OT Law and Cultural Relativity

[faithofjob777]

I think we obey the current laws that do not violate an explicit command of God, and we seek to change the unjust laws by preaching to our neighbors and magistrates the validity of God's laws.  

What I find most challenging is how to do just that.  Since the first instinct of unregenerate people and immature Christians is disdain when they hear that the penalty of adultery is death, then it is going to take a good amount of wisdom to show why so.  Especially since we do have the example of Jesus sparing the adulterous woman from the commandment of the law that she be killed.

The supposed clash between God's mercy and justice is easily seen, perhaps because the sin is not seen for what it really is.  I remember most recently how the comments on the young man Van Sloot was that he was worthy of death.  He is the man who finally owned up that he killed the Peruvian woman he went out with, and is also the prime suspect in the death of Natalie Holloway as well a few years ago.

His lack of remorse has prompted many people to desire that justice be served: he should die.  We are readily affected by the gravity of the sin and the obvious lack of repentance.  But then we lose sight when it comes to other sins, and how they are most grievous to God.  This is why we have His Word to illuminate our hearts; sadly, we often we choose not to heed.

There will be times that repentance is not enough, and justice must still be served. A man can show he is sorry of what he did in stealing millions from a company he worked for, but he still has to provide restitution.  And sometimes that restitution comes in the form of paying one's own life for life.  Murder is the intentional and malicious destruction of another person's life, while adultery is the deliberate destruction of life in the family.  Is it really so hard to see why God would command the penalty of death for both?

The severity of the penalty gives us the opportunity to dwell on the holiness of God, and how we are to conform to His ways.  It is not the other way around.  We shall not receive a true understanding of His eternal mercy, if His holiness is impugned by us without cause.  Hence, Jesus spared the adulterous woman, not because the law on adultery was so evil and He was being kinder in the New Covenant; but rather, the people who implemented the laws had no understanding of the holiness of God in their own lives.  They condemned the woman, and yet they themselves sinned no differently.  What right should they have in using the law selectively and unrighteously, and ruin the real meaning of God's holiness and mercy?

Nor can we say that there need not be any kind of justice involved, because Jesus paid it all by His blood. Just forgive and forget, because we all should "love one another."  People always deserve a second chance, a third and a fourth, even if they have sinned the same grievous sin of murder or adultery seventy times seven.   All these reasons disintegrate into becoming mere excuses for the legalization of sheer anarchy and gross disrespect of God's holy ways, which is indeed what we have in society today.  


The gospel does none of that.  Rather, it changes the hearts of men, so that they have a proper understanding of God's holiness and mercy; only then can they know how to wisely apply the commandments of God in all things and situations.  Sadly, this is rarely taught in the pulpits today.  So the most popular ideology is to mix God's commandments with pagan ideals, and the Christian learns more about how to compromise instead of how to exalt the holiness of God.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

But of course we have the prison system.  This replaces the many penalties God says certain evildoers should incur.  We have the prison, because the death penalty is just so evil and so unChristian.  The death penalty is barbarically Old Testament, and it is definitely disgusting to even think about in this day and age.  Why not give a chance for the most wicked evildoers to repent?  We should rather have Chuck Colson and the Prison Fellowship ministry help do God's work on their hearts.  Why kill them, if the gospel of Christ is for them as well?  Truly, many of God's laws for Israel regarding penalties should no longer apply now.  

This kind of argument pits the gospel against the commandments of God, His mercy against His justice.  It sounds very logical though.  But it was also logical for Israel to prosper and pray for peace in Babylon, while being subjugated by it.  As a matter of fact, it was God's commandment that Israel do so.  Yet it did not mean that Babylon's ways towards Israel were perfectly godly.

So it is with the prison system; just because people can repent and turn to Christ while they are in jail for murder, it does not mean prison is a much better way than the commandment of God on their sin.  It is all matter of respecting how God commands the proper order in our lives and societies.  Are we faithful in seeking men to be redeemed by His gospel, so that this order is then obeyed?

