The Application of Old Testament Law to New Covenant Believers

Josiah: Sounds good. :) I might have minor disagreements (that I don’t know about yet) myself with how I put it. :) God is faithful to teach me!

Octavius: Let me clarify on “obeying” the OT laws.
We DO have to obey every single law.
We CAN’T obey one single law!
Christ perfectly obeyed every single law.
We receive Christ into us and let Him live through us each moment.
Therefore, He obeys every single law through us.
We are still obligated to obey the law. The wages of sin is death. However, since we can’t obey ANY law at all, we need Christ. We are still obligated to obey it even though we can’t – this is why the law is the schoolmaster that points us to Christ. In no way is the obligation to obey removed; it is simply that the MEANS of obeying have been granted to us in and through Christ.
It is Spirit versus flesh. We are required to obey. The flesh can’t obey. The Spirit can, has, does, and will.
Erika does not and will not obey any law. All Erika does and will ever do is her own pleasure. But praise God, Erika is dead with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ now lives in me. Jesus Christ HAS, DOES, and WILL obey everything – and Jesus Christ lives in me!
This all applies to the whole law of God – ten commandments and all.
I actually don’t agree with your interpretation of the “veil/flesh” in Hebrews 10. I am an editor and writer and I believe that the sentence is grammatically correct the way I described it. The KJV says, “…through the veil, that is to say, his flesh…” which means to plainly indicate that the term “his flesh” is meant to define “the veil.” Also, there is nothing elsewhere in Scripture that would hint at any reason that this could not be the case. However, I am not a Greek expert – so it is possible that I could be incorrect and I don’t mind if you hold your opinion on the verse. :)

Talia: I am confused on dietary laws as well. God apparently seemed to change those quite a bit. In the creation covenant, He gave man every green herb, tree yielding seed, and fruit tree yielding fruit for food. In the Noahic covenant, He gave man every living thing that moves as food in the same way that He gave every green herb for food. (One could guess that “in the same way” might mean that, just as man would not eat thorns, poisonous plants, and the other plants of the curse even though God gave “every green herb,” so too man would not eat despicable animals even though God gave “every living thing.” In addition, God specifically commanded against eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, even though that was one of the “fruit trees yielding fruit.”) In the Sinaitic covenant, God specified what types of animals the people may eat, so that they might put a difference between clean and unclean. In the New Testament, in the passages you listed as well as others, God seems to modify it again. I do think it is interesting that even though the disciples decided not to bind the Gentile Christians to these laws, they did so while saying, “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (Acts 15:21). Perhaps they realized that God Himself would show the Gentiles Moses’ laws in His time – and then they would be from God rather than simply the word of the disciples.
The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but rightness, peace, and joy resting in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even though I don’t understand the dietary laws at this point, I do know that everything I eat and drink should serve to further God’s rightness, peace, joy, and rest. If eating a particular food would further God’s kingdom (not mine!), eat it. If it would not, then do not eat it. Rest in the confidence that you are seeking and following Father at this moment in your life. Receive with thanksgiving what He sets before you. Also - listen to what your authorities have to say on this matter. "Honor your parents" is one of God's key commands.
If I am a guest of someone else and I am served something containing pork or seafood, I eat it. If there is something else to eat, I will eat that instead. If I have a choice, I choose not to eat questionable foods – but if not eating them would be dishonoring to someone else (such as a host), I eat. The kingdom of God must advance in all things. Even though the kingdom is not eating and drinking, all that I do pertains to the furtherance of the kingdom in my life.

SavedByGrace: Sin, in Greek, is “missing the mark” and also “not sharing” (in God/His life/His fellowship). God Himself is the mark. The law defines the mark/standard for our understanding. (By the way, God obeys all of His own laws.) Anyone who does not obey the law misses the mark and misses out on sharing in God, and therefore that person is sinning. All that non-believers can do is sin. All that we can do without Christ living in us is sin. All that the flesh can do is sin. Because of this, it should not be surprising when unbelievers sin – that is what they are “supposed” to do! However, all are still responsible for their sin. The wages of sin is still death. When a law that God gave is disobeyed, it is sin no matter who does it. When we have The Mark (Christ) living inside of us, we cannot miss the mark anymore! If we are sharing in/with/from/to Christ in a particular moment, we are not sinning. The problem is that we so often stop abiding in Christ and sharing with and of Christ – and so we fall into sin. This also explains the verse in I John that says, “Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not” – obviously, if we are abiding, we are not missing the mark – we are sharing in Christ. If we are not abiding, we are not sharing of Him and therefore we sin. It is again the flesh versus the Spirit. In the flesh, we sin. In the Spirit, we do not sin. In the flesh, we disobey the law. In the Spirit, we perfectly obey the law.
I’m not sure I completely grasped the meaning of your question, but I hope I have shed a little more light on it. Does all that make sense? Is anything still unclear in that regard?

Abide in Him!

