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

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

It is more than just the redemptive work of Christ with His death and resurrection. Christ is living and active and He seeks to redeem us from any sin that might control our lives, too (1 John 3:8) (Romans 13:14). If not, then it would be turning God's grace into a license for immorality (Jude 1:4 NIV).

Biblical grace teaches us that we should deny ungodliness and that we should live soberl, righteously, and Godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12).

Also, God is not going to give us commands in the New Testament (that relate to continuing in salvation or Christ) just so as to backpedal and say they do not apply (salvation wise). Jesus said if you lust after a woman, your whole body could be cast into hell fire (Matthew 5:28-30). Jesus says if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven. John says if you hate your brother than you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abidin in him (1 John 3:15).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

According to Paul in 1 Timothy 6:3-4, if what you say of Bullinger is true, then Bullinger would be proud and he knows nothing. For if God did not require His people to follow His laws, then that would mean both God and His people are no longer good. Goodness is in part greatly defined by what people do and a standard of morality that is upheld by them. For example: If the President of a country decided to pardon all prisoners of their crimes, including any future crimes they would commit, then a person who lives in that country would be faced with chaos, disorder, injustice, and evils of every kind. But somehow people think it is magically different if God pardons a person's future sin (Which of course is madness). Saying that their is no penalty anymore of any kind would minimize sin and make many think they can sin and still be saved (Which is wrong).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

After Christ's death, the Law also did not apply anymore to Jews, either.
The gospel is first to the Jew and then the Gentile.
In fact, in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile.


...

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

From Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 5:17-20

Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any commands of God's holy law. No sinner partakes of Christ's justifying righteousness, till he repents of his evil deeds. The mercy revealed in the gospel leads the believer to still deeper self-abhorrence. The law is the Christian's rule of duty, and he delights therein. If a man, pretending to be Christ's disciple, encourages himself in any allowed disobedience to the holy law of God, or teaches others to do the same, whatever his station or reputation among men may be, he can be no true disciple. Christ's righteousness, imputed to us by faith alone, is needed by every one that enters the kingdom of grace or of glory; but the new creation of the heart to holiness, produces a thorough change in a man's temper and conduct.​

 

[Ken Rank]

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

And discuss.


...

In one short word, no. The bible makes no distinction between what is moral (do's and don'ts) or ceremonial. Obviously we can't do all the commandments... some are for when there is a temple, some are for women, some for men, some for our animals. Some are for the land or when we are in the land of Israel. There are distinctions of application but not in terms of moral or ceremonial. Yeshua said that loving God and loving neighbor were what ALL the Law and prophets hang on. Those that insist on dividing moral from what they call ceremonial (God doesn't call it that) I believe don't understand the law at all.

 

[AlexDTX]

Also, God is not going to give us commands in the New Testament (that relate to continuing in salvation or Christ) just so as to backpedal and say they do not apply (salvation wise). Jesus said if you lust after a woman, your whole body could be cast into hell fire (Matthew 5:28-30). Jesus says if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven. John says if you hate your brother than you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abidin in him (1 John 3:15).

We agree that grace is given for repentance, not license for immorality. Keep in mind that Jesus is the last Old Testament prophet and he spoke to those who were still under the Mosaic Law. His teaching is on the difference between righteousness, i.e., that which is right, versus the letter of the Law which can only partially fulfill that which is right. His example of looking upon a woman with lust in your heart is his clarification that even obedience to the outward law will not fulfill righteousness. He is not giving further laws, rather he is preparing the way in understanding the need for a total transformation by death and resurrection.

 

[AlexDTX]

According to Paul in 1 Timothy 6:3-4, if what you say of Bullinger is true, then Bullinger would be proud and he knows nothing. For if God did not require His people to follow His laws, then that would mean both God and His people are no longer good. Goodness is in part greatly defined by what people do and a standard of morality that is upheld by them. For example: If the President of a country decided to pardon all prisoners of their crimes, including any future crimes they would commit, then a person who lives in that country would be faced with chaos, disorder, injustice, and evils of every kind. But somehow people think it is magically different if God pardons a person's future sin (Which of course is madness). Saying that their is no penalty anymore of any kind would minimize sin and make many think they can sin and still be saved (Which is wrong).


...

The pardon we receive from Christ is not a release back to our evil ways, but because of the trans-formative power of his resurrected life. We are new creatures in Christ and old things have passed away. He has nailed the commandments to the cross. Commandments that were never given to pagans, only to Israel.

