Binding Aspects of the Mosaic Law

[Mimi]

Richard: the Excel file is only a listing of every statute from Ex. 21 through Deut. Jim and I typed them out with their verses. It is not a study - it is a worksheet. You didn't get yours?

[Richard Myers]

Sorry, Sister Sybil.  I was making reference to the designation of number 162 (I think Brother Thomas said 167?) relating to eating meat on the third day as a ceremonial law.  Some of these are not easy to understand. I think that is where we have our work cut out for us. Who did the good work in notating the information regarding the verses?

For those who may be reading along without the spread sheet, we have a listing of the statutes and judgments with some of the laws being labeled as ceremonial or moral with a few other distinctions thrown in.

Here are the verses from Leviticua:

19:5   And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.  

19:6   It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.  

19:7   And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it [is] abominable; it shall not be accepted.  

19:8   Therefore [every one] that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.  

This appears to be a ceremonial statute which involves a moral law. The peace offering which is part of the ceremonial law, is now seen to involve what appears to be a restriction based upon health laws. The meat is to be eaten the day of the offering. But, no later than the following day. If eaten on the third day, it is an abomination and unacceptable.

There may be a ceremonial teaching based upon this abomination on the third day, but it seems that with the ceremony was included a statute to keep the individual safe from bacterial infection. The ceremonial laws were used to teach the gospel in its purity. God did not design that any become sick by way of the ceremonies that shadowed forth His desire to bring them life.

If there is light regarding the ceremonial teaching that will shed light on this aspect of the peace offering, let us examine it.

[Mimi]

Richard asked:  

Who did the good work in notating the information regarding the verses?

For those who may be reading along without the spread sheet, we have a listing of the statutes and judgments with some of the laws being labeled as ceremonial or moral with a few other distinctions thrown in.

Jim and I did it. For those who want the Excel spread sheet, PM me and I will send it to you.

[Mimi]

Regarding bacteria on the meat - it appears to be drained (kosher) - even still would become rancid by that time. No refrigeration ... stands to reason it would be a health law applying to a ceremonial law.

I have not worked on the ML worksheet in a few days - but did note some dual applications on some of the ceremonials. This one could apply as dual to health.

[Richard Myers]

We are making progress.    Good job!

[Mimi]

Willing offerings comes under the ceremonial in Ex. 25:2 - I consider that a dual application as well.

Leviticus 10:8-20 - against strong drink, intoxicating drinks rendering one unable to distinguish between holy and unholy - is under the ceremonial law with a dual application to health.

A side question: why does Numbers 4:3 differ from Numbers 8:24 in the age of the men to work in the sanctuary? Both texts seem to be describing the same work - Numbers 4:3 says tabernacle of the congregation and 8:24 says "sanctuary," yet these are one in the same.

[Mimi]

As I was reading Numbers 15:37-41 - the tassles on the garments - the ribbon of blue, I was struck by the reminder this is commanded to be for the COI that "ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a-whoring: that ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God."

As a people, we are to be simplistic in our dress, not seeking after our own heart and eyes, to go a-whoring after the world - that through the simplicity of dress, we may remember that we are holy unto God.

I have those texts marked "ceremonial" with a dual application to us today. Do we see that as correct or am I off the mark on this one?

[Thomas M]

The idea of a dual application is probably good. We ought to remember that our classifications are not necessarily inspired: they depend on our own analysis of the content of the statutes. Richard may be right that the term ceremonial is being used too broadly, and therefore sometimes overlaps with the purity code (which is not perhaps relevant to types), and even health laws. Considering the knowledge and mentality of ancient times, it is possible that the distinction between health laws and the purity code is largely in the modern mind.
I would see the apparent conflict in Num 4:3 and 8:24 as follows. 8:24 gives the age span for Levites in general. 4:3 refers specifically to the Kohathites. Why they are exempted from the longer term of service is a matter for speculation, but may refer to a longer term of preparation, since they start later. The work described for them is the setting up and dismantling of the sanctuary, work that might have required some specific training.

quote:Originally posted by Sybil:
Willing offerings comes under the ceremonial in Ex. 25:2 - I consider that a dual application as well.

