Moral, Civil, Ceremonial Laws... What applies today?

[GoldenEagle]

Read this today... Particularly relating to the Christian and the OT Law...

The Old Testament Law
 

Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.

Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.
 

Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

 

What do you think? Let's discuss.

God bless,

GE

[ProphecyKid]

Read this today... Particularly relating to the Christian and the OT Law...

 

The Old Testament Law

 

Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.

Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.

 

Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

 

What do you think? Let's discuss.

God bless,

GE

 

I think this is a very good synopsis of the different kind of laws that were given. When Jesus came and was on the earth the woman caught in adultery did sin according to the Moral Law, and was supposed to be stoned according to Moses law, more specifically the civil law, but Jesus overturned this law. Jesus did not say the woman did not sin, but he emphasized forgiveness over punishment. Those civil laws that the pharisees were trying to bring the people under were only for a time. 

 

Let me also comment on the civil law. If you notice, David nor Bathsheba was not stoned after they committed adultery and according to Leviticus, they were both to be stoned. The reason this did not happen goes back to the whole purpose of the civil laws. Israel in the wilderness had no King. They only had the prophet Moses and Moses had to be the prophet, priest and King at that time. God therefore gave Moses laws to be able to manage the children of Israel as a civil society. There were no prisons. God had to dictate to Moses what would happen if someone killed their brother. Saying thou shalt not kill was not enough. 

 

But what happened when Israel got a King? Well the king then dictates civil law. He says what the penalty is for someone who kills or steals and God respects the wishes of the people who choose leaders to make these laws. Therefore, the civil laws that governed Israel under Moses was no longer necessary once Israel started having Kings. Therefore, David and Bathsheba did not have to be stoned for their sin. 

 

And then when you go back to the Jews in the time of Jesus, they were under Roman rule. Rome gave them liberty to practice their religion and so they went back to all the laws of Moses and tried to implement them. They were not even dong it properly because they were supposed to bring the man for stoning as well. So indeed this is an accurate depiction of the types of laws. 

[Qnts2]

Read this today... Particularly relating to the Christian and the OT Law...

 

The Old Testament Law

 

Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.

Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.

 

Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

 

What do you think? Let's discuss.

God bless,

GE

I don't think that there are such divisions of the law, and that these divisions are more man made, and not God made. No where in the OT, are these divisions even mentioned. That Mosaic law is one unit, indivisible. It is a covenant and to break even on law is to break the entire covenant/law.

 

Laws were not categorized in the OT, but these boundaries clearly can not exist. For example, the law against murder is a civil law ad a moral law, but if you read the actual set of commands which apply to 'do not murder', you will find that there are two main categories of murder, accidental and intentional. If a person accidently murdered another, the family could choose a person to be an 'adversary' and try to kill the murderer. If the murderer could make it to a city of refuge before the adversary caught them, the murderer could remain in the city of refuge, and the adversary could not touch the murderer. If the murderer stepped outside of the city of refuge, the adversary could legally kill them. Now, there is a catch to this set of laws. If the High Priest dies, the murderer can then leave the city of refuge and the adversary could no longer pursue or kill them.  I strongly believe that the murderer in the city of refuge felt trapped, as they could never leave, return to their friends and family, or to their home. So I believe the murderer would be watching, hoping, and waiting for the death of the High Priest, so they could be forgiven and free.

 

These laws concerning the adversary, the city of refuge, the murder, and the death of the high priest, point to Jesus, as does the entire law. Part of this law is civil, part moral, and part ceremonial. So, no such divisions are ever mentioned in scripture, and no such divisions can be valid, as these divisions and theology end up allowing people to pick and choose which laws they think apply and which do not.  

[ProphecyKid]

Deu 10:4  And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. 

Deu 10:5  And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me. 

 

Deu 31:24  And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 

Deu 31:25  That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 

Deu 31:26  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 

 

God's law was place in the ark, in fact under the mercy seat. Moses Book of the law was place on the side of the ark. How can anyone say they were all one in the same. If all the law is one and the same then what does Paul mean here:

 

1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 

 

Wasn't circumcision a part of Moses law?

[Qnts2]

 

Deu 10:4  And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. 

Deu 10:5  And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me. 

 

Deu 31:24  And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 

Deu 31:25  That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 

Deu 31:26  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 

 

God's law was place in the ark, in fact under the mercy seat. Moses Book of the law was place on the side of the ark. How can anyone say they were all one in the same. If all the law is one and the same then what does Paul mean here:

 

1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 

 

Wasn't circumcision a part of Moses law?

 

The New Covenant is not the Mosaic covenant. To be under the Mosaic covenant requires ritual physical circumcision. To be under the New Covenant requires the indwelling Holy Spirit who circumcises the heart. What Paul meant was the physical circumcision means nothing under the New Covenant. Physical circumcision does not save a person, give the indwelling Holy Spirit, or means a person has a circumcised heart. At that same time, a person who is not physicall ritually circumcised, does not mean they are not saved, indwelt, or has a circumcised heart.   