"If a Christian gets a tatoo or a piercing (earring or otherwise) for the sole purpose of looking like the world or attracting attention, then, yes it's wrong. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with them."
Why get an earring? To make yourself more beautiful? But why make yourself more beautiful unless for the express purpose of other people seeing it? The very idea behind any piercings and tattoos is to draw attention to yourself by doing something to your body that is not normal. You can't get a tattoo without not drawing attention to yourself, unless it's where no one can see it. And if it's where no one can see it, what's the point? The "sole purpose" of tattoos and piercings is to draw attention to the wearer or bearer. I don't care if the person possessing them wears them for a right purpose, because the very nature of piercings and tattoos is to draw attention. Whether worn with good intent or bad, they are intended to and do draw attention.
</blockquote>

To answer your question (and I am a christian who got a tattoo after coming to Christ) from my point of view. You address that if the tattoo is where no one can see it then I am not drawing attention to myself. Agreed. I have a tattoo on my chest clearly visible when my shirt is off, but only then. My tattoo is 1 Corinthians 11:31. That is all it says. I know what the verse is and I got it as a staunch reminder that everyday I look at myself in the mirror I am to step back and judge my own thoughts and my own actions so that by striving I might become a little better each day by the grace of God. You know today it would be a little weird to build an altar, huh? I'm just going to go set up a pyramid of stones to remind me of what God has done. I chose to build an altar to remind me of what God has done and continues to do. I thought what better place to put that reminder where it would never leave me and where God himself calls his temple and his home on my body.

I think we may have a slight variation in our views, still.
I believe that Christ obeyed the law (the whole Torah) FOR us, which is why we are not required to obey all those laws, except those which he has told us to keep, namely, love God and love your neighbor, and love one another as He loved us. These are the 10 commandments boiled down. So Jesus told us to keep the moral law. Refraining from trimming the corners of my beard (if I had one) is not quite loving my neighbor, as I see it.
I don't believe that we are even now obeying the whole Torah by Christ IN us. He already kept it all FOR us. Right now, we are obeying the 10 by Christ IN us, not the whole Torah.
Yes, we might indirectly obey the spiritual application of the Torah by following Christ's direct commandments, but that is coincidence (meaning that that does not happen because we're supposed to be keeping the Torah).

The Gentiles around when the Torah was given to Israel were not required to keep the Torah. Those laws were given to Israel.
The Gentile nations were required to keep the law written on their consciences, which is the Moral Law, or natural law. Though this is often subdued and twisted, all men have a natural sense of right and wrong.
Those Gentiles are not condemned in hell because they did not obey the Torah. They are now undergoing punishment because nature and their consciences were proof enough of God, and they refused to seek Him out, and in fact willfully perverted and subdued the truth they knew. (See Romans 1 or 2)
The Torah was given to ISRAEL.
Jesus was an Israelite. So He was required to fulfill every aspect of the Torah. He did that. He fulfilled the law. He fulfilled the law FOR us. Now that He is IN us, we have that righteousness. We have, in Him, already fulfilled the WHOLE law. We are not right now fulfill-ING the Torah. We have fulfill-ED the Torah (because of Him).
We are now bound only to those laws that Jesus commanded, which, as you rightly pointed out, are impossible for us to naturally keep.

I don't want to keep "beating a dead horse", but I want to make it clear why the veil does not refer to Jesus' flesh.
Hebrews 10:19-22 (KJV) "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;"

Let's see. Your interpretation made sense at first glance, but in fact, the words "that is to say" hearken back to "a new and living way" not forwards to "his flesh". Let me show you how (in a rather long and round-about grammatical discussion).

What are the "new and living way, which he hath consecrate for us" explaining or clarifying? "The blood of Jesus." So we could parenthesize those clauses without changing the meaning of the text.
Having parenthesized these adjectival clauses, the text now reads:

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us) through the veil, that is to say, his flesh."

Okay, not must different. An adjectival clause is not totally necessary to the general meaning of a sentence (in general; I'm not saying we should take out parts of the Bible, I'm just trying to help us understand this verse), so we can remove them temporarily without destroying the meaning of this text. How does it read now?

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus through the veil, that is to say, his flesh."

We see now that "by the blood of Jesus" and "through the veil" are equally related to "boldness to enter into the holiest" (both of those clauses begin with prepositions relating to "holiest"), so we can switch their order without changing the meaning of the sentence. Now it reads:

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter through the veil by the blood of Jesus, that is to say, his flesh."

We see now quite clearly that "His flesh" is "the blood of Jesus." Now we can put back the adjectival clauses where they belong, right after "Jesus." The text now reads:

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest through the veil by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, that is to way, his flesh."

This last sentence has grammatically the same meaning as the original sentence (we just switched the order of equal clauses), but now we see clearer that "the blood of Jesus…a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us" is "his flesh".
The original text again:
"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh."
I hope you see the logic (meaning) of this text now.
The veil is not His flesh. His flesh did not separate us from knowing, seeing, and being reconciled to God. His flesh was the means by which the veil was torn.
I hope you got all that! ;-)

Okay, I just wanted to reiterate that the Law is dead. its only function now is to regulate the wicked. The law was not made for the righteous but for the lawless and disobedient

Like Octavious stated; the law which Paul described in Rom 2 is pretty much what we have left besides obeying the first and second commandment, as Christians.

There has to be some laws or anarchy will occur and we are to obey the laws of the land we are in as well.

The Ten commandments were not just some nice little code to go by but a strict code of justice and retribution that carried the death penalty for most infractions as well as many of the other laws.
There was no re-set button when you broke one.

Keeping or obeying the law saved nobody and never made anyone righteous and will never ever save anyone or make anyone righteous.

