Does the Bible seperate the Law?

mlqurgw · 09-26-2004, 08:56 PM

I am aware of the reasons that theologians seperate the Law into the moral,civil and ceremonial distinctions but does the Bible do so? When it says the Law I think it means all of it. I would be interested in hearing from you on this. Thanks

Awzmgd117 · 09-29-2004, 07:18 AM

i would have to do some review and more reading real quick, i'll get back to you but initially i would say it must, here is my logic on it...
we are not under the law but under grace, but still there are things listed in the law that we are still not to do ie murder, but there are also things that were not permitted in the law that we now do, insert any random odd piece of it here. so are we to just pick and choose, i would hope not... now there are some things reaffirmed in the NT, ie coveting, but if that covered there would be a large part of the OT that served no purpose, save a historical record... thus there must be some wayin which the law is broken down so we can know what parts are reaffirmed in the new covenant...

swordfish7 · 09-29-2004, 08:13 AM

Your question will draw some intense answers from highly studied individuals from all camps. Enjoy the diversity in viewpoints.

I believe that the Law became obsolete (the word used by the Scriptures themselves), all of it. However, what was written in past ages is still to be used for our instruction. In other words, the Law still describes God's attributes, His standards, and detailed definitions of sins and behaviors. You can go to the Law to find out what kinds of activities are crimes and which ones are "accidents", what is punishable and what should not be punishable. Still, the Law of Moses is not binding. However, everything that Jesus told us to do is binding, He refers to it as "if you love Me you will keep My commandments."

To say we are under Grace and not the Law is one thing with regard to salvation. To say we are not under any laws or any commandments totally misses the point and is in severe error.

Just one perspective.

**+Donny** · 09-29-2004, 08:37 AM

Quote:

...highly studied individuals...

I've never seen one of those here.

I agree with the rest of your post, though. The Law, in it's old form is gone, but it has been perfected/fulfilled by Christ and taken up a new form in the New Covenant. The general "attributes..standards, and detailed definitions of sins abd behaviors" are still here with us. To me, there can be no, "If it isn't removed, it is still in place", but neither can there be a "If it isn't repeated, it is gone". Rather, we must examine each law in it's redemptive-historical context and see how Christ has fulfilled it and brought us to a better understanding of it.

As far as the divisions go, they are unworkable in a strict way. You can't say, "This law is moral", "This law is ceremonial", etc., because many laws have elements from two, or even three of the divisions of the law. However, one can distinguish between functions and uses of laws, which is essential to the proper interpretation of them, as long as we understand that a law may have two or three functions and thus may be fulfilled by Christ in different ways.

nolidad · 09-29-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

I am aware of the reasons that theologians seperate the Law into the moral,civil and ceremonial distinctions but does the Bible do so? When it says the Law I think it means all of it. I would be interested in hearing from you on this. Thanks

Well miqurgw--

Swordfish 7 hit the nail onthe head about the lawq--it was given as a single unit. Man has broekn down the Mosaic LAw into civl, moral, ecclesiastical, and dietary as a simple convenience to define what aspect of life that part of the MOsaic LAw apllied to the Jewish nation.

But the MOsaic LAw has been abolished in toto. Its purpose and reasons were all fulfilled in Christ and thus swept away. The New Covenant (or the LAw of Christ) replaced it, and those principles which are "eternal" are reinstituteds in the New Covenant, andf those principles which were just for Israel in the land are gone though we may learn many wonderful things form them.

Jay42 · 09-29-2004, 03:05 PM

*hands out shrimp to everyone,
along with polyester clothing*

mlqurgw · 09-30-2004, 11:30 AM

My sincere thanks to all. I do hope to hear from many scholars on this. Perhaps I should give you the reason for the question. In my studies Rom. 10:4 came into view. As I thought about it the word end became prominent in my thinking. I have been taught that we are yet under the moral Law. This seems to go against the teaching of the verse. My Greek is limited but Thayer gives the definition of the word end as the purpose, fulfillment, and termination. It seems to me all would apply. And again I considered the word Law as used in Scripture. I have not found the divisions. I will continue to monitor and learn from you all.

nolidad · 09-30-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

My sincere thanks to all. I do hope to hear from many scholars on this. Perhaps I should give you the reason for the question. In my studies Rom. 10:4 came into view. As I thought about it the word end became prominent in my thinking. I have been taught that we are yet under the moral Law. This seems to go against the teaching of the verse. My Greek is limited but Thayer gives the definition of the word end as the purpose, fulfillment, and termination. It seems to me all would apply. And again I considered the word Law as used in Scripture. I have not found the divisions. I will continue to monitor and learn from you all.

Well mlqurgw: you are wise indeed!!

To help you understand Romans 10, and the LAw there, remember context is always a key consideration. If you look at Pauls discourse here and previously and also chapter 11 you will clealry see that he is referring otr the MOsaic LAw (all 613 commandmnets in clusing the 10 in stone.) What we refer to as the "moral LAw" are the principles that guide man throughout all the covenants. There purpose in the MOsaic covenant was fulfilled therefore the moral law as staqted in the MOsaic Covenant was rendered moot. However those same moral principles were reinstituted in the New Covenant and while sereving near identical purposes there are major differences . I know this sounds may be like a bunch of gobbledy gook but I would gladly explain and turn you on to tomes thast go into detail of the different purposes same laws have in differing covenants.

mlqurgw · 10-01-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well mlqurgw: you are wise indeed!!

