Moral Law vs Ceremonial Law

In the OT there was always law in the sense of a rule of conduct with sanctions. Even in the garden they were under law in this sense of the word. As man sinned and left the garden and disobedience took so many new angles, God chose to expand the law with some basic principles that cover a very broad range of transgressions. These are known to us as the ten commandments. These dealt in areas of moral law. They serve to govern over our relationships with God and man.

Still yet God gave yet another law to His chosen seed of Abraham that would serve as a schoolmaster to bring then unto Christ. These laws consisted of ordinances, and sacrifices for sin that were to be followed in order to re-establish a relationship between them and God once they fell into sin. These had no power in and of themselves to atone for sin, yet just the same God had ordained them to be followed, and when they did God would governmentally treat them as though they had not sinned and would grant to them some sense and hope of forgiveness. Just the same, and due to the fact that they were only a type and shadow of the sacrifice of His Son yet to come, they had to repeat these sacrifices year after year. This was the temporary system of forgiveness God had ordained to be kept into place until the Redeemer comes.

When Christ arrived on the scene, He alone became the very physical fulfillment of the task of the schoolmaster, the OT ceremonial law. Scripture tells us that His body was the embodiment of the temple veil that was rent to allow man direct access to God in this NT dispensation. Whereas the veil stood solidly between God and sinful man in the OT, in the New Covenant it was removed for those that would repent and trust in faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the righteous. No longer did man have to take part in the ordinances mandated to Israel to partake of and no more was there any need to take part in the temple sacrificial system. Christ was the fulfillment of those things and we are as NT believers no longer under the bondage that schoolmaster imposed upon the Jew.

Clearly references to the law can be divided into two parts. There is the moral law and there is the sacrificial system with all its carnal washings and ordinances. The moral law stands as long as men are created in such a state as the moral law was meant to govern. The ceremonial law, with its circumcision, carnal and divers washings, feasts , Sabbaths,. and the sacrificial system, has clearly been done away with, finally, once for all. No one, lost or saved, is under the ceremonial any more.

Just the same, all, saved or not saved, Jew and Gentile are under the moral law. Christ death, burial and resurrection did not set aside that law, but rather established it as Christ said He did. The moral law will rule over man as long as we remain in the state in which it was designed to govern over, i.e., the natural physical state.

What we have been witnessing is a confusion of the texts that mention the word ‘law’ without giving proper regard to what law it is that it is addressing. When the text says that we are no longer under the law, it is not saying that the moral law has been set aside or its penalties abated for the law breaker, UNLESS we have through the Spirit came into agreement with its demands, having all violations that are past placed under the blood through the conditions of repentance and faith.

One the other hand, NO one now is under the OT school master law of ceremonial law, for it was indeed nailed to the cross once for all.

 

Here are some thought provoking questions for this thread. In what sense is the unbeliever today under grace? In what sense is the believer still under the law? In what sense is the unbeliever under the law? In what sense is the believer under grace?

 

No one so far has attempted to answer the questions in the second post. Are there any takers? How about the following questions? How important was obedience to the ceremonial law in the OT regarding forgiveness of sins? Was repentance and faith all one needed to have access to God? Let’s say that one claimed to exercise faith and had repented of all sins that are past and decided that they were going to go behind the veil in the temple to commune with God. They claimed they did not need to follow that OT ceremonial law in worship but had the same privileges as any NT believer some day would. Any clue as what was about to take place in such a case?

If sacrifices were simply not all that important, seeing as BR states that they were saved the same way in the OT as in the NT, what was all the fuss over Cain’s sacrifice? Why do we not find one place in the OT where God instructs the seeker simply to repent and have faith, or does He? I certainly could have missed something and the OT is hard for me to understand to a large degree. I am listening.

 

HP: Good question. What I have learned is that every time I try and nail down something tight there slips in an exception that slightly raises the lid of the box I had tried to close the lid on. Let me make a general statement and see how it fairs. I would consider the ten commandments as clearly moral. I may get proven wrong here but I would classify all other ceremonial laws, Sabbaths, carnal washings, etc as ceremonial law. Can anyone think of any other moral commands that would not somehow fit within the ten?

We know from the NT that all the moral law can be summed up in two laws, loving God with our whole mind soul and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves.

 

Let me thicken the pot. I want to hold BR's feet to the fire concerning his comment that salvation has been the same in the OT as in the NT. Let me ask the reader. If one committed a high handed sin, what must he or she do to enter into a right relationship with the Lord according to the OT?

 

HP: You miss the point as I see it. Certainly repentance was a necessary part of forgiveness in the OT. No sacrifice was accepted by God without repentance, but just the same does this justify the comment that salvation was the same in the OT as it was in the NT? Try answering some of the questions I posed. Tell me, if one had committed a high handed sin, what sacrifice was he to make for it?

 

HP: I agree.

HP: As I think I understand you, I agree.

HP: How is the ‘moral law’ a schoolmaster that we are no longer under? How is that not pure antinomianism? It is true that the ceremonial law was indeed a schoolmaster, but Christ nailed that to the cross. The moral law stood before the ceremonial law was enacted and stands long after the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross. It will endure till the end of time as we know it.

HP: Here again you at times mix ceremonial law with moral law. It indeed was Christ mission to abolish ceremonial law and to institute repentance and faith as the only stated conditions by which justification takes place in lieu of obedience to the ceremonial law. Faith clearly existed in the OT but was not the stated condition required of man as it was in the NT. In the OT obedience to the ceremonial law was a stated condition, without which I see no evidence that any could or would be saved. Even before it was established there is clear evidence by Abel’s sacrifice that they had some knowledge as to the sacrifices God required from them. If there were some that were saved apart from obedience to the ceremonial law in light of their particular understanding of it, I do not find any specific examples cited.

HP: Col 2:13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

What certificate of debt was nailed to the cross in Col 2? If you say it was the handwriting of ordinances etc, that would prove that there was a debt to be paid in the OT that was not required of us in the NT, would it not?

 

HP: Exactly. :thumbs: There were no sacrifices at all for any high handed sins, murder just being one of them. Only sins said to be ‘sins of ignorance’ were atonable. That did not mean that one could sin and be totally devoid of any knowledge of any commandment. For instance, it was said that if one admitted to his sin before he was caught or exposed, it was to be considered a sin of ignorance.

Forgiveness and reconciliation is directly related to salvation. My point is that here is a clear distinction in the forgiveness of the NT covenant and that of the OT. We see grace afforded to us that according to what I gather from reading the OT, some in that dispensation knew nothing about.

Take Uzzah’s experience with a Holy God for instance. His salvation experiences were certainly cut short when God struck him dead for reaching out his hand to steady the Ark. Today, no such commandment exists. If the Ark is ever found, I seriously doubt that anyone will be killed in handling it. Things have changed. God’s plans and conditions for forgiveness have changed concerning mans obligation in fulfilling God’s demands.

 

HP: I would venture to guess that you are in a very small minority that knows that fact. Most I have conversed with just assume that there was a sacrifice for any and all sin.

Do you see this in any way as being different in our dispensation than in the OT concerning salvation? What effect might have that fact had on their salvation in the OT?