The Israelite's never attained unto righteousness from keeping the law or obeying it.
Rom 9:31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

They couldn’t keep it. Its impossible to keep. Jn 7:19 did not Moses give you the law but none of you keepeth the law?

The law is a yoke about our necks that we are not able to bear.

Act's 15: 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

The Law made nothing perfect.

Heb 7:19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Yes, the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and was merely a shadow of the heavenly things to come but God has replaced it ( in answer to your previous question ) the old Covenant is not for us but we are are given a new and better covenant.
The old had to be replaced :
Heb7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers….

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb10 : 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Trying to keep the law is going about to establish your own righteousness. Self rightness

phil 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

The old testament law, like I said is history, choc full of good spiritual lessons, shadows of the good things that came.

Which you seem to have a talent for seeing the parallels, pretty impressive to say the least. God bless you!

But Paul had to have a show down with Peter when Peter was trying to get the gentiles to keep the law.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

To me the Law is dead.

Here is another verse which speaks directly to the non-applicability of the entire Torah to us in the sense of us needing to obey it. Hebrews 8:13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
The old covenant (along with the law of the old covenant) is obsolete, growing old, and ready to vanish away. We are not required to keep or obey it (Christ has fulfilled it in full). What we are required to keep and obey is the law of the new covenant, namely, LOVE, which is a summation of "Love God; love your neighbor," which in turn is a summation of the 10 commandments, the moral law, or natural law, whatever you want to call it.
The Torah useless? By no means!
The Torah New Covenant Law? By no means!
Then by what law are we guided?
Are we to sin because we are no longer under law but under grace?
Are we to sin that grace may abound?
BY NO MEANS!!! (says Paul)
1 Corinthians 13 gives a detailed description of love. It is indeed the fulfillment of the law. It IS our law. And every man, Jew or Greek is condemned by disobedience to it, unlike the Torah, the breaking of which only the Jews (to whom it was given) are guilty.

One last thing. I see now that it is stretching it a bit to say that
Christ's words "It is finished" apply to the Old Covenant law and system. Strictly, in the context, He is talking about the work of redemption. That was finished.
However, the tearing of the veil shows that the old covenant system and law were abolished (obsolete).

Hey, blewis18! Welcome to the discussion! Thanks for your input!
I have softened my position somewhat since my last comment.
There ARE cases where tattoos are God-honoring, but they are very few.
In your case, I would not have done that, but I can't say that it was wrong for you to do it. In fact, it is a help to you, as you pointed out.

But at the same time, in everything we do (especially in things that are efforts to glorify God), we must evaluate what it does to our bodies. Since you are here commenting, your tattoo obviously didn't cause you permanent damage. However, the only way to get a tattoo is to cause harm (though it is temporary and limited) to your body. It hurts to get a tattoo, as I'm sure you can testify. That's because it's cutting your body.
It's kinda like if I took a knife and did the same thing. Although there are granted differences, it's the same concept.
Personally, I wouldn't cut myself with a knife, so why would I cut myself with a needle and put ink under my skin?
Cutting myself (with a knife or a needle) as a way to grow in holiness and as a way to worship God, has in my mind a lot of connotations with pagan worship of their gods, and I don't want to worship God like the pagans do. God wants us to worship Him differently.
In your case, it was different. No one sees it except yourself. That's not what a pagan would do. They would make sure it was visible.
So there is a healthy level of difference in your case.
I think if someone is going to get one at all, you are a good example of how to do it. Make it modest, not exaggerated or eye-catching, or make it invisible to the people you interact with day-to-day.

But for me, the pagan connotations would be too much to overcome, besides the fact that a tattoo is willfully causing damage to the body God has given me to steward, no matter what the tattoo says or where it is.
Was/is your motive good? Yes. Have the results been good? From what you said, yes. But I would say that there is a better way to go about it. I don't think personally that God wants us worshiping Him by causing pain to ourselves and changing the appearance of our bodies.

Hey, blewis18! Welcome to the discussion! Thanks for your input! I have softened my position somewhat since my last comment. There ARE cases where tattoos are God-honoring, but they are very few. In your case, I would not have done that, but I can't say that it was wrong for you to do it. In fact, it is a help to you, as you pointed out. But at the same time, in everything we do (especially in things that are efforts to glorify God), we must evaluate what it does to our bodies. Since you are here commenting, your tattoo obviously didn't cause you permanent damage. However, the only way to get a tattoo is to cause harm (though it is temporary and limited) to your body. It hurts to get a tattoo, as I'm sure you can testify. That's because it's cutting your body. It's kinda like if I took a knife and did the same thing. Although there are granted differences, it's the same concept. Personally, I wouldn't cut myself with a knife, so why would I cut myself with a needle and put ink under my skin? Cutting myself (with a knife or a needle) as a way to grow in holiness and as a way to worship God, has in my mind a lot of connotations with pagan worship of their gods, and I don't want to worship God like the pagans do. God wants us to worship Him differently. In your case, it was different. No one sees it except yourself. That's not what a pagan would do. They would make sure it was visible. So there is a healthy level of difference in your case. I think if someone is going to get one at all, you are a good example of how to do it. Make it modest, not exaggerated or eye-catching, or make it invisible to the people you interact with day-to-day. But for me, the pagan connotations would be too much to overcome, besides the fact that a tattoo is willfully causing damage to the body God has given me to steward, no matter what the tattoo says or where it is. Was/is your motive good? Yes. Have the results been good? From what you said, yes. But I would say that there is a better way to go about it. I don't think personally that God wants us worshiping Him by causing pain to ourselves and changing the appearance of our bodies.

