Components of Law

[Guest]

Proverbs 21:3
To do righteousness and justice Is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice

From this verse God has classified the law into 2 groups and these are Moral laws ( righteousness, justice) and ritual laws ( animal sacrifice). From this particular verse God has also given us the ranking
of these laws. Moral law is rank #1 and ritual law is rank #2 which means that moral laws must be followed first then followed by ritual laws. When God said that love ( righteousness, justice) is more acceptable than sacrifices it does not mean that he is putting away the ritual sacrifices what he is saying is that in order for the ritual sacrifices to be accepted moral laws must be performed first. Moral laws have spiritual value that is if we disobey the moral laws our spiritual condition will be affected while Ritual laws have symbolic value and that is ritual laws always points toward Jesus Christ that is why in the Old Testament ritual laws can not be neglected. But when the Messiah arrived all of the ritual laws and other components of the law including moral laws has been fulfilled. But there is one component of the law that Jesus Christ always teach us to follow and must not be neglected and that is the moral laws which is of course is also #1 in God's list in the Old testament. The reason Jesus Christ continue to asked us to follow the moral laws is because it has a spiritual value and God will judge us according to our spiritual conditions. The reason Jesus Christ did not ask us to follow ritual laws in the New Testament is because the symbolic value of the ritual laws has already been realized through the death and ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The laws in the Old Testament can be classified into 3 groups. It is also possible to classify it into 4 groups but I will classify it into three for now. These are Moral laws, ritual laws and economical laws. Example of moral law is do not murder, for ritual law is the animal sacrifice and for economical law is the redemption of the land ( when the husband dies the next of kin can redeem the land and marry the wife of the deceased husband).

[Guest]

Paul,

This is an interesting subject.

The reason Jesus Christ did not ask us to follow ritual laws in the New Testament is because the symbolic value of the ritual laws has already been realized through the death and ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Would you say that baptism and communion are not rituals? If not, how would you categorize them?

It seems to me the easiest way to categorize laws is 1. Natural Law (or moral law) which are laws that are naturally understood to be right in and of themselves and 2. Positive Law which are laws, or commandments, that are right because the authority (God or government) says they are. This idea goes back at least as far as Aristotle and is a valid concept in law today.

Interestingly, if you read the story of Saul and David, you will find Saul was rejected for his failure to obey positive law (commands) and I do not believe you will find any failure morally on his account up to the point he was rejected as King. Yet David failed in a terrible way to keep the moral law, commiting adultry and covering it up with murder, but was allowed to remain King.

When you think about it, positive commands are a great test of faith because we see no reason for obeying. An example is the "what good will it do?" attitude regarding baptism. It is no test of faith to be a moral person; many unbelievers accomplish this rather well.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

I was categorizing law as it was given in the Old Tetsament and not in the New Testament. There was no baptism in the Old testament that is exactly the same in the New Testament that is there is no baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

Hi, Paul,

But doesn't your bible say: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others [emphasis added]"?

Let us be careful of making too much of a distinction between one kind of commandment and another. They all have one thing in common: they are to be obeyed.

...Ritual laws have symbolic value and that is ritual laws always points toward Jesus Christ that is why in the Old Testament ritual laws can not be neglected. But when the Messiah arrived all of the ritual laws and other components of the law including moral laws has been fulfilled.

So do the rituals no longer (putatively) point to Jesus Christ even afterward?

Your Paul seems to have been OK with continuing to keep the ritual laws, long after their (putative) fulfillment [q.v., Acts 21:26].


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

I was categorizing law as it was given in the Old Tetsament and not in the New Testament. There was no baptism in the Old testament that is exactly the same in the New Testament that is there is no baptism of the Holy Spirit.

There was baptism in the OT. 1 Cor 10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink.

Just depends on what your view of baptism is I guess..

[Guest]

Kaufmanphilips wrote:

Let us be careful of making too much of a distinction between one kind of commandment and another. They all have one thing in common: they are to be obeyed

Proverbs 21:3
To do righteousness and justice Is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice
God made the distinction not me. He said that righteousness and justice is more acceptable than sacrifice with respect to the passage you gave the pharisees have neglected the weightier matters of the laws which is love in general but they were too careful in following the ritual laws which has no value if the wieghtier matters of the law which is love is neglected. According to God Moral laws such as love must be obeyed first then the ritual laws will be accepted of having value but only if the weightier matters of the law has been obeyed.

