When is lying not sinful?

[razzelflabben]

What is a parable? Isn't it a fictitious story for the purpose of teaching a lesson? By some definitions for lie wouldn't it be considered a lie? Definition is important it would seem to me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm aware of what the scripture said, so there is no higher understanding here, because I'm also aware of his purpose for telling them she is is sister...it was to deceive them into believing it was not his wife.

I show my disagreement here because I'm concerned about people taking from this, as long as we just deceive it's ok, it's not a lie, and even though I think in some cases God can handle some of both, not a good idea to take from this incident or this thread, that deception is ok willy nilly.

I am usually the one who seeks to fight to do the right thing while most try to justify in doing the wrong or in thinking they can break God's eternal moral laws and be good with Him.

Again, Jesus used misdirection with His words before (or He spoke in spirtual terms) and it was not considered lying on his part. Jesus said, "Ye are gods" and "You must eat of my flesh and drink of my blood", and "Buy a sword", etc.

Many disciples stopped following Jesus because they misunderstood Him (John 6:66).
Did Jesus try and clarify what He said to them so as to make them stay?
No. The many disciples (not the 12) went away believing something false.
Jesus was under no obligation to sit down and explain it to them.
Jesus instead said, "Does this offend you?"

In other words, as long as someone is telling truth from a certain perspective, it is not untrue.
Anyways, in conclusion, if you are going to blame Abram for lying for telling a truth (and not giving all the full details) then you are also going to have to blame Jesus, too.


...

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is there ever a time that being dishonest is actually ok to God?

I ask because a few times in scripture we see very godly men being deceitful and it not being recorded as wrong. In fact a couple times God seems to bless them in spite of it.

Abraham when he went before Pharoah and Abimelek. Isaac before Abimelek. Jacob with his brother Esau, several times. Joseph when he acted as if he didn't know his brothers, gave them back their silver and said he hadn't, then set up Benjamin with the Silver Cup. David acting mentally ill in front of Achish

What about making silly noises then blaming them on a friend or family member?

Or for a more serious matter, hiding someone to save their life? Or lying so you don't hurt someone's feelings?

So is there ever a time that being dishonest is ok?

IOW, when is a lie not sin?

Our Lord taught that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord our God with all our strength, mind, and soul and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

In most cases deceit/lying is destructive, it is harmful; sometimes maybe only a little harmful, sometimes very harmful. Which is why it is sinful. But there are times when lying is not only not sinful, but is the moral choice. The most obvious example is Nazi occupied areas in Europe during WW2--if the gestapo come to your house, and you are hiding a Jewish person to protect them, and you are asked if there are any Jews the moral action is to protect human life--and thus lie. To speak the truth in this circumstance, and to bring destruction and harm upon your neighbor, is the immoral choice.

The Divine Law puts people first and rules second. We see this throughout the Gospels, where Jesus heals on the Sabbath and is rebuked by the Pharisees; those who see "following the rules" as paramount. Jesus was not breaking God's Law by healing on the Sabbath, it was the legalistic attitude of his accusers that were in violation of God's Law.

The Law of God is not about self-righteously following rules; but about the will of God toward that which is right, just, and good. And to that end our Lord teaches us what the highest command of God is: to love God and to love our neighbor; we then can look back upon His Sermon, "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you that if someone strikes you on the one cheek to turn and offer the other." After all, "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13).

This is, indeed, why the Lord tells us that there will be those who will say to Him, "Lord Lord did we not..." for men will always seek to look to their deeds and self-righteousness; but the Law of God commands and calls us out from ourselves toward our neighbor in love (and for this reason, because we are sinners, are condemned under the Law by our sin; for that which we ought to do we do not). When on the Last Day we all must stand before the Great Judge of the quick and the dead He tells us that it is how we treated "the least of these" that is what matters, saying "I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was naked, I was sick, I was in prison, I was a foreigner". How did we respond to the least of these, how did we treat our fellow human beings, etc. That is the Judgment: how did we treat other people? Especially the poor, the hungry, the widow and the orphan, and the disenfranchised.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[4x4toy]

It's nice to see when the spirit of the law get enforced instead of loophole or legal spin .. Like what was Corban ? Never heard it preached on

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But God's Word cannot be broken either (John 10:35).
If it says that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire, then we have to believe that.
It is not, most liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire with the exception of those who lie so as to save lives. Again, the ends do not justify the means. While lying does appear to be a lesser sin than say murder or rape it is still none the less a very seriouis crime to God.