For some reason I just wanted to say I really liked the way you wrote this post C=

Oh, and @Erika: I understand your position a bit better now, but I'm still not sure I agree. I can't shake the feeling that the dietary restrictions about pork, seafood, etc. were designed for Israel and only Israel under the Old Covenant. In my opinion, the fact that God expressly gave man "every living thing that moves" and that God told Peter to not call his creations unclean seems to indicate to me that it was just a special restriction for Israel - like circumcision, an outward thing that makes them distinct. I just get the impression from the Scripture that it was all part of the Old Covenant. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the clear impression I get. I may be wrong; if so, you may try to enlighten me, if you so desire.

Sorry I'm jumping into the discussion a bit late. I have to say that I have read almost none of the comments above, so please don't attack me if it looks like I blatantly ignore some of what you are saying.

I only want to answer what Talia and John Project said in their last comments: @Talia: "In my opinion, the fact that God expressly gave man "every living thing that moves"…" If God literally gave to man everything, then why did He bring into the ark two of every unclean animal, and seven of every clean animal? The "dietary restrictions" wouldn't even be set for several hundred years!
"…and that God told Peter to not call his creations unclean…" Many interpret this to mean that we can eat pork, etc. This was not the meaning of the vision that Peter had. In the next chapter, Peter describes his vision to Jews who were complaining to him about his eating with uncircumcised people. The meaning of this vision was not that God took away his restriction on meat, but "that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
"…seems to indicate to me that it was just a special restriction for Israel - like circumcision, an outward thing that makes them distinct." What do you think the purpose of the food restrictions were? The only thing that I can think of is to protect God's chosen people from unhealthy foods, or foods that are likely to be infected. Even if God did lift this restriction, wouldn't it still be wise to follow the restrictions in order to protect our bodies?

@john project: (BTW I like the way you expose your views using Scripture. Although I do not agree with everything you are saying, I still like the way you do it.) Jesus said that he did not come to do away with, but to fulfill. Jesus did not do away with the law (i. e. make it dead), but he fulfilled it.
"[The Law's] only function now is to regulate the wicked." What do you mean by this? Doesn't "wicked" mean "lawless"? And what country do you know of that now uses the Old Covenant as the basis for regulating the wicked? "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Romans 7:7
So you say that the law is dead. It seems to me that you are implying that Christians can do whatever they want. I hope you don't believe that but I am just saying.
"The Law made nothing perfect." This idea occurs several times in your exposition. I totally agree with you. So are you saying that the Old Covenant was faulty? It was God's covenant that he used for many years before the Christ came to earth. (Now I am not saying it was "fault-less", for Hebrews 8:7 clearly contradicts that. The Old Covenant was "faulty" in the sense that it was not as good as the New (if it was perfect, it would not have needed adding onto), but not in the same sense that you are talking about.) No, the law did not make anything perfect. It now serves as a mirror to look at and see our need for the Saviour. But that is not its only purpose. We use it as a reminder from God of what he does not like.
So to me, the Law was not replaced by the New Covenant. Instead, it was added on to (fulfilled) by the New Covenant. Yes, many of the things in the Old Covenant were clearly done away with in the New Covenant (e. g. circumcision). But that does not mean that the law is dead.

I'm not going to be responding to everything, I just want to make a quick note here:

You said:
"'…seems to indicate to me that it was just a special restriction for Israel - like circumcision, an outward thing that makes them distinct.' What do you think the purpose of the food restrictions were? The only thing that I can think of is to protect God's chosen people from unhealthy foods, or foods that are likely to be infected. Even if God did lift this restriction, wouldn't it still be wise to follow the restrictions in order to protect our bodies?"

To answer your first question: I just said that I thought the purpose of them was, at least in part, to make Israel distinct from other nations. But I also think that it was to protect from unhealthy foods, which I will expound upon later.
To answer your second question: Yes…and no. Pigs can carry diseases such as the parasitic worm Trichinella spiralis, which would be a big problem in the ancient Israelites' time. But now, as we are able to cook meat more thoroughly and kill such worms, the danger is vastly reduced.
So basically, yes, I do think that God was at least partially motivated by wanting to protect Israel at that time, but now I don't think the risk is that great. Yeah, you MIGHT get diseases from pork (possibly), and it's fatty, and there's not a thing wrong from abstaining from pork - I just don't think everyone MUST abstain from pork and to do otherwise is sin.

The example of Noah's ark is interesting, though. I never really thought about that.

One last point, though: what about Romans 14:2-3? In the ESV, it reads, "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him." Yes, I know the main topic at hand here was meat sacrificed to idols, but it still seems to state rather blatantly that you shouldn't pass judgment on people who eat anything.

The entire chapter of Romans 14 seems to be saying, "Eat whatever you want, unless it causes a brother to stumble - it's better to restrict yourself than to put a stumbling block in your brother's way." So I would definitely never eat pork or any foods banned in the OT in front of anyone who thought it was wrong to do so. Nonetheless, I don't think it's sinful to eat such foods in and of itself, partially because of other things Romans 14 says:

Paul states in verse 14, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." Verse 20 says, "Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats."

