Is it Biblical to separate the moral law from the other parts of the Law?

[ViaCrucis]

Is it Biblical to separate the moral law from the other parts of the Law (like ceremonial laws, etc.)?

And discuss.


...

Speaking about the Torah, the entire Torah is what it is. So in that respect trying to speak of the "moral law" or the "ceremonial law" isn't biblical--it's all Torah.

What is important, however, is that the Torah isn't for Christians, it was given exclusively to the Jewish people at Mt. Horeb in Sinai as part of the covenant which God established with them. The New Testament is abundantly clear that the old covenant, and thus Torah, isn't applicable to us as Christians.

This does not mean there is no law which Christians aren't supposed to follow, the concept of Law is bigger than just the Torah. Murder is wrong, not because it is commanded in Torah, but because it is wrong; murder wasn't just wrong among the Israelites, murder was, and is wrong, for everyone.

We can speak of a "moral law" in that regard. Jesus commands us to love our neighbor as ourself, He commands us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, to bless those who curse us, to turn the other cheek (etc) these are commandments, these are law, which are explicitly spoken by Jesus and apply to us who are His followers.

The concept of "Law" includes, but is not limited by, the Torah. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that was Law (though, as we see in the story, God had no intention Abe actually going through with it, it was a test of faith), and in this case it was Law that was specifically commanded to Abraham in that very specific instance, for the very specific purpose of teaching Abraham a lesson.

God's Law is all which He commands.
Torah are those instructions and commandments which were given exclusively to the Israelites as part of the covenant God made with them; as such Torah is Law, but Law is not, necessarily, Torah. We see this again in the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "A new command I give you, that you love one another even as I have loved you." This command was new, from the mouth of Jesus to His disciples; that makes it Law, but it is not Torah.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[surrender1]

I think what the Bible says on this matter is more important.

The bible says the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel.

 

[Apex]

"Universal moral norms" are not normative merely because they appear in the Mosaic Law. They are normative because they express the character of God. It is not surprising that in the jumble of laws we find in the Old Testament that some of those laws express transcendent moral principles. It is a mistake to attempt to carve up the law neatly into moral and non-moral categories. In fact, it is impossible, for many of the so-called ceremonial laws also have a moral dimension that cannot be easily jettisoned. The division of the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil categories has limited use theologically speaking. Neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer explain the role of the law by appealing to such categories. To break the law in one area was to break the whole law.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The bible says the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel.

Yes, there is no disputing that fact. The Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12). We are under New Covenant Law and not Old Covenant Law.


...

 

[surrender1]

Yes, there is no disputing that fact. The Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12). We are under New Covenant Law and not Old Covenant Law.


...

I agree!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Speaking about the Torah, the entire Torah is what it is. So in that respect trying to speak of the "moral law" or the "ceremonial law" isn't biblical--it's all Torah.

What is important, however, is that the Torah isn't for Christians, it was given exclusively to the Jewish people at Mt. Horeb in Sinai as part of the covenant which God established with them. The New Testament is abundantly clear that the old covenant, and thus Torah, isn't applicable to us as Christians.

This does not mean there is no law which Christians aren't supposed to follow, the concept of Law is bigger than just the Torah. Murder is wrong, not because it is commanded in Torah, but because it is wrong; murder wasn't just wrong among the Israelites, murder was, and is wrong, for everyone.

We can speak of a "moral law" in that regard. Jesus commands us to love our neighbor as ourself, He commands us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, to bless those who curse us, to turn the other cheek (etc) these are commandments, these are law, which are explicitly spoken by Jesus and apply to us who are His followers.

The concept of "Law" includes, but is not limited by, the Torah. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that was Law (though, as we see in the story, God had no intention Abe actually going through with it, it was a test of faith), and in this case it was Law that was specifically commanded to Abraham in that very specific instance, for the very specific purpose of teaching Abraham a lesson.