...

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But the Pharoah has free will and he chose a different course of action for history. So no lying actually took place by God.

That was the weakest possible passage of scripture to make a point about free will. It specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart to prevent him from letting the people go. Ergo, not only did God tell Moses to state his intentions, but he actively prevented those intentions from being carried out. Frankly, I don't think that qualifies as a lie, because the statement was a conditional proposition dependent upon Pharaoh letting them go, which he didn't.

Yet, we know Jesus did not lie because Scripture says it is impossible for God to lie.

From the beginning passages of Genesis, I get the impression that reality is shaped by God's words. The impossibility of the lie comes from the fact that God saying it makes it become true.

Let me ask you using the example I have brought up many times. Germans in WWII that hid Jews and then lied to the Nazis to save their lives, did their lie bring anger to God?

That's an extreme example, and it was brought up many times in this thread, both before and after this post. It's a good question, but it lacks nuance.

I would wonder if all information is to be available to all people. If I ask you a direct question to a sticky subject, knowing that you will not lie, then simply remaining mute will answer my question sufficiently. The answer is whichever of the options you would not want to give (binary questions work marvelously). If you give an indirect answer, then it is the same as being mute. If you give a direct answer, then you are telling the truth. I know, because I once took advantage of someone whom I knew would never lie to me. I realized, afterward, that I had been taking advantage of a person's honesty, and I swore I'd never do that again. However, at the time, I was able to discover anything I wanted, simply by being persistent, forward and binary.

The question I would ask, rather than the one about hiding Jews from Nazis, is simply whether I'm obligated to reveal everything about myself to anyone who asks pertinaciously, whether I want to or not, because that's what will ultimately happen if I never lie or deceive. It's not necessarily a matter so extreme as life or death, or even protecting right over wrong.

Do you really think I am trying to justify evil?

I can't say it's never crossed my mind. You do have a habit of equivocating, as in the latter part of this same post:

Being "drunk" is not an action. It is the result of an action.

This was in response to someone who mentioned getting drunk, which is definitely an action. You changed getting into being, and then you argued against what he did not say. Then, he let you get away with that clever little twist.

It wouldn't be so bad, but that's no exception to your over-all debating habits. It's the "Did God really say..." argument, and it seems to be your modus operandi.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's nice to see when the spirit of the law get enforced instead of loophole or legal spin .. Like what was Corban ? Never heard it preached on

It is awkward posting in this thread, since others are distorting so much , blatantly, about God's Word and the Gospel.
So, be sure to test everything,
do not believe anything that is not perfectly in line with God's Word....

Today, "Corban" is practiced by a lot of groups.
They even make it look wonderful and nice on television shows, sermons and commercials,
while robbing multitudes of families....
and oppressing many - increasing significantly the poor and the homeless numbers/ population....

The "Corban" referred to in Scripture is more narrow, as it referred to the religious leaders only, and their practice of taking money from people who had money, money that ought to have been used in caring for those people's parents ,
but the religious leaders (as often done today), would "let the persons decide for themselves" (ha- trick them into thinking thus);

and the persons would give their money as donations to the group/ religious leaders/ and be told -
all that you give or pledge to us (the religious group/ leaders)
FREES YOU FROM TAKING CARE OF YOUR PARENTS.

Even though YHWH tells them directly otherwise.

Today, the robbery is so blatant, it is part of most groups finance support, and taught AS IF GOOD, in financial planning classes in churches everywhere, and so on....

 

[Apex]

Well, not to derail the topic of this thread here, but if I were to answer the question, "Are we currently bound to the Law of Moses?"

I would say the following:

While we as believers today are not under the Old Covenant and it's many laws, especially the ceremonial laws, and judicial laws (Because we are New Covenant believers), we have to understand that there are "Eternal Moral Laws" that God has given to man since the beginning. Granted, not all moral law is eternal. For example: One issue of morality that appears to have changed (with the arrival of the written law of Moses) is the sleeping with close of kin. But I believe this has to do with the fact that sin has effected man's genetics whereby man's body could no longer handle inbreeding - which can be seen by the fact that men no longer lived hundreds of years like he used to.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." (1 Timothy 1:8).