Good points about Romans 14. I try not to judge those who eat "unclean" foods (and I'm sorry if my last comment appeared to be that way!) We do not eat them in the home or in the church, but as Erika said, if they are set before me when I am a guest in another's house, I eat it. It would not bring glory to God to refuse their well-meant hospitality.

And anyhow, it is very hard to avoid "unclean" foods nowadays! Many things like gelatin and some breads have materials from animals forbidden to be eaten in Leviticus. You never know what foods have in them nowadays!

Wait a minute… if we should keep the dietary laws, why should we not also keep the appointed festivals and perform the appointed sacrifices? Of course, Christ fulfilled those in His life and on the cross. "Fulfilled" here means that we no longer need to practice them; why shouldn't it mean that with regards to the dietary laws?

Also, you said in response to John Project, "So you say that the law is dead. It seems to me that you are implying that Christians can do whatever they want. I hope you don't believe that but I am just saying." You sound similar to the potential objector Paul anticipated in Romans 6. This objector was probably just taking Paul's argument to its seemingly logical conclusion, as you are. But the true logical conclusion is different than the one you described. (Of course, these arguments are slightly different, but both say that the statements they are opposing imply that Christians have a license to go on sinning.) As you probably well know, Paul answered this potential objector by saying in Romans 6:1-2, "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"

Paul is here saying that just because we are no longer bound by the law after salvation does not give us a license to do whatever we want. Our argument is that we no longer have to keep the law, that it is obsolete for Christians. You argued that this seems to give us a license to sin, as the objector did. But I can give you the same answer: We do not have to keep the law, but we will not continue to sin to our heart's content when we are freed from the law's burden–instead, we are so grateful to our Savior that we want to keep His law, and He gives us strength to do so. I am sure you already knew this, but it seems to give a good answer to your objection.

SavedByGrace - If I may interject, I think the confusion lies in that word "law." You sound (to them) like you're contradicting yourself by saying that we should not sin (i.e. disobey the law) and then saying that we can "disobey" certain parts (i.e. dietary restrictions). So maybe you need to clarify that for them.

Okay, I see. I believe that the law that all men are commanded to keep perfectly, or they will go to hell, is the Ten Commandments, summed up in "Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself." (Obviously, though, believers don't have to keep this law perfectly, because Christ already did it for them, but, as I said in my last comment, Christians are so grateful to Christ that they want to keep the law, and He gives them strength to do so.) Anyway, this is what I believe is the law. Sorry I didn't realize this difference. :)

@SBG:You have a good point. I agree, my does sound rather similar to Romans 6. I just think that saying "The law is dead" is rather extreme-sounding.

I will go on keeping the "dietary restrictions", which is to me still a good law and not hard to keep. There is really nothing appealing about pigs to me anyway. :P You have given me something to think about, though.

I would love to see these post continued about the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant.
Also how do you think this relates to Covenant Theology vs. New Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism?

Whew, holy cow. Ya'll are really getting into this. lol, is it a battle to see who can give the longest answer? Some of those posts are like 1,000 word essays! xDDDD As a result, I couldn't read every one from start to finish. (since I don't get on the forums regularly) So my apologies if what I am about to say is useless and unhelpful.

I actually am taking an OT/NT Survey this year, and we have also been studying these things in Sunday School. For the Survey class, we had a forum about this, and here is what I posted as a summary of what I believe to be the function of the OT law (mostly the second paragraph).

"In Deuteronomy 6:4-9, directly after the restatement of the Ten Commandments, God speaks to the people, saying, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. [italics mine] Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates" (New International Version 1984). God gives similar instructions in many other places throughout the Old Testament. Evidently, these laws were intended to be passed down from generation to generation. In the New Testament, Christ proclaims, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (New International Version 1984, Matthew 5:17). What does it mean that Christ has fulfilled the law? How should Christians view it today?

As Dr. Kauk presented in class, there are two ways to understand the Old Testament law through the lense of Jesus. One can either accept everything except that which is prohibited in the New Testament, or he can accept as applicable only that which is reinstituted in the New Testament. I tend to lean toward the second suggestion for the following reason. Paul repeatedly states throughout his letters that the old law is obsolete in Jesus (Heb. 7:8; 2 Cor. 3:12; Heb. 8:13; etc.). While the Old Testament law provided a means to appease God before Christ, Christians today have a new standard for living which is, in a sense, above and beyond the Old Testament law (Matthew 5). As a result, we have no necessity to follow any of the Old Testament law. Then why do Christians still practice some of the things written in it? We do this not because the old law says to, but rather, because Jesus commands it. In Matthew 7:12 Jesus teaches, "[D]o to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." As demonstrated by this quote, many of Jesus' commands are quite similar to those in the Old Testament. Yet we do not follow them because of the old covenant, but because of the new covenant through Jesus. For this reason, I believe the laws of the Old Testament are only applicable if Jesus affirms them in the New Testament."
"