God's Law is all which He commands.
Torah are those instructions and commandments which were given exclusively to the Israelites as part of the covenant God made with them; as such Torah is Law, but Law is not, necessarily, Torah. We see this again in the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "A new command I give you, that you love one another even as I have loved you." This command was new, from the mouth of Jesus to His disciples; that makes it Law, but it is not Torah.

-CryptoLutheran

I do not believe that believers today look to the commands in the Old Testament to obey God. I believe that believers today look to the commands in the New Testament to obey God. The "Moral Law" is what had carried over from the Old Covenant on into the New Covenant. The reason I bring up this study of understanding the three fold nature of the Law in general is that it can be helpful to knowing that there is a change in the Law (Hebrews 7:12).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"Universal moral norms" are not normative merely because they appear in the Mosaic Law. They are normative because they express the character of God. It is not surprising that in the jumble of laws we find in the Old Testament that some of those laws express transcendent moral principles. It is a mistake to attempt to carve up the law neatly into moral and non-moral categories. In fact, it is impossible, for many of the so-called ceremonial laws also have a moral dimension that cannot be easily jettisoned. The division of the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil categories has limited use theologically speaking. Neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer explain the role of the law by appealing to such categories. To break the law in one area was to break the whole law.

While certain laws may have a secondary aspect to them, we have to realize that certain laws have a primary function or purpose within God's Word.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I agree!

I am glad.

Side Note:

Just wondering. Is your avatar pic supposed to be sort of like a heart?
If so, that is really neat.

Anyways, may God bless you.


...

 

[Apex]

While certain laws may have a secondary aspect to them, we have to realize that certain laws have a primary function or purpose within God's Word.

Paul never argues that the moral norms he used as examples from the Mosaic Law were authoritative on the basis of their appearance in the Mosaic Law. This is what you would need to prove for your position to stand true. Instead, and I repeat, they are normative because they express the character of God. What we see Paul doing is called reappropriation.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Where can I learn about what the Law of the Spirit requires?

What did the church at Jerusalem write to the gentiles who were coming to Christ?

Acts 15:28-29
28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."
NASU

Shouldn't that settle such things?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Paul never argues that the moral norms he used as examples from the Mosaic Law were authoritative on the basis of their appearance in the Mosaic Law. This is what you would need to prove for your position to stand true. Instead, and I repeat, they are normative because they express the character of God. What we see Paul doing is called reappropriation.

Romans 13:8-10 is a good place to start in understanding God's final plan of the Law. In other words, God's intended plan of the Law was to come into fruition by being love focused. This love is primarily in view of God's moral laws (and not any ceremony or civil laws).

But again, to be clear, believers ultimately look to the New Testament to obey God and not the Old. For we are New Covenant believers and not Old Covenant believers.


...

 

[Apex]

Romans 13:8-10 is a good place to start in understanding God's final plan of the Law. In other words, God's intended plan of the Law was to come into fruition by being love (moral) focused. But again, to be clear, believers ultimately look to the New Testament to obey God and not the Old. For we are New Covenant believers and not Old Covenant believers.

Sure, the Mosaic Law is fulfilled. It still exists, but Christians are no longer under it. Whatever parts of the Mosaic Law that were "moral" were universally true long before God appropriated them into the Law. And that is my point.

For example, many people think that the incest laws in Leviticus 18 are universal moral laws. However, Abraham married his father's daughter (half-sister). And if you believe Adam and Eve were the first two people, then you also have to believe that their children had incestuous marriages.

How do we determine what is universally moral in the Mosaic Law? Only that which is repeated in the New Testament? The vast majority of Christians throughout history didn't have a copy of the entire New Testament. In fact, even if the did they still wouldn't have been able to read it since this same majority was also illiterate. I'd argue we know what is moral not based on the law or NT, but based on love.

 

[Vicomte13]

I believe there is a distinction.

3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).

I believe the righteous aspect or part of the Old Law that we fulfill is the following.

8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:8-10).

One does not fulfill the Law on keeping the Sabbath by loving one's neighbor.
So there is a difference between "Moral Laws" (Which is based on love) and "Ceremonial Laws" and "Civil Laws."