_______________________________________________________________

YET GOD SPARED CERTAIN ADULTERERS FROM THE DEATH PENALTY

Jesus spared the adulterous woman, and God spared the adulterous King David.  What is common in both scenarios is that men have chosen to be above the laws of God.  Being self-righteous about those laws while inventing their own rules, men will do every single thing to disobey Him. In such a situation, God especially spared sinners from suffering the penalties they deserved for their sins; He was doing something greater.

When the Israelites preferred to have a king, they really believed that their woes would be solved by giving sheer great power to one man.  But because of sin, that one great power will also seek to be above the laws of God, which Adam and Eve already sought to do in the garden of Eden.

Kings, popes, and many other leaders throughout history did just that, and exceptions were quite rare.  King David wasn't exempt; he manipulated things during a time of battle, just so he could hide his adultery.  His abuse of power would mean the death of one truly righteous man.  Why was King David not put to death then, for murder and adultery?  

By disobeying God, men raised kings who were automatically elevated to be above the commandments of God. This had to happen, because their faith is that he will solve their problems, which they believed the commandments of God could not do.   God already warned that the problem was not His commandments, but that their own wicked hearts always disobeyed Him.  The majority vote to have a king was adding more to their evil.  The king's tyranny would be their downfall, for they sought to solve their problem by simply raising kings.

David was spared the penalty of death by the people, and God even forgave him.  Yet the abundance of God's grace here is not an excuse to disobey His commandments on the punishments of adulterers and murderers.  It was simply His grace to spare David, while chastising him and all the men of Israel for all the evil that they had done.With repentance, David was empowered to learn and obey His commandments, and be much wiser and humbler as God's king.  

Needless to say, the Israelites were more wicked than he was.  Hence, despite the sins David had committed, his subjects needed a king like him to lead them.  David deserved to die for the murder and adultery he committed, but it is for this reason that God spared him anyway.  He was chosen to be a prelude to what Jesus Himself as King of Kings will do by His perfect Holiness, and what His own saints shall also perform in His name.

Psalm 149

149:1 Praise the Lord!
Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise in the assembly of the godly!
2 Let Israel be glad in his Maker;
let the children of Zion rejoice in their King!
3 Let them praise his name with dancing,
making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!
4 For the Lord takes pleasure in his people;
he adorns the humble with salvation.
5 Let the godly exult in glory;
let them sing for joy on their beds.


6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats
and two-edged swords in their hands,
7 to execute vengeance on the nations
and punishments on the peoples,
8 to bind their kings with chains
and their nobles with fetters of iron,
9 to execute on them the judgment written!
This is honor for all his godly ones.
Praise the Lord!

Jaime

[exodus16_36]

Okay, here's my reply.  Please critique as you will:

There are three facets of the Old Testament law: the moral, the civil, and the ceremonial.

The moral law is what we could refer to as “the spirit” of the law.  “Do not murder” is a moral command with moral implications.  The moral law of God is absolute and perpetually binding – all men must have this standard met or perish.  This is part and parcel of the covenant of creation with Adam, which pre-existed national Israel and the giving of the Decalogue.  The works of the moral law are written on all men’s hearts in that they know right from wrong. 

The civil is the enforcement of the moral law.  As such it is necessarily related; the civil stems from the moral.  Although levitical civil laws were intended specifically for the good direction of the people of Israel – for their separation and preservation as a peculiar nation in a world of pagans, although it is understood that the civil punishments are still righteous in their “general equity.”  We’ll come back to this.

To those who would hold God to his own law, we must assume that they intend to discuss the moral law (for the civil is grounded in the moral, and the ceremonial would just be silly – requiring God to sprinkle lamb’s blood on an alter in homage to himself).  Theology proper is key here, for to say this is to say that God is like us rather than a transcendent being.  To quote a friend of mine:

  FWIW, a helpful metaphor for me … is the idea of God as author.   It's not immoral for an author to create immoral characters and even to "kill" off good characters because of the eminence of the author in regard to the characters...The immoral characters are immoral because they commit acts against morality, but the author is not immoral (per se) for creating the tales of these fictitious scoundrels.  He may outrage certain fans when he does this, but other than that, he's not committing any crimes by killing that which only exists as an outcropping of his imagination.

