Binding Aspects of the Mosaic Law

[asygo]

Not that I have definitive answers, but let me lay out a bit more clearly where my head is at right now.

The topic - Binding Aspects of the Mosaic Law - has a lot of facets. But the fundamental facet to me is the authority of the one giving the law. Settling that will go a long way toward how binding it is, and who is bound by it. This is true for secular laws as well as religious laws.

The Mosaic law, as has been already discussed, can be categorized in various ways. But I think we all agree that the 10C is at the summit. So I'll start there.

The authority of the 10C comes from the fact that they were given by God. God is the one who requires obedience to them. Regardless of what one does or does not believe, the 10C must be obeyed because that's God's will. I hope we all agree so far.

Roughly speaking, the first 4 address our duty to God, and the last 6 address our duty to man. But note that even with this distinction, the fact remains that each and every one of those commandments must be obeyed because God said so. The law is binding, not because of the "target" of the law (God or man), but because the Creator gave the law.

Because God is Spirit, His law is spiritual in nature and must be obeyed in spirit. That means that true obedience, the kind God requires, must be done on the level of our thoughts and feelings - character. Mere physicial compliance is not sufficient. But, when it is in our hearts to obey God and we make efforts to obey, He makes up for our unavoidable deficiences in physical compliance. (See FW 50 and 3SM 196.) IOW, our motives are more important than our actions when it comes to obeying God's law.

You can see this when analyzing the 10th commandment. Yes, it is in the "duty to man" section. Yet, obedience or disobedience to the command is purely on the level of thoughts and feelings; there are no actions involved.

So, when it is suggested that the last 6 can be legislated by man, it tells me that the details have not been thorougly considered. (There are two sayings that are very useful in computer programming: 1) The devil is in the details, and 2) take care of the molehills and the mountains will take care of themselves.) Because of man's inherent inability to read the heart, the 10th commandment can never be legislated by man. More generally, man cannot judge if another has met the standard of God's law - obedience at the level of thoughts and feelings.

But does that mean that man cannot legislate others' behavior? No, it does not. What it does mean is that man cannot require compliance to God's law. Let me clarify that.

God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill." Jesus explained that the commandment encompasses our thoughts. Therefore, hating another breaks that commandment.

We cannot make any laws about hating because we're not equipped to see the evidence. But we can make laws about ending another's life.

But here's the crucial point. Upon whose authority can we legilate against killing? Because we are men, the only authority we have is that of man. IOW, we can tell other people to abstain from killing because WE do not want killing. It is very important to understand that human laws can only be based on human authority.

We cannot make a law against killing with the justification that God does not want killing. It is beyond our authority to make such a law because it is beyond our ability to judge obedience or disobedience to God's standard - the character.

The laws of the land can reflect aspects of God's law, but we should never imagine that we are enforcing God's law. Humans can only create and enforce laws based on human authority and will. Once we get on the path of "we must make this law because God says so in the Bible" we have gone where we have no right to be.

Now, let's look at the Sabbath. True, it is about worship. As such, it is fundamentally a spiritual law. And from that angle, man can never legislate it. Only God knows who is or is not worshipping Him in spirit and in truth.

But from a civil point of view, we can protect the rights of the manservant, maidservant, etc. The 4th commandment says they have the right to rest on that day, and we can - we must - protect that right.

Can we legislate it based on God's command? No. We legislate it because it is the will of the people. If the people agree that it is good to protect the right to worship according to one's conscience, then appropriate laws can be passed to reflect that. And I believe that anyone who is a true Christian will agree to protect the freedom of conscience.

(Note: Every commandment, except the 10th, has a physical manifestation of obedience or disobedience that can be legislated by man.)

What if the majority of the people don't want it? Then we can't have it. Regardless of what God wants, human laws can only be derived from human will. And if we want to change that situation, the solution is to work for the conversion of souls so that they will submit their wills to God's.

So when we talk about which laws are binding, we have to consider who gave the law. The 10C were given by God, and unless He changes His mind, they are binding. The US Constitution was given by man, and it is only binding until other men change it (think Prohibition).

