Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

[BobRyan]

BR: As Paul points out in Romans 3 and in Romans 7 - God's Law "defines sin". God's Law is among other things - a written transcript of God's perfect will.

HP: First, thank you BR for your input this far. So far I believe BR is the only one that has attempted to define moral law. Lets look at his comments briefly. He says, “God's Law "defines sin.” OK, but that begs the question, what is sin? If we go back to Scripture and find that sin is a transgression of the law, we have in reality gained little by this one so far that I can tell.

BR's second remark was, “God's Law is among other things - a written transcript of God's perfect will.” Here again that begs the question, what is God’s perfect will? Not to dismiss what BR has added, still yet I find that in reality somewhat less than defining God’s moral law. I still give BR thumbs up for giving it an honest attempt. :thumbsup:

In my estimation, I can think of no other way to begin to understand law, and moral law, apart from first defining law and moral law respectively, and then move on to recognizing some clear attibutes of moral law.

It has been said that, ‘law is a rule of action with sanctions,’ so moral law would be ‘a rule of moral law with sanctions.’ Moral law governs over the actions of free will alone. Moral law does not govern over matters of necessity, but rather things of necessity would be ruled by the laws of nature. So as we see, there are two opposing realms of law, one ruling over things of necessity and one ruling over the free acts of the will. If the will of man is not free, moral law cannot govern or rule over its intents or actions. I see that as one of the most basic concepts we need to grasp if we are going to begin to understand moral law. Without this basic understanding of moral law, confusion will reign in any discussion of ceremonial law as we go along.

Is there anyone that would disagree with the comments made so far or would add or clarify any point? Do all agree that moral law governs over free acts of the will alone, and not acts driven by neccesity?

In Jer 31:32 Jeremiah says that God writes His Law on the heart under the New Covenant.

In Romans 7 Paul quotes from the Ten Commandments and says that the Law is what defines sin.

in James 2 - James quotes from the Ten Commandments - calling them the "Law of Liberty" -- He also quotes from Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor" calling it the "Royal Law"

Christ in Matt 22 includes Lev 19:18 along with Deut 6:5 "Love God with all of your heart"

In Eph 6:1-3 Paul says that the fith commandment is "the first commandment with a promise" thus continuing to affirm the "unit" of Ten.

So the first and "easiest" definition for the Law of God is the Ten Commandments and also Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5.

Heb 9:4 it is "only the Ten Commandments" that were kept inside the ark.
Deut 10:2.

"He spoke these TEN words and added no more" Deut 5:22

Thus it is clear that when Jeremiah said that God writes His "Law upon the heart" under the New Covenant the Ten Commandments were understood by the author and the readers to be a distinct UNIT of Law.

And clearly from Christ's Matt 22 statements on Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 - the Ten Commandents were not considered by Christ or the Jews listening to him to be the "only commandments" in God's Word that had binding authority as LAW.

So when Paul speaks of "keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 it is clear that the Ten Commandments are part of what is being spoken of -

(Covering the easy - most obvious points first)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BR: In Lev 17 we see the law as it relates to food - the prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled (abstaining from eating blood) - and Acts 15 council continues to uphold that as moral law.

HP: I need time to reflect carefully on this one. I certainly do not know if in fact I have ever eaten something strangled. I do not believe so, but how could one be absolutely certain in today’s stores? I do not believe I have eaten blood, nor would if I knew if it was blood, but again I am not certain that it is a ‘moral’ issue. My gut tells me that it is not necessarily, but I do not have a good answer as to why I would believe it not to be at the moment. You have me thinking.

HP: Again, I am thinking concerning this issue. I remain unconvinced at the moment that the food laws of Lev. 17 are indeed moral laws..

Under the New Covenant - the Law of God is written on the heart. (this is an OT concept documented in Jer 31:32.)