Another helpful example might be that of a father and child.   It may seem hypocritical at first to subject others to a law that one doesn't keep, but there are certain roles of supremacy that I think we all fundamentally recognize as good and necessary.   I can set a curfew for my children that I don't keep because they are growing and need more rest than I do…; I can forbid my children from playing with the grill, iron, lawnmower, scissors, etc. even though I'm free to use such tools because I have certain knowledge and ability that they do not; I may forbid my children from talking to strangers, because they have a certain vulnerability and naïveté; etc.   God can forbid us from doing certain things that He himself is free to do, not because He is a tyrannical hypocrite, but because He is in a position of authority to know how best to direct us. 

This is not to say that God is not holy or just or righteous.  On the contrary, the law of God reveals these very attributes of God.  But to be clear, to say that the law shows the character of God is a very different thing than to say that God is beholden to obey the law he has given man.

In the new covenant, we have Christ. 

Christ upholds the moral law.  He even strengthens these commands from the legalistic code it had become to show the scope of the law to extend to the deepest recesses of man’s heart and mind. 

Christ fulfills the ceremonial law.  Hebrews 9:11-10:18 tells us that Christ is both the perfect high priest as well as the perfect sacrifice for sins.  With this, animal sacrifices and offerings are no longer necessary. 

Christ redeems the civil law.  Government is a natural part of humanity.  People establish rules by which their societies will live (even if the rule is to have no rules).  A society of redeemed people will choose to form their society after the rules of God.  (Indeed, even societies not composed of Christians may find Christian civil laws to be of benefit, and may submit to them.) 

Those who would assert that Christians wink at portions of their own scriptures misunderstand several things.  The moral facet of the law is in no way diminished, which is why Christians continually war with their surrounding culture over the morays and laws of the land.  The ceremonial facet has been fulfilled through Christ.  It is the civil aspect of the law were the difficulty lies. 

The intramural debate around the idea of “general equity” is both ecclesiological and eschatological.  OT Israel was a church-state, and thus relating any civil sanctions from this period must translate either to the modern church or the modern state.  Additionally, we must question the role of the church in influencing the state as a matter of the redemption of all things.  It is clear that New Testament writers instructed Christians to submit to the authority of the state inasmuch as they were able to do so without being required to sin.  Whether they were to lobby for laws mirroring the law of God is unclear. 

In any case, with our modern sensibilities, we may look  back at theocratic Israel and find particular laws heinous and appalling.  However, in any such assessment, we diminish the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin that is tied to this societal governance.  To critique such a system in such a fashion is to critique the underpinnings and axioms of Christianity itself – a lawgiving God reaching down to a sinful world.  If one chooses this route, one must then give an adequate basis for any alternate legal system one would propose.  Most instances of such propositions simply boil down to moral relativism, which is another argument altogether.  If one follows the Christian’s logic from the ground up (from “God exists” onward), one must acknowledge that there is a godly way for societies as well as individuals.

[PeLLeAs5]

I would refer to the civil law as the application of the moral law, rather than simply its enforcement.  Enforcement only seems to get at the punishments, whereas the civil law includes positive commands as well, which are implications of particular commands set forth in the moral law.

You should also recognize that some of the civil laws are applicable more specifically than "general equity."  For example, the penal sanction of death for murder.  The moral law simply prohibits murder, but does not recommend its punishment.  The civil law does.  There are numerous other laws which we have enforced quite specifically in the past which can only be justified by OT civil law codes.