While I believe a believer today should primarily look to the commands in the New Testament to obey God, there are certain "Eternal Moral Laws or Commands" that are not as clearly described for us in the New Testament as they are in the Old Testament. For example: It is still immoral to contact the dead, engage in bestiality, make a graven image and bow down to it, etc. (As the Old Testament says).


...

For a moral law to be "eternal", means it is the same always, it cannot fluctuate. Context (such a shift in genetic stability) cannot change this. Plus, you never answered my question on how an increased risk for genetic disorder makes a pregnancy a sin. Do you apply this consistently to all people who have this increased risk - not just close kin?

Paul, and the Jews, dealt with the law as a unity. This is why we see "law" and not "laws". His response to the law is not to various parts of it, however you wish to divide it, but to the whole law. It is also in this sense the Christians are not under the law - the whole law.

Trying to separate the law into cultic, moral, civil, or ceremonial categories is impossible. Many of the so-called-ceremonial laws have a moral dimension that cannot be jettisoned. How do you objectively determine which to keep and which to ditch? For example, do you think Leviticus 18:19 should be kept?

Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

The entire Mosaic Law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct source of, or judge of, the conduct of God's people. Christian behavior is now guided directly by the "Law of Christ." This new "law" does not consist of legal prescriptions and ordinances, but of the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles, the central demand of love, and the guiding influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

This means murder is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.
This means sorcery is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.
This means idolatry is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.

But because they violate the Law of Christ.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That was the weakest possible passage of scripture to make a point about free will. It specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart to prevent him from letting the people go. Ergo, not only did God tell Moses to state his intentions, but he actively prevented those intentions from being carried out. Frankly, I don't think that qualifies as a lie, because the statement was a conditional proposition dependent upon Pharaoh letting them go, which he didn't.



From the beginning passages of Genesis, I get the impression that reality is shaped by God's words. The impossibility of the lie comes from the fact that God saying it makes it become true.



That's an extreme example, and it was brought up many times in this thread, both before and after this post. It's a good question, but it lacks nuance.

I would wonder if all information is to be available to all people. If I ask you a direct question to a sticky subject, knowing that you will not lie, then simply remaining mute will answer my question sufficiently. The answer is whichever of the options you would not want to give (binary questions work marvelously). If you give an indirect answer, then it is the same as being mute. If you give a direct answer, then you are telling the truth. I know, because I once took advantage of someone whom I knew would never lie to me. I realized, afterward, that I had been taking advantage of a person's honesty, and I swore I'd never do that again. However, at the time, I was able to discover anything I wanted, simply by being persistent, forward and binary.

The question I would ask, rather than the one about hiding Jews from Nazis, is simply whether I'm obligated to reveal everything about myself to anyone who asks pertinaciously, whether I want to or not, because that's what will ultimately happen if I never lie or deceive. It's not necessarily a matter so extreme as life or death, or even protecting right over wrong.



I can't say it's never crossed my mind. You do have a habit of equivocating, as in the latter part of this same post:



This was in response to someone who mentioned getting drunk, which is definitely an action. You changed getting into being, and then you argued against what he did not say. Then, he let you get away with that clever little twist.

It wouldn't be so bad, but that's no exception to your over-all debating habits. It's the "Did God really say..." argument, and it seems to be your modus operandi.

I think you took a wrong turn and you are in the wrong thread.
This thread is not about Calvinism.
Oh, and Pharoah hardened his heart first - BTW (By the way)
(See Exodus 7:13, Exodus 7:22, Exodus 8:19).
Scripture says it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18).
So it looks like you have a contradiction in the Bible.


...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

For example, do you think Leviticus 18:19 should be kept?

Absolutely, yes.
Obviously.
Same as do not murder, no stealing, etc....

 

[4x4toy]

Exactly, Frees you from taking care of your parents by saying it is a gift given to God where the whole time they plan to act on Gods behalf with your money and their own greedy benefit ..