...

For Jews in the First Century, perhaps. The "us" of whom the Apostles wrote as their fellow Jews, who were under the Law. If you go back and read the Mosaic Covenant with the same care that you read Paul, you will realize that the Sinai Covenant was not with the world, it was very specifically between the Hebrews present and their descendants, and YHWH. Gentiles were not part of it. By Jesus coming along, they did not become part of us or under it. Jesus had a New Covenant, and a law that applied to the whole world that follows him. The Gentile, by following Jesus, does not suddenly become a Jew and subject to the Sinai Covenant. The Gentile is not part of the "we" that the Jewish Paul wrote to. He was not under "The Law" (of Moses) either before or after Jesus.

This is where Christians misread the Law to their sorrow. Unless they are Jewish, they misapply the writings of all of these Jews when they speak of "we" and "the Law". THEY WERE subject to the Law, because they were Jews. But Gentiles were never under the Law. The Law itself tells you that directly. Anybody who really reads the Law sees very clearly, from the very beginning of its revelation to Moses, that this was never a law for the world, no promises were made to Gentiles in the Law. The Law was exclusively for Jews, and THEY were freed from it.

Gentiles were never under the Law in the first place, did not come under the Law by the existence of Jesus, and therefore were not freed from it.

Christian Gentiles are under the Law of Jesus. The Sabbath is not part of that law. We weren't under the Sabbath and then freed. We were never at any point in our history under the Sabbath. We were never Jews, and we are not part of the "We" that Paul addresses when he speaks to his fellow Jews about their Law.

This is actually very, very clear when one reads The Law itself. It is not a Law for the world. It never became a Law for the world. The Judaizers thought that to become a Christian, one had to become a Jew. The Apostles and the Holy Spirit categorically and absolutely rejected that error.

Gentiles are not released from the Sabbath or the ritual sacrifices or the Ten Commandments by Jesus. Gentiles were never ever under any of that, and The Law tells you that.

Gentiles are brought under law by Jesus, for it is Jesus who sets up a set of standards that are required of those who would follow him.

Because the word "law" is so contaminated by the Mosaic Law, which is what "Law" MEANT to the Apostles, when we speak of the Law of Jesus it is confusing scripturally, and yet it is true.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sure, the Mosaic Law is fulfilled. It still exists, but Christians are no longer under it.

No. The Mosaic Law no longer exists. It became obsolete with Christ's death. It is obvious the Old Law does not still exist because various commands in the New Testament have changed what the Old Law says. For example: Paul says that if you seek to be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Jesus says to us that we are no longer to render an eye for an eye but we are to turn the other cheek. When Jesus died upon the cross, the temple veil was torn letting us know that the laws on the priesthood and the animal sacrifices were no longer valid anymore. Jesus is our Heavenly High Priest and He is our Passover Lamb. Paul says we are no longer to judge according to Sabbaths and holy days. Peter was told to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of OT Law).

Whatever parts of the Mosaic Law that were "moral" were universally true long before God appropriated them into the Law. And that is my point.

I am not in disagreement that there are eternal moral laws.

For example, many people think that the incest laws in Leviticus 18 are universal moral laws. However, Abraham married his father's daughter (half-sister). And if you believe Adam and Eve were the first two people, then you also have to believe that their children had incestuous marriages.

I believe this was a different case and scenario because their blood was able to tolerate it. Sin corrupted man's physical DNA to a point that it could not tolerate such a thing anymore. Sin corrupted mankind to a point physically whereby this was no longer acceptable. Also, there is no more command to be fruitful and multiply for us today (So as to fill the Earth) because we are already accomplished or fulfilled this command by God.

How do we determine what is universally moral in the Mosaic Law? Only that which is repeated in the New Testament? The vast majority of Christians throughout history didn't have a copy of the entire New Testament. In fact, even if the did they still wouldn't have been able to read it since this same majority was also illiterate. I'd argue we know what is moral not based on the law or NT, but based on love.