@Anthony Young, thanks for posting. As I was contemplating what to write, my mind went to Galatians 3. This chapter explains the purpose of the law in the New Testament setting. The beginning part of the chapter makes it clear that we do not receive the Holy Spirit by the works of the law. However, the chapter goes on to tell us why the law was given. Verse 19 says, "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." It then goes on to say that the law was our "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." Romans 3:20 says, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." According to these passages, the law shows us that we have sin, and it "brings us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (If I am wrong, please correct me.) Therefore, the law does serve a purpose: it shows us that we need a Savior. However, I do not believe that we are "bound" to keep the law. Following Christ should not be burdensome; in fact, He clearly tells us that His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. (Matthew 11:30) Furthermore, Romans 7 seems to indicate that we became dead to the law so that we should be married to another, Who is Christ. (Romans 7:4)

Jesus did not come to destroy the law; rather, He came to fulfill, or complete, it. Indeed, Hebrews 10:1 indicates that the law was incomplete in the sense that those who rigidly followed it could not reach perfection. Therefore, I believe that Jesus perfected the law by allowing us to be saved. This salvation allows us to live by faith rather than by the law.

In short, I don't believe that we are "bound" to keep all of the old covenant laws; yet I do not want to be one to say, "let's keep this law" or "I don't think we should keep this one." I think that Matthew 7:12 as well as 22:37, 39 do a wonderful job of telling us how we should approach the Old Testament law.

I realize that this is pretty jumbled, and may be hard to read, but I hope this helps. I am not entirely sure on the subject myself, so I may need to do some research before I arrive at a conclusion about this. Thanks for posting!

Do you believe the sins of the Fathers are past to the children? For example do you think that you and I inherited sins/bad habits/weaknesses that our great grandfather (who perhaps rejected Christ) had?

"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (NKJV)
Exodus 20:5-6 (also Exodus 34:7)

Well, according to Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (KJV).
This seems to indicate that guilt is not transferred. I think what the Exodus verses are saying is that because children commit the same sin as their fathers (generally, children emulate their parents), God will punish the children in the same fashion as He did the parents.

I do believe that every person is responsible for his/her own sin. But when a leader makes a bad diction it effects everyone under him in the same when if an unbeliever makes a bad diction the effects are past on to the next generation. Am I making sense? What do you think?

People get all hung up in Exodus 20 because of their failure to follow 2nd Timothy 2:15 in their Bible study. We are to rightly DIVIDE. If you don't understand that, (the basics of what we call dispensationalism, you'll end up in a lot of trouble with other passages, too. The Old Testament is written for our LEARNING. Not our doctrine. BIG difference. That's why in this dispensation I don't go to Church on Saturday, do temple sacrifices, grow out my beard, refrain ftom eating certain things, or expect to see God physically. I also don't work for my salvation. I'm still saved by the blood, but now its Christ's blood praise God.

If you think I’m using Exodus 20:5-6 for doctrine how would you use it for learning? Jesus Fulfilled the Old Testament, but just because He did doesn’t mean we go murdering and stealing (Matt. 5:17). The Bible stated what science has proven. We have sins that are passed to us from our fathers but by God’s grace we have a way of escape: through the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:13). Praise God!

I did not state that you are using Exodus 20 for doctrine. If you feel that you are, that is something you stated, not me. I don't know how you're using it–but it doesn't seem Biblically correct:)

Let me ask you this. Let's say there's a baby born who never should've been born, the Dad was cheating, and so was the mother. Where do you think that this baby, the product of sin would go if he died just days after he wad born? The Bible states where that child went–heaven. I am talking about David's child. That doesn't fit in with "what science has proven", does it? The Bible warns us to beware of "science falsely so called". I base my docrines on the Bible, not corrupted "science".

The Bible also states that every man will give account for HIMSELF. That means exactly what it says–no scientest needed to interpret it. The only man that was judged for another's sin was Jesus, praise the Lord!

But anyway, how do you interpret Exodus 20:4-5?

Let me give you an example too. A man lies about his wife saying she’s his sister just to save his life, actually, he dose it several times. The men he lies to almost get killed because of it (enemies made). The son of the lying man also lies about his wife (another enemy made). So the son of the lying man’s wife has twin boys and they lie and cheat left and right. Yes, I’m talking about Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Now Israel suffers form the sin’s of their fathers because all those enemies became nations too, all around them.

Also, I think the story of David and Bathsheba is proving my point because David repented (a man after God’s own heart). We have a merciful God. Praise the Lord!

I don't need to interpret Exodus 20–I believe it.

Generational sins were one of the things that nailed Jesus to the cross. Was the death of Christ of none effect? Paul asks this question. The ansqer is no. For as in Adam all died, so as in Christ we were all made alive the Bible states very clearly. At the fall, sins were imputed for generations and generations. But when one trusts in Jesus he is in a new family, and is freed from the generational sins passed down from Adam. Therefore if any man is in Christ he is a new creation, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new. If you state that we are still under the curse of generational sins, you're preaching a blasphemous false religion that mocks Christ death.

Okay… I know I'm not a part of a conversation, but I've been following it. And I wanted to say something.

I'm not taking sides at this point, but, C4C, I just wanted to let you know that if I was an outsider, I don't think I would be attracted to your position. PC is being very honest and respectful in the way she asks her questions, and you come back with snarky replies that don't evidence that you're trying to treat her like you want to be treated.

If you want somebody to actually listen to you, it's not a good idea to start by calling their view a "blasphemos false religion that mocks Christ's death." ;) You know that that's not at all what she believes, so there is no worth in talking to her like that.

