Ethics class

Right & Wrong
User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Ethics class

Post by jaydam » Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:41 pm

Does anybody know when and out of what school of thought the division of the OT law into moral, civil, and ceremonial parts came from?

I'm taking a seminary ethics class, and they are laying out a case to divide the OT law into these three areas - although they give no scriptural references for this concept. Which is laying a foundation to then claim we are still under the authority of portions of the OT law.

In other words, Christ did away with the ceremonial, probably the civil (although they leave room that some civil could apply to church government), but not the moral...

When did this idea develop that we should divide the OT laws into these groupings and look for which parts still bind us?

I'm not advocating that we are not bound by morality now, but I do believe we are not bound by morality because some OT laws still hold authority.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Ethics class

Post by backwoodsman » Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:16 pm

The Threefold Division of the Law by Jonathan F. Bayes might help:

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/ ... he-law.pdf

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Ethics class

Post by jaydam » Mon Jan 11, 2016 6:38 pm

backwoodsman wrote:The Threefold Division of the Law by Jonathan F. Bayes might help:

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/ ... he-law.pdf
Thank you for the article. Exactly what I was looking for in relation to tracing the history of when people started to look at partitions in the law.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Ethics class

Post by steve » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:07 pm

Hi Jay,

I have not had a chance to read the article posted by backwoodsman yet. I hope to do so.

My answer, when asked, is that I don't know who first identified the threefold division, though Jesus and Paul both seem to distinguish between moral and ceremonial issues in the law. The existence of the civil category just seems to be common sense, since it regulates the organization and administration of the state of Israel, a theocratic state, which does not exist today.

I believe, however, that everything in the Law is instructive, one way or another (2 Tim.3:16).

When I say we are still under the moral law, I don't mean that we are under any part of the Law of Moses. The moral law transcends the Law of Moses. It was valid before that law was given (e.g., Gen.6:5; 9:6; 34:7; 49:4; Ex.1:17), and it was a valid basis for God's judgment of societies which had never been given the Mosaic law at all (e.g., Amos, chapters one and two).

There is an eternal code, which we can call the "Law of God" —based upon His character, binding on all, and which was also acknowledged in those moral commands of the Mosaic Law—though the code transcends that body of legislation. Jesus clearly treated the issues of this code as binding—in forbidding murder, adultery, divorce, perjury, etc.(Matthew 5), while taking a lax view toward the ceremonial laws (e.g., Matthew 12:1-7). Paul took the same approach (contrast Galatians 5:19-21 with Col.2:16-17 and Rom.14:1-5).

To say that some of the Mosaic laws were "moral" in nature only means that they were informed by this transcendent "Law of God." The moral issues remain unchanged with the passing of Moses' Law. Ceremonial issues, however, do not remain unchanged (Heb.7:12). It would be less correct to say, "We are required to conduct ourselves according to moral standards because the Law of Moses said so," than to say, "The Law of Moses said so because that is how people are required to behave—with or without the Mosaic Law."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Ethics class

Post by Paidion » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:28 pm

I also believe in "the law above the law" or the transcendent law of God. I think this is in harmony with "the law of Christ", a phrase found in Gal 6:2 and 2 Cor 9:4 The law of Christ is expressed in Matt 5, 6, and 7 as well as elsewhere in the New Testament.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Ethics class

Post by jaydam » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:31 pm

Thanks Steve.

I agree with you about morality transcending the Mosaic Law. Thus, I don't murder because murdering is immoral, not because the Mosaic Law tells me not to.

However, transcendent morality is not what I see being dealt with, rather it is piecemealing the Mosaic Law and deciding what has continued with Mosaic Law authority. Such people proclaim that we should not commit idolatry because that is the first commandment.

I agree we should not commit idolatry, but not because some bits of the Masaic Law such as the first commandment still is in effect, but because God as first and foremost is a moral principle since before the commandments and could be proven moral even if the commandments were never given.

Likely, those who follow the moral parts of the Mosaic Law and myself would live relatively the same way, but for much different reasons. Me, because I believe there is universal morality to be followed, the other because he believes some piece of the Mosaic Law still holds authority as a piece of Mosaic Law.