Christ redeems the civil law.  Government is a natural part of humanity.  People establish rules by which their societies will live (even if the rule is to have no rules).  A society of redeemed people will choose to form their society after the rules of God.  (Indeed, even societies not composed of Christians may find Christian civil laws to be of benefit, and may submit to them.)

Your terms seem to indefinite here.  Are you saying that the civil law is only binding upon Christians who have been redeemed?  If you look in the OT, the nations surrounding Israel are judged according to Biblical law, and brought to account on that basis.  The bigger misunderstanding that underlies this indefiniteness is to follow, however.

The intramural debate around the idea of “general equity” is both ecclesiological and eschatological.  OT Israel was a church-state, and thus relating any civil sanctions from this period must translate either to the modern church or the modern state.  Additionally, we must question the role of the church in influencing the state as a matter of the redemption of all things.  It is clear that New Testament writers instructed Christians to submit to the authority of the state inasmuch as they were able to do so without being required to sin.  Whether they were to lobby for laws mirroring the law of God is unclear. 

You seem to be laboring under the notion that Israel is unique in being a society that has its civil or state law governed by its church or religious order.  This is a distortion in two ways.  First, Israel's ecclesiastical leaders did not have overarching authority over the civil magistrates, although they did possess advisory functions and could rebuke on behalf of God's expressed commands.  Civil rulers were beholden to God's revealed commandments, and therefore operated under "religious" authority--Theonomy.  This is one error: that you do not distinguish between ecclesiastical sphere and general theonomic authority.

Secondly, no state, ancient or modern, ever operates apart from a thenomic principle.  In other words, all states are either subject to the authority of God, or they set themselves up as the supreme religious authority of the people--whether they do so as monarchical divinities, social contract appointed leaders, or whatever other political fiction is advanced.  Because all Law comes from God, it must either bow to Him or form its opposing religious dogma against Him.  The choice is autonomy or theonomy, always.

The only alternative that has ever been offered is so-called "natural law," which unregenerate men are ostensibly able to discern without the aid of supernatural grace, because it is written on their heart.  The problem is that the law written upon the heart is not positive, but condemnatory.  No two cultures will interpret the natural law the same, because their distorted natures are inclined to cover their sins and assert their autonomy differently.  That they operate by some law and that their consciences are beholden in some way is testimony to their guilt before God, not their equivalent interpretations of His law.  The only way natural law becomes uniform is under a uniform religious system, i.e. Christendom can have a natural law built upon Revelation, or Stoics can have a natural law built upon Stoicism, but these natural law theories are incompatible outside their system of origination.  Theonomy or autonomy.

[exodus16_36]

I would refer to the civil law as the application of the moral law, rather than simply its enforcement.  Enforcement only seems to get at the punishments, whereas the civil law includes positive commands as well, which are implications of particular commands set forth in the moral law.

Fair enough.

You should also recognize that some of the civil laws are applicable more specifically than "general equity."  For example, the penal sanction of death for murder.  The moral law simply prohibits murder, but does not recommend its punishment.  The civil law does.  There are numerous other laws which we have enforced quite specifically in the past which can only be justified by OT civil law codes.

So, this is to say that, for example, a life sentence in prison for murder would be an imperfect punishment based on the fact that OT civil law requires it? 

If we may take another, more controversial example, would you then argue that the death penalty for gross parental disobedience is specifically applicable?  Certainly there are some OT civil codes which don't make sense in a modern context - say, marrying the spouse of a deceased relative.  What is the rule by which we make distinctions between civil codes we keep and ones we discard?   

Christ redeems the civil law.  Government is a natural part of humanity.  People establish rules by which their societies will live (even if the rule is to have no rules).  A society of redeemed people will choose to form their society after the rules of God.  (Indeed, even societies not composed of Christians may find Christian civil laws to be of benefit, and may submit to them.)

Your terms seem to indefinite here.  Are you saying that the civil law is only binding upon Christians who have been redeemed?  If you look in the OT, the nations surrounding Israel are judged according to Biblical law, and brought to account on that basis.  The bigger misunderstanding that underlies this indefiniteness is to follow, however.

