Author Topic: Binding Aspects of the Mosaic Law (Read 126085 times)

Richard Myers · « **Reply #160 on:** June 19, 2007, 12:35:00 PM »

As I contemplated my last post, a thought came to mind. Has not the foundation of our legal system taken into consideration the last commandment? Do we not consider the motives of the heart when pronouncing sentence? Do we not codify the last commandment into our system of justice?

It is true that we cannot know the intent of the heart....unless we are told. Let me explain. When a man kills a man. He is guilty of killing the man. But, our legal system like God's justice does not stop there. God gave to Israel the Cities of Refuge. Why? And how does that work with our current legal system today? And what does that have to do with the last commandment and our present legal system?

God's ways are simple..... but deep to us!! Until the lights come on through the precious ministry of the Third Person of the Godhead!

Mimi · « **Reply #161 on:** June 19, 2007, 01:04:00 PM »

Yep - intentional, unintentional; manslaughter, murder

Mimi · « **Reply #162 on:** June 19, 2007, 01:39:00 PM »

The Lord would not have us with slaves, yet He made provisions for the treatment of slaves.

He would not have divorces, yet He made provision for them.

He would not have war, yet He made provisions on how a war is to be fought.

He would not have us eat animals, yet made provisions on how to safely eat them in an emergency (after the flood)

... an so on.

Mimi · « **Reply #163 on:** June 19, 2007, 02:12:00 PM »

The SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, page 607 has some good comments on the 10th Commandment:

quote:
The tenth commandment is supplementary to the eighth, for covetousness is the root from which theft grows. In fact, the tenth commandment strikes at the roots of the other nine. It represents a decided advance beyond the morality of any other ancient code. Most codes went no further than the deed, and a few took speech into account, but none proposed to regulate the thoughts. This prohibition is fundamental to human experience in that it penetrates to the motive behind the outward act. It teaches us that God sees the heart and is concerned less with the outward act than with the thought from which the action springs. It establishes the principle that the very thoughts of our hearts come under the jurisdiction of God's law, that we are as responsible for them as for our actions. The wrong thought entertained promotes a wrong desire, which in time gives birth to a wrong action. A man may refrain from adultery because of the social and civil penalties that follow such transgressions, yet in Heaven's sight he may be as guilty as if he actually committed the deed - Matthew 5:28.
The basic commandment reveals the profound truth that we are not the helpless slaves to our natural desires and passions. Within us is a force, the will, which, under the control of Christ, can submerge every unlawful desire and passion. It sums up the Decalogue by affirming that man is essentially a free moral agent.

Wow - it confirmed what was already implied.

Mimi · « **Reply #164 on:** June 19, 2007, 02:18:00 PM »

Do we want to pause and discuss this prohibition against evil thoughts?

Richard has addressed this as it relates to the motive when an injustice is punished. And as such, there appears to be a valid reason to punish a premeditated act, as well as a valid reason to show mercy on an accidental or non-premeditated act.

[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-19-2007).]

Thomas M · « **Reply #165 on:** June 19, 2007, 09:08:00 PM »

I think the tenth commandment does not focus so much on the desire to acquire things in themselves as power.
The house represents the basis or store of wealth. The wife, I'm afraid, represents social connections that open both markets and safety in moving among them. People do still marry for inherited wealth and family connections. But in ancient times that aspect may well have been more overt. Workers are a means of producing wealth, but also in themselves a vehicle of power. One of the most direct ways of manipulating power is to have as many subordinates as possible. It applies, whether they are slaves or employees. The ox is a vehicle of production, corresponding to the modern industrial complex. The ass is a vehicle of transportation, necessary to getting goods to market and expanding profits. The commandment thus expresses all of the major factors in the creation of excess wealth and therefore of power.
When you stop to think about it, the production of excess wealth, beyond what is necessary of obvious security, is an insanity. What is amazing is that what appear to be normally intelligent people continue to acquire wealth beyond their needs. It is the blindness of the desire for power that creates that in a human being, and it is so common that most of us take it for granted.
The inordinate acquisition of wealth and thus power may actually be an area of legislation. In USA has had anti-trust laws, and sometimes they have actually had an effect.
In the same way Brother Richard already mentioned that there may be aspects of the fifth commandment that can, should be and have been legislated. Certain responsibilities in regard to parents are legislatable moral laws. There are some examples in the Pentateuch, on the excel page nos. 12 and 14. The punishment, interestingly, for cursing one's mother is death.
But that brings me back to a very serious thought about the Sabbath commandment. There are "secular" aspects of that commandment as well. It does state that subordinates have non-negotiable rights. Not only children (who are potentially agricultural labor), but employees and animals have non-negotiable rights. If those rights are not legislated, we automatically fall into the situation in which the more powerful lobby controls the rights of subordinates without limitation. That's called the law of the jungle.
While I agree that the secular state is the best we seem to be able to achieve under present conditions, and that the secular state should not and must not legislate religion, must or may the State legislate the protection of the non-negotiable rights of the subordinate? Since the commandment identifies only one such right, the right to be free of subordination on the Sabbath, the question is naturally open. And once it is open, it is also open for the possibility of discussing whether the commandment means Saturday, Sunday, or one day in seven. This foundational reality is behind the Sunday-law problem. Is there no resolution except the extremes of either opening the way to Sunday-laws or even Sabbath laws on the one hand, or opening the door to the abuse of the powerful on the other hand?
Labour laws, animal rights laws and environmental laws basically fall under the fourth commandment. If they are acceptable, why is the line drawn specifically at that point?

quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
Do we want to pause and discuss this prohibition against evil thoughts?
Richard has addressed this as it relates to the motive when an injustice is punished. And as such, there appears to be a valid reason to punish a premeditated act, as well as a valid reason to show mercy on an accidental or non-premeditated act.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-19-2007).]

Richard Myers · « **Reply #166 on:** June 19, 2007, 10:18:00 PM »

Amen, Sister Sybil. There is indeed safety in a multitude of counselors. Is it not a blessing to see others who have come to the same conclusion?

So, the tenth commandment is the basis for moral laws. It is understood that if one pre-meditates killing, then it is different than an accidental killing. More than establishing the need to legislate the last six, we also see that the civil statutes given to Israel have a moral element that is binding today. The cities of refuge are there to uphold the tenth commandment. We are learning much as we seek to understand God's ways.

Richard Myers · « **Reply #167 on:** June 19, 2007, 10:24:00 PM »

Brother Thomas as usual has put his finger on some important aspects of the law of God. It is too important to treat lightly, so I will have to wait until I have more time to address it properly. It will be good to see what others say.

Mimi · « **Reply #168 on:** June 20, 2007, 01:17:00 PM »

It appears as if a little "jack pot" has been stumbled upon. Kudos, Thomas!

I'm out of here until the first - do carry on!

[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-20-2007).]

Richard Myers · « **Reply #169 on:** June 21, 2007, 09:10:00 AM »

Brother Thomas' post regarding religious freedom is important. He brings to light that it is not good enough to refuse to legislate in the area of the first four, but it may require legislation to insure the rights of individuals to be free from having to work on the Sabbath. A very interesting point. How do we address the need to be able to not work on the Sabbath or any other day of one's choosing based upon religion, without breaking our own principle of not legislating in matters or worship?

This is another example of the great blessing God gave to America, making America a shining example. How is this problem resolved in harmony with Biblical principle?

asygo · « **Reply #170 on:** June 21, 2007, 06:58:00 PM »

The 4th commandment forbids labor on the 7th day, but it can be interpreted to also command labor on the other 6. "Six days shalt thou labor..."

One problem is that if the wrong day is chosen by the legislature as the Sabbath, then we can be forced to work on the real Sabbath.

A bigger problem is that there might be conscientious disagreement over which day is the Sabbath. If a man keeps Sunday because that's what he believes is the right day, then I should not force him to abide by my conscience.

quote:
It was right for the king to make public confession, and to seek to exalt the God of heaven above all other gods; but in endeavoring to force his subjects to make a similar confession of faith and to show similar reverence, Nebuchadnezzar was exceeding his right as a temporal sovereign. He had no more right, either civil or moral, to threaten men with death for not worshiping God, than he had to make the decree consigning to the flames all who refused to worship the golden image. God never compels the obedience of man. He leaves all free to choose whom they will serve. {PK 510.4}

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

asygo · « **Reply #171 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:05:00 PM »

Parts of the 4th commandment other people's right to rest. That's why buying/selling is not appropriate on that day.

So, I agree with Bro Thomas that there are parts of it that can be legislated by a secular government. On the Sabbath, nobody works.

But again, implementation becomes well-nigh impossible outside of a theocracy.

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

asygo · « **Reply #172 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:32:00 PM »

quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
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?

For me, "Christ's advent" encompasses his entire physical sojourn on earth, and therefore includes His death.

And I agree with Bro JimB's answer. It would seem that the Feast of Tabernacles has not been fulfilled.

Fundamental to this whole thing is God's character - love. His law, which he requires us to obey, is merely a transcript of His character. Therefore, everything He commands us is just some manifestation of love.