 

[4x4toy]

I think you took a wrong turn and you are in the wrong thread.
This thread is not about Calvinism.
Oh, and Pharoah hardened his heart first - BTW (By the way)
(See Exodus 7:13, Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:19).
Scripture says it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18).
So it looks like you have a contradiction in the Bible.


...

Agree Pharoah relented then changed his mind a couple times, God said OK you bought it I'm through with you, no turning back now

 

[Apex]

This was in response to someone who mentioned getting drunk, which is definitely an action. You changed getting into being, and then you argued against what he did not say. Then, he let you get away with that clever little twist.

That's because there is no practical difference. Getting to that point of being drunk is a sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For a moral law to be "eternal", means it is the same always, it cannot fluctuate. Context (such a shift in genetic stability) cannot change this.

That is why I said there are "Eternal Moral Laws" and "Moral Laws" that are not eternal.
Some (and not all) commands in regards to sleeping with kin is a "Temporal Moral Law" because at one time it was acceptable to sleep with kin so as to populate the entire Earth. It is a moral law now (or today) because one is putting at risk another life (a newborn) by disobeying this command.

Note: Sleeping with kin like with one's mother has always been forbidden.
I will write about this in a future post.

Plus, you never answered my question on how an increased risk for genetic disorder makes a pregnancy a sin. Do you apply this consistently to all people who have this increased risk - not just close kin?

God tells us that these are His commandments. So that is all the proof we need it is wrong if we break them. If we see bad things result of disobeying this command, such as another potentially perishing or suffering, we are breaking the 2nd command to love our neighbor (i.e. Hence, it is a moral law - See Romans 13:8-10).

Paul, and the Jews, dealt with the law as a unity. This is why we see "law" and not "laws". His response to the law is not to various parts of it, however you wish to divide it, but to the whole law. It is also in this sense the Christians are not under the law - the whole law.

This is because one is not trained to recongize the different aspects or differences within the Law. Some do not really care about God's laws or some have simply not done their homework on it. A great book you should check out is "From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law."

From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law: Philip S. Ross: 9781845506018: Amazon.com: Books

Trying to separate the law into cultic, moral, civil, or ceremonial categories is impossible. Many of the so-called-ceremonial laws have a moral dimension that cannot be jettisoned.

Yes, certain cermonial laws and judicial laws have a moral aspect or truth to them, but what determines or classifies a particular law is what does that law primarily teach or focus upon? What is that law's primary function? For example: Let's take the Saturday Sabbath command from the Old Testament (that is no longer binding under the New Covenant). The Sabbath Command is primarily a "Ceremonial Law" because it teaches a person to observe a "ceremony" or religious ritual observance of some kind. One worships on the 7th day and not on the 3rd day and not on the 4th day. One can say that law has a moral aspect to it because it seeks to give the human body rest from their physical labor or work. But the law is primarily focused on the ceremony and not the moral aspect of it. For it is saying to rest on a specific day and worship God on that specific day (As a picture and symbol of something else).

Most Moral Laws (and not all of them) are generally understood as being wrong by nature.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." (Romans 2:14).

Most of the world as a whole today generally accept that murder, theft, lying, rape, and child abuse are wrong. In other words, a moral law is any law of love that people would do by nature without God having to specifically tell them.

A person is not going to automatically obey the 7th Day Sabbath Command without God telling Him in His Word to do that.

How do you objectively determine which to keep and which to ditch? For example, do you think Leviticus 18:19 should be kept?

The most extreme form of punishment for this is being cut off from among the people. Death was not the form of punishment for disobeying this. But there are health risks to consider. There are potential risks of yeast, urinary, and even an HIV infections as the result of doing this. I do not see this as a sin unto death (if you are not aware of the dangers of this), but I do see it as if you love your partner, you would not want to do any harm towards them in any way over your own pleasure). So I would say that this law still applies because it is moral. It is in the best interest of loving your wife by obeyng this because there are no risks of infection for her.

Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

The entire Mosaic Law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct source of, or judge of, the conduct of God's people. Christian behavior is now guided directly by the "Law of Christ." This new "law" does not consist of legal prescriptions and ordinances, but of the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles, the central demand of love, and the guiding influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

There is no denying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit guide us believers into all truth in regards to His good will and ways. There is also no denying that the New Testament is the main document for obedience to God's commands for believers today. But certain laws of the Old still hold true under the New that are not so clearly expressed in the New Testament (as I have shown previously).