No.  I only mean to say that Christ is the fullness of redemption, and that redeemed people (Christians) will form redeemed societies.  I'm trying to set up even the concept of an ideal law before making the case that all authorities are indeed held up to this ideal.

You seem to be laboring under the notion that Israel is unique in being a society that has its civil or state law governed by its church or religious order.  This is a distortion in two ways.  First, Israel's ecclesiastical leaders did not have overarching authority over the civil magistrates, although they did possess advisory functions and could rebuke on behalf of God's expressed commands.  Civil rulers were beholden to God's revealed commandments, and therefore operated under "religious" authority--Theonomy.  This is one error: that you do not distinguish between ecclesiastical sphere and general theonomic authority.

The portion you quoted is an attempt to clarify how the spheres of church and state interact today, and if/how this differs from OT Israel.  You look to be arguing that there is no real difference, other than a civil sphere which fully submits to the church. 

Secondly, no state, ancient or modern, ever operates apart from a thenomic principle.  In other words, all states are either subject to the authority of God, or they set themselves up as the supreme religious authority of the people--whether they do so as monarchical divinities, social contract appointed leaders, or whatever other political fiction is advanced.  Because all Law comes from God, it must either bow to Him or form its opposing religious dogma against Him.  The choice is autonomy or theonomy, always.

Fair enough.  I haven't fully fleshed out the consequences of a state failing to adhere to an ideal.  I'll make some changes. 

The only alternative that has ever been offered is so-called "natural law," which unregenerate men are ostensibly able to discern without the aid of supernatural grace, because it is written on their heart.  The problem is that the law written upon the heart is not positive, but condemnatory.  No two cultures will interpret the natural law the same, because their distorted natures are inclined to cover their sins and assert their autonomy differently.  That they operate by some law and that their consciences are beholden in some way is testimony to their guilt before God, not their equivalent interpretations of His law.  The only way natural law becomes uniform is under a uniform religious system, i.e. Christendom can have a natural law built upon Revelation, or Stoics can have a natural law built upon Stoicism, but these natural law theories are incompatible outside their system of origination.  Theonomy or autonomy.

So this is basically the state-wide embodiment of Romans 2:14-15. 

Thanks for the comments. 

[PeLLeAs5]

So, this is to say that, for example, a life sentence in prison for murder would be an imperfect punishment based on the fact that OT civil law requires it?

If we may take another, more controversial example, would you then argue that the death penalty for gross parental disobedience is specifically applicable?  Certainly there are some OT civil codes which don't make sense in a modern context - say, marrying the spouse of a deceased relative.  What is the rule by which we make distinctions between civil codes we keep and ones we discard? 

I'm simply saying that many Christians who advocate for the death penalty are relying upon more than the moral law, but also its civil penal sanctions.  If one is to be consistent with considering the penal sanctions no longer valid, or only valid in an equity that does not consider any of the penal sanctions valid, then one cannot automatically argue for the death penalty.

There is a lot of room for disagreement upon how exactly to enforce the civil code and its sanctions in the modern context.  The real key is whether or not one acknowledges the authority of the civil code and its sanctions for today.  Insofar as one does, one is a theonomist.  Insofar as one does not, one is setting up a law unto oneself.

No.  I only mean to say that Christ is the fullness of redemption, and that redeemed people (Christians) will form redeemed societies.  I'm trying to set up even the concept of an ideal law before making the case that all authorities are indeed held up to this ideal.

Ok, this makes more sense.

The portion you quoted is an attempt to clarify how the spheres of church and state interact today, and if/how this differs from OT Israel.  You look to be arguing that there is no real difference, other than a civil sphere which fully submits to the church. 