Leviticus 10:8-20 - against strong drink, intoxicating drinks rendering one unable to distinguish between holy and unholy - is under the ceremonial law with a dual application to health.

A side question: why does Numbers 4:3 differ from Numbers 8:24 in the age of the men to work in the sanctuary? Both texts seem to be describing the same work - Numbers 4:3 says tabernacle of the congregation and 8:24 says "sanctuary," yet these are one in the same.

[Thomas M]

I did some studying on the blue thread a few years ago. It is apparently attached to a garment that was untailored and also served as a sleeping blanket. Furthermore, there is a question of the obtainability of the blue dye in question, the shell from which it was taken being extinct. If one considered the statute binding, the question arises whether 1) the particular article of clothing must thereby be seen as universal, and 2) whether other sources of blue dye are acceptable under the commandment. Those limitations indicate to my mind that the statute was inteneded to be local and temporary in character, and what is universal in it is the reminder to observe the commandments.
I would suggest that rather than attempting to invent a modern application of the statute, a study of the latest prophetic guidance would reveal what today is to be used as a reminder to keep the commandments. That of course is an application of my principle that the "plus" statutes are susceptible to variation under the regimes of succeeding prophets.

Thomas

quote:Originally posted by Sybil:
As I was reading Numbers 15:37-41 - the tassles on the garments - the ribbon of blue, I was struck by the reminder this is commanded to be for the COI that "ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a-whoring: that ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God."

As a people, we are to be simplistic in our dress, not seeking after our own heart and eyes, to go a-whoring after the world - that through the simplicity of dress, we may remember that we are holy unto God.

I have those texts marked "ceremonial" with a dual application to us today. Do we see that as correct or am I off the mark on this one?

[Thomas M]

The Spirit of Prophecy equates the blue ribbon to dress reform.
 What can we think of a people who have had no great light as the church at Battle Creek, who profess faith in the testimonies and then go directly against the light given. I shall not repeat again what has been so often repeated in favor of dress reform. I will state that the simple, modest, convenient and healthful style of dress we advocate answers to us as did the ribbon of blue to the children of Israel. "And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribbon of blue. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may
                                                                           61
look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them. And that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes. That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy into your God." The great God, the Maker of Heaven and earth, has condescended to the particulars of dress, specifying the style of dress the children of Israel should wear for the purpose of preserving their peculiarity from other nations, and distinguishing them as a people who acknowledged the Creator of the universe as their God, whose ordinances and commandments they obeyed.  {PH123 60.1}
So the principle is still binding, but the detail has changed. Dress should be such both to remind us to keep the commandments and to separate us from tempting influences by our appearance. Should we begin now to sigh and cry, or later?

quote:Originally posted by Sybil:
As I was reading Numbers 15:37-41 - the tassles on the garments - the ribbon of blue, I was struck by the reminder this is commanded to be for the COI that "ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a-whoring: that ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God."

As a people, we are to be simplistic in our dress, not seeking after our own heart and eyes, to go a-whoring after the world - that through the simplicity of dress, we may remember that we are holy unto God.

I have those texts marked "ceremonial" with a dual application to us today. Do we see that as correct or am I off the mark on this one?

[Mimi]

 

quote:So the principle is still binding, but the detail has changed. Dress should be such both to remind us to keep the commandments and to separate us from tempting influences by our appearance. Should we begin now to sigh and cry, or later?

Exactly. The principle is there. We have been sighing and crying for a while now, Thomas!

One of our members sent me a little book called "The Ribbon of Blue" which is a beautiful reminder of how far we have fallen in this regard.

[Richard Myers]

This is an interesting study.  We like to keep things in order and put things into little boxes, but it appears that this is going to require a few more "boxes".  

The discernment needed to see the break between ceremonial and moral is more than human. While the principles appear straight forward the importance is such that we need to go slowly. The Holy Spirit is needed that we may not err.

[Mimi]

Many more boxes it seems.

[asygo]

I'm not comfortable with the ceremonial/moral distinction as the determining factor. I don't see why Christ's advent puts an end to ALL ceremonies.

A better guiding principle would be fulfilled vs. unfulfilled types. The fulfilled ones are done, and the unfulfilled ones keep going. (Of course, moral laws are binding forever.)

Anyway, that's just my little tidbit for now. Busy preparing a sermon. Will be back for real next week.

