Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer

Question 2

He argues that people in the Old Testament could be “acting in faith and righteousness because God had not forbidden the things that they were doing,” even when those actions included bloodshed; what does that imply about the relationship between righteousness and moral clarity in different stages of revelation?

Another way to ask: If Old Testament people could be faithful even while doing things God hadn’t forbidden yet (even killing), what does that say about being “righteous” when people don’t have clear moral teaching?

Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
The transcript suggests that “righteousness” in Old Testament contexts sometimes meant faithfulness within limited revelation—obeying what God had (and had not) commanded—rather than possessing the full moral clarity revealed later in Christ.

Support from Transcript:

He states: “there were times… people shed blood… with God’s permission… sometimes… at God’s command.”
Then he draws the conclusion: “these people were acting in faith and righteousness because God had not forbidden the things that they were doing.”
He ties this to the larger claim that God’s “perfect or ultimate will” was not fully revealed “until the time of Christ.”
He gives multiple examples of permitted practices (divorce, polygamy, war, kingship) to show that permission is not identical to God’s ultimate desire.
He also stresses that when God did speak clearly, obedience was required: “when He gave specific commands, He expected His people to obey them.”

Discussion Follow-ups If moral clarity increases as revelation increases, what should Christians do with commands or narratives that appear morally troubling? How does Christ function as the final standard without dismissing the Old Testament as meaningless?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10