Why would any of His laws be abolished?

One possibility is that God made a mistake. He made a law which turned out to be unloving. And so He abolishes it.

But that's ridiculous because God knows everything. So His laws cannot be mistakes.

Another possible reason is that He made a law that is a shadow of something bigger and better. Then, when the real thing comes along, and reveals God's character better, the law is abolished because it no longer has a purpose. The anti-type replaces type.

That's how I see the sacrificial system. It was established to teach us the truths of salvation. But when Christ came as the Lamb slain, then we don't need to slay the animals anymore. That is a valid reason why we don't kill Passover lambs anymore.

But what of those things in the Mosaic law that have not yet been fulfilled? What reason do we have for considering those abolished?

For example, the sinner was to take his sacrifice and slice it up in various ways. One thing he did was to cut off the fat. That teaches us that we are to cut off sin, which is still binding today. But now we have the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking His blood that teaches us that lesson. So, the principle is kept, but the implementation is altered. But it was not abolished.

If we ignore laws for no better reason than "that was for the Jews" then we are no better than those who say obedience was for the Jews. And in the end, we will be as deceived as they are.

But all this considers merely how binding a law is. It does not consider implementation.

Let me ask a question to push the envelope a bit: If our human government is such that it will not allow us to implement God's laws the way He wants them implemented, are we not obliged to leave such a government to follow God's will?

For example, if the US decided to implement a Sunday law, should we not leave for a place that will allow us to follow God's command? Now, since the US forbids us to implement the death penalty on Sabbath breakers (and mother cursers), should we not leave for a place that will allow us to follow God's command?

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

asygo · « **Reply #173 on:** June 21, 2007, 07:35:00 PM »

All the commandments have a physical manifestation of obedience or disobedience, except the 10th. Coveting only happens in the heart and mind. As such, it is beyond man's ability to make definitive judgments about it, regardless of how hard he tries. Though the courts try to take into account the defendant's motives, it's conclusions can never be 100% beyond doubt.

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

Thomas M · « **Reply #174 on:** June 22, 2007, 02:25:00 AM »

Brother Arnold's thoughtful posts focus on two issues: keeping the law under conditions of religious freedom in a secular state, and understanding the ceremonial and moral law.

Absolute religious freedom in a secular state is impossible to maintain. It works, to the extent it works, because a specific configuration of parameters has been established by the religious groups who agreed in sum to tolerate one another. Absolute religious freedom would end in people claiming the right to do anything in the name of a personally established religion. That is the problem in fact that the US is heading towards. It is simply limited by law and the fact that people have a limited imagination. While there are thousands of religions, they are really only a few types of chocolate wrapped in all different kinds of wrappers.
We have a tradition, established in colonial times, of Sabbath observance, both for Jews and Seventh Day Baptists, and later for others. It is the appears of new religions that is putting pressure on the principle, and will eventually, according to the Spirit of Prophecy, result in the readjustment of the freedom of religion principle is ways to exclude Sabbath observance. What needs to be fostered is not religious freedom in the absolute, but the limited configuration that has been traditional.

An example of a development ddangerous to freedom of religion in terms of the day of rest is the recently invented moon-sabbath, which wanders through the week, making it very difficult for employers to respect the rights of its adherents. This weakens the delicate limit of tolerance, which is Sabbath or Sunday, Friday not being observed as a rest-day by Muslims, only as a day of public congregation for an hour in the afternoon. A society is just about able to function permitting the choice of one day in two. But a proliferation of exotic traditions would change that, jeopardizing the freedom of Sabbath-observance.

Brother Arnold brings up an important issue in noting that ceremonial and moral law may overlap in a particular Mosaic statute. That is a very rational perception. I do have one problem, however, in seeing both moral and ceremonial applications of a single statute. That is specifically the mental process that permits the ceremonial perception of the Sabbath commandment. The particular day is seen as ceremonial, while the principle of rest, Sunday, one day in seven, or a symbolic representation of salvation is seen as the valid, permanent, moral application of the commandment. Unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, we should interpret the statutes as either moral and binding or ceremonial and not binding after Christ. To fail to distinguish clearly between moral statutes and ceremonial statutes opens the door to anarchy of interpretation with no hope of any two people on earth agreeing. The attaining of perfect agreement is questionable as it is.

quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
All the commandments have a physical manifestation of obedience or disobedience, except the 10th. Coveting only happens in the heart and mind. As such, it is beyond man's ability to make definitive judgments about it, regardless of how hard he tries. Though the courts try to take into account the defendant's motives, it's conclusions can never be 100% beyond doubt.

