Ongoing Moral Law?

General Christian Theology
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by Bootstrap »

Heirbyadoption wrote:But this idea that the practical tenets of the moral law continue in force upon the Church (beyond those re-iterated in the New Testament) was not an aspect I'd much encountered, hence my questions.
I'm allergic to applying labels to various commands and using those labels to decide which ones we should follow. I grew up with people who did that with the Sermon on the Mount, telling us which things were really impossible and said only to make use feel guilty so we could come to grace, or which ones were meant for some future Kingdom and not for us now. I do think it's useful to recognize hyperbole, but using the labels we apply to Scripture to decide which parts to obey isn't a great approach. And that's what I see people doing here.

But both Catholics and Calvinists distinguish moral, ceremonial, and judicial law. It's in the Westminster Confession. Aquinas put it this way:
Thomas Aquinas wrote:We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men.
If you do make this distinction, it's sometimes hard to know how to classify a given verse. For instance, this section is about divorce, which is both civil and moral, a woman's defilement is usually about the ceremonial law. And defilement is the reason given for not being able to return to the husband. So does this distinction help answer the question? If so, I would argue that ceremonial defilement is the main concern, and that's ceremonial. But I'm also really not convinced that it's helpful to try to do legalistic parsing of the parts of the Old Testament that are not specifically reaffirmed in the New Testament.

But I'm guessing the biblical interpretation issue is not the most important issue here. The healing issue is. And you seem to know that.
Heirbyadoption wrote:As for the debating, most of that has pretty much come to an impasse for a bit. A couple of the strongest objectors are actually those who were good friends with the wife before she took off, so some of it is personal hurt and reaction, etc, though it's all being pushed strictly as a Biblical issue. Makes yet another aspect to pray for. :pray
You've got it.
Heirbyadoption wrote:After it came to a head last summer, we all agreed to call for some outside brethren to council us this past fall, who came and they recommended we take it to our annual conference this summer and lay it in the hands of a group of elders from congregations across the country to study it for a year and come back with a recommendation for us next year. Our next council is in about a month to decide whether to follow that council. Our only other real option at this point is to require submission from the minority, which they're unwilling to give, so rather than deal with their unsubmission, we are continuing to pray, study, and seek for any further discernment God may send, and I expect the question/issue will get sent to conference as mentioned above. Wouldn't be my mind to go that route, but I'm one of the youngest members, and we keep hoping God will soften a few more hearts.
Indeed. I admire your heart in this.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

But I'm guessing the biblical interpretation issue is not the most important issue here. The healing issue is. And you seem to know that.
Healing is definitely major. But because it is being presented as a Scriptural issue, it seems best that we be absolutely clear what the Scripture says about it, lest by some means people be swayed (not everyone studies things out for themselves, a sad fact of life) into wronging our brother and denying him communion or fellowship. I have confidence it'll work out, it's just nice to hear others' perspective and way of explaining things. You've been quite helpful.
0 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by MaxPC »

Heirbyadoption wrote:
There are several other Scriptural areas that have led us to feel they can reunite in good conscience, but this idea has been offered that the moral law, with all its instructions, remains binding (beyond principle, sorry Max) upon the Church today, not just the Jews under the Old Covenant, and therefore our brother cannot reunite with his original wife. (as a note of interest, this would also technically forbid them from just marrying one another if they had simply divorced but neither had remarried...).

On the other hand, most of our congregation stands by the rest of the Scriptures on the subject as well, including Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39, understanding that both Jesus and God clarified that divorce was a man made device and that the original marriage does not end in the eyes of God, no matter what legal separation or adultery comes between the original partners.

So, all comments welcome, but try to keep it reasonably short and concise, please, even if you have a different understanding of the Scriptures. In your understanding, do the tenets of the moral law given in the Old Testament remain in force upon the Church and prevent the full marital reunification of the original partners, and if so, please elaborate.
No worries, Heir. I understand now. It's a real situation and not a rhetorical query. Prayers and carefully proceeding in discernment are wise decisions at this point, I agree.

That said, I believe that the New Testament supersedes the OT and agree with the bolded information above. My basis for that is again the words of Christ in Matthew 9 in which He clearly states there is a new way of seeing these things. Note also how Jesus Himself treats the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11.

My 2 cents. :D
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by Wade »

I commend that brother's willingness to forgive his wife.
0 x
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5222
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by ohio jones »

Heirbyadoption wrote:Coupled with the idea that by remarrying one another, he is entering a second union and she is entering a third, regardless of the originality of the partners, and therefore it is adulterous in the view of our minority.
This seems really strange and illogical, even apart from the question of whether Deuteronomy applies.

[bible]Mark 10,11-12[/bible]
At the end of verse 12, there's an implied "against him" parallel to the "against her" in verse 11. I'm not sure that nouns can be transitive in quite the same way that verbs are, but adultery is an act committed against someone; if there's no victim, there's no adultery.

By marrying her second husband, she was committing adultery against her first husband, that's clear. By remarrying her original husband, she would be committing adultery against her second husband -- if that marriage was valid. If the second marriage was not valid, which I assume the minority would agree with since doing otherwise would contradict the clear teaching of Jesus, then if it is adultery to be reconciled to her first husband, who is it against? :?

It's even clearer in the case of the first husband: The only way to commit adultery against her is to marry another. Someone else, not her. Marrying her could have been adultery against someone else if there were another woman involved, but it can't be adultery against her.
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
User avatar
gcdonner
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Holladay, TN
Affiliation: Anabaptiluthercostal

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by gcdonner »

Heirbyadoption wrote:I was going to wait for a few more, but without proper controversy, MN doesn't perc quite as fast as MD did, it seems. Maybe I should explain the context/situation facing our congregation currently, and then my question may make more sense. I'll go out on a limb here. Not trying to start any arguments, but maybe there's a perspective we haven't considered somewhere along the way.

In our congregation, we have an older brother whose wife left and divorced him several years ago. He has remained faithful to his vow, staying celibate and continuing active within the local church. She remarried another man, and it turned out he was abusive. As such, she only lived with him a couple days, and had their marriage annulled within a month (point being there was a second marriage). Eventually she repented of her sin, and returned to her husband for restitution and restoration. He accepted her repentance and forgave her, and after some time and counseling, has since legally remarried her and took her back as his original wife, presumably in the full sense of the word. He continues as an active member - she attends with him some, but still is associated with a progressive ex-Mennonite church at this point.

We have a small minority objection to the reunification of the original marriage, to the point they refused to commune with the rest of us, and who thus far refuse to submit to the majority of the congregation who feel this brother and his wife are on solid Biblical ground to reunite with each other as original marriage partners before God. There are a couple different objections given, but the reason behind this post is the insistence that under the moral law (not the ceremonial), God forbade a man from taking an adulterous wife back to himself, she being defiled. Coupled with the idea that by remarrying one another, he is entering a second union and she is entering a third, regardless of the originality of the partners, and therefore it is adulterous in the view of our minority.

There are several other Scriptural areas that have led us to feel they can reunite in good conscience, but this idea has been offered that the moral law, with all its instructions, remains binding (beyond principle, sorry Max) upon the Church today, not just the Jews under the Old Covenant, and therefore our brother cannot reunite with his original wife. (as a note of interest, this would also technically forbid them from just marrying one another if they had simply divorced but neither had remarried...).

On the other hand, most of our congregation stands by the rest of the Scriptures on the subject as well, including Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39, understanding that both Jesus and God clarified that divorce was a man made device and that the original marriage does not end in the eyes of God, no matter what legal separation or adultery comes between the original partners.

So, all comments welcome, but try to keep it reasonably short and concise, please, even if you have a different understanding of the Scriptures. In your understanding, do the tenets of the moral law given in the Old Testament remain in force upon the Church and prevent the full marital reunification of the original partners, and if so, please elaborate.
My view on this issue is based on YHWH's own actions in regards to his adulterous wife as found in Jer 3 and throughout the book of Ezekiel. YHWH took his wife back even after she had prostituted herself again and again, and he even cited the passage in Deut 24 as "they say", indicating that this was not His intention, but the determination of Moses in the process of controlling the already out of control problem of divorce and remarriage in his own days. Jesus followed the same pattern with "you have heard it said, but I say unto you..."
I accept Jehovah's own application above all else. That is my view and would encourage this couple to remain together and for the church to work at reconciling themselves to this situation and welcoming the wife.
My 2 cents worth...
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
Neto
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by Neto »

There is a subtle difference between this situation as you've described it, and the portion of the Law to which you referred. That is that the commandment dealt with a case in which the husband divorced his wife, thus forcing her to commit adultery (if she remarried), then later wanted to take her back. As I understand your fellow member's situation, she divorced him, so the commandment does not apply, regardless of how the moral Law might be evaluated in relation to NT believers.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by temporal1 »

Wade wrote:I commend that brother's willingness to forgive his wife.
(for me) the Book of Hosea describes God's definition of marriage, regardless of how it's read. it deserves thorough, ongoing study and prayer when attempting to discern what marriage means to God.

a poignant song (mike) shared on MD:
Song of Gomer -
gcdonner wrote: My view on this issue is based on YHWH's own actions in regards to his adulterous wife as found in Jer 3 and throughout the book of Ezekiel. YHWH took his wife back even after she had prostituted herself again and again, and he even cited the passage in Deut 24 as "they say", indicating that this was not His intention, but the determination of Moses in the process of controlling the already out of control problem of divorce and remarriage in his own days. Jesus followed the same pattern with "you have heard it said, but I say unto you..."

I accept Jehovah's own application above all else.
That is my view and would encourage this couple to remain together and for the church to work at reconciling themselves to this situation and welcoming the wife.
My 2 cents worth...
it's a matter of seeking the Spirit over the letter; our earthly desires can certainly confound us, leading us to see what we want over God's will. (for me, Hosea clears up a lot of confusion, tho it's certainly not the easy path.)

at the same time, i wouldn't view it in a legalistic way.
Hosea acted out of his personal heart for God, certainly not attempting to obey human law, which would have ended entirely differently. instead, Hosea kept God at center. in time, he was rewarded with a restored and healed marriage to Gomer.

in my life, i've known a couple of different marriages that were restored after severe betrayal.
each time, it was the wife who endured in faith, but, as with Hosea and Gomer, in time, healing and restoration came about because one continued in faith against all outward appearances.
the real life people i've known were remarkable to witness. remarkable witness.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by Josh »

Ask anyone who wants to apply Deuteronomy 24 to prevent someone reuniting with their first spouse if they're also willing to apply it to someone who divorces his wife and goes off and marries some other woman, which Deuteronomy 24 explicitly allows.
0 x
User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by JimFoxvog »

ohio jones wrote:At the end of verse 12, there's an implied "against him" parallel to the "against her" in verse 11. I'm not sure that nouns can be transitive in quite the same way that verbs are, but adultery is an act committed against someone; if there's no victim, there's no adultery.
I had never thought of it that way. I thought adultery was an act against God's moral order more than a sin against a marriage partner. Here's what I've thought of as David's repentance after his adultery:[bible]Psalm 51,4[/bible]
God can and does forgive. We are called to do likewise. I think we can put past sins aside and affirm a restoration of a relationship.
0 x
Post Reply