I don't know if that clarifies things enough, but my mind is starting to shut down now.

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

[Thomas M]

Actually, Brother Arnold, I think that you have brought some clarity here, clarity of an important kind. While the moral aspects of the ten commandments may guide human legislators, the secular state does not have the right to legislate divine law, only human law. I don't think that has been brought foreward with any clarity before your post. It is an important issue.

What do we do with the binding character of divine law, then? If the State has no part in it, then is it not left to the individual, the family, the Church? All of those media have the possibility of enforcing divine law. The individual does so through self-government and personal devotions, the family through family worship and family rules, and the Church through Church discipline.

We need to determine clearly what moral issues are defined by the Bible and how they may be best implemented within the State, Church, family and individual life.

Thomas

quote:Originally posted by asygo:
Not that I have definitive answers, but let me lay out a bit more clearly where my head is at right now.

But does that mean that man cannot legislate others' behavior? No, it does not. What it does mean is that man cannot require compliance to God's law. Let me clarify that.

But here's the crucial point. Upon whose authority can we legilate against killing? Because we are men, the only authority we have is that of man. IOW, we can tell other people to abstain from killing because WE do not want killing. It is very important to understand that human laws can only be based on human authority.

The laws of the land can reflect aspects of God's law, but we should never imagine that we are enforcing God's law. Humans can only create and enforce laws based on human authority and will. Once we get on the path of "we must make this law because God says so in the Bible" we have gone where we have no right to be.

[Liane H]

Men and women today can make any law at any time if they can get enough people to believe it and go through the process of turning a law into a law and that included the Ten Commandments.

As I have watched the process of as an example of Megan's law we can see the nature of people mixing emotions with logic and making a bad law.

Given enough circumstances in a situation we can see even in the United States the Ten Commandments and I mean all ten becoming law with the fourth being the centerpiece of the false Sabbath.

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

[Mimi]

Excellent statements, my brothers. Good reasoning. I am glad to see the distinctions agreed upon.

Thomas - in church and at home for the first four - His people are bound to these as the secular minded cannot be bound to something they are yet to acknowledge and accept.

[Mimi]

 

quote:Originally posted by asygo:
That was in answer to "Who is being legislated? Upon whose authority does such legislation rest?"

Don't you mean "people and God"? Surely you don't mean to say that God is being legislated.

Upon your clarification given above, you are correct.

[Liane H]

Sister Sybil:

You said:

"Thomas - in church and at home for the first four - His people are bound to these as the secular minded cannot be bound to something they are yet to acknowledge and accept."

One does not have to accept or even believe it, but if there are enough people to pass the Ten Commandments as law of the land they certainly can force people to do it, but cannot force the heart to believe it.

Good example is Baal? Those in charge can force people to bow down or accept it by mouth and deed. Daniel is a good example of those that would not, but many would just to avoid suffering the consequences of not obeying the laws.

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

[Mimi]

Oh, yes, Liane - and we will have that example before all is over on this earth. I was speaking of the difference between the spiritually minded and those who are not. God's way does not include force.

Regarding legislating thoughts, earlier in this thread motive was brought up as an indicator relative to one's intentions. It appears to be the closest possible element that could bear sway regarding the tenth commandment as well as others it encompasses. What say ye?

[asygo]

 

quote:Originally posted by Thomas M:
What do we do with the binding character of divine law, then? If the State has no part in it, then is it not left to the individual, the family, the Church? All of those media have the possibility of enforcing divine law. The individual does so through self-government and personal devotions, the family through family worship and family rules, and the Church through Church discipline.

We need to determine clearly what moral issues are defined by the Bible and how they may be best implemented within the State, Church, family and individual life.

I do believe that the State has no direct part in enforcing God's law. A Republic/Democracy, as an institution, is amoral. Its morality is derived solely from its citizens' morality. And even then, the State has no business judging morality. And since obedience to God's law is a matter of morality, the State cannot enforce it in any way that comes close to the way God intends.

Now, we have church, family, and individual forms of government. We might also add employer to that list.

Again, if we are considering enforcing God's law in those contexts, we must consider the method for gathering and evaluating