Liane H · « **Reply #175 on:** June 22, 2007, 10:56:00 AM »

I am very glad my brother's and sister's are really doing so well with sharing gems that many of us will learn from.

My goal is to sit back and read and absorb. This is way to deep for me and I am no fool to try and pretend to be otherwise.

Thank you all for the rich blessings of this study.

God Bless you in your work and sharing.

------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Mimi · « **Reply #176 on:** June 23, 2007, 09:51:00 AM »

quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
Parts of the 4th commandment other people's right to rest. That's why buying/selling is not appropriate on that day.
So, I agree with Bro Thomas that there are parts of it that can be legislated by a secular government. On the Sabbath, nobody works.
But again, implementation becomes well-nigh impossible outside of a theocracy.

Hello, brothsers! May we assume we can never legislate a Sabbath's rest as we will never again have a theocracy on this earth? It is interesting to pick apart the 4th commandment - I love discecting things; however, let's work with what we have - the first four commandments being duty bound to God and the last six to our fellow man?

Ideally, what we wish for is not going to happen - prophecy tells us so - so may we gather ourselves back up to look at what is possible for us?

Am I being too simplistic?

Liane H · « **Reply #177 on:** June 23, 2007, 10:33:00 AM »

Well maybe I will put my foot in my mouth and share.

As far as I can see we cannot legislate any of the ten commandments. Man may try to set up something similar and use the ten as a foundation, but no one can legislate the heart.

Man can force a person to follow the ten commandments and obey them on the outward view, but what is in the heart only God can legislate that a person will obey the ten from within.

Man can force, but only God can move a person from within to follow and obey his laws. It is to God that He can stir the mind and soul to see the quality of the ten commandments.

Man can enforce and make people do things they may not want to do, but we have seen in past history those that died in the faith died because the inward person was moved by the Spirit and obeyed God rather than man.

For us that love God and desire to follow His principles in our lives will obey all the ten precepts because we do it out of love, not because we have to. We see the goodness in obeying them and learning of His will in our lives because His principles are just and good.

Though they are just and good when man may force people to obey, if the heart is not moved by the truth of the precepts they will do it out of rebellion.

Will some people get the picture and obey later after being forced to obey the just and good precepts? I suspect some might, but knowing the heart of man if God is not in their lives they will rebel and rebel.

For they do not have the love of God that moves them to follow and serve a Holy God.

------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

JimB · « **Reply #178 on:** June 23, 2007, 01:03:00 PM »

Sister Liane, I understand what you're saying. The use of laws never change anyone's heart. It is like the story I hear a while back about a little girl who was being punished for bad behavior and she was made to stand in a corner. As she was standing there.. she said... "I may be standing but in my mind I'm sitting." Even in punishment she was still rebelling.

However, I differ from you (at least I think I do) when it comes to enforcing the 10 Commandments. I do believe that the last 6 should be legislated and codified into laws. We need laws that govern how man treats man. I can not force a man to love God but I can hopefully deter him from stealing, raping, murdering etc... etc.. without these kinds of laws there would be anarchy.

If I have to live next door to someone who chooses to ignore God's love hopefully the laws will at least restrain his behavior even if they don't change his heart.

I know that not everyone will accept God's laws so in this case I'm more interested in behavior modification than I am heart modification.

I'll leave the heart modification up to God.

Liane H · « **Reply #179 on:** June 23, 2007, 03:08:00 PM »

Hi Brother Jim:

We already have such laws, not perfect, but such laws. As a nation we have set up standards of living so that we can live together and not hurt each other in the things we do.

Something as simple as a double yellow line in the middle of the road is an example of right things to do.

But when it comes to saying we are going to make the 10 Commandments the law of the land then I stand back and say what.

We cannot force people to believe in God, obey God or follow His precepts. All we can do is make laws that reflect proper conduct that reflects the same principles without make Our God a force of what we believe.

We do not live in a nation Under God as it was more in the past. We are a nation of many different beliefs, but the underlining principles such as stealing, killing and immoral character which we can find in many other nations can be established no matter where we live and can obey.

Unfortunately even within the body of those that believe in God as believed in the Holy Bible there are differences of truth and light and then again who's truth would we enforce and make laws?

I know it sounds very liberal, but my logic is not to force people to believe as I do, but to live under a set of laws that we all can agree upon and follow so that we do not hurt others or ourselves.

Whatever there needs to be a balance, but as the times we live in that balance is getting harder and harder to have as the times are more troubled and the coming of Jesus is near.

------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.