Thanks Although I am not sure why you would say so.

To help you understand Romans 10, and the LAw there, remember context is always a key consideration. If you look at Pauls discourse here and previously and also chapter 11 you will clealry see that he is referring otr the MOsaic LAw (all 613 commandmnets in clusing the 10 in stone.) What we refer to as the "moral LAw" are the principles that guide man throughout all the covenants. There purpose in the MOsaic covenant was fulfilled therefore the moral law as staqted in the MOsaic Covenant was rendered moot. However those same moral principles were reinstituted in the New Covenant and while sereving near identical purposes there are major differences . I know this sounds may be like a bunch of gobbledy gook but I would gladly explain and turn you on to tomes thast go into detail of the different purposes same laws have in differing covenants.

How were they reinstituted? I don't think I have heard this before. Could you please explain a little more? I haven't gotten the hang of seperating the quotes yet so forgive me for adding to yours.

nolidad · 10-01-2004, 08:09 PM

Quote:

How were they reinstituted? I don't think I have heard this before. Could you please explain a little more? I haven't gotten the hang of seperating the quotes yet so forgive me for adding to yours.

Well let me explain by way of example. When an employer and an employee negotiate a contract they agree to terms and conditions. Points that were important enough from the old to keep are placed in the new contract. Thus when the new contract becomes valid-the old is no longer valid. Those points that were kept from thew old ands placed in the new-= are no longer valid because they werfe in the old-they are now valid because they are in the new. Thus those principles were rendered moot in the old contract and then reinstituted in the new Contract.

Same with Gods "moral" principles. We don't obey them because they were in Gods old Covenant, but we obey them because they were reestasblished (or reinstituted) in the New Covenant.

Hope this clarifies it a little better.

mlqurgw · 10-02-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well let me explain by way of example. When an employer and an employee negotiate a contract they agree to terms and conditions. Points that were important enough from the old to keep are placed in the new contract. Thus when the new contract becomes valid-the old is no longer valid. Those points that were kept from thew old ands placed in the new-= are no longer valid because they werfe in the old-they are now valid because they are in the new. Thus those principles were rendered moot in the old contract and then reinstituted in the new Contract.

Same with Gods "moral" principles. We don't obey them because they were in Gods old Covenant, but we obey them because they were reestasblished (or reinstituted) in the New Covenant.

Hope this clarifies it a little better.

I understand the concept as you state it but don't know if the Scriptures support it. We do have the law written in our hearts by which I take to mean that which Christ summed up: Love God and your neighbor. But I can( still searching) find only three commandments given in the New Testament: 1Thess. 4:2-6; 1John 3:22,23;2John 1:4-6 There may be more given by the Apostles which are taken as commands but they may also be understood as simple exhortations. I am not seeking to debate this just understand it.

nolidad · 10-03-2004, 11:22 AM

Quote:

I understand the concept as you state it but don't know if the Scriptures support it. We do have the law written in our hearts by which I take to mean that which Christ summed up: Love God and your neighbor. But I can( still searching) find only three commandments given in the New Testament: 1Thess. 4:2-6; 1John 3:22,23;2John 1:4-6 There may be more given by the Apostles which are taken as commands but they may also be understood as simple exhortations. I am not seeking to debate this just understand it.

I understand. The concept of a law being cancelled and reinstituted is more semantical because the law does stay in force, but now in a different covenant. Well as for the New Covenant--we are under 1008 commands! Some are very clearly spelled outr as the ones you mentioned, but others are ot as clearly defined in trhe language as those, but they are still there. One that comes to mind is to avoid the appearance of evil. Simple statemetn but a rule for New Testament beleivers to live by.

mlqurgw · 10-03-2004, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

I understand. The concept of a law being cancelled and reinstituted is more semantical because the law does stay in force, but now in a different covenant. Well as for the New Covenant--we are under 1008 commands! Some are very clearly spelled outr as the ones you mentioned, but others are ot as clearly defined in trhe language as those, but they are still there. One that comes to mind is to avoid the appearance of evil. Simple statemetn but a rule for New Testament beleivers to live by.

I have some difficulty with rules for N.T. believers because it has been my experience that rules tend to make people judgemental. I believe that love is a much greater motivator than law. You are right though that there are more than three. How many I don't know. Still how does these commands fit with Law. Say tithing for instance. It was an O.T. law but is it still binding today? Again not debating just seking answers.

**+Donny** · 10-04-2004, 08:34 AM

Quote:

I believe that love is a much greater motivator than law.

The Law is love. The whole law is summarized in this, that we should love God with all our heart, mind, and soul, and that we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

mlqurgw · 10-04-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

The Law is love. The whole law is summarized in this, that we should love God with all our heart, mind, and soul, and that we should love our neighbor as ourselves.

I must respectfully disagree. The Law is a commandment to love but does not give the ability to love. Which,I believe, is Pauls argument in Romans 7. I find that I can't do what the Law requires so I am a sinner. Love, on the other hand, causes me to seek to do what the Law requires. I hope I am making this clear. I can be a little confusing.