And yet He was the author of the ceremonial laws as well, and we agree those are discarded after Christ's death.
What is your point here? One has nothing to do with the other. See my last longer post above, which explains how the different laws came about, and for what purpose.
seem to suggest that you equate God's nature with His moral law (cf. my Scripture comparison of God's nature vs. law above).
I have a hard time understanding where you want to go with all of this. If God's nature is not reflected in His moral law, then LittleShepherds quote also makes no sense. Are you saying that His nature is not reflected in His moral law? And if we are to understand God's thinking and His will, are we not to do His will also? God has given us instructions on how he wants us to behave towards Him and our fellow man. Those instructions cannot be contrary to His nature.
I think of the nature of God as transcending time, not just covenants, which, if you go back far enough, takes us out of the picture.
I agre with you, but since God created time, and us in that time, He had to give us a revelation that revealed His nature so that we can know Him better. Sure He exisited before He created man and time, but your argument seems to be a little bit like the "if a tree falls in woods" argument. Did the commandments exist before man did, seems to be the jist of your statement, if the commandments reflects God's nature? It's a good philosophical question, maybe you can further explain why you think it to be relevant to our debate here. I seem to have misunderstood you a few times already, I just want to make sure that I get what you are trying to assert.
I'm having a hard time understanding how you can answer "law" with "nature", profess that the "10 Commandments" are both (if I understand you correctly), and subscribe to Easton's definition of Moral Law.
From Eaton's:
(4.) The Moral Law is the revealed will of God as to human conduct, binding on all men to the end of time. It was promulgated at Sinai. It is perfect (Ps. 19:7), perpetual (Matt. 5:17, 18), holy (Rom. 7:12), good, spiritual (14), and exceeding broad (Ps. 119:96). Although binding on all, we are not under it as a covenant of works (Gal. 3:17).
I also want to quote the referred Scriptures here, and then I will comments:
Psalm 19:7-11 (NIV)
The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
[8] The precepts of the Lord are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV)
"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. [18] I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Romans 7:12 (NIV)
So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
Romans 7:14-16 (NIV)
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. [15] I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. [16] And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
Psalm 119:6-7 (NIV)
Then I would not be put to shame
when I consider all your commands.
[7] I will praise you with an upright heart
as I learn your righteous laws.
Galatians 3:17 (NIV)
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Strix, I must be stupid or missing something real obvious. I don't see any conflicts here. The commandments cannot be both nature and law in a literal sense, of course, one is a reflection of the other. The commandments is a revelation of God's will, and His will is part of His nature. For example, if I tell you I want you to paint my room green, because I like green, is the instruction to paint my nature? Or is my affection for green my nature, and the instruction is an expression of that affection?
Is your point then that Eaton's does not explicitly state that the commandments are God's revealed moral law? Here is Eatons definition of the commandments:
COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN (Exodus 34:28; Deut. 10:4, marg. “ten words”) i.e., the Decalogue (q.v.), is a summary of the immutable moral law.
In the interest of helping me better understand your position, do you think God had some type of moral law before creation? Do you think Adam was under a moral law from God, and did maybe some of those tenants resemble those found in the "10 Commandments"?
Long answer here....
Yes, God had a moral law before creating man. The "us" in 3:22 below can refer to one of 2 things, God and the angels, or the Trinity. In either case, it can be assumed that the knowledge of good and evil existed before Adam. And if God never changes, then that knowledge should have existed forever.
Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV)
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; [17] but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Genesis 3:5 (NIV)
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Genesis 3:22 (NIV)
And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Rev. 22:14 (KJV)
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
From the following Scripture, it seems as if man, having gained knowledge of the difference between good and evil, knew what was right and wrong in God's eyes:
Genesis 4:7 (NIV)
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
Cain killing Able, and God's response certainly showed that murder was wrong, and that Cain knew that, so the tenets of the moral code seem to be the same (if we make use of inductive reasoning a bit, and assume that if a part of the moral code was known, all of it was known). Also:
Genesis 6:11-12 (NIV)
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. [12] God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
Genesis 6:5 (NIV)
The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
How would God know that the world was evil, and how would Noah be adjudged as to be rigtheous, if no moral code existed?
This corresponds to Paul talking about the Gentiles:
Romans 2:15 (NIV)
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
This shows me there has at least been a moral code for as long as man has been around. That moral code is given to every human being spritually by God, and is summarized in the commandments.
I'm certainly not trying to be facetious here, I'm simply trying to ask if His Law could change given certain circumstances
I'm not God, so I can't answer that. If He sees fit to change His instructions, then He will do so. His nature can never change, but His instructions conceivably can. In fact, we have argued earlier in the thread, and in another discussion, about the Sabbath, and whether that was a change in the commandments. The Judaic observance of the Sabbath was abrogated for sure, because the Phrisees no longer observed it as a day of God:
Matthew 12:5 (NIV)
Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?
but then again Jesus observed the Sabbath Himself.
Mark 1:21 (NIV)
They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach.