[ProphecyKid]

 

 

Deu 10:4  And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. 

Deu 10:5  And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me. 

 

Deu 31:24  And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 

Deu 31:25  That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 

Deu 31:26  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 

 

God's law was place in the ark, in fact under the mercy seat. Moses Book of the law was place on the side of the ark. How can anyone say they were all one in the same. If all the law is one and the same then what does Paul mean here:

 

1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 

 

Wasn't circumcision a part of Moses law?

 

The New Covenant is not the Mosaic covenant. To be under the Mosaic covenant requires ritual physical circumcision. To be under the New Covenant requires the indwelling Holy Spirit who circumcises the heart. What Paul meant was the physical circumcision means nothing under the New Covenant. Physical circumcision does not save a person, give the indwelling Holy Spirit, or means a person has a circumcised heart. At that same time, a person who is not physicall ritually circumcised, does not mean they are not saved, indwelt, or has a circumcised heart.   

 

I totally agree with that. So you agree that it was a part of Moses law but here Paul contrasts circumcision with the commandments of God, showing a difference.

 

And again the scripture clearly shows a difference being made between God's commandments written with his own finger and what Moses wrote in his book. So how can we then say there is no difference and they all the same. 

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

Deu 10:4  And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. 

Deu 10:5  And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me. 

 

Deu 31:24  And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 

Deu 31:25  That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 

Deu 31:26  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 

 

God's law was place in the ark, in fact under the mercy seat. Moses Book of the law was place on the side of the ark. How can anyone say they were all one in the same. If all the law is one and the same then what does Paul mean here:

 

1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 

 

Wasn't circumcision a part of Moses law?

 

The New Covenant is not the Mosaic covenant. To be under the Mosaic covenant requires ritual physical circumcision. To be under the New Covenant requires the indwelling Holy Spirit who circumcises the heart. What Paul meant was the physical circumcision means nothing under the New Covenant. Physical circumcision does not save a person, give the indwelling Holy Spirit, or means a person has a circumcised heart. At that same time, a person who is not physicall ritually circumcised, does not mean they are not saved, indwelt, or has a circumcised heart.   

 

I totally agree with that. So you agree that it was a part of Moses law but here Paul contrasts circumcision with the commandments of God, showing a difference.

 

And again the scripture clearly shows a difference being made between God's commandments written with his own finger and what Moses wrote in his book. So how can we then say there is no difference and they all the same. 

 

 

I disagree, if I am understanding what you are saying.

 

The laws written by Moses were the laws given by God to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. 

 

1 Kings 2:3

Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn,

 

2 Kings 21:8

And I will not make the feet of Israel wander anymore from the land which I gave their fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that My servant Moses commanded them.”

 

2 Chron 3:8

and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers, if only they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to all the law, the statutes and the ordinances given through Moses.”

 

I see two possible understandings of  1 Co.

 

1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 

 

In the Mosaic covenant, Gentiles were not commanded to be ritually physicallly circumcised. That command was for the children of Israel, and their servants..... Not free Gentiles. So, we might say that Gentiles were to keep the commands directed to the Gentiles which was a small subset for Gentiles who were in the land of Israel. The problem was, Gentiles were not equal members of the Mosaic covenant.

 

The New Covenant is very different. Jews and Gentiles entered the New covenant the same way, by faith in Jesus, and received the same New Covenant promises and blessings the same way and equally. Jews and Gentiles are obligated to the New Covenant the same way with the same New Covenant commands, so the second understanding is that unlike the Mosaic covenant, circumcision and uncircumcision means nothing. The lack of a physical ritual circumcision does not make a person (Gentiles) unequal in the New Covenant. We are all equally accepted by God and should be keeping the New Covenant commands of God.   

[Remnantrob]

I disagree, if I am understanding what you are saying.

 

The laws written by Moses were the laws given by God to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. 

 

1 Kings 2:3

Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn,

 

2 Kings 21:8

And I will not make the feet of Israel wander anymore from the land which I gave their fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that My servant Moses commanded them.”

 

2 Chron 3:8

and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers, if only they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to all the law, the statutes and the ordinances given through Moses.”

 

I see two possible understandings of  1 Co.

 

1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 

 

In the Mosaic covenant, Gentiles were not commanded to be ritually physicallly circumcised. That command was for the children of Israel, and their servants..... Not free Gentiles. So, we might say that Gentiles were to keep the commands directed to the Gentiles which was a small subset for Gentiles who were in the land of Israel. The problem was, Gentiles were not equal members of the Mosaic covenant.

