A Cultural Bible

[John 8:32]

Here are but two examples of the problem with directly transporting Biblical material into the present without carefully understanding the cultural setting in which it was written:

1. The Bible uses "end of the world" language. People read this, take it literally, and jump to all sorts of incorrect (in my view) theological conclusions. Such language, in fact, was commonly used in the Hebrew world as a literary device to invest socio-political events with their significance - there is no intent to describe the end of the world. Much like someone today might say "If my girlfriend breaks up with me, the world will come to an end". We would laugh at anyone who took this seriously. And yet we make the same mistake when we take apocalyptic language in the Bible literally. It is metaphor, not literal truth.

2. Paul talks about the error of believing in justification by "works". Because we in the 21st century are inheritors of the reformation tradition, we automatically assume that Paul is talking about how it is a mistake to believe that "doing good deeds" will save you. That is the reformers saw things, and that is how we see things, if we do not take care to examine our assumptions. I suggest (and I will not try to make the actual case here) that Paul is really teaching about the error of believing that justification is limited to Jews - those who do the "works" of the "Jew-only" Law of Moses. Big difference.

So I hope it is clear how an understanding of the cultural specificities of the environment in which the Biblical texts were originally written are indeed a possible issue when it comes to proper interpretation of the Bible.

You do know that there were 12 tribes, the nation of Israel was split at the time of Jereboam into Judah (with Benjamin) in the South under Rehoboam and Israel in the North (the remaining 10 tribes of which not a one was a Jew) under Jereboam? Two separate nations, two separate capitols, Jerusalem in the South and Samaria in the North.

To label Moses a Jew and the law Jewish or Jew-only is showing a lack of knowledge I would not have expected from you.

 

[Drew]

You do know that there were 12 tribes, the nation of Israel was split at the time of Jereboam into Judah (with Benjamin) in the South under Rehoboam and Israel in the North (the remaining 10 tribes of which not a one was a Jew) under Jereboam? Two separate nations, two separate capitols, Jerusalem in the South and Samaria in the North.

I am perfectly aware of this, and it has no bearing whatsoever on my argument.

To label Moses a Jew and the law Jewish or Jew-only is showing a lack of knowledge I would not have expected from you.

I believe you are mistaken on two counts:

1. While it is indeed true that the term "Jew" is sometimes used to refer to a subset of the 12 tribes, it is clear that this is not how Paul uses the term - he uses the term "Jew" to refer to the 12 tribes in totality. I can provide the relevant arguments if you want.

2. It is manifestly clear from the broad corpus of Scripture that the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only (plus the small number of non-Jews who were otherwise integrated into their culture). The evidence for this is massive, and I could wear my keyboard down presenting it, but if you insist......

 

[John 8:32]

I am at least glad you are willing to state publically that you believe adulterers should be put to death. I suspect few will stand with you, but at least you are being consistent.

I suggest that Jesus would ask how it is that executing someone is consistent with "loving your enemy".

But that's another debate.

For another thread indeed, but, God is a God of justice. He is not a bleeding heart liberal as some would paint Him, nor is He a conservative. He is, after all, God and...

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[John 8:32]

I am at least glad you are willing to state publically that you believe adulterers should be put to death. I suspect few will stand with you, but at least you are being consistent.

I suggest that Jesus would ask how it is that executing someone is consistent with "loving your enemy".

But that's another debate.

Just for fun, I will offer this also, I believe that lying, stealing, lusting dishonoring parents, etc are all capital crimes. Unless repented of, justified by Someone's blood and forgiven, they should bring death to the enactor. As it is, someone dies for each and every act, that is the role Jesus Christ took when crucified. He paid the price for our sin.

 

[smaller]

What you are saying is a misrepresentation. In Israel, an adulterer/ess was brought before the legal system of the day. In the mouth of two or three witnesses established the guilt. Then the guilty was executed by stoning.

In our nation today the accused is brought before the legal system. If found guilty by a jury with evidence from witnesses, (circumstantial evidences generally will not win a conviction on a capital case, but expert witnesses, i.e. DNA etc. will) then capital punishment is exacted by lethal injection, firing squad (Gary Gilmore) or even Old Sparky.