We cannot really make judgments about situations in history when we were not there. You can make an educated guess based on man made documents, but that is still guessing. You still have to be in that point and time in history and place to truly know. Yes, I will agree that is reasonable to assume that not everyone had a complete New Testament like we do today, but God did not write His Words in the New Testament so as to be rubbish or useless scrap. To whom much is given, much is required. God's intended plan was to have a complete New Testament for New Covenant believers. To say so otherwise is to cut out parts of the Bible you simply do not like. God's revelation of His Word was progressive. For the OT Scriptures pointed to Jesus in shadows and types; And Jesus talked about his death and resurrection during His Earthly ministry (with His disciples not understanding it), and then after Christ's death, NT Scripture was then being formed so as to give us a more complete picture of God's will for future NT believers. You cannot assume that the reality or world for the early followers of Christ would be what God intended it to be for us believers today.



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For Jews in the First Century, perhaps. The "us" of whom the Apostles wrote as their fellow Jews, who were under the Law. If you go back and read the Mosaic Covenant with the same care that you read Paul, you will realize that the Sinai Covenant was not with the world, it was very specifically between the Hebrews present and their descendants, and YHWH. Gentiles were not part of it. By Jesus coming along, they did not become part of us or under it. Jesus had a New Covenant, and a law that applied to the whole world that follows him. The Gentile, by following Jesus, does not suddenly become a Jew and subject to the Sinai Covenant. The Gentile is not part of the "we" that the Jewish Paul wrote to. He was not under "The Law" (of Moses) either before or after Jesus.

This is where Christians misread the Law to their sorrow. Unless they are Jewish, they misapply the writings of all of these Jews when they speak of "we" and "the Law". THEY WERE subject to the Law, because they were Jews. But Gentiles were never under the Law. The Law itself tells you that directly. Anybody who really reads the Law sees very clearly, from the very beginning of its revelation to Moses, that this was never a law for the world, no promises were made to Gentiles in the Law. The Law was exclusively for Jews, and THEY were freed from it.

Gentiles were never under the Law in the first place, did not come under the Law by the existence of Jesus, and therefore were not freed from it.

Christian Gentiles are under the Law of Jesus. The Sabbath is not part of that law. We weren't under the Sabbath and then freed. We were never at any point in our history under the Sabbath. We were never Jews, and we are not part of the "We" that Paul addresses when he speaks to his fellow Jews about their Law.

This is actually very, very clear when one reads The Law itself. It is not a Law for the world. It never became a Law for the world. The Judaizers thought that to become a Christian, one had to become a Jew. The Apostles and the Holy Spirit categorically and absolutely rejected that error.

Gentiles are not released from the Sabbath or the ritual sacrifices or the Ten Commandments by Jesus. Gentiles were never ever under any of that, and The Law tells you that.

Gentiles are brought under law by Jesus, for it is Jesus who sets up a set of standards that are required of those who would follow him.

Because the word "law" is so contaminated by the Mosaic Law, which is what "Law" MEANT to the Apostles, when we speak of the Law of Jesus it is confusing scripturally, and yet it is true.

No. The Old Law (as a whole or as a entire package) had become entirely obsolete at Christ's death and God gave us New Commands or Laws as a part of Jesus and His followers (By which we see with the writings of the New Testament).

I highly recommend reading the many articles (that are packed with verses) at Grace Community International on this one. These articles had really helped me when I was confused on this topic.

https://www.gci.org/law/lawmoses

Also, see my points in my first paragraph in Post #54 as to why the Old Law no longer existed after Christ's death, as well. Granted, some of these changes in the Law were being made even during Christ's Earthly ministry. For Hebrews 7:12 says, the Law has changed.


...

 

[AlexDTX]

Is it Biblical to separate the moral law from the other parts of the Law (like ceremonial laws, etc.)?

And discuss.


...

1Ti_1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

We are righteous in Christ. The law does not apply to us because we do what is right.