In the article, I like was John Metcalfe is quoted as saying against the latter theory:
What! rend asunder the one law of God into three mutilated parts,
inventing the names moral, judicial, and ceremonial, just so that you can
discard two and retain one? But what God has joined together, let not man
put asunder. The law, one law, as such, was given by Moses. Then either
we are under it, or we are not under it. It is impossible for anyone to be
under only a part of it. ... God called the whole, the law. Israel calls it
the law. And so did Paul, agreeing with Israel, the Jews, and the Lord Jesus,
none of whom allowed of this dismemberment. It is the law integrally, the
whole of it, all that Moses commanded, and none of it can be separated
from any other part of it.
I have friends who try to go through and look at all the places in the NT where it says simply "law" and tell me, here it is speaking of the ceremonial law of Moses, here the moral law of Moses, here the ceremonial again, here the... then they get wrapped up next in going back to the OT and trying to determine what all is the moral part of the Mosaic Law because since it still rules us, according to them, we need to make sure we get it right. One friend decides the entirety of the 10 commandments still holds authority and is the moral law, so they follow the Sabbath still. Another decides giving God the tithe is moral law because withholding it is related to theft in the OT, so they teach the mandate to tithe still as part of the law which has carried over, and say it is immoral to not tithe. And the list goes on.

It seems a slippery slope to divide the Mosaic Law into parts for the purpose of determining which still holds authority. I would say none of it holds authority as Mosaic Law anymore, yet the universal morals vocalized in it hold authority independent of the Mosaic Law. If that makes sense.

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Ethics class

Post by dwilkins » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:21 pm

Non-Calvinists such as Wright do a good job of demonstrating that there are no grounds for splitting the law. While it is true that there are three basic topics in it, the Israelites never saw it as something that can be partially discarded. The Calvinists need it to be so in order to have Postmillennialism. That movement (generally the theonomists) expects to implement the civil law as they take over the world. Even if their strict version isn't followed, Covenant Theology (the basic Calvinist framework for organizing scripture) requires that part of the Old Covenant still be intact. Dispensationalists also make such three part distinctions, but they are less vocal about them because they don't try to split the law in the same way that Covenant Theology does.

Doug

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Ethics class

Post by Paidion » Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:31 pm

(Extracted From Ptolemy's Letter to Flora — About 150 A.D.)

First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses - not in the sense that God legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas; and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the Savior
.
In some discussion with those who dispute with the Savior about divorce, which was permitted in the Law, he said Because of your hard-heartedness Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife; from the beginning it was not so; for God made this marriage, and what the Lord joined together, man must not separate. [Matt 19:8] In this way he shows there is a Law of God, which prohibits the divorce of a wife from a husband, and another law, that of Moses, which permits the breaking of this yoke because of hard-heartedness. In fact, Moses lays down legislation contrary to that of God; for joining is contrary to not joining.

But if we examine the intention of Moses in giving this legislation, it will be seen that he did not give it arbitrarily or of his own accord, but by the necessity because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was given. Since they were unable to keep the intention of God, according to which it was not lawful for them to reject their wives, with whom some of them disliked to live, and therefore were in the danger of turning to greater injustice and thence to destruction, Moses wanted to remove the cause of dislike, which was placing them in jeopardy of destruction. Therefore because of the critical circumstances, choosing a lesser evil in place of a greater, he ordained, on his own accord, a second law, that of divorce, so that if they could not observe the first, they might keep this and not turn to unjust and evil actions, through which complete destruction would be the result for them. This was his intention when he gave legislation contrary to that of God. Therefore it is indisputable that here the law of Moses is different from the Law of God, even if we have demonstrated the fact from only one example.

The Savior also makes plain the fact that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the Law. "For God,"he says, Said, "Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you. But you," he says addressing the elders, "...have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders." Isaiah also proclaimed this, saying, "This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching precepts which are the commandments of men. [Matt 15:4-9].

Therefore it is obvious that the whole Law is divided into three parts; we find in it the legislation of Moses, of the elders, and of God himself. This division of the entire Law, as made by us, has brought to light what is true in it.

This part, the Law of God himself, is in turn divided into three parts: the pure legislation not mixed with evil, which properly called Law, which the Savior came not to destroy but to complete [Matt 5:17] -- for what he completed was not alien to him but needed completion, for it did not possess perfection; next the legislation interwoven with the inferiority and injustice, which the Savior destroyed because it was alien to his nature; and finally, the legislation which is allegorical and symbolic, an image of what is spiritual and transcendent, which the Saviour transferred from the perceptible and phenomenal to the spiritual and invisible.