Should Adultery be a capital crime? God says yes, it cost Jesus Christ His life.

Israel's system never included viligantes.

And the above is just another typical hypocritical EXTREME view.

How about we STONE YOU for the mere THOUGHT of adultery? Jesus said the mere thought was committing 'in heart.'

The lesson to be learned from the LAW is that the HEART is deceitfully WICKED. Those who deny the spiritual applicability of that fact and seek to KILL OTHERS are just as wicked as those they seek to kill because they are HYPOCRITES 'in heart.'

Paul used the O.T. Law as an allegory in many ways, this for example using the Old Testament Law regarding not muzzling the Ox:

1 Tim. 5:
17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Was then the O.T. law merely speaking of OXES and CORN? Not whatsoever is THAT ALL it meant. There was at that time a PHYSICAL SHOWING of a SPIRITUAL REALITY. Those who are not led to see THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS in this way will NEVER understand same, and in fact will only seek ELIMINATION, TWISTING or HYPOCRITICAL applications of same.

If you wanted 'sinners' to DIE, you'd best be the first one standing in LINE for what you seek upon others.

Jesus hated hypocrites as well and warned 'us' about 'them.'

s

 

[smaller]

Oh, and for those who think that Jesus' Actions here on earth were the culmination of O.T. events, this view also does not compute:

Hebrews 9:
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

What you 'think' you see in the O.T. is actually TRANSPIRING even as we speak, by The Eternal High Priest, the figures of which the O.T. speaks to.

Hebrews 10:
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised; )


You think all those ceremonies are MEANINGLESS? They are to point us EXACTLY to the matters above. If you have no 'spiritual' understanding of those matters do you really appreciate or even discern the SPIRITUAL REALITIES of same?


Food for thoughts.



s

 

[Eventide]

Look at the Day of the LORD.. spoken of in many places in the OT.. and Paul warns us about people telling us that THAT DAY has already come.. etc etc..

There's tons of OT scripture pertaining to the restoration and deliverance of the nation of Israel, in the time of the end.. and yet sadly many in Christendom embrace doctrines such as amillennialism and replacement theology..

It's crazy... imo at aleast

 

[jasoncran]

2 just once i would like to talk about ancient judaism and what the sages say and learn from those that know way more then i do.
instead its the law and is it done and or isreal will she return.

theres much to learn from the torah and also the way the temple was designed and the concepts of the way god is expressed in the hebrew language

to fc. i will post what the YHWH means and each name of god that is in there.
if you are interested.

 

[Former Christian]

I would like to keep this thread on track as far as the cultural bible. There are already three threads on the Law and I wouldn’t like to see this thread become a fourth. That being said, I realize that the matter of the Law, being the central facet of the OT, has a great deal to do with how one understands the bible, whether as a cultural writing or not.

And since adultery has been brought up I would like to put in my two cents worth.

First, if Reba’s husband commits adultery against her, I would personally stone him. More for stupidity than adultery. Wives with a sense of humor are hard to find.

Second, if adulterers were stoned, it would certainly tend to keep a lot of clothes in place that might otherwise be removed.

Third, according to the ten commandments, adultery is on the same level as murder. That must be considered. We don’t want American culture to be what’s influencing our understanding of the bible.

Fourth, I would have to ask what loving one’s neighbor has to do with stoning for a crime? So far as I know, Jesus didn’t die so that all murders could go free, to commit the same crime again. If he did, there would be a lot more room in the jails. Maybe the jails could be used to house the poor. David was forgiven of his sins. But the child born out of wedlock died anyway, apparently as a repercussion of his sins. David was forbidden from building the first temple because of blood on his hands. Wasn’t he forgiven? Solomon murdered his siblings, yet was allowed to build the temple. Go figure. I guess as one person said, God’s ways are different than our ways.


Now, back to topic.

If the bible is a multi-layered text as has been intimated here, and Roman Catholicism believes that as well, how does that relate to culture?