Tit_1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

 

[Vicomte13]

God's Law is all which He commands.
Torah are those instructions and commandments which were given exclusively to the Israelites as part of the covenant God made with them; as such Torah is Law, but Law is not, necessarily, Torah. We see this again in the Gospel of John, Jesus says, "A new command I give you, that you love one another even as I have loved you." This command was new, from the mouth of Jesus to His disciples; that makes it Law, but it is not Torah.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly. And when Jewish Apostles write about THE Law, and works under THE Law, they are not speaking of God's Law in general, they are speaking of the Law of Moses, given specifically to the Hebrews in Sinai. THAT is "The" Law from which those people - Jews - were freed by Christ. Not just plain "law" in general, and not "God's Law". What Jesus gave is properly called "God's Law" or, if you will, The Law of Jesus, and nothing Paul or anybody else wrote should be construed to mean that Jesus freed people from law in general, or Jesus' Law in particular. "THE" Law of which Paul speaks means "The Law of Moses", and it only means that exclusively, and never means law in general, or the Law of Jesus.

Jesus did not free Gentiles from any law whatever. In fact, Jesus IMPOSED law on Gentiles as the price of salvation. Jesus merely freed Jewish Christians from the Mosaic Law, replacing it with his own.

There are few things in the Bible more obvious or more misunderstood.

 

[Vicomte13]

No. The Old Law (as a whole or as a entire package) had become entirely obsolete at Christ's death and God gave us New Commands or Laws as a part of Jesus and His followers (By which we see with the writings of the New Testament).
...

No. The "Old Law" was NEVER LAW AT ALL for ANYBODY ON EARTH except for Jews, and exclusively Jews. There is not one word in the Law of Moses that ever applied to me and my ancestors. And unless you're Jewish, there isn't one word in it that applied to you and yours either, either before, during or after the time Jesus was on earth.

Jesus DID NOT FREE YOU from the Torah because you were NEVER UNDER THE TORAH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The ONLY PEOPLE ON EARTH who were EVER under "The Law" were the Jews. Jesus freed THEM, JUST THEM, from "THE" Law, because THE Law means "The Law of Moses" given at Mt. Sinai. It does not mean the Divine Law in general. It doesn't mean human law.

There is divine law that always applied: Don't kill people, don't eat living animals, don't commit adultery, don't lie - and that law is manifestly already known by the people before Sinai - we see it in Genesis. THAT Law is not "THE" Law - it's Divine Law. Sure, THE Law, of Moses, repeated those precepts too, but the Law of Moses merely repeated those precepts for Jews.

NOTHING of the Law of Moses ever applied to anybody but Jews. I don't know about you, but I and my people were not Jews, ever, going back. Jesus didn't free me and my people from any Law at all. The Old Law did not become obsolete for us with Jesus. There WAS NO "Old Law" for us - that was only for the Jews, and nobody else. Paul and the Apostles were Jews. When he writes that "we" are freed from The Law by Jesus, he is writing as a Jew to Jewish Christians. THEY certainly WERE freed from "The Law", of Moses, by Jesus. WE, Gentiles, were not freed from The Law by Jesus, the Old Law, because there WAS no Old Law for us to be freed from.

 

[Vicomte13]

We are righteous in Christ. The law does not apply to us because we do what is right.

The Law does not apply to us because we are not Jews. It never did apply to us in the first place.
The Law does not apply to Jewish Christians because of Christ.

 

[AlexDTX]

Is it Biblical to separate the moral law from the other parts of the Law (like ceremonial laws, etc.)?

And discuss.


...

EW Bullinger made an interesting comment in his book, Number by Scriptures. He said that law is nothing, it is the enforcer of laws that matter. In other words, man can make laws, but they are nothing if they are not enforced. However, the laws of God are enforced by God and His enforcement is constant. So the question is what laws does God enforce? Physical laws are clearly enforced. Gravity does not change, and He promised that the seasons would continue. Spiritual laws are also enforced. You reap what you sow, although all things have their own harvest time. It seems that moral laws are not enforced, but in truth, they are in the end. For Christians, then, what law does God enforce? The law of grace through faith in the finished works of Jesus.