Bullinger's point is that God is both the law giver and the enforcer of his laws. The question that comes to my mind is, How does He enforce His laws? It seems by consequences. We live in a grace relationship with God where sin never separates us from God, but nor are the consequences of sin removed from a Christian. In my point of view, it is not a matter of sin, but a matter of wisdom and folly. For those who love the Lord, obedience is not an issue. Jesus said that if we love him we will obey his commandments. That does not mean we obey because of fear, but because we love him and we want to please him. The law, as stated before, is for the unlawful. But the pure in heart follow God and learn through his grace that sinning brings damaging consequences - not because God is punishing us, but because the action itself brings those consequences. Thus those who love Jesus see the folly in such actions and choose the path of wisdom.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

By the Law of the Spirit, I presume you were talking about this:

Ezekiel 36:27

Yep that's it

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

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

For me it helped to get the Holy Spirit first, then looking at the epistles that show how to be a Christian helped also. That's just me though. Also ezekial mentions this law as well around chapter 30 something maybe 36 or so, reading it now with a bible study group.

 

[Tree of Life]

For me it helped to get the Holy Spirit first, then looking at the epistles that show how to be a Christian helped also. That's just me though. Also ezekial mentions this law a lot as well reading it now with a bible study group.

When I read the epistles I see them quoting the 10 commandments and other OT Laws. Do you think this Law could be found in the Old Testament as well?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

When I read the epistles I see them quoting the 10 commandments and other OT Laws. Do you think this Law could be found in the Old Testament as well?

Of course I was just recommending starting with the NT first (if you haven't already) because it makes the OT easier to read. Also the NT does have some commandments and OT laws and sins but not all the laws such as cutting hair and such. It sort of is a more convenient covenent tbh. Following the OT law was tough as paul puts it but with the Holy Spirit in the inside and a new simpler convent where essentially we just have to avoid sin at this point it's simpler. Those that are saved now live by the spirit on the inside and the apostles doctrine (NT).

 

[Tree of Life]

Of course I was just recommending starting with the NT first (if you haven't already) because it makes the OT easier to read. Also the NT does have some commandments and OT laws and sins but not all the laws such as cutting hair and such. It sort of is a more convenient covenent tbh. Following the OT law was tough as paul puts it but with the Holy Spirit in the inside and a new simpler convent where essentially we just have to avoid sin at this point it's simpler. Those that are saved now live by the spirit on the inside and the apostles doctrine (NT).

So you're saying that the law of the Spirit is fairly similar to the 10 commandments? Does it differ from them in any way?

 

[GingerBeer]

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

And discuss.


...

No. Though the ten commandments have a special place in the religion of ancient Israel. Christians take up the ten commandments and declare them to he holy, just, and good as Paul says they are. But Paul speaks of the entire law as holy just and good and not just the ten commandments. He uses the ten commandments as a kind of executive summary of the entire law. Christians have also done that.

It's useful to keep in mind that the freedom one receives from Christ - freedom from the condemnation of the law and the power of sin (1 Cor 15:56) - does not grant license to sin. It is still a sin to do what the ten commandments forbid - Have idols, blaspheme, murder, be adulterous, steal, lie (especially under oath in court), lust after another person's spouse, envy another person's property - and it is still a sin to fail to do what the ten commandments demand that we do - keep the time of rest that God decides, honour one's parents.

Some will concern themselves with minute details in the law - like the Pharisees did with their scruple about tithing of herbs and spices - and some will worry which day they need to keep as did the Jews in Jesus time and how that day is to be kept. Christians have a different perspective on days (see Hebrews chapters 3 and 4) and a different perspective on how to keep the rest that God demands. But I guess that getting into particulars on these things is not really what this thread is about.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

So you're saying that the law of the Spirit is fairly similar to the 10 commandments? Does it differ from them in any way?

Yeah I mean it's still considered wrong to commit adultry or steal or kill in the NT. I find so far it's different in the aspect that the NT covenent aka law of the spirit actually is more strict at least when it comes to the way it deals with sins under the 10 commandments. In the OT you just couldn't commit adultry like the action itself but in the NT if you think about or dream about sex with a woman that's not yours it's adultry. But the 10 commandments are unique in that they are essentially a list of sins and sin doesn't change. But other OT practices such as animal sacrifices isn't the same thing. In summary the 10 commandments still apply because the sins they speak of are still mentioned as sins in the apostoles doctrine aka law of spirit

 

[Apex]

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.

This is called eisegesis. No where in the text do we find such an idea.

Plus, this is based on a flawed argument. Why is it immoral to let siblings reproduce but not those with inheritable disorders, like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis? Also, we seem to be fine with women past 40 years of age reproduce even though her odds of having a child with a birth defect is higher than those in incestuous relationships.

According to the March of Dimes, at the age of 25, a woman has about a one-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome. As the woman ages, this statistic increases. For example, at 30 the chance becomes a one in 1,000. Then at 35, the chance of having a baby with Down syndrome jumps to 1 in 400, and then to one in 100 by 40. By the time the woman is 49, the chance of having a baby with and extra 21st chromosome is one in 10.

Is it immoral to let a 49 year old woman get pregnant?

 

[surrender1]

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.


...

Yes, it is supposed to be a heart.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In one short word, no. The bible makes no distinction between what is moral (do's and don'ts) or ceremonial.