------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-

[JimB]

I'm wondering if the following references will help a little?

quote:
"As He (Christ) ate the Passover with His disciples, He instituted in its place the service that was to be the memorial of His great sacrifice.  The national festival of the Jews was to pass away forever. The
service which Christ established was to be observed by His followers in all lands and through all ages" (DA 652).

"In instituting the sacramental service to take the place of the
Passover, Christ left for His church a memorial of His great sacrifice for man.  'This do,' He said, 'in remembrance of Me.'  This was the point of transition between two economies and their two great festivals. The one was to close forever; the other, which He had just established, was to take its place, and to continue through all time as the memorial of His death" (Ev 273-274).

"It was Christ's desire to leave His disciples an ordinance that would do for them the very thing they needed--that would serve to disentangle them from the rites and ceremonies which they had hitherto engaged in as essential, and which the reception of the gospel made no longer of any force. To continue these rites would be an insult to Jehovah. Eating of the body, and drinking of the blood of Christ, not merely at the sacramental service, but daily partaking of the bread of life to satisfy the soul's hunger.  would be in receiving His word and doing His will" (RH June 14, 1898).

"The typical service and the ceremonies connected with it were abolished at the cross. The great antitypical Lamb of God had become an offering for guilty man, and the shadow ceased in the substance" (6BC 1061).

[Mimi]

Yes, it does help, Jim - and assist me with this - we observe a ceremonial law, say the one on ingesting intoxicating drinks and we see that it has a moral teaching to it - it places an impairment upon judgment to discern holy and unholy. It has a moral thread running all the way through it.

I am not suggesting, by dual applications, that the ceremonial in whole is still binding because we all know it isn't. It was fulfilled in Jesus; however, the underlying principle that caused that law to be spoken is not only reasonable for those temple servers but for us as well. The Bible has this obligation restated in the New Testament list of requirements for deacons – “not too much wine.” That is how I see it as a dual application.

If a moral thread runs through a ceremonial law, I see no reason why it cannot have a dual application – a secondary application as even some of the prophecies have – take Matthew 24 for instance – there is dual application all the way through that chapter.

Again, God was bringing these people back from a state bordering on heathenism. They had to relearn most everything. Four hundred years of influence had to be washed out of their minds and practices. It is no wonder His guidelines covered the majority of four books in the Bible.

And Arnold! Go preach, brother!   We look forward to having you back next week!

[Thomas M]

I share the discomfort for the ceremonial/moral distinction. But I don't see a fulfilled/unfulfilled distinction as being helpful either. There are two reasons why I think the ceremonial/moral distinction is still advisable, even though I too have some problems with it.
Firstly, the Spirit of Prophecy definitely makes reference and use to the ceremonial/moral distinction. I've wasted a lot of time over the years quarreling with Ellen White, and then coming back to the same position anyway, on the basis of long and arduous Bible study, when I might have had it free as it were, if I had listened the first time.
    God's people, whom He calls His peculiar treasure, were privileged with a twofold system of law; the moral and ceremonial. . . .  {FLB 106.2}
    From the creation the moral law was an essential part of God's divine plan, and was as unchangeable as Himself. The ceremonial law was to answer a particular purpose in Christ's plan for the salvation of the race. The typical system of sacrifices and offerings was established that through these services the sinner might discern the great offering, Christ. . . . The ceremonial law was glorious; it was the provision made by Jesus Christ in counsel with His Father, to aid in the salvation of the race. The whole arrangement of the typical system was founded on Christ. Adam saw Christ prefigured in the innocent beast suffering the penalty of his transgression of Jehovah's law.  {FLB 106.3}
Secondly, to go to the fulfilled/unfulfilled principle with the assumption that "ceremonial" laws that are still unfulfilled types are still binding opens a can of worms. On that basis, for example, the feast of Tabernacles would be binding until we pass into the earth made new, and Yom Kippur would be binding until the judgement is completed.
There are some problems with that. One is practical. We simply do not have certainty about the proper time to observe these annual feasts. Those who do observe them eventually run into arguments and split about when they should be observed. Splits of that kind would be the destruction of Adventist unity. We do know that the Rabbinical calendar in use today is not that of Bible times, if only because it includes a system of postponements that was added well into the Christian era. The Karaim calendar is also post-Biblical in origin. The lunar Islamic calendar does not maintain the cycle of seasons, and the Biblical annual feasts are seasonal. We do not know how the Jubilees calendar adjusted to the solar year or even if it was in use long enough ever to need adjustment. The Church of God and Saints of Christ, if I understand correctly, gives Biblical names to the Gregorian months and observes the feasts on the days numbered in the Bible. Astounding and innocently naive as that may sound, in the end, it's just as good as any other solution.
But even if we knew the proper dates, there might well be theological ramifications that could cause endless debate. In fact, it does not appear that the matter was clearly understood during the first generation of Christians. The book of Acts certainly appears to indicate full participation in the temple service, sacrifices and all, for a couple of decades after the time of Christ and probably up until the destruction of the temple.
And that presents another issue for the observance of annual feasts. They ought to be observed in the place where God has placed his name. I suppose that would be Jerusalem, but then the Samaritans have some very good arguments in favour of Mt Gerizim. Do we really want to dispense with the Spirit of Prophecy ceremonial/moral distinction and find definitive solutions to the issues involved?