 

The New Covenant is very different. Jews and Gentiles entered the New covenant the same way, by faith in Jesus, and received the same New Covenant promises and blessings the same way and equally. Jews and Gentiles are obligated to the New Covenant the same way with the same New Covenant commands, so the second understanding is that unlike the Mosaic covenant, circumcision and uncircumcision means nothing. The lack of a physical ritual circumcision does not make a person (Gentiles) unequal in the New Covenant. We are all equally accepted by God and should be keeping the New Covenant commands of God.   

 

 I'm sure I've seen free gentiles in the old testament who chose to be a part of Israel participate in circumcision to show their conversion to that faith.  Going to go back and look up texts.

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

I disagree, if I am understanding what you are saying.

 

The laws written by Moses were the laws given by God to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. 

 

1 Kings 2:3

Keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn,

 

2 Kings 21:8

And I will not make the feet of Israel wander anymore from the land which I gave their fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that My servant Moses commanded them.”

 

2 Chron 3:8

and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers, if only they will observe to do all that I have commanded them according to all the law, the statutes and the ordinances given through Moses.”

 

I see two possible understandings of  1 Co.

 

1Co 7:19  Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 

 

In the Mosaic covenant, Gentiles were not commanded to be ritually physicallly circumcised. That command was for the children of Israel, and their servants..... Not free Gentiles. So, we might say that Gentiles were to keep the commands directed to the Gentiles which was a small subset for Gentiles who were in the land of Israel. The problem was, Gentiles were not equal members of the Mosaic covenant.

 

The New Covenant is very different. Jews and Gentiles entered the New covenant the same way, by faith in Jesus, and received the same New Covenant promises and blessings the same way and equally. Jews and Gentiles are obligated to the New Covenant the same way with the same New Covenant commands, so the second understanding is that unlike the Mosaic covenant, circumcision and uncircumcision means nothing. The lack of a physical ritual circumcision does not make a person (Gentiles) unequal in the New Covenant. We are all equally accepted by God and should be keeping the New Covenant commands of God.   

 

 I'm sure I've seen free gentiles in the old testament who chose to be a part of Israel participate in circumcision to show their conversion to that faith.  Going to go back and look up texts.

 

You are right. Caleb, and Ruth were Gentiles who converted to Judaism.

 

In the OT, Ruth is seen as the best example of a convert. Ruth said to Naomi, your God is my God and your people are my people (paraphrased).

 

The Mosaic law made it such that the children of Israel were one unit, dependent on each other, and responsible for one another. God dealt with the nation/people, so what happened to the nation of people, happened to all people. If Israel was blessed, all benefited from the blessing, and if Israel sinned, all people experienced the punishment. So, to be a part of Judaism meant a person was a part of the people, which meant they were then Jewish. Ruth was the beneficiary of a kinsmen redeemer, which meant that Ruth was viewed as Jewish, a kinsman. Land inheritance was based on being Jewish and based on which tribe, and Caleb inherited land as a Jewish person who was a member of the tribe of Judah.

 

So, once converted, the person is viewed and treated as 100% Jewish, and their children of Jewish. Ruth became a Jew, as did Caleb. Caleb was circumcised, which made him a member of the Jewish people, fully obligated to the Mosaic covenant.

 

(A male person who was born Jewish but was not circumcised was, according to the law, cut off from the people.)

[Guest shiloh357]

The New Testament nowhere rescinds God's laws. The New Testament augments God's laws, if anything. The New Testament doesn't offer a revised list of commanmdments. The New Testament isn't a new law; it is a new adminstration of God's laws.   The New Testament presents us with a with a better High Priest under a better priestly order.  It provides us with a better sacrifice and better blood. 

 

Old Covenant is obsolete.   To illustrate:  The "Model T" automobile was made obsolete by more modern automobiles that are based on better technology and better capabilities.   The cotton gin made deseeding cotton by hand obsolete back in the 1800's. The cotton gin didn't do away with the need to deseed cotton.  It provided a better, more efficient way to deseed cotton. The New Covenant being a better covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete.  It didn't do away with our need for blood sacrifice. It didn't do away with our need for a High Priest.  It simply provided better versions of these things in the Person  of Jesus Christ.

 

Jesus is the personification of the sacrifices, the Sabbath, the festivals,  Jesus is the personification of the righteousness the law demands.  When Jesus was living on earth during His earthly ministry,  Jesus not only kept the law perfectly, He fulfilled the righteousness of it. Only He could do that. Jesus is the embodiment, the very substance of the law.   He is the fullest expression of it.    

 

The law represents the standard of holiness that God's righteoueness demands.  Jesus doesn't absolve us from that standard.  Rather, Jesus in us fulfills the righteousnes of the law (Rom. 84).   In Christ, the demands of God's laws are accompanied by the power and the passion to live out that standard. His grace provides us the stamina we need to obey.   The grace of God, far from being a means of avoiding holiness, is the expectation holy living.   Whatever God commands us to do, He provides the stamina we need to finish strong. The height of God's holiness is matched only by the depth of His grace.