This means murder is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.
This means sorcery is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.
This means idolatry is a sin, but not because it was in the Law of Moses.

But because they violate the Law of Christ.

Yes, I would agree with that.
If one breaks any laws of God today, they are breaking the commands in the New Testament and not the Old Testament. The Old Testament or Old Covenant is no more.
But I would say that the list you made above here are "Eternal Moral Laws" from the start at the beginning.
God never wanted man to do these kinds of evil things ever!


...

 

[Apex]

That is why I said there are "Eternal Moral Laws" and "Moral Laws" that are not eternal.

I do not believe there are temporal moral laws. Morality is absolute.

Sleeping with kin is a "Temporal Moral Law" because at one time it was acceptable to sleep with kin so as to populate the entire Earth. It is a moral law because one is putting at risk another life (a newborn) by disobeying this command.

Is it immoral to purposely get pregnant if you know your child will be at an elevated risk for certain genetic disorders?

God says in His Word that it is sin. So that is all the proof we need it is wrong. If we see bad things result of disobeying this command, such as another potentially perishing or suffering, we are breaking the 2nd command to love our neighbor (i.e. Hence, it is a moral law).

Then why come up with some elaborate reason, like genetic stability? Seems like you are trying to find a moral component to it since the text doesn't clearly list any.

This is because one is not trained to recongize the different aspects or differences within the Law. Some do not really care about God's laws or some have simply not done their homework on it. A great book you should check out is "From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law."

From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law: Philip S. Ross: 9781845506018: Amazon.com: Books

I care and I have dedicated a large part of my life to serious and sincere study. I'll check out the book. Here is my book recommendation: Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology): Brian S. Rosner: 9780830826322: Amazon.com: Books

The most extreme form of punishment for this is being cut off from among the people. Death was not the form of punishment for disobeying this. But there are health risks to consider. There are potential risks of yeast, urinary, and even an HIV infections as the result of doing this. I do not see this as a sin unto death (if you are not aware of the dangers of this), but I do see it as if you love your partner, you would not want to do any harm towards them in any way over your own pleasure). So I would say that this law still applies because it is moral. It is in the best interest of loving your wife by obeyng this because there are no risks of infection for her.

There is a potential risk for all those things while she is off her period. Also, many women desire it during this time due to a fluctuation of specific hormones. But besides all that, who says putting yourself in potential risk is sin? Do you not drive a car? I'm sure you try to mitigate risk by wearing a seat belt, but the risk of a serious crash is still possible. Perhaps wearing a condom during those times of the month can be their "seat belt".

There is no denying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit guide us believers into all truth in regards to His good will and ways. There is also no denying that the New Testament is the main document for obedience to God's commands for believers today. But certain laws of the Old still hold true under the New that are not so clearly expressed in the New Testament (as I have shown previously).

Those certain laws hold true, not because they were part of the Mosaic Law, but because they were true even BEFORE the Mosaic Law.

 

[Apex]

Most Moral Laws (and not all of them) are generally understood as being wrong by nature.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." (Romans 2:14).

Most of the world as a whole today generally accept that murder, theft, lying, rape, and child abuse are wrong. In other words, a moral law is any law of love that people would do by nature without God having to specifically tell them.

A person is not going to automatically obey the 7th Day Sabbath Command without God telling Him in His Word to do that.

I don't agree with that definition. People sin by their very nature. Nature is a bad plumb line to balance morality on.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do not believe there are temporal moral laws. Morality is absolute.

Well, some (and not all) of the next of kin laws (moral laws) only applied at the writing of the time of Moses and after. At one time, some (not all) of these laws were not applicable. Again, how did Adam populate the Earth? Did he encounter other humans from a space ship on another world? Adam's family had to intermarry in order for them to be fruitful and to multiply (and thereby populate the Earth). In fact, speaking of the command to: "Be fruitful and to multiply", I would say that this was a moral law in regards to loving God in a small way back in the Old Testament. God wanted to see His creation Earth filled with mankind. The obedience to this command was fulfilled. Paul says he wishes that believers abide as he does (i.e. not to marry). So the "Be frutiful and to multiply" command is no more. It was for that old world back then. It was a "Temporary Moral Law" that applied to a specific people group.