Please don't take this as an insult; take it as an observation and a confrontation about something that seems to be somewhat of a blind spot for you. It only makes people antagonistic to your arguments when you don't carry yourself with a loving spirit.

Again, don't take this the wrong way. But please try to tone it down a bit. :)

I am not saying Christ death was of no effect. There is forgiveness and escape from every sin in Jesus. But we will still see our faults and weaknesses in our children. Anger, hypocrisy, pride, slander, deceit… yeah, we’ll get our pay back. What do you think of all that?

@chiefofsinners: Thank you for your defense. I agree with you that C4C dose not use the most flattering speech at times… :) but after talking to a friend about being called “blasphemous” (this is not the first time) I gained a new perspective of how to take it. I am learning a new kind of humility from C4C. But then again, nobody likes to be called blasphemous, and it probably isn’t a good idea to go around saying that whenever you disagree with someone.

“Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.”
Colossians 3:12-17

Thanks for posting, COS. You can join any concersation I am involved in at anytime, I appriceate your thoughts.

If you could give an example of a snarky reply, that'd be much appriceated. I also didn't call PC's view blasphemous–you perverted my words. Unlike yourself, I am not at the point of knowing whay everyone believes, what their blind spots are, etc. That's why I stated earlier in the conversation that I don't know what PC believes. That's why my statement was conditional. Unlike what you just did to me, I am not judging her, accussing her, or condemning her. And once again, you're lying when you stated that I called her view blasphemous, because that is simply not what I said. I actually said: "Ifyou state that we are still under the curse of generational sins, you're preaching a blasphemous false religien that mocks Christ's deat h. Note the usage of the word "if". Once again, I didn't label her doctrine as that, I just presented the gospel how Paul would.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally dishonest by pulling my qoutes out od context mid sentence, or if you're blind spot is simply a lack of dilligence in neglecting to read my post in its intirety,

COS, would you mind reading my post again. No, it hasn't been edited…but it's prettu obvious you never read it in it's entirety, because i take it for granted you are not being intentionally deceitful.

I didn't call your view blasphemous. I don't think its a good idea to pervery someone's words in a pharisee like fashion just because you don't agree with them.

Well, would you like me to delete it? :) I wasn't talking to you.

I realize that you did not call me blasphemes. I know you mean well. It’s just easy for US as SINNERS to read and take things wrong. I’m not trying to be like a Pharisee. Really, please believe me!
Can we get back to the subject?

You weren't talking to me? What difference does it make to whom something is directed? An untruth is an untruth no matter whp you're talking to. And, to say you're not talking to someone when you're talking ABOUT them on a public form is kind of strange to me…

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Will you please forgive me? Can we just forget it now???

Yeah! Back to the topic, could you define your definition of generational sins?

Well, I think it’s kind of like this: Let’s say my grandfather was addicted to alcohol. Then I would have the same inclination and weakness… its in my blood. But whether or not I feed that weakness is up to me. It would be my own sin if I became a drunkard.

P.S. Sorry, that wasn’t exactly a definition. I’ll try to come up with a real definition soon…

PC, that's called sin. We all have an inclination to sin, no matter how Holy or unholy our parents were. It's our flesh/sinful nature. Does that make sense?

Yes, I understand that we all have a sin nature… BTW, I wasn’t the one who came up with the term “generational sin” in this discussion.

But here is my best try at what I mean by generational sin: the blunders passed on to the next generation; an inclination to make the same blunders as ones folks.

Did that make any sense? Somehow I think its lame… I’ll try to come up with verses to back up what I’m saying. Got to go now! :)

Hey, C4C… so, you want to know some of your comments that could be easily taken as quite mean-spirited? Well, here are some examples that I found on this page alone.

"Unlike what you just did to me, I am not judging her, accusing her, or condemning her."
Christian's comment was a very polite one, and he was doing anything but condemning or accusing you. Your words were not necessary.

"You're lying when you said I called her view blasphemous."
C4C, even if he is wrong, he was NOT lying. Lying is intentional deceit, and that is not (as you yourself said later) what Christian was doing. I have to say that you use this word too flippantly.

"I don't think its a good idea to pervert someone's words in a Pharisee-like fashion just because you don't agree with them."
Even if someone was doing this, you have the ability to tone down the adjectives you use–and you should, because everything we do to each other should be in love. But I honestly don't think that she was being a Pharisee at all; so your comment was even less necessary.

I really don't like to have to call you out on these things, C4C, but I feel that I need to. Please realize, I am not doing this just to make you look bad or to judge you! I am doing this all in love, trying to show you that you are not being kind and loving to your fellow Christians. I would advise that you work on this a little. I admire your boldness, but sometimes… you go just a little too far. :) Thanks for understanding. :)

Okay. I’m…. well,…. confused. Being as open minded as I could on this subject, I looked up as many verses as I thought could apply. I was not just including sin, and iniquity, but also judgment and mercy… anything imputed to the next generation. This is what I found:

Ex. 34:7 - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Num. 14:18 - The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Ex. 20:5-6 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Deuteronomy 5:9 - Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

Rom. 2:4-9 - Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

1 Kings 2:33 - Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD.

1 Kings 21:29 - …I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house.

Isaiah 14:21- Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

Jeremiah 32:18 - Thou showest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,

Mathew 23:31-33 - Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

These are the verses that support what you were saying more (if you have time):

Luke 1:50 - And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

Rom. 11:28 - As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Rom. 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

2 Kings 14:6 - But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Deuteronomy 24:16 - The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31:29-30 - In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deut. 7:9 - Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Jeremiah 32:18 - Thou showest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,

To be honest I was hoping to find more in the New Testament. What do you think now? Thanks for your tolerant with me on this topic. It didn't have to be so rough… :S

Hi, Princess Cowgirl!

