Question:
Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man is newly married, he shall not go ut with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.
Some OT commands are for us and some are not. Some should be followed explicityly (eg homosexual behavior) and some should be followed in spirit.
What do you think about this particular one? How should we treat this verse and this command? And if it we should just be following it in it's spirit, how does that play itself out practically?
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Answer:
That one is a good idea. But not particularly possible in today's world.
There's the civil law and the religious law.
The civil laws were just a matter of convenience. The religious law is only applicable if you're going to be a Jewish-Christian or Messianic Jew. All the laws of the prophets hang on "Love God, love your neighbor." There's multiple ways to fulfill "Love God, love your neighbor," and the stuff in the OT (not including the civil law) are really just good suggestions. If you can pull off "Love god, love your neighbor" with Stoicism or Epicurianism (which is what the first gentile Christians were doing) then go on ahead.
Christianity is not a religion, it's just the fulfillment of religion.
Answer:
Originally Posted by domnastics Some OT commands are for us and some are not. Some should be followed explicityly (eg homosexual behavior) and some should be followed in spirit. Where does scripture teach this?

Originally Posted by Abbadon Christianity is not a religion, it's just the fulfillment of religion. Did the definition of religion suddenly change?
Answer:
Originally Posted by domnastics Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man is newly married, he shall not go ut with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.
Some OT commands are for us and some are not. Some should be followed explicityly (eg homosexual behavior) and some should be followed in spirit.
What do you think about this particular one? How should we treat this verse and this command? And if it we should just be following it in it's spirit, how does that play itself out practically?
Thanks in advance for your responses.
I personally love that verse. It makes me smile every time I read it or talk about it!
It seams like a difficult thing for us to follow in a practical way today. One thing that has been impressed on my heart for the past few years is that if one (the man) intends to marry, he should be able to provide for his wife. Too many times it is the other way arround or the couple come together starting off with a hefty loan for the marriage serimony and then try to make do.
Working and going to war were two of the ways men in those days made a living and provided for their family. So I tend to beleive that it is important for the man to be able to provide for his family. A year is a long time to be without a steady income, even though provision was made for the spoils of the war to be shared with those who could not go to war.
The first year is the honeymoon stage. For a couple to be heavily engrossed in 'external affairs' in the first year would make bonding a bit difficult.
Couples today even skip the honeymoon trip. They just jump right in and get back to work or live seperate lives in other islands or countries. That is not good.
In that time also the couples did not have datting or a getting to know each other period like we do now so that time would be necessary to get to know each other.