Brothers I will be happy to respond to all of you but it will take me some time so please be patient.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

It seems to me the easiest way to categorize laws is 1. Natural Law (or moral law) which are laws that are naturally understood to be right in and of themselves and 2. Positive Law which are laws, or commandments, that are right because the authority (God or government) says they are. This idea goes back at least as far as Aristotle and is a valid concept in law today.

The only problem in categorizing these laws in Natural and positive laws is that the meaning of these terms is too vague. What I meant is that Natural law can refer to pagan law ( immoral laws ) such as having sex with a priestess or priest while the moral law of God is more specific.
Actually there is a group and they refer to themselves as naturalist. I think they believe that if it does not hurt anybody and it produces pleasure such as sex then it is ok. The term moral law is more specific than the term Natural law.

[Guest]

Hi Brother Emmett,

Your Paul seems to have been OK with continuing to keep the ritual laws, long after their (putative) fulfillment [q.v., Acts 21:26].

The verse you are referring to must be interpreted within it's context.
First let us go back to Matthew 5:17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill them. Paul being the representative of Jesus Christ obviously did not come to destroy the law also. In order to understand Acts 21:26 we must start reading from
Acts 21:20-26

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;  but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.  Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

Someone spread a rumor that Paul was teaching the people to destroy the Law of Moses but the truth is Paul was not teaching that what Paul was teaching is the same as what Jesus was teaching and that is Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. In order to show to the jewish leaders, pharisees and saducees that the rumor about him was false, the Christian believers suggested to him to perform the law prescribe in the law of Moses. Paul thought that their suggestion was good therefore he agreed to follow their suggestion. The pharisees, saducees and the leaders won't have the reason to accuse him that he was teaching to destroy the Law of Moses because he publicly performed the rituals prescribe in the Law of Moses.
Acts 24:13

13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.

Now Paul is saying that the pharisees have no evidence to prove their accusation about him because he publicly performed the rituals.

[Guest]

Hello, Paul,

Thank you for your responses.

Proverbs 21:3 To do righteousness and justice Is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice
God made the distinction not me.

For my part, not so convinced that Proverbs is the word of God.

But in any case, my comment was "Let us be careful of making too much of a distinction between one kind of commandment and another [emphasis added]." If God takes relatively greater delight in something or another, that is one thing. But an interpreter needs to be cautious against inferring too much from that.

Regardless of what may or may not be preferred, that which is commanded must be obeyed. And let us be blunt - is not the ulterior motive in highlighting this distinction to whitewash disobedience to the "ritual" commandments?

Now Paul is saying that the pharisees have no evidence to prove their accusation about him because he publicly performed the rituals.

Being attentive to context is good. I'm a big fan of that . All the same, Paul would not have performed those rituals if he were opposed categorically to their being performed in the Christian era.

The reason Jesus Christ did not ask us to follow ritual laws in the New Testament is because the symbolic value of the ritual laws has already been realized through the death and ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The reason most Gentile Christians were not required to follow most ritual laws is because historically these laws were not called for in their relationship with God. These people had no covenantal responsibility to perform the rituals of the Law. But it does not follow from this that those who did have such a covenantal calling should violate it through neglecting the ritual entrusted to their keeping.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet,

But in any case, my comment was "Let us be careful of making too much of a distinction between one kind of commandment and another [emphasis added]." If God takes relatively greater delight in something or another, that is one thing. But an interpreter needs to be cautious against inferring too much from that.

Regardless of what may or may not be preferred, that which is commanded must be obeyed.

What do you say a person should do if one commandment conflicts with another, e.g. telling the truth vs. saving a life? Would a person sin regardless of what they did? I believe Jesus took a hierarchical position regarding the commandments as exemplified by His application of David and the showbread.

I'm also interested in knowing which books of the Old Testament you consider legitimate (inspired, authoritative) and by what citeria you determine this?