Free said,
“How much and in what way do you think cultural concerns affected revelation?
I don't think it affected revelation necessarily but it affects our understanding of what was written.â€

You mean because of the differences between the culture of the writer and the culture of the reader?


Drew said,
“one cannot simply "copy" Old Testament material into the present and apply it directly.....The better approach (in my view): "read the Bible as an evolving narrative, figure out the part of the 'plot' that lies in the past as well as the part of the plot that lies in the future, then figure out to advance the story from where it is now to where it is going."

This position needs more explanationâ€

I agree. It needs more explanation. For me at least. Perhaps if you consider the idea of culture in your explanation.


Drew said,
“we should not be following the Law of Mosesâ€

Why do you refer to this Law as the Law of Moses, rather than the Law of God? Does this reference have something to do with Jewish culture in your mind?


Drew said,
“1. The Bible uses "end of the world" language. People read this, take it literally, and jump to all sorts of incorrect (in my view) theological conclusions. Such language, in fact, was commonly used in the Hebrew world as a literary device to invest socio-political events with their significance - there is no intent to describe the end of the world. Much like someone today might say "If my girlfriend breaks up with me, the world will come to an end". We wouldlaugh at anyone who took this seriously. And yet we make the same mistake when we take apocalyptic language in the Bible literally. It is metaphor, not literal truth.â€

In American culture what you say would be true in a way about that particular use of metaphor. Unless you experienced what the person who said it was going through. As an experience that can be very real and true in a sense for the individual. But we don’t live in the culture that existed 2000+ years ago. We can only surmise what was used as metaphor and what wasn’t in those days. How do you tell what is metaphor and what isn’t?


Drew said,
“2. Paul talks about the error of believing in justification by "works". Because we in the 21st century are inheritors of the reformation tradition, we automatically assume that Paul is talking about how it is a mistake to believe that "doing good deeds" will save you. That is the reformers saw things, and that is how we see things, if we do not take care to examine our assumptions. I suggest (and I will not try to make the actual case here) that Paul is really teaching about the error of believing that justification is limited to Jews -those who do the "works" of the "Jew-only" Law of Moses. Big difference.â€

As it happens, not being a Protestant, I agree with your assessment here. But while Protestants do tend to understand things according to a particular Tradition, I think it was more than that initially, as the Tradition didn’t as yet exist initially. To me what you say is obvious and evident in the text itself. But it is true that those who believe in the Tradition are hard put to see it. My question is, in what way do you think culture influences this matter? Do you think that Paul was influenced by Jewish culture? Do you think that Martin Luther was influenced by his own culture to understand the text as he did?


Drew said,
“2. It is manifestly clear from the broad corpus of Scripture that the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only (plus the small number of non-Jews who were otherwise integrated into their culture). The evidence for this is massive, and I could wear my keyboard down presenting it, but if you insist......â€

Now that evidence I would like to see. But on one of the other three threads dealing with the Law. I would rather this thread not be bogged down by becoming a fourth thread on the Law, as I previously said. But if you would rather, perhaps a couple of examples wouldn’t take us too far off course. And since the Law is described in the first five books, and the rest of the OT is a commentary on that Law, wouldn’t what you claim just be evidence that the OT as a whole is more culture than something relevant to the 21st century Christian?


FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

“just once i would like to talk about ancient judaism and what the sages say and learn from those that know way more then i do.
instead its the law and is it done and or isreal will she return.â€

It’s not that I’m unsympathetic with your renewed interest in your own Jewish heritage. But while the OT description of Judaism does pertain to the idea of a cultural bible, I would rather that Jewish oral and extra-biblical Tradition not become a matter of discussion here.

Have you considered starting your own thread on the matter? Surely there are others on this forum who would share your interest, even your Jewish heritage. Personally I’m a Gentile and thus, though I have a certain interest in the Jewish religion, my interest would not equal yours by any means.


“ i will post what the YHWH means and each name of god that is in there.
if you are interested.â€

There are a lot of names for God in the OT. Probably a lot more if you consider the oral and extra-biblical Tradition. Interesting how Roman Catholicism has a similar idea as Judaism regarding oral and extra-biblical Tradition.