---

That verse also points to the kind of unity and comunity spirit that is required among beleivers. Parents to provide for their children. The church to have all things common ect.... It has me dreaming of the kind of beautiful world we would have if we could only obey our Lord.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Sean Where does scripture teach this?
I was simply referring to things like boiling a goat in its mother's milk (or something similar to that) which is an obvious specific law for the Israelites at that time and then things like forbidding homosexual behavior which transcends its cultural context to us today.
Perhaps I worded that incorrectly in the OP. But I hope you understand the hermeneutical principles that I am referring to. If not, I will try to clarify more later.
Answer:
Originally Posted by domnastics Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man is newly married, he shall not go ut with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.
What do you think about this particular one? How should we treat this verse and this command? And if it we should just be following it in it's spirit, how does that play itself out practically? As a newly engaged man, this verse also makes me smile in delight.
Again and again I hear advice from married couples advising us to take it really easy that first year - to not get too involved with things (especially church things - learning to say "no"), even to not have a TV, and just focus on us, on this new aspect to our relationship. The first year of marriage is so foundational and life-changing that too much outside influence could crush the flower before it begins to blossom. That to me is the spirit of this verse.
And I'm pretty serious about not owning a TV. We might not even have a computer, or if we do, use it sparingly. I think about how much time I waste per week watching TV and on the computer especially, and think about how much better that time could be spent pouring love and affection into my wife (literally and figuratively! ) and just building a rock-solid foundation for the rest of our lives, well it's a no-brainer
Answer:
Originally Posted by Epaphras As a newly engaged man, this verse also makes me smile in delight.
Again and again I hear advice from married couples advising us to take it really easy that first year - to not get too involved with things (especially church things - learning to say "no"), even to not have a TV, and just focus on us, on this new aspect to our relationship. The first year of marriage is so foundational and life-changing that too much outside influence could crush the flower before it begins to blossom. That to me is the spirit of this verse.
And I'm pretty serious about not owning a TV. We might not even have a computer, or if we do, use it sparingly. I think about how much time I waste per week watching TV and on the computer especially, and think about how much better that time could be spent pouring love and affection into my wife (literally and figuratively! ) and just building a rock-solid foundation for the rest of our lives, well it's a no-brainer
Then let me ask you this: what do you think about having children? Is it selfish to want to have my new wife all to myself (and vice versa) for at least the first year?
Answer:
Originally Posted by domnastics Then let me ask you this: what do you think about having children? Is it selfish to want to have my new wife all to myself (and vice versa) for at least the first year? Personally, I don't believe it is selfish.
Children are called a blessing from the Lord in the scriptures, but there is also the benediction, "rejoice in the wife of your youth, may her breasts satisfy you always."
When a couple gets married, they should know full-well that there is a possibility that they could become parents right away. But, that doesn't mean they have to become parents right away, in my opinion.
Answer:
Originally Posted by domnastics I was simply referring to things like boiling a goat in its mother's milk (or something similar to that) which is an obvious specific law for the Israelites at that time and then things like forbidding homosexual behavior which transcends its cultural context to us today. Well, I guess my point is that since scripture doesn't lay out a set of rules for deciding which rules of the Law we're still under, I feel very uncomfortable making myself the one to decide. And considering the number of times that Paul says we're no longer under the Law and Acts 15 states there are only two commands we're still supposed to follow, I tend to think that we should look to the New Testament rather than the Old TEstament or our own reason to figure out which parts we should follow
Perhaps I worded that incorrectly in the OP. But I hope you understand the hermeneutical principles that I am referring to. If not, I will try to clarify more later. Depends, if you're refering to us still being bound to parts of the Law but not others, then I understand what you're saying but I don't agree with it. If you're refering to us not being bound to the Law, but rather us learning from the law and getting principles from it, then I'd need for you to clarify a bit.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Sean Did the definition of religion suddenly change?
The differences between the Jewish Christianity, early gentile Christianity, modern Protestantism, and Catholicism are almost enough to consider them different religions.
Jews, Stoics, Epicurians, Catholics and Orthodoxi, Pentacostals and Southern Baptists, members of those have had thier differeing religions fulfilled through Christ.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Abbadon The differences between the Jewish Christianity, early gentile Christianity, modern Protestantism, and Catholicism are almost enough to consider them different religions. "almost"? maybe, but no. Denominations are still that, denominations of Christianity.
Originally Posted by Abbadon Jews, Stoics, Epicurians, Catholics and Orthodoxi, Pentacostals and Southern Baptists, members of those have had thier differeing religions fulfilled through Christ. So you move from "almost enough to consider them different religions" to this? You seem to be talking like they are?
Answer:
Originally Posted by Sean Well, I guess my point is that since scripture doesn't lay out a set of rules for deciding which rules of the Law we're still under, I feel very uncomfortable making myself the one to decide. And considering the number of times that Paul says we're no longer under the Law and Acts 15 states there are only two commands we're still supposed to follow, I tend to think that we should look to the New Testament rather than the Old TEstament or our own reason to figure out which parts we should follow
Depends, if you're refering to us still being bound to parts of the Law but not others, then I understand what you're saying but I don't agree with it. If you're refering to us not being bound to the Law, but rather us learning from the law and getting principles from it, then I'd need for you to clarify a bit.
We are not bound to the Law for our salvation, or as our part of our new covenant with God. But that does not mean that we don't keep any laws. So as far as gathering a principle from this law, do you think it could apply to refraining from having children or would you consider that too liberal an interpretation given the other verses that speak of children as a blessing and so forth?
Answer:
Originally Posted by domnastics We are not bound to the Law for our salvation, or as our part of our new covenant with God. But that does not mean that we don't keep any laws. I would argue we keep the commands which are stated explicitly and implicitly in the New Testament. Otherwise you're stuck with the sticky situation wher e you're dividing the Mosiac Law into your own neat categories and deciding for yourself which ones you think you should still keep.
So as far as gathering a principle from this law, do you think it could apply to refraining from having children or would you consider that too liberal an interpretation given the other verses that speak of children as a blessing and so forth? Yeah that would probably be too liberal of an application/interpretation. The problem is that there is a big difference between "don't go off to serve in the military" and "don't get pregnant." The principle is about being together and happy your first year together. The specific example is about being together. Therefore, you can't simply swap out the be together part for something else. Otherwise one could claim that this passage teaches that newly weds should just sit at home and do nothing being happy for their first year of marriage.
On a personal note, I got married about 4 months ago. My wife is taking birth control for the time being. I think anyone taking the verses about children being a blessing and using it to claim that you can't use birth control or wait a couple years to pursue pregnancy is being too liberal with their interpretation and application of those verses.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Abbadon The differences between the Jewish Christianity, early gentile Christianity, modern Protestantism, and Catholicism are almost enough to consider them different religions.
Jews, Stoics, Epicurians, Catholics and Orthodoxi, Pentacostals and Southern Baptists, members of those have had thier differeing religions fulfilled through Christ. I realize you're pissed off at reductionist religion, but this certainly is no better path. I mean, Jewish vs. early Gentile Xianity -- what is this, FC Baur, early 19th century? There was little/no attempt at Christian Epicureanism until the 1600s, and while Stoicism had minor influence at various points in the early/medieval Church, its notion of overcoming the world through inner discipline against the passions certainly cannot be said to be fulfilled in Jesus' notion of redemption by God's gracious Kingdom intervention.