Is it immoral to purposely get pregnant if you know your child will be at an elevated risk for certain genetic disorders? Then why come up with some elaborate reason, like genetic stability? Seems like you are trying to find a moral component to it since the text doesn't clearly list any.

Because it is true. Men lived hundreds of years until the time of the giving of the Law of Moses (Which just so happens by coincidence is when we receive the Law or Command on not sleeping with one's kin).

I care and I have dedicated a large part of my life to serious and sincere study. I'll check out the book. Here is my book recommendation: Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology): Brian S. Rosner: 9780830826322: Amazon.com: Books

I will consider it. Thank you. I will read more reviews about it.

There is a potential risk for all those things while she is off her period. Also, many woman desire it during this time due to a fluctuation of specific hormones. But besides all that, who says putting yourself in potential risk is sin? Do you not drive a car? I'm sure you try to mitigate risk by wearing a seat belt, but the risk of a serious crash is still possible. Perhaps wearing a condom during those times of the month can be their "seat belt".

Yes, I am not saying it is a command that if broken it will condemn a believer in any way. I would say that it may be wrong to do so if it leads to problems with one's partner and they ignore the problems that come from doing so. Usually if God considered it morally good at one time, it is probably a safe bet to respect that. But by all means, we do have a liberty in Christ. But we should not use our liberty so as to make others to be hurt in any way (As I am sure you would agree).

Those certain laws hold true, not because they were part of the Mosaic Law, but because they were true even BEFORE the Mosaic Law.

Agreed.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't agree with that definition. People sin by their very nature. Nature is a bad plumb line to balance morality on.

But Romans 2:14 says the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law.
If you turn on the news today: They will frown down upon things like murder, theft, child abuse, rape, etc.

It is not to say that they are morally perfect in any way. That is not what I am saying.
I am saying that they do things contained in the law by nature as Romans 2:14 says.

They do not need to be told what is right and wrong in regards to certain moral laws.
They know.
That is my point about the difference between:

(a) The Moral Laws.
vs. (versus)
(b) Ceremonial laws and Judicial laws.

God has to specifically command Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is something he would never figure out on his own. Yet, people can figure out for themselves the moral law and the goodness in obeying it (Without God hitting them over the head and telling them about it).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In the New Covenant, I believe there are only Moral Laws and 2 Major Ceremonial Laws (Baptism and the Lord's supper). The Judicial Laws are not in force for believers today. For there are no Commands in the New Testament on executing justice by our hand for folks breaking God's good moral laws. This was not the case for Israel at one time under the Old Covenant.


...

 

[Apex]

Well, the next of kin law is a moral law that only applied at the writing of the time of Moses and after. At one time, it was not applicable. Again, how did Adam populate the Earth? Did he encounter other humans from a space ship on another world? Adam's family had to intermarry in order for them to be fruitful and to multiply (and thereby populate the Earth). In fact, speaking of the command to: "Be fruitful and to multiply", I would say that this was a moral law in regards to loving God in a small way back in the Old Testament. God wanted to see His creation Earth filled with mankind. The obedience to this command was fulfilled. Paul says he wishes that believers abide as he does (i.e. not to marry). So the "Be frutiful and to multiply" command is no more. It was for that old world back then. It was a "Temporary Moral Law" that applied to a specific people group.

I am not a fan of creating categories for these laws, but I would say the incest laws were more civil than moral. I view them as laws regarding sexual property rights culturally needed in a patriarchal and agrarian society where God enacted a program of inheritance. As for being fruitful and multiplying
I view this as a blessing rather than as a command. You can see how I understand procreation here: Is Procreation the Purpose of Marriage?

Because it is true. Men lived hundreds of years until the time of the giving of the Law of Moses (Which just so happens by coincidence is when we receive the Law or Command on not sleeping with one's kin).

I see that God instituted a program of inheritance and then set family parameters to ensure the success of that program. Great timing....wouldn't you say?

I will consider it. Thank you. I will read more reviews about it.

It is a great book. Even if you disagree with it, it is important to learn other's positions from those that actually subscribe to those positions.