He remarked that it was proper to do good works on the Sabbath. Paul, John and the disciples also observed the Sabbath:
Acts 16:13 (KJV)
And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
It was forbidden to bring any religion but Judaism through the gates, so this is why this was not debating with the Pharisees, but a seperate observing of a worship day. It does not mean that we are to observe the Sabbath as prescribed in Judaic law, with no work to be done, etc, but that the principle underlying the Sabbath, namely getting together as a group to study the Word of God, worship and pray is valid:
Acts 20:7 (NIV)
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
1 Cor. 16:2 (NIV)
On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
Was this a change in the moral code, in your opinion? For me, the principle still applies, there is to be an occassion where Christians get together to worship, pray and study, but I don't necessarily attach a specific day to that.
could you define these terms, in your own words, as you see them being used in Scripture (my example texts are from the NASB):
Judaic Law
the "10 Commandments"
Old Covenant (2 Cor. 3:14)
the Law of Moses (John 1:17)
the Law and the Prophets (Luke 16:16)
Judaic law - Mosaic law, i.e. the instructions given to Moses.
10 Commandments - the code of behaviour that God gives us as a reflection of His will.
Old Covenant - made between God and the people of Israel, abrogated when Jesus was born and died.
Law of Moses - In John 1:17, the statement is not "Law of Moses", but "given through Moses". In this context, the moral law, which also was given to Moses.
Law and the Prophets -Moral Law, and seems like a shortened version of Matthew 5:17-48. Jesus says that the "good news of the Kingdom" is a new era, in contrast with the former period, grace is now the mechanism for salvation, not keeping the law. He affirms the permanence of the Law (16:17), but insists that the Law must be interpreted correctly, such as in the case of marriage commitment, which had become very lax in his day (16:18).
I will respond to that question you posed, though... I think the Law of Christ is His teachings (2 John 1:9). Certainly the words of Christ, but also the epistles because He said to the Apostles "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." (John 16:12,13). Paul's writings are also equated with Scripture (1 Cor. 14:37, 2 Peter 3:15-16).
2 John 1:5-6 (NIV)
And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. [6] And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
2 John 1:9 (NIV)
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Agree with you here. John is talking about Jesus's commands here, and cross-references back to the earlier statement by Jesus that the whole law rests on the 2 commandments of loving God, and loving our fellow humans.
This is not a hypothetical at all. Jesus did not restate the Sabbath commandment. I'm not sure I know what your position is on this, but I don't find in the NT where we are to keep the Sabbath as described in the Old Law
But Jesus kept a Sabbath, as did His disciples. I spoke about this already, and it seems as if we are in agreement. We are to keep to the underlying principle of the Sabbath, not the corrupted version of the Pharisees, or the Sabbath and feasts established in the ceremonial and civil law.
We shouldn't start another Sabbath thread here, but it is central to the concept we are trying to establish. In your response to Mastermind's question for Scripture references clarifying the distinction of your academic types of the law, you clearly set the "10 Commandments" apart ("10 Commandments" pending your definition above)...
And yet, included in those 10 is one that is clearly distinctive from the others - the Sabbath. Do you believe the Sabbath is a part of the moral law, and do you believe we should keep it?
Hope I have answered this by now
"...how He expects us to live..." You make my point.
Uh, ok, but it's my point too.
So what you propose is that the Hebrews were condemned of not following a law that they did not clearly understand, and was not clearly explained to them in the first place. That when they read "do not murder" they were supposed to understand that they were not even to get angry (in the NT sense)... Clearly there is a difference.
Hmmm, you are putting words in my mouth here. I never proposed that Israelites were condemned because they misunderstood the moral law. This is your assertion.
There were 613 different ceremonial and civil laws on how they were supposed to live, and a continuous stream of prophets and kings to help them understand. For example, duties to their fellow man was:
Stolen property must be returned to the owner. (Leviticus 6:2-5)
The poor must be taken care of according to Yahweh's Laws. (Deuteronomy 15:8, 11)
When a Hebrew slave goes free, the owner must give him gifts. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14, 18)
Loans to brothers must be without interest. (Exodus 22:25)
Loans to the foreigner may be with interest. (Deuteronomy 23:21)
Restore a pledge for a loan to its owner if he needs it. (Deuteronomy 24:12-13)
Pay the hired worker his wages on time. (Deuteronomy 24:15)
Permit the poor to eat of the produce of the vineyard or the standing grain. (Deuteronomy 23:24-25)
Help a stranger who has a fallen animal. (Exodus 23:5)
Help your brother who has a fallen animal. (Deuteronomy 22:4)
Lost property must be restored to its owner. (Exodus 23:4; Deuteronomy 22:1)
Those who sin must be corrected. (Leviticus 19:17)
Love your neighbor, whether a brother or an enemy, as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)
Love the stranger and the new convert among you. (Deuteronomy 10:19)
Use only honest weights and measures. (Leviticus 19:36)
Of course there is a difference. Salvation under the old covenant was through keeping the laws, and under the current covenant, through the grace obtained as a gift through the death of Christ. Many OT characters found grace in the eyes of God through their works. Noah, Jacob, Joseph etc....
So if "accepting God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ" is not a tenant of a Law for us, and it can not be a part of the nature of God (He can not accept His own grace through faith in Himself), then how would you categorize it?
Your second statement is fundamentally flawed. God does not need grace, because He is perfect. Further, you don't have to be morally sound, i.e. in compliance with the moral law to accept grace, in fact, that is reverting back to justification through the law, which is contrary to the whole point of Jesus's sacrifice.
I would categorize it as Scripture does, as a gift. Gifts are unconditional offerings out of love, and God's nature is love:
Acts 1:4 (NIV)
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.
Acts 2:38 (NIV)
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 11:17 (NIV)
So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
Romans 5:15 (NIV)
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Romans 6:23 (NIV)
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
James 1:17 (NIV)
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
What is your answer to the question you posed?