Step one is just to get to the "unit of Ten" mentioned both in OT and NT and the idea that other laws such as Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 outside the strict unit of Ten also apply - also define the boundaries for obedience vs sin.

The second step is - the point that the Bible contains 66 books - not just 27 nor merely 23 (for those who think the pre-cross teaching of Christ should also be tossed out the window).

The third step is to notice affirmation of OT commands in the NT - such as is the case in Acts 15 - affirming Lev 17 as a binding obligation on NT Gentile Christians.

BTW - I have been to a major meat-packing slaughter house in the U.S - and the animals are typically hung upside down and drained as part of the process in killing them. They are not strangled.

However - I don't know what the case is for chicken.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

HP: What? The verse you quoted says no such thing, neither does it in any way imply such notion. Violation of moral law always carries a penalty, without which it would not be 'law.' You can ask anyone from Adam to the last knee bowing and you will in the end get the same answer.

There are two basic types of law:
1. Apoditic--Law stated as truth without penalty. Most of the Ten Commandments are apoditic in nature.
An example: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy soul, thy mind..
Honor they father and thy mother.
--There are no stated penalties. These are the right things to do all the time in every society. It is the moral law.

2. Causuistic. Laws in which penalities are attached. Most of our civil laws are causuistic. Most of the laws in the book of Exodus are stated in this way.
All the laws concerning adultery had specific penalties attached to them.
All the laws concerning theft had specific penalties attached to them.

 

[BobRyan]

Children were to be stoned if the Parents found them to be beyond their control. So "yes" there was a "civil penalty" that came into play on the subject of honoring parents - if the problem reached an extreme.

However Roman 6:23 provides the "penalty" for violation of God's Laws including those not subject to "civil penalties".

It would be a big mistake to suppose that moral laws about coveting for example are not actually "sin" - not punishable by the 2nd death torment in fire and brimstone (Rev 14, Rev 20) if they are not ALSO punishable by civil law in a Theocracy.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul has a good comparison of Moral to ceremonial law - in 1Cor 7 -

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

 

[DHK]

Paul has a good comparison of Moral to ceremonial law - in 1Cor 7 -

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

You would have to more specific Bob. There is not one verse here that refers to the OT ceremonial Law, not one.

 

[BobRyan]

Far be it from me to insist that the OT ceremonial law is still in effect.

In fact I would argue from Heb 10 that all the sacrifices and offerings of the OT have come to an end.

Thus the contrast between circumcision and "The Commandments of God" that we see in 1Cor 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Far be it from me to insist that the OT ceremonial law is still in effect.

In fact I would argue from Heb 10 that all the sacrifices and offerings of the OT have come to an end.

Thus the contrast between circumcision and "The Commandments of God" that we see in 1Cor 7.

in Christ,

Bob

There is no quoting of God's law in this chapter. Your argument is self defeating. If anything it is a doing away with the law. Read the verse instead proof-texting it.

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but keeping God's commandments. (Darby)

What does that say about ceremonial law? It is nothing!!!!
Circumcision is nothing.
If you read the context--marriage--your status is nothing. You both are one in Christ whether circumcised or uncircumcised, whether bond or free. It doesn't matter. The chapter is about marriage. There is not one reference to the law.

The commandments of God
Look here if you want to go outside of this chapter; othewise don't go outside the chapter:

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves.

That is a commandment of God.
The OT law is not referred to in this chapter at all.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul has a good comparison of Moral to ceremonial law - in 1Cor 7 -

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

There is no quoting of God's law in this chapter. Your argument is self defeating. If anything it is a doing away with the law.

How so?

(BTW - since we are on the subject of the NT author's speaking to this teaching about the "Commandments of God" ... more Bible coming up)


Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Notice that in Mark 7 Christ includes the 5th commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" in the "Commandments of God?

No wonder Paul said - that they "matter".

Interesting how the Bible is in perfect harmony when addressing this topic.

What does that say about ceremonial law? It is nothing!!!!
Circumcision is nothing.

