disease that infected people and grew on walls, or possibly using the same term to refer to a destructive growth in the skin or a separate destructive growth on walls.

I could try to look into it, but don't know whether I'll get to.