Moral Law Verses Ceremonial Law

In Jer 31:32 Jeremiah says that God writes His Law on the heart under the New Covenant.

In Romans 7 Paul quotes from the Ten Commandments and says that the Law is what defines sin.

in James 2 - James quotes from the Ten Commandments - calling them the "Law of Liberty" -- He also quotes from Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor" calling it the "Royal Law"

Christ in Matt 22 includes Lev 19:18 along with Deut 6:5 "Love God with all of your heart"

In Eph 6:1-3 Paul says that the fith commandment is "the first commandment with a promise" thus continuing to affirm the "unit" of Ten.

So the first and "easiest" definition for the Law of God is the Ten Commandments and also Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5.

Heb 9:4 it is "only the Ten Commandments" that were kept inside the ark.
Deut 10:2.

"He spoke these TEN words and added no more" Deut 5:22

Thus it is clear that when Jeremiah said that God writes His "Law upon the heart" under the New Covenant the Ten Commandments were understood by the author and the readers to be a distinct UNIT of Law.

And clearly from Christ's Matt 22 statements on Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 - the Ten Commandents were not considered by Christ or the Jews listening to him to be the "only commandments" in God's Word that had binding authority as LAW.

So when Paul speaks of "keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 it is clear that the Ten Commandments are part of what is being spoken of -

(Covering the easy - most obvious points first)

in Christ,

Bob

 

Under the New Covenant - the Law of God is written on the heart. (this is an OT concept documented in Jer 31:32.)

Step one is just to get to the "unit of Ten" mentioned both in OT and NT and the idea that other laws such as Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 outside the strict unit of Ten also apply - also define the boundaries for obedience vs sin.

The second step is - the point that the Bible contains 66 books - not just 27 nor merely 23 (for those who think the pre-cross teaching of Christ should also be tossed out the window).

The third step is to notice affirmation of OT commands in the NT - such as is the case in Acts 15 - affirming Lev 17 as a binding obligation on NT Gentile Christians.

BTW - I have been to a major meat-packing slaughter house in the U.S - and the animals are typically hung upside down and drained as part of the process in killing them. They are not strangled.

However - I don't know what the case is for chicken.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There are two basic types of law:
1. Apoditic--Law stated as truth without penalty. Most of the Ten Commandments are apoditic in nature.
An example: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy soul, thy mind..
Honor they father and thy mother.
--There are no stated penalties. These are the right things to do all the time in every society. It is the moral law.

2. Causuistic. Laws in which penalities are attached. Most of our civil laws are causuistic. Most of the laws in the book of Exodus are stated in this way.
All the laws concerning adultery had specific penalties attached to them.
All the laws concerning theft had specific penalties attached to them.

 

Children were to be stoned if the Parents found them to be beyond their control. So "yes" there was a "civil penalty" that came into play on the subject of honoring parents - if the problem reached an extreme.

However Roman 6:23 provides the "penalty" for violation of God's Laws including those not subject to "civil penalties".

It would be a big mistake to suppose that moral laws about coveting for example are not actually "sin" - not punishable by the 2nd death torment in fire and brimstone (Rev 14, Rev 20) if they are not ALSO punishable by civil law in a Theocracy.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Paul has a good comparison of Moral to ceremonial law - in 1Cor 7 -

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

 

You would have to more specific Bob. There is not one verse here that refers to the OT ceremonial Law, not one.

 

Far be it from me to insist that the OT ceremonial law is still in effect.

In fact I would argue from Heb 10 that all the sacrifices and offerings of the OT have come to an end.

Thus the contrast between circumcision and "The Commandments of God" that we see in 1Cor 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There is no quoting of God's law in this chapter. Your argument is self defeating. If anything it is a doing away with the law. Read the verse instead proof-texting it.

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but keeping God's commandments. (Darby)

What does that say about ceremonial law? It is nothing!!!!
Circumcision is nothing.
If you read the context--marriage--your status is nothing. You both are one in Christ whether circumcised or uncircumcised, whether bond or free. It doesn't matter. The chapter is about marriage. There is not one reference to the law.

The commandments of God
Look here if you want to go outside of this chapter; othewise don't go outside the chapter:

John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves.

That is a commandment of God.
The OT law is not referred to in this chapter at all.

 

Paul has a good comparison of Moral to ceremonial law - in 1Cor 7 -

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

How so?

(BTW - since we are on the subject of the NT author's speaking to this teaching about the "Commandments of God" ... more Bible coming up)


Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Notice that in Mark 7 Christ includes the 5th commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" in the "Commandments of God?

No wonder Paul said - that they "matter".

Interesting how the Bible is in perfect harmony when addressing this topic.

Indeed - the Commandments of God are to be upheld even in the case where the ceremonial law and the ritual of circumcision is at an end.

How perfectly logical and fitting.


19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

 

Why are you still trying to read OT ceremonial law into a NT chapter on marriage which doesn't refer to the law at all. You are reading into a verse that which is not there Bob, and no one is being deceived about it.

 

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

I keep thinking that the reference to circumcision is directing us to OT consider the OT ceremonial system.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

I keep agreeing with Bible students who study this topic that "Commandments of God" are "Law".


Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Notice that in Mark 7 Christ includes the 5th commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" in the "Commandments of God?

 

But as you can see from the Scripture that you posted (if you care to look at it without bias) it clearly is not.
What is the concluding verse?

24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
--It has nothing to do with ceremonial law at all. It simply indicates that whatever state a person is in so let him remain. There is no mention of ceremonial law here. You are reading into this chapter (on marriage) something that is not there.

Now you are just proof-texting, taking any verse you can find, ignoring context, and fitting them into this passage, though they have nothing to do with the topic--marriage. The "commandments of God" mentioned in 1Cor.7:19 refer to marriage, the topic of the chapter. But you have taken it out of its context and try to put every thing else under the sun, including OT law, which is way out of context. This type of hermeneutics is typical of almost every cult.

 

I believe that the "Commandments of God" is a phrase used more than once in the NT - and exegesis shows that the term "does have meaning". This point is pretty easy to see given the texts listed below.



Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Mark 7:8-9
8. ”Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.
9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

Notice that in Mark 7 Christ includes the 5th commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" in the "Commandments of God?


By contrast Paul compares ceremonial ordinances such as circumcision and says that the Commandments of God ARE still valid for the christian even though circumcision is not relevant to salvation.

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.


18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

 

Bob, words and phrases are defined by the context in which they are written. That is true for the word "law" as it is for the word "command" or "commandment." The meaning of these words can only be determined by their context. "Commandments" or "Law" do not always refer to the "Ten Commandments" as every student of the Bible knows. Even Satan gives
"commands" and his demons obey him. Are they the same "commands" you are referring to? I hope not! Context alone determines meaning. And the meaning in 1Cor.7:19 refers to marriage. That should be obvious to anyone reading this thread or the chapter of First Corinthians 7.

 

No nonsense. Theology books.

 

Lack of reading and study doesn't excuse ignorance. It wasn't theology if I remember correctly; it was first year Old Testament Survey. I will get you a summary of the quote:

This material comes from Eugene Merrill's book, [FONT=&quot]"An Historical Survey of the Old Testament."[/FONT]