How Did OT Believers Overcome Sin "nature?"

[Guest]

Hi Micah, I'm no expert on this i'm really just speculating but I think it was Dan 12 where the prince of Persia (some demonic spirit) slowed down angels from helping Daniel so clearly there was some type of power that Satanic forces had and if they had it there then it was probably in the OT a lot but veiled.
By "fighting spiritually" i mean the way Paul described in Eph 6 , putting on the full armor of God. And James said "resist the devil and he will FLEE." And Peter said "the devil is LIKE a roaring lion" he is like , but he really isn't one because "stronger is He that is in us then he who is in the world."
I'm not sure if this is scriptural but sometimes i command the devil to be ineffective and binded, but that may not be scriptural.

The only reason I bring up Daniel's prayer is because of the passage in Mark 9 where it talks about the demon possessed boy and the disciples asked why they couldn't cast the demon out:

28 When He came into the house, His disciples began questioning Him privately, "Why could we not drive it out?"

29 And He said to them, "This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer."

It seems to me that Jesus is referring to prayer as a spiritual weapon and I think Daniel was using this same kind of weapon for his situation.

[Guest]

Hello, TK (and all),

Did the OT believers have anything at their disposal to help them win this struggle?

They had: (1) elective ability, in the image of their creator; (2) psychological tendencies toward godliness, in the image of their creator; (3) direct access to their creator through prayer; (4) the revelation of God, through nature, human and angelic agencies, and theophany; (5) the empowerment of God's holy spirit; (6) the capacity for rational analysis and creative problem-solving; and (7) on the Sabbath they rested (some of them, anyway).

does the absence of any such means explain some of the barbarity in the OT, even by "believers?"

Has the presence of such means eliminated barbarity in the church age, even by "believers"?

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Micah wrote:

However, in essence wasn't the sacrificial system supposed to lead you to a repentant heart and therefore towards a righteous life? It seems that was one of the points Hosea 6:6 where the sacrifice was being done in vain, without repentance.

i agree with steve7150 that the sacrificial system, i.e. the fact of killing an animal, falls short of what Christ has done for us by empowering us to overcome sin. however, i also agree with Micah, that if you have to cut a cute little lambs throat and watch the blood gush out all over the place, then you might think twice the next time you think about sinning. a gentleman named Art Katz has a sermon that addresses this very point called "jesus christ vs julius caesar- a study of two deaths." its available at sermonindex.net and the first 15 minutes or so is powerful. one of the main points of his sermon is that modern christians, to a large extent, have lost the idea of what sin costs.

Emmett wrote:

Has the presence of such means eliminated barbarity in the church age, even by "believers"?

your quotation marks around the word "believer" answer your own question. people that claim to be christians but committed barbarous acts in the crusades or whenever were likely not christians at all, at least in my opinion. good point though!

TK

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your response!

Quote:
Has the presence of such means eliminated barbarity in the church age, even by "believers"?

your quotation marks around the word "believer" answer your own question. people that claim to be christians but committed barbarous acts in the crusades or whenever were likely not christians at all, at least in my opinion.

I included the quotation marks in parallel to your original comment. But we need to be cautious about appraisals of barbarity, etc. God does not always appear to be civilized himself, so perhaps barbarity does not always disqualify his prospective servants.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Sorry about that, Emmett-- i forgot i used quotation marks. touche!

you are right about assessing barbarity. but one thing comes suddenly to mind-- in the OT David killed a man who told him that he (the man) had put king saul out of his misery (at saul's request) because saul had fell on his sword but was not yet dead. david killed the man because he did not think it was right for the man to kill God's anointed, so david had him killed too.

conversely, peter and the other apostles werent out seeking to assassinate caiphas and the rest of the gang who railroaded jesus, although Peter did get in their face about it.

TK

[Guest]

now for my question: we know that in Romans Ch 7 paul documents the struggle between the flesh and the new nature in Christ

Romans chapter 7 documents no such struggle. It depicts the struggle of a man trying ot obey the law WITHOUT Christ. Romans 8 describes the victory over the law of sin and death through the new birth and walking in it.

[Guest]

Hi, TK,

Thank you for your response.

you are right about assessing barbarity. but one thing comes suddenly to mind-- in the OT David killed a man who told him that he (the man) had put king saul out of his misery (at saul's request) because saul had fell on his sword but was not yet dead. david killed the man because he did not think it was right for the man to kill God's anointed, so david had him killed too. conversely, peter and the other apostles werent out seeking to assassinate caiphas and the rest of the gang who railroaded jesus, although Peter did get in their face about it.

I think that it is important, when comparing OT and NT ethics, to factor in the differing contexts (and by this, I mean ethical contexts); this often attenuates apparent inconsistencies. In this case, David's ethical responsibilities differ from those of Peter and his counterparts. David was a monarch, responsible for executing justice and maintaining the public order. As such, when faced with a regicide, it is understandable that David should act decisively: on the one hand, he had a responsibility to provide for the legal consequence for murder; on the other hand, discouraging the taking of an anointed king's life was important to preserving the stability of the public order. David's action in this department was not necessarily barbaric, but ethically justifiable given his personal role and responsibility.

Peter and his counterparts, on the other hand, were not monarchs or governmental agents in the public sphere. As such, it was their ethical responsibility to withhold from arrogating the dispensing of public justice to themselves; that role properly belonged to other persons. Much of the apparent discontinuity between OT and NT ethics can be resolved by recognizing where the OT is providing for a corporate/public/enfranchised ethic, and the NT for an individual/private/disenfranchised ethic. Two such ethics may rightly stand side-by-side, with each holding sway depending on the ethical context.

Shalom,
Emmet