Only if you are a Roman Catholic :-D.  Ecclesiastical and Civil spheres overlap, but not entirely.  The Minister is responsible to preach to the Magistrate that he (the magistrate) is bound by the law of God.  The Magistrate is responsible to uphold the law, which includes punishing those ministers who may break it.  Both the Minister and the Magistrate serve a function of promoting the success of Christianity in the world: the minister is to proclaim it before all men, and the magistrate is to uphold its commandments and protect it from enemies who would destroy it by the sword.  The difference between OT Israel and modern States is the same as the difference between OT Church and NT Church.  The way in which we worship is no longer shadowed in ceremonies of blood and purity.  Insofar as Levitical laws pertain to things that Christ has accomplished, the Church is no longer required to enforce.  But the relationship between the Church and the State in general is the same: they both promote the worship of God in their respective roles, some of which overlap, and some of which do not.

So this is basically the state-wide embodiment of Romans 2:14-15.

Thanks for the comments. 

Precisely.  You are welcome, and I'm excited to see you tackling these issues!

[exodus16_36]

So, this is to say that, for example, a life sentence in prison for murder would be an imperfect punishment based on the fact that OT civil law requires it?

If we may take another, more controversial example, would you then argue that the death penalty for gross parental disobedience is specifically applicable?  Certainly there are some OT civil codes which don't make sense in a modern context - say, marrying the spouse of a deceased relative.  What is the rule by which we make distinctions between civil codes we keep and ones we discard? 

I'm simply saying that many Christians who advocate for the death penalty are relying upon more than the moral law, but also its civil penal sanctions.  If one is to be consistent with considering the penal sanctions no longer valid, or only valid in an equity that does not consider any of the penal sanctions valid, then one cannot automatically argue for the death penalty.

There is a lot of room for disagreement upon how exactly to enforce the civil code and its sanctions in the modern context.  The real key is whether or not one acknowledges the authority of the civil code and its sanctions for today.  Insofar as one does, one is a theonomist.  Insofar as one does not, one is setting up a law unto oneself.

This is going to be the crux.  The initial charge was that Christians are inconsistent in their applying of OT laws in the modern day.  Saying "there's room for interpretation" will bring up the hows and whys of such interpretations.  "Why do you still consider [whatever] penalty for sodomites, but do not hold to the death penalty for disobedient children?"  I suppose that (for my immediate purposes) so long as one considers the moral law still applicable, simply saying that civil sanctions ought to exist in the present day to the extent (and to particular laws) that they did in the OT, I may avoid elaboration as to the specific sanctions.

[PeLLeAs5]

So, this is to say that, for example, a life sentence in prison for murder would be an imperfect punishment based on the fact that OT civil law requires it?

If we may take another, more controversial example, would you then argue that the death penalty for gross parental disobedience is specifically applicable?  Certainly there are some OT civil codes which don't make sense in a modern context - say, marrying the spouse of a deceased relative.  What is the rule by which we make distinctions between civil codes we keep and ones we discard? 

I'm simply saying that many Christians who advocate for the death penalty are relying upon more than the moral law, but also its civil penal sanctions.  If one is to be consistent with considering the penal sanctions no longer valid, or only valid in an equity that does not consider any of the penal sanctions valid, then one cannot automatically argue for the death penalty.

There is a lot of room for disagreement upon how exactly to enforce the civil code and its sanctions in the modern context.  The real key is whether or not one acknowledges the authority of the civil code and its sanctions for today.  Insofar as one does, one is a theonomist.  Insofar as one does not, one is setting up a law unto oneself.

This is going to be the crux.  The initial charge was that Christians are inconsistent in their applying of OT laws in the modern day.  Saying "there's room for interpretation" will bring up the hows and whys of such interpretations.  "Why do you still consider [whatever] penalty for sodomites, but do not hold to the death penalty for disobedient children?"  I suppose that (for my immediate purposes) so long as one considers the moral law still applicable, simply saying that civil sanctions ought to exist in the present day to the extent (and to particular laws) that they did in the OT, I may avoid elaboration as to the specific sanctions.