Indeed - the Commandments of God are to be upheld even in the case where the ceremonial law and the ritual of circumcision is at an end.

How perfectly logical and fitting.


19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Keep telling yourself that DHK - but it needs something like the support of scripture to be compelling in a discussion with others.

Look here if you want to go outside of this chapter; othewise don't go outside the chapter:

It is called "exegesis" - noticing the same author on the same subject - and also noticing other Bible writers adding insight for us on the same subject.

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you,

Sounds a little bit like "Love your Neighbor as yourself" Matt 22 (Christ speaking as HE quotes Lev 19:18) does it not?

Indeed it is - read Lev 19:18. Notice how God affirms it in Matt 22 as Christ upholds it. Notice also that James does the same thing in James 2 - just as does Paul in Rom 13 appeal to the Lev 19:18 form of that command.

Which leads us to the way that D.L. Moody himself spoke about the Commandments of God...


Fundamental Baptist Institute
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

GOD'S HANDWRITING​

Let me call your attention to the fact that God wrote on the tables of stone at Sinai as well as on the wall of Belshazzar's palace.

These are the only messages to men that God has written with His own hand. He wrote the commandments out twice, and spoke them aloud in the hearing of Israel.

If it were known that God Himself were going to speak once again to man, what eagerness and excitement there would be! For nearly nineteen hundred years He has been silent. No inspired message has been added to the Bible for nearly nineteen hundred years. How eagerly all men would listen if God should speak once more. Yet men forget that the Bible is God's own Word, and that it is as truly His message today as when it was delivered of old. The law that was given at Sinai has lost none of its solemnity. Time cannot wear out its authority or the fact of its authorship.

I can imagine someone saying, "I won't be weighed by that law. I don't believe in it."

Now men may cavil as much as they like about other parts of the Bible, but I have never met an honest man that found fault with the Ten Commandments. Infidels may mock the Lawgiver and reject Him who has delivered us from the curse of the law, but they can't help admitting that the commandments are right. Renan said that they are for all nations, and will remain the commandments of God during all the centuries.
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Why are you still trying to read OT ceremonial law into a NT chapter on marriage which doesn't refer to the law at all. You are reading into a verse that which is not there Bob, and no one is being deceived about it.

 

[BobRyan]

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

Why are you still trying to read OT ceremonial law into a NT chapter

I keep thinking that the reference to circumcision is directing us to OT consider the OT ceremonial system.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

on marriage which doesn't refer to the law at all.

I keep agreeing with Bible students who study this topic that "Commandments of God" are "Law".


Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Notice that in Mark 7 Christ includes the 5th commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" in the "Commandments of God?

 

[DHK]

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

I keep thinking that the reference to circumcision is directing us to OT consider the OT ceremonial system.

But as you can see from the Scripture that you posted (if you care to look at it without bias) it clearly is not.
What is the concluding verse?

24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
--It has nothing to do with ceremonial law at all. It simply indicates that whatever state a person is in so let him remain. There is no mention of ceremonial law here. You are reading into this chapter (on marriage) something that is not there.

I keep agreeing with Bible students who study this topic that "Commandments of God" are "Law".

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Notice that in Mark 7 Christ includes the 5th commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" in the "Commandments of God?

Now you are just proof-texting, taking any verse you can find, ignoring context, and fitting them into this passage, though they have nothing to do with the topic--marriage. The "commandments of God" mentioned in 1Cor.7:19 refer to marriage, the topic of the chapter. But you have taken it out of its context and try to put every thing else under the sun, including OT law, which is way out of context. This type of hermeneutics is typical of almost every cult.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that the "Commandments of God" is a phrase used more than once in the NT - and exegesis shows that the term "does have meaning". This point is pretty easy to see given the texts listed below.



Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Notice that in Mark 7 Christ includes the 5th commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" in the "Commandments of God?