The Law of God, pure and not mixed with inferiority, is the Decalogue, those ten sayings engraved on two tables, forbidding things not to be done and enjoining things to be done. These contains pure but imperfect legislation and required the completion made by the Savior.

There is also the law interwoven with injustice, laid down for vengeance and the requital of previous injuries, ordaining that an eye should be cut out for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and that a murder should be avenged by a murderer. The person who is the second one to be unjust is no less unjust than the first; he simply changes the order of events while performing the same action. Admittedly, this commandment was a just one and still is just, because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was made so they would not transgress the pure law. But it is alien to the nature and goodness of the Father of all. No doubt it was appropriate to the circumstances, or even necessary; for he who does not want one murder committed, saying, You shall not kill and then commanded a murder to be repaid by another murder, has given a second law which enjoins two murders although he had forbidden one. This fact proves that he was unsuspectingly the victim of necessity.

This is why, when his son came, he destroyed this part of the law while admitting that it came from God. He counts this part of the law as in the old religion, not only in other passages but also where he said, God said, He who curses father or mother shall surely die.

Finally, there is the allegorical (exemplary) part, ordained in the image of the spiritual and transcendent matters, I mean the part dealing with offerings and circumcision and the sabbath and fasting and Passover and unleavened bread and other similar matters.

Since all these things are images and symbols, when the truth was made manifest they were translated to another meaning. In their phenomenal appearance and their literal application they were destroyed, but in their spiritual meaning they were restored; the names remained the same but the content was changed. Thus the Savior commanded us to make offerings not of irrational animals or of the incense of this worldly sort, but of spiritual praise and glorification and thanksgiving and of sharing and well-doing with our neighbours He wanted us to be circumcised, not in regard to our physical foreskin but in regard to our spiritual heart; to keep the Sabbath, for he wishes us to be idle in regard to evil works; to fast, not in physical fasting but in spiritual, in which there is abstinence from everything evil.

Among us external fasting is also observed, since it can be advantageous to the soul if it is done reasonably, not for imitating others or from habit or because of a special day appointed for this purpose. It is also observed so that those who are not yet able to keep the true fast may have a reminder of it from the external fast. Similarly, Paul the apostle shows that the Passover and the unleavened bread are images when he says, "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed, in order that you may be unleavened bread, not containing leaven (by leaven he here means evil), but may be a new lump." [1 Cor 5:7]

Thus the Law of God itself is obviously divided into three parts. The first was completed by the Savior, for the commandment, You shall not kill , You shall not commit adultery, you shall not swear falsely are included in the forbidding of anger, desire and swearing. The second part was entirely destroyed, for An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth interwoven in with injustice, was destroyed by the Savior through its opposite. Opposites cancel out, For I say to you, do not resist the evil man, but if anyone strikes you, turn the other cheek to him.

Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of transcendent things. For the images and symbols which represent other things were good as long as the Truth has not come; but since the Truth has come, we must perform the actions of the Truth, not those of the image.

The disciples of the Savior and the Apostle Paul showed that this theory is true, speaking of the part dealing with images, as we have already said, in mentioning The passover for us and the Unleavened bread; for the law interwoven with injustice when he says that the law of commandments in ordinances were destroyed [Eph 2:15]; and of that not mixed with anything inferior when he says that The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good [Rom 7:12]. I think I have shown you sufficiently, as well as one can in brief compass, the addition of human legislation in the Law and the triple division of the Law of God itself.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dizerner

Re: Ethics class

Post by dizerner » Tue Jan 12, 2016 6:48 pm

jaydam wrote:I'm not advocating that we are not bound by morality now, but I do believe we are not bound by morality because some OT laws still hold authority.
Paul clearly shows the Law we can't keep and died to includes the moral aspects. To me this has just always been a sneaky way to get man back under a performance of works.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Ethics class

Post by mattrose » Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:22 pm

I think the categories (civil, ceremonial, moral) are helpful.... as categories

But I agree they shouldn't be used to determine what parts of Mosaic law we are still under (since we are not under Mosaic law)

I really like Steve's closing quote...
"It would be less correct to say, "We are required to conduct ourselves according to moral standards because the Law of Moses said so," than to say, "The Law of Moses said so because that is how people are required to behave—with or without the Mosaic Law."

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”