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

[Bible Highlighter]

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

And discuss.


...

 

[Tree of Life]

The Bible itself does not make the neat distinctions of moral/ceremonial/civil. It does, however, appear to make some distinctions within the Law...

Paul speaks of the "law of commandments expressed in ordinances" and says that it's abolished in Ephesians 2:15. This appears to refer to ceremonial, cleanliness regulations surrounding temple worship.

In Colossians 2:16-17 Paul says that food laws and festival laws are a shadow, the substance of which is Christ. The presence of Christ therefore fulfills these particular aspects of the law.

Hebrews 8 talks about how the temple and levitical priesthood is part of an old covenant and is obsolete now that a new covenant has come. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant and is the true priest who serves in the heavenly temple. So the levitical priesthood has passed away.

But other parts of Scripture affirm the eternal significance of the Law...

In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus says that he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. He then goes on to talk about moral commands of the Law in the rest of his sermon.

In Romans 3:31 says that Christians are to uphold the Law, presumably speaking of the moral commands of the Law.

So the ceremonial/moral/civil distinction is artificial but it is useful. There appears to be ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects to God's Law. The ceremonial and civil appear to have adjusted in their meaning for us in light of Jesus Christ and the nature of his church. For example, since he is our priest we no longer require a levitical priesthood. Also, since the church is not a nation-state we must adjust the meaning of commands related to Israel as a nation state (such as capital punishment). But the moral commands of the Law don't seem to need any adjusting in light of Christ so we keep them untouched.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I've always taken the laws of the bible to be laws period. We do them all. Though some have varying views. Like some think its law that you must be baptized to truly be saved. Or that you must speak tounges. Or that you must avoid certain meat...etc.

Now if your referring to maybe human laws. I obey all human laws ONLY if said law doesn't interfere with Gods law. Hence if I was at a friends wedding who was muslim I would not praise allah at the end like they do. Well assuming they do, never been to one.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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

And discuss.


...

Did God separate them? Read Leviticus 19 and tell me.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Well the entire law of Moses has been filled and replaced with the blood of Jesus. So the entire law can be thrown out, because the believer is obligated only to the Law of the Spirit.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well the entire law of Moses has been filled and replaced with the blood of Jesus. So the entire law can be thrown out, because the believer is obligated only to the Law of the Spirit.

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

 

[Steve Petersen]

Well the entire law of Moses has been filled and replaced with the blood of Jesus. So the entire law can be thrown out, because the believer is obligated only to the Law of the Spirit.

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

Ezekiel 36:27

 

[inquiring mind]

Well the entire law of Moses has been filled and replaced with the blood of Jesus. So the entire law can be thrown out, because the believer is obligated only to the Law of the Spirit.

My response is not to be contentious; just wanted to point out something to consider. II Timothy 3:15-17 doesn’t throw anything out. You are right that Jesus brought about an end to the Law, as a way of life for believers, but the Law does help us recognize our sins (Galatians 3:19-21) and is instruction in righteousness (Psalm 19:7-9).

 

[mkgal1]

The ONLY moral "law" that I believe we should have as enmeshed with our civil law is the law that allows everyone their freedom without being at the expense and/or harm of others (the problem is.....even that gets misinterpreted as to where that line is).

 

[surrender1]

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

And discuss.


...

No. It's an all or nothing law for the nation of Israel.

 

[mkgal1]

By the way.....Israel is moving towards a government like that right now. For those interested, here's an article about it:
Reza Aslan: Why I worry about Israel's future - CNN.com

 

[surrender1]

Romans 13:8-10:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Paul says that *whatever commandment there may be* can be summed up in the rule to love your neighbor. In other words, Paul is saying that if we lived our lives with a truly loving spirit, acting in truly loving ways, we would automatically fulfill *every one* of God's laws. We wouldn't have any need for specific rules. We could literally go through every single one of God's commandments and show that each one of them is simply an extension of this basic principle to live a life of servant love.

 

[mkgal1]

Paul says that *whatever commandment there may be* can be summed up in the rule to love your neighbor. In other words, Paul is saying that if we lived our lives with a truly loving spirit, acting in truly loving ways, we would automatically fulfill *every one* of God's laws. We wouldn't have any need for specific rules.

I guess the crux of the problem is---what about when people *don't* have regard for others? Are we to punish them? Is it right for--say--companies to fire employees that are caught as adulterers? Should it go even further to where people are imprisoned for "crimes" like that? Even on a smaller scale of politics....what about churches? Should the response be to "disfellowship" a person....or should there be some sort of attempt to, instead, transform those people? Morality under compulsion isn't true morality.....but how do we protect those that ARE living the "law of love" and aren't provoking any harm? (I'm thinking about the attack in Portland and the more recent attack in Ohio)

 

[Steve Petersen]

By the way.....Israel is moving towards a government like that right now. For those interested, here's an article about it:
Reza Aslan: Why I worry about Israel's future - CNN.com

80% of Israelis are secular. Not to worry about an orthodox takeover.