Personally, I was interested in how post first century Judaism considers JHWH. The tradition of translating the word with Adonai in both the Greek Septuagint and in English bibles (LORD) comes from the Jewish idea of the sacredness of the name. So they don’t even like to pronounce the word. At least that’s my understanding. The JW’s have a similar feeling as to the sacredness of the name, but they take it in the other direction and try to make the name itself an emphasis. Since God himself never promoted either view, I just think it’s an example of how humans misunderstand certain matters.

I think it’s worth considering that Jesus himself never used that sacred name, so far as I know. At least the NT writers wrote it down as such. When the OT is quoted they followed the Septuagint translation of the name.

What do you think of the way JHWH is understood in Christianity? Most translations go with the Tradition of using LORD to translate the name. But some do translate the name as Jehovah or Yahweh. I knew some Christians who preferred to use the ASV because of its translation of the name. And of course we know how the NWT translates the name.

FC

 

[jasoncran]

none of the names they used arent unfamiliar. the sounds have meaning to it and that is what gets well deep and easily confusing

also the yod, all of creation as a yod. meaning god is in it.

this is where it gets almost too much. it means that god made all and in all, but that isnt a panthiestic concept just that as we say whereever we look at nature it gives glory to god. each thing has a spark. i would have to talk to jeff to ensure that is correct.

YHWH also have five basic names
adonai
elohim
heshem and two others that are associated with the lettering and that Name also has a number by the gemetria. a name that has names within it is what i gather


now you see why its not that easy to just dismiss the tanach.

 

[jasoncran]

http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/2277/jewish/HaVaYaH.htm

the first definition lets look at that. i need time to find what i said as well.

 

[smaller]

There are a lot of names for God in the OT. Probably a lot more if you consider the oral and extra-biblical Tradition. Interesting how Roman Catholicism has a similar idea as Judaism regarding oral and extra-biblical Tradition.

Personally, I was interested in how post first century Judaism considers JHWH. The tradition of translating the word with Adonai in both the Greek Septuagint and in English bibles (LORD) comes from the Jewish idea of the sacredness of the name. So they don’t even like to pronounce the word. At least that’s my understanding. The JW’s have a similar feeling as to the sacredness of the name, but they take it in the other direction and try to make the name itself an emphasis. Since God himself never promoted either view, I just think it’s an example of how humans misunderstand certain matters.

I think it’s worth considering that Jesus himself never used that sacred name, so far as I know. At least the NT writers wrote it down as such. When the OT is quoted they followed the Septuagint translation of the name.

What do you think of the way JHWH is understood in Christianity? Most translations go with the Tradition of using LORD to translate the name. But some do translate the name as Jehovah or Yahweh. I knew some Christians who preferred to use the ASV because of its translation of the name. And of course we know how the NWT translates the name.

FC

I think you've struck some personal value derived from the contemplation of The Objective Divine FC. To me a similar contemplation has been the internal 'paydirt' so to speak. To freely contemplate the infinite. There is great internal value to that matter. The Jews also hold, as you say above, the Name to be representative of The Great Objective, beyond even being able to speak same accurately.

Where every 'sect' seems to fall apart is in trying to beat others over the heads. It is one thing to contemplate. It is quite another to bring condemnation into ones internals, our hearts, over these matters. To me that is part of the trap of theology. The incessant press to be 'right' at the expense of someone else. Isn't that really a picture of the human condition in general?

It does not take long to figure out in the contemplations that we as individuals or groups are far far less than that which we contemplate. The contemplation is FREE for the taking. I asked myself, if this is so, then why take on condemnation in the process? What good is that? I separated myself from that practice many years ago, finding it a putrid add on to faith, to be discarded. It stinketh, as He said. If I find the need to judge, then it starts at home, in my own heart first.

In the contemplation of God in Christ there is LIFE and FREEDOM. Why throw out the hindrances? The multitude of stumbling blocks. To judge others? To justify ourselves? To be totally right? For what purpose? How right can any group of sinners really be about 'things?' Apparently enough to wallop the daylights out of any outsiders and to divide into various groups and to hole up behind the doctrine walls.