I took a good long look at the verses that you have provided, and it seems to me that they all seem to indicate that God's wrath comes upon individuals for their own sins and not for the sins of others. I think the meaning of the "third and fourth generation" verses is that God's wrath will continue until evil is rooted out in His people (these verses are meant to show the justice and persistence of God). We as children (intentionally or unintentionally) imitate our parents/guardians. As we are so closely associated with our parents, we are more likely to follow their example, causing us to be more susceptible to the same strengths and weaknesses. Israel, for instance, in the book of 1 Kings, finds itself at the mercy of kings who emulate their fathers' devotion to idols. Having been taught that idols were worthy of worship, they naturally fell to worshipping them on their own accord. God punished Israel for the sins of the kings and of the people. He continued pouring out his wrath as generation after generation continued in the same sin. This is what I believe verses such as Exodus 34:7 are talking about.

I would, however, like to make a point about the actions God takes throughout the Bible that result in destruction. I believe that God bringing about destruction does not necessarily mean that God is pouring out his wrath. When a person suffers trials, like Job or Horatio Spafford, God is not necessarily lashing out at the sins of the blameless. You can point to the Bible and history, wondering why God killed Job's children, why Horatio Spafford lost his daughters, and why David's census resulted in the death of thousands (2 Samuel 24). The answer is not that the victims were punished for their sins, but rather that He might work his perfect will in the lives of those around them. God's wrath is poured out on those whom He has punished, but that does not mean that all the ills in this world are punishment for sin.

As your verses stated, God's wrath is poured out in response to individual sin. If a trial is God's wrath, then it accompanies sin. Wrath = a response to sin. Trial = God trying to work His good through our lives. I hope that makes sense. :)

When Adam sinned he passed his sin to all of his children…thus we are all born in sin. But then God made a new covenant in which the children are not put to sin for the sins of their father.

@jimmy: Yes, I can see that. The more I think about it the more I agree with your conclusion. It reminds me of what Jesus said in Luke 13:3 about the men of Siloam.

@biblebee: Yes! I think I got it strait now. :)

Thank you everyone!

I've often wondered about this question myself, and haven't been able to come up with a very satisfying answer; thanks so much for your explanation, Jimmy! It was very helpful. :)

I found this discussion intriguing because I have been meditating on this passage specifically for a few years now. The confusion on this issue seems to come from the tendency to interpret Scripture in accordance with various religious phrases we have heard. The term "generational sin" is not in Scripture; however, we very naturally look at Exodus 20:5-6 and think it must be talking about generational sin. Instead of coming to it that way, let's examine what the passage actually says:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. ~ Exodus 20:5-6

"Sin" is not in this passage. "Holding them responsible" isn't in this passage either. Instead, the phrase is "visiting the iniquity." One might say that iniquity is sin - and while it is, the Hebrew word translated "iniquity" is more specific than the word for sin. It means "perversity" - specifically, meditation on perversity. It is the evil thoughts of the heart. It is where sin starts, but it is inner while sin is the outer manifestation of the iniquity. Iniquities must be pardoned (Ps. 25:11) while sins must be forgiven.

Again, the other word used is "visit" - and in Hebrew it simply means "visit." It does not mean we HAVE to walk in our fathers' iniquities; it does not mean their shortcomings are "passed on" to us; it simply means that the iniquities are VISITED upon us. What happens with a visitor? We don't have to let it in! The thought knocks - "Think about this evil" - even when we are very small children. If we let it into our minds and hearts, it comes back. It visits often. By receiving it into ourselves, it becomes not our fathers' iniquity anymore but our iniquity. We do not have to walk in that iniquity, but if our fathers had a weakness in that area, we will have a greater propensity to succumb to that temptation. That is why many of the people in Scripture asked God to pardon the iniquities of their fathers as well as their own iniquities. The chain of visiting needed to be broken.

We see, therefore, that children are not "punished" or "held responsible" for parents' iniquities/sins/transgressions. It is not until iniquities become our own (through our embracing of them) that we become guilty in God's sight and worthy of the consequences and covenant curse for sin/iniquity/transgression.

Thanks for sharing, Erika.

Since we were talking about something like this before I thought I'd post this here. Can anyone explain this verse to me? Why would God bring the calamity the father deserved on a son instead?

"See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his son I will bring the calamity on his house.” 1 Kings 21:29

Why not just do away with calamity all together and come up with something else when the son sinned?

I believe that the whole law still applies, however, there are some commands which can not be followed such as sacrificing, because there is no temple, and stoning children because there is no sanhedrin to judge according to the scripture.

I dissagree with your reasoning, Isaac. All Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore applicable in some way or other, but I believe that the ceremonial law was abolished, symbolised by the tearing of the temple veil and possibly finalized by the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.. The old covenant was broken, and now there is a new one. So there is more than practicality in question.