One author believes that it is biblical to see that the Law is three fold in nature.

Obviously we can't do all the commandments... some are for when there is a temple, some are for women, some for men, some for our animals. Some are for the land or when we are in the land of Israel.

Believers today are not under the Old Covenant Commands as a whole or as a package.
Believers today are under the Commands in the New Covenant or New Testament.

There are distinctions of application but not in terms of moral or ceremonial.

Surely a moral law is a law that primarily deals with a truth that is moral and good. Paul says that the Gentiles do by nature the things in the Law. This would be the moral law, for the Gentiles would not just naturally keep the Sabbath. There is a difference between observing a ceremony for God and loving your neighbor. The command to love your neighbor is not a ceremony; And the Old Testament Sabbath Command is not primarily a moral law. Your neighbor is not hurt by your not observing this holy day on the exact day of the week.

Yeshua said that loving God and loving neighbor were what ALL the Law and prophets hang on.

Yes, the heart of all God's laws is loving God and your neighbor.

Those that insist on dividing moral from what they call ceremonial (God doesn't call it that) I believe don't understand the law at all.

Then explain what aspect of the Law you think I do not understand then.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

While I may not agree with everything this author writes or says, they make a great point about how the OT Law was in fact intended for the Gentiles, too.

Christian Ethics at Reformed.org


...

 

[Ken Rank]

One author believes that it is biblical to see that the Law is three fold in nature.

OK, and I can provide you with more than one author that believes (or believed) that Yeshua was a homosexual or married to Mary Magdalene. That doesn't make it correct. The bible does NOT differentiate. The only time it does is when it gives commandments for specific purposes or people for purposes. For example, we have commandments specific for the Levitical priests... which I am not one of therefore those commandments do not pertain to me.

So what is ceremonial, Jason? Does your church tithe? Many do.. and that would VERY MUCH fall into the ceremonial section, if there were one.

Believers today are not under the Old Covenant Commands as a whole or as a package.
Believers today are under the Commands in the New Covenant or New Testament.

Look, I don't care what you believe but you will be like many Christians who declare the law to be dead (making us lawless, but I digress) and then plant a 10 commandment sign in your front yard as if applicable for today. But what is the hypocrisy here? The 10 commandments are the covenant you believe is dead (Deuteronomy 4:13) and then you'll plant the sign and disregard the one about the Sabbath claiming it was done away with but then leaving it on your sign.

Surely a moral law is a law that primarily deals with a truth that is moral and good. Paul says that the Gentiles do by nature the things in the Law. This would be the moral law, for the Gentiles would not just naturally keep the Sabbath. There is a difference between observing a ceremony for God and loving your neighbor. The command to love your neighbor is not a ceremony; And the Old Testament Sabbath Command is not primarily a moral law. Your neighbor is not hurt by your not observing this holy day on the exact day of the week.

You don't know why God gave or did not give any commandment... He didn't tell us. He said catfish wasn't food, but you'll eat it anyway because you believe the God who changes not... changed. I don't... sorry... you won't convince me and I have no desire to convince you. Do as you believe and are convicted... sorry I chimed in. I will move on after this.

Then explain what aspect of the Law you think I do not understand then.

It is the heart of God... and it is eternal. What is sin is that which stands opposed to His character and authority... that which is permissible stands in harmony with His character and authority and the law is what tells us what is and is not sin. It is a sin for man to lay with a man as he would a woman... it is a sin to take the life of another with intent... it is sin to eat a bottom dwelling poop eater..... NOT because I said so, but because the God who does not change said so. So, this is how I live, and when and if I fail I have an advocate in Yeshua. But... if you love Him keep His commandments (and the words He spoke were not His but rather the Father's words) and like John said, the love of God is in keeping the commandments. We are not saved by our works, but the saved work. We don't obey to become a child of God, but the children of God obey their Father.

Be blessed.
Ken

 

[mkgal1]

Not true. Ultra-orthodox parties have 22 of 120 seats in the Knesset.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-c...t-parties-make-it-up-and-how-big-is-each-2016

Whatever influence they have comes from joining other parties to form a coalition. 'course they would not have the power if no one invited them to join their coalition.

Sorry....I did give wrong information about the current state of the government (I was merely going by memory--when I really shouldn't have).

Did you watch the video I posted, though? Even though the Ultra-Orthodox don't have the majority in power right now---they also don't seem to be getting much push-back (that's why I was recalling--wrongly--a majority). Did you see how women are being harassed on public transit by large groups of Ultra-Orthodox men? These men don't aren't employed-- as it's against their faith--so that often leaves women isolated and without much defense. Did you see the part about the "Modesty Gang" that physically beat up a woman that had left their group via divorce, lost custody of her children, and so far no one has been arrested?

What seems to be a common thread in ALL fundamental faiths is that it's ignored that "vengeance is God's"....instead, they seem to take vengeance into their own hands. If interested--look up Wahabbi, and I think you'll see similarities.