Christians were first called so at Antioch. The name Antioch means to be divided against. Shouldn't we all be divided against the power of EVIL? Isn't that really what a Christian is? Evil places and forces a control and a limit. I personally do not desire to be controlled by anything. Things that bring limits into my life such as 'bad consequences' or 'bad contemplations' are hindrances to my insides.

So what if cultural studies make certain claims? What would that mean if anything could be determined other than a new set of doctrines and practices flown and bowed to? Did anything change in that? Probably not.

A couple decades ago I read a long and tedious book by a German theologian by the name of Gerhard Meier who basically ripped apart the entire historical-classic pursuit of theology simply by contemplation of the term Eternal, showing how utterly ineffective historical-classic methodology is by comparisons. When I finished reading the book I looked in the mirror and recognized that my body itself is going to be nothing but dust in the wind in a few short years as well as everything I've worked for and built. A couple hundred years from now all of that is gone gone gone.

Kinda puts things into perspective.

The contemplations of God in Christ are unto internal freedom. It is unlikely we are going to find the Perfect reflection by employing faulted reflectors as our gauge. Theology took on new meaning to me years ago, even as a child, by doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. So, a smaller form of Divine logic eventually led me to measure my fellow believers differently. From one aspect, understanding the very real workings of God in Christ I can assuredly look upon other believers as being Perfect, even if THEY don't believe it! By seeing them through His Work and Word for us.

If I want to look on the judgment side of the coin, scriptures have given us a handy shill to look and judge upon that does not revolve just the 'believer.'

It's been a secure methodology, especially if applied personally first. No cultural study can bring this matter home to roost. Sooner or later a sincere believer should be led to look at their own shortcomings in reflections, and to seek The Perfect One. It's a much more interesting life.

enjoy!

s

 

[John 8:32]

And the above is just another typical hypocritical EXTREME view.

How about we STONE YOU for the mere THOUGHT of adultery? Jesus said the mere thought was committing 'in heart.'

The lesson to be learned from the LAW is that the HEART is deceitfully WICKED. Those who deny the spiritual applicability of that fact and seek to KILL OTHERS are just as wicked as those they seek to kill because they are HYPOCRITES 'in heart.'

Paul used the O.T. Law as an allegory in many ways, this for example using the Old Testament Law regarding not muzzling the Ox:

1 Tim. 5:
17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Was then the O.T. law merely speaking of OXES and CORN? Not whatsoever is THAT ALL it meant. There was at that time a PHYSICAL SHOWING of a SPIRITUAL REALITY. Those who are not led to see THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS in this way will NEVER understand same, and in fact will only seek ELIMINATION, TWISTING or HYPOCRITICAL applications of same.

If you wanted 'sinners' to DIE, you'd best be the first one standing in LINE for what you seek upon others.

Jesus hated hypocrites as well and warned 'us' about 'them.'

s

Hmmm, let's not get too excited about sin here, after all it is not a big deal, right? It doesn't really cost anything to think sallacious thoughts does it?

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Hmmm, just thinking thoughts of adultery costs a life? Jesus Christ had to die so that those who repent, throw themselves on the mercy of the court and receive forgiveness, don't have to? Sorry if you think it is hypocritical to not minimize the import of sin, but sin requires blood. This is the lesson of the schoolmaster, sin=death.

How do you feel about forgiving and showing mercy to a child molester who murders little children after having his/her way with them? Hypocritical to put them to death?

 

[smaller]

Hmmm, let's not get too excited about sin here, after all it is not a big deal, right? It doesn't really cost anything to think sallacious thoughts does it?

Sin thought is sin. There is no way around that fact, as The Word account you are about to cite clearly shows.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Hmmm, just thinking thoughts of adultery costs a life?

You expressed a desire to kill adulterers.

"Should Adultery be a capital crime? God says yes, it cost Jesus Christ His life."

How abouts we apply the measure above to any such thinker? Did God in Christ die so adulterous thoughts could be excused?

Jesus Christ had to die so that those who repent, throw themselves on the mercy of the court and receive forgiveness, don't have to?