quote:Originally posted by asygo:
I'm not comfortable with the ceremonial/moral distinction as the determining factor. I don't see why Christ's advent puts an end to ALL ceremonies.

A better guiding principle would be fulfilled vs. unfulfilled types. The fulfilled ones are done, and the unfulfilled ones keep going. (Of course, moral laws are binding forever.)

Anyway, that's just my little tidbit for now. Busy preparing a sermon. Will be back for real next week.

[Richard Myers]

Sometimes we get a little ahead of where we ought to be. So many things we accept as foundational, but forget others do not. It is a lesson that we need to learn well so we don't leave the honest of heart behind as we rush forward.

I began with the assumption that we would all accept that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding. Brother Arnold does not agree. Brother went back and got a statement for us. Let us pull from Scripture also that we might keep all with us. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col 2:16,17.

By accepted definition, I think, the ceremonial law were those laws that pertained to the sacrificial system wherein were offerings and ceremonies designed to "teach" the plan of salvation. The blood of bulls and goats did not avail any good, but were only examples or "shadows" of the reality which is Christ Jesus.

While it is true that there may be a few remaining shadows to yet be fulfilled, the laws of ceremony are no longer binding. We do not follow any of the ceremonial "laws" that were commands to the nation of Israel. They are no longer part of our church service. This is the difference we have made here in our study.

It appears that the ceremonial laws may have within them some moral principles. So, while the command to do such and such at such and such a time is not binding with the ceremonial laws, we may find that there are some moral principles revealed.

[Mimi]

Agreed, Richard. You articulated the intent of my last post.

Now, Thomas - you bring up much to ponder ... however, one statement you made "The book of Acts certainly appears to indicate full participation in the temple service" ... I have always wondered about that. And this is a side issue because we know the disciples realized Jesus was the fulfillment of the sanctuary service, sacrifices, ceremonial cleansings, etc.; however, they attended Passover. Now why would they do that knowing Jesus was the fulfillment? Did they do it so they could reach the larger audiences, or did they do it as not to be a stumbling block to those they were longing to reach? Or was it something else all together?

Paul lingered at Philippi in order to keep the Passover. Acts of the Apostles – page 391. SDA Bible Commentary on Philippians says: “It was the time of the Passover, and the apostle kept the feast with the believers.” The "believers" had to be new Christians. Bible says he left “after the feast” – so what can be our conclusions? Was the "feast" referring to The Lord's Supper that Jesus instituted on His last Passover weekend?

Personally, there is no doubt in my mind that they did it to reach larger audiences, not because they felt typical Jewish Passover was still an obligation, but that the feast referred to is The Lord's Supper. Otherwise, it blows away some theories and some serious doctrines.

What think ye? Am I all wet?

[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-15-2007).]

[Mimi]

Looking back at Arnold's statement ... it seems he may have meant not "Christ's advent" but "Christ's death." Because he said he preferred "fulfilled" and "unfulfilled."    Do I have that right?

I guess a good question to Brother Arnold would be: which of the ceremonials do you see as unfulfilled?