 

[mkgal1]

80% of Israelis are secular. Not to worry about an orthodox takeover.

From what I understand (and recall )....the numbers are now in the majority in the government.

 

[Steve Petersen]

From what I understand (and recall )....the numbers are now in the majority in the government.

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.

 

[surrender1]

I guess the crux of the problem is---what about when people *don't* have regard for others? Are we to punish them? Is it right for--say--companies to fire employees that are caught as adulterers? Should it go even further to where people are imprisoned for "crimes" like that? Even on a smaller scale of politics....what about churches? Should the response be to "disfellowship" a person....or should there be some sort of attempt to, instead, transform those people? Morality under compulsion isn't true morality.....but how do we protect those that ARE living the "law of love" and aren't provoking any harm? (I'm thinking about the attack in Portland and the more recent attack in Ohio)

Maybe do what Jesus did? Forgive them and tell them to go an sin no more. (Of course, in the case of demonstrable harm, the innocent need to be protected)

 

[mkgal1]

(Of course, in the case of demonstrable harm, the innocent need to be protected)

I agree.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Bible itself does not make the neat distinctions of moral/ceremonial/civil. It does, however, appear to make some distinctions within the Law...

Paul speaks of the "law of commandments expressed in ordinances" and says that it's abolished in Ephesians 2:15. This appears to refer to ceremonial, cleanliness regulations surrounding temple worship.

In Colossians 2:16-17 Paul says that food laws and festival laws are a shadow, the substance of which is Christ. The presence of Christ therefore fulfills these particular aspects of the law.

Hebrews 8 talks about how the temple and levitical priesthood is part of an old covenant and is obsolete now that a new covenant has come. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant and is the true priest who serves in the heavenly temple. So the levitical priesthood has passed away.

But other parts of Scripture affirm the eternal significance of the Law...

In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus says that he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. He then goes on to talk about moral commands of the Law in the rest of his sermon.

In Romans 3:31 says that Christians are to uphold the Law, presumably speaking of the moral commands of the Law.

So the ceremonial/moral/civil distinction is artificial but it is useful. There appears to be ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects to God's Law. The ceremonial and civil appear to have adjusted in their meaning for us in light of Jesus Christ and the nature of his church. For example, since he is our priest we no longer require a levitical priesthood. Also, since the church is not a nation-state we must adjust the meaning of commands related to Israel as a nation state (such as capital punishment). But the moral commands of the Law don't seem to need any adjusting in light of Christ so we keep them untouched.

Well, I agree with most of what you said. But I do not believe the separation of the laws is artificial. I believe that the Bible does teach this three fold structure of the Law. Some folks just think that Law is Law when there are different kinds of laws with some being more important than others. Obviously the Moral Law is superior to the Civil and Ceremonial laws (even though they are also important). For just obeying the Civil and Ceremonial Laws while neglecting the Moral Laws would be disasterous for a believer.

To gain further insight on this topic, I decided to read several forums and articles on this topic, and I came across an interesting book that comes highly recommended. The author believes there is strong biblical support for the three fold structure of the Law. So I ordered the book through Amazon to learn more. It is called: "From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law."

In one article I was reading, another author (Named: Thomas Aquinas) pointed out that we can see the three fold structure of Deuteronomy 5:31 and Deuteronomy 6:1.

"But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it." (Deuteronomy 5:31).

"Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it." (Deuteronomy 6:1).

Another good point that is made by another author (Kaiser), as well. According to him,
the frequent appeal for mercy and not for sacrifice (Hosea 6:6; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Micah 6:8; 1 Samuel 15:22-23; Psalms 51:17) indicates “a deliberate priority and ranking in the legal injunctions that had been given by Moses.” This may explain why the Rabbis distinguished
between “heavy” and “light” commands, a distinction apparently accepted by Jesus (Luke 10:28; cf. Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34). Moral commands obviously fell within the
“heavy” category.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did God separate them? Read Leviticus 19 and tell me.

Knowing that there is a three fold structure to the Law has helped me to see that there was a change in the Law as mentioned in Hebrews 7:12. Jesus Himself said,

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23).

"But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Luke 11:42).

Jesus is saying that the weightier matters of the Law is Judgment, mercy, and faith and the love of God and the lesser laws were laws on tithing.

There is an author who has written a book who is convinced that the Bible clearly teaches this three fold structure in the Law. While I am sure I may not agree with everything he says, I have a feeling I will agree with him on this particular topic.


...