That is the practice of excusing ones own 'thought' sin while seeking death upon others for their 'externally viewed sin,' all in the 'Name of Jesus' of course. I find it highly hypocritical. An unjust weight. A deceptive scale.

Sorry if you think it is hypocritical to not minimize the import of sin, but sin requires blood. This is the lesson of the schoolmaster, sin=death.

Blood as an excuse for sin then? An authorization of all such things? I think not.

How do you feel about forgiving and showing mercy to a child molester who murders little children after having his/her way with them? Hypocritical to put them to death?

How about a person reading such accounts and even thinking about their crime within? Same principle applies.

The Law was always meant to alert us to the wickedness that we all carry. Those who personally bypass that lesson and think themselves excused by whatever format (blood/ritual/incantation) and that such things are then allowed to slip by unnoticed and without condemnation under the 'mercy flag' while desiring others to die for same probably need to take a closer look at themselves.

As to justice unto the offenders, I believe God sees to that matter one way or another. Sowing and reaping remains a valid principle in the O.T. and the N.T. and it is so by Divine Decree.

s

 

[Free]

totopic

 

[Drew]

deleted own post - off topic.

 

[Drew]

Drew said,
“one cannot simply "copy" Old Testament material into the present and apply it directly.....The better approach (in my view): "read the Bible as an evolving narrative, figure out the part of the 'plot' that lies in the past as well as the part of the plot that lies in the future, then figure out to advance the story from where it is now to where it is going."

This position needs more explanationâ€

I agree. It needs more explanation. For me at least. Perhaps if you consider the idea of culture in your explanation.

Thanks for your interest. I am asserting that the Bible is best understood as a window on the history of humanity. One model has been proposed wherein the Bible is seen as a 5 Act Play as follows:

1. Creation;
2. Fall (Adam and Eve eat the fruit);
3. Israel (as the people through whom God intends to reverse the fall);
4. Jesus (who takes on the destiny of Israel and completes the reversal of the fall:
5. New Creation (we are now living in this act)

We are living in Act 5. And we know some things about the end of the story.

My general point is this: we who live in "Act 5" should be intentionally trying to carrry the story forward to its end, all the while acting in a manner that honours the story as it has unfolded in the past.

Perhaps this clarifies things a little. As you can imagine, on my view, the Law of Moses belongs exclusively to Act 3, and its "role in the story" has come to an end.

You asked me to try to integrate "culture" in my answer. I am not sure how to do this, except to argue that it fundamentally makes good sense to understand the events of 2000 or 3000 years ago in Palestine in terms of the culture of that place in those times. The world changes over time, and varies from place to place.

It seems decidedly odd to think that Jesus was speaking and acting like a 21st century westerner, addressing 21st century culture and its problems when, in fact, He was a first century person addressing first century Palestinian issues.

 

[Drew]

Drew said,
“we should not be following the Law of Mosesâ€

Why do you refer to this Law as the Law of Moses, rather than the Law of God? Does this reference have something to do with Jewish culture in your mind?

I call it the Law of Moses simply because it is the law that was delivered to Moses at Mount Sinai.

And, despite the protestations of others, this Law of Moses was decidedly for Jews alone. It was given to Jews and was to be followed by Jews. God never intended this Law to be followed by all mankind.

Quite the contrary - as the scriptures tell us, the Law of Moses was given to demarcate a special people from among the nations. Why God did this is an interesting question and I am willing to proffer an answer (in a later post) - one that I have shamelessly co-opted from theologian NT Wright.

 

[Drew]

But we don’t live in the culture that existed 2000+ years ago. We can only surmise what was used as metaphor and what wasn’t in those days. How do you tell what is metaphor and what isn’t?

We can do more than "surmise".

We know that the prophet Isaiah used such end of the world language to describe the fate of Babylon.

We know (historically) that Babylon fell politically, even though the "stars did not fall from the sky".

There are other examples. The notion that Jews would use "end of the world" language in a metaphorical way is not mere speculation - it is grounded in the historical record.

There are other examples than the Isaiah one, from Biblical and non-Biblical sources.