By contrast Paul compares ceremonial ordinances such as circumcision and says that the Commandments of God ARE still valid for the christian even though circumcision is not relevant to salvation.

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

 

[DHK]

I believe that the "Commandments of God" is a phrase used more than once in the NT - and exegesis shows that the term "does have meaning". This point is pretty easy to see given the texts listed below.

Bob, words and phrases are defined by the context in which they are written. That is true for the word "law" as it is for the word "command" or "commandment." The meaning of these words can only be determined by their context. "Commandments" or "Law" do not always refer to the "Ten Commandments" as every student of the Bible knows. Even Satan gives
"commands" and his demons obey him. Are they the same "commands" you are referring to? I hope not! Context alone determines meaning. And the meaning in 1Cor.7:19 refers to marriage. That should be obvious to anyone reading this thread or the chapter of First Corinthians 7.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: There are two basic types of law:
1. Apoditic--Law stated as truth without penalty. Most of the Ten Commandments are apoditic in nature.
An example: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy soul, thy mind..
Honor they father and thy mother.
--There are no stated penalties. These are the right things to do all the time in every society. It is the moral law.

2. Causuistic. Laws in which penalities are attached. Most of our civil laws are causuistic. Most of the laws in the book of Exodus are stated in this way.
All the laws concerning adultery had specific penalties attached to them.
All the laws concerning theft had specific penalties attached to them.

HP: DHK, could you tell us where in the world you came up with this nonsense? :laugh:

 

[DHK]

HP: DHK, could you tell us where in the world you came up with this nonsense? :laugh:

No nonsense. Theology books.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This would be a great time to remember the old saying, don't believe everything you read. It is pure unadultrated nonsense.

Now if you disagree, feel free to try and support such remarks with something other than to tell us it comes out of theology books. Cults, Hindu's and many others have theology books you know.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

This would be a great time to remember the old saying, don't believe everything you read. It is pure unadultrated nonsense.

Now if you disagree, feel free to try and support such remarks with something other than to tell us it comes out of theology books. Cults, Hindu's and many others have theology books you know.:thumbs:

Lack of reading and study doesn't excuse ignorance. It wasn't theology if I remember correctly; it was first year Old Testament Survey. I will get you a summary of the quote:

Ancient Near Eastern Law
There are many law codes in the Near East that are more ancient than that of Moses. Hammurabi[FONT=&quot]'[/FONT]s code of laws (17th century B.C. )was the most famous of all. It is a collection of Sumerian and ancient Semitic law from centuries earlier.
Mosaic law was similar.
In Hebrew Law there were two types: 1. Apoditic: example--the Ten Commandments
a. A principle which always must be observed simply because it is right.
2. Causuistic law: specific laws dealing with individual cases and with a stated punishment.
a. lex talonis: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.


The laws of Moses were definitely more superior in moral and spiritual tone, and had a spirt of mercy that was absent from others.
For example: Babylonian law stated that if a physician were performing an operation and the patient died, the physician[FONT=&quot]'[/FONT]s right hand was to be amputated.

This is similar to the causuistic law of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," but the Mosaic Law was far more merciful than Babylonian Law.

This material comes from Eugene Merrill's book, [FONT=&quot]"An Historical Survey of the Old Testament."[/FONT]

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: This material comes from Eugene Merrill's book, [FONT=&quot]"An Historical Survey of the Old Testament."[/FONT]

HP: Ohhhhhhhhh. If I would have known that it was 'his' book I would not have been so hasty with my comments.
The lesson of this conversation must be, (for readers who are still wondering) never question Mr. Merrill. If 'Mr. Merrill' stated it, that settles it.

My advice, even at this late date, would be; be careful when choosing who and what to believe.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Lack of reading and study doesn't excuse ignorance.

HP: That is true, but it is also true that much reading and study can make one mad. Much reading and study will never trump the need to apply common sense and sound reasoning to ones studies. :thumbs: