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 »

ohio jones wrote: [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.
In Greek, this isn't a noun, it's a verb (μοιχᾶται ἐπ’ αὐτήν). We don't have a verb "to adultery" in English, so it gets translated into a noun.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
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 »

In everyday English we would say "cheats on" to mean that.
0 x
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by haithabu »

Josh wrote: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.
Sometimes I wonder if people think the most spiritual way to apply Scripture is to take the most onerous interpretation available.
0 x
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 »

haithabu wrote:
Josh wrote: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.
Sometimes I wonder if people think the most spiritual way to apply Scripture is to take the most onerous interpretation available.
Or that suits their own personal agenda the best. People who are vociferous defenders of marriage to the point of thinking it's wrong for someone like me to reconcile with his first wife, often are not so as enthusiastic about following Paul's instructions that it's best not to be married at all - at least, I see very few advocates for singlehood in plain circles.
0 x
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by haithabu »

Josh wrote:
haithabu wrote:
Josh wrote: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.
Sometimes I wonder if people think the most spiritual way to apply Scripture is to take the most onerous interpretation available.
Or that suits their own personal agenda the best. People who are vociferous defenders of marriage to the point of thinking it's wrong for someone like me to reconcile with his first wife, often are not so as enthusiastic about following Paul's instructions that it's best not to be married at all - at least, I see very few advocates for singlehood in plain circles.
One thing that has influenced my thinking on how to apply the passages on marriage for others is Jesus' word in Luke 11:46.
And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
It is one thing for someone to set for themselves the highest standard possible (especially if they don't expect to be personally tested). But if they mandate it for everyone else, especially where there is room for differing understanding and there are extenuating circumstances, then they should beware that they don't fall into this trap.

I think that Paul's words in dealing with the messiness of this sort of human situation are sometimes under appreciated:
...but God has called us to peace.
0 x
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 »

haithabu wrote:
Josh wrote:
haithabu wrote:Sometimes I wonder if people think the most spiritual way to apply Scripture is to take the most onerous interpretation available.
Or that suits their own personal agenda the best. People who are vociferous defenders of marriage to the point of thinking it's wrong for someone like me to reconcile with his first wife, often are not so as enthusiastic about following Paul's instructions that it's best not to be married at all - at least, I see very few advocates for singlehood in plain circles.
One thing that has influenced my thinking on how to apply the passages on marriage for others is Jesus' word in Luke 11:46.
And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
It is one thing for someone to set for themselves the highest standard possible (especially if they don't expect to be personally tested). But if they mandate it for everyone else, especially where there is room for differing understanding and there are extenuating circumstances, then they should beware that they don't fall into this trap.

I think that Paul's words in dealing with the messiness of this sort of human situation are sometimes under appreciated:
...but God has called us to peace.
important points.
a convicted heart cannot be mandated by human law, whether in government or in churches.

at the same time, i respect the ability, and responsibility, of both government and church to set laws/rules. in God's time, those that conflict with God's plan will fail. both error.
Proverbs 14:12
11The house of the wicked will be destroyed, But the tent of the upright will flourish.

12There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

13Even in laughter the heart may be in pain, And the end of joy may be grief.…
may God have mercy on each of us as we slog-through .. as we seek Him ..
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
Szdfan
Posts: 4234
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:34 am
Location: The flat part of Colorado
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by Szdfan »

The problem with the terms "ceremonial law" and "moral law" is that the OT Testament never actually uses those categories. That kind of language is a hermeneutical framework that's been set up today as we wrestle with which parts of the OT to continue to follow and which parts to ignore.

Last week's lectionary text included Matthew 5:13-20:
"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
The challenges of this passage are that 1) It appears at face value that Jesus rejects supersessionism or replacement theology and 2) Does not distinguish between moral and ceremonial laws -- i.e. "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."

I'm not particularly convinced by the moral vs. ceremonial argument, but I do find this question of "fulfillment" a lot more interesting when it comes to this question about our relationships today as Christians to the OT Law. What does it means for Jesus to have "fulfilled" the Law, especially in relationship to his metaphors on salt of the earth, lampstands and a city on a hill? This week's lectionary includes Matthew 5:21-37 in which Jesus compares lust with adultery, even if the individual does not act on that lust.

I see in Jesus an emphasis on the internal vs. external - our "moral code" as Christians does not depend on an external set of God's law, but rather in what is in our own heart - i.e. the things that we pay attention, the decisions we make, what ultimately has our loyalty. That's what I see as a primary difference between the OT and the NT. Thoughts?
0 x
“It’s easy to make everything a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.” — Brandon L. Bradford
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Ongoing Moral Law?

Post by silentreader »

Szdfan wrote:The problem with the terms "ceremonial law" and "moral law" is that the OT Testament never actually uses those categories. That kind of language is a hermeneutical framework that's been set up today as we wrestle with which parts of the OT to continue to follow and which parts to ignore.

I see in Jesus an emphasis on the internal vs. external - our "moral code" as Christians does not depend on an external set of God's law, but rather in what is in our own heart - i.e. the things that we pay attention, the decisions we make, what ultimately has our loyalty. That's what I see as a primary difference between the OT and the NT. Thoughts?
I agree with this, but I'm still struggling with how to put it into words. I think ultimately and theoretically, perfect obedience to OT law, and perfect obedience to NT law, would be designed to bring a person to the same point, but still in need of a Saviour.
I think even the laws distinct to Israel, and what is often called 'ceremonial law' has its counterpart in the NT as separation from the world, perhaps. In the NT, however, the starting point towards gaining this is a transformed mind, as in Romans 12:1&2
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
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 »

Szdfan wrote: I see in Jesus an emphasis on the internal vs. external - our "moral code" as Christians does not depend on an external set of God's law, but rather in what is in our own heart - i.e. the things that we pay attention, the decisions we make, what ultimately has our loyalty. That's what I see as a primary difference between the OT and the NT. Thoughts?
You must have been sitting in on my nursing home bible study this week. :shock:
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
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 »

silentreader wrote:
Szdfan wrote:The problem with the terms "ceremonial law" and "moral law" is that the OT Testament never actually uses those categories. That kind of language is a hermeneutical framework that's been set up today as we wrestle with which parts of the OT to continue to follow and which parts to ignore.

I see in Jesus an emphasis on the internal vs. external - our "moral code" as Christians does not depend on an external set of God's law, but rather in what is in our own heart - i.e. the things that we pay attention, the decisions we make, what ultimately has our loyalty. That's what I see as a primary difference between the OT and the NT. Thoughts?
I agree with this, but I'm still struggling with how to put it into words. I think ultimately and theoretically, perfect obedience to OT law, and perfect obedience to NT law, would be designed to bring a person to the same point, but still in need of a Saviour.
I think even the laws distinct to Israel, and what is often called 'ceremonial law' has its counterpart in the NT as separation from the world, perhaps. In the NT, however, the starting point towards gaining this is a transformed mind, as in Romans 12:1&2
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Be at peace my friend, Jesus said this:
Mat 22:37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 
38  This is the first and great commandment. 
39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets
And Paul said this:
Rom_13:10  Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
Post Reply