The inconsistency is in wanting to affirm Biblical civil laws while claiming that all force of civil laws has been repealed.  For those who argue for general equity of the civil laws, the crux is always "in what ways are the laws and penalties binding today?"  There is a clear difference of approach there.

You cannot avoid delving into the specific penal sanctions, because the moral law does not qualify itself apart from the civil laws.  For example, the commandment "thou shalt not murder" does not define what is murder, or unlawful taking of life.  It is the civil laws that elucidate what are legitimate and illegitimate acts of taking life.  What then must occur is to decide what contemporary cases match the specific cases outlined in the civil law.  For example, the woman who is raped in the city and fails to cry out is guilty of adultery, whereas the woman in the field outside the city is not guilty of adultery.  The difference has to do with the attempt to avoid, escape, or otherwise assert opposition to the sinful act of rape.  How might we understand our contemporary situations in light of this?  Would the woman who goes bar-hopping, gets drunk, and is raped on the second floor of a party that is happening on the first floor guilty of adultery or not?

If we aren't judging by the case laws that elucidate the moral law, then we give ourselves extra-biblical grounds for interpreting what the moral law implies, which is to introduce the laws of men into the law of God.

[faithofjob777]

Certainly there are some OT civil codes which don't make sense in a modern context - say, marrying the spouse of a deceased relative.  What is the rule by which we make distinctions between civil codes we keep and ones we discard?  

My own personal take on this question, is that if we really care about the commandments of God, we ponder what relevance each of them have for us now, even if some of them such as levirate marriage, no longer make obvious sense.  

Some we can easily explain, as Pelleas and many others (both theonomist and nontheonomist) have said.  The levitical laws have been fulfilled by Christ (Book of Hebrews, Galatians).  Others we still find to be directly significant, such as the laws against murder, stealing, and kidnapping.  

Yet there are those that do not seem to be significant at all, such as the law against interweaving of different kinds of fabrics as one garment, dietary restraints, and levirate marriage.  But the wisdom of God is found in each of them. Many commentators have said that through many of his laws and revelations regarding men, God repeatedly teaches the concept of separation.  Though all food and raiment are now blessed by God for our physical sustenance and protection, and we no longer dwell too much on what specific kind of food to eat or clothing to wear, we are to regard the priniciple behind the original separations God has commanded for either. Unequal yoking with evil has been exemplified by many daily-life examples in Scripture, and it is also given as a warning in some of God's commandments.  If whatever we eat drink, or do must be for the glory of God, then the reminder found in some of His ancient laws regarding food and clothing are intended to help us always think that way.

For levirate marriage, the concept of separation is also involved, though I think it will be revealed in Scripture later.  First, the tribes of ancient Israel were more homogenous.  They comprised one big family coming out of Egypt, and the application was much easier to apply then.  

But the tribes of Christ as true Israel are now  more dispersed and heterogenous in character, for we come from many places and nations.  Since the law deals with the widows and the name of their deceased husbands, perhaps an application is found through the Christians widows being loved not only by their families and churches, but also by godly brothers in the faith who take them as their wives. We are now brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, and we are really looking at each other as one family in Christ.

And instead of being bound to the blood line of their dead husbands for future spouses, the widows are given both the freedom and the responsibility to seek husbands who also honor Jesus as their Lord.  This will be a stretch, but I will say that this way, the name of the widow's righteous yet deceased husband is not forgotten.  For as the same unwavering faith in his family is kept by the widow and her new husband, his own name is honored, because his own life and leadership in his family had also been for the Lord.

The heterogeneity is a good reason for this, since not all in the family or clan may be converted.  It is imperative that the true lineage and bond between husband and wife, and the entire family, is by faith in the same truths about Christ.  For this reason, levirate marriage in the New Testament is applied in principle, when there is the intermixing of believers and nonbelievers in families and many other places.  The godly man and the godly widow within the family of Christ are made one flesh, and the law against unequal yoking with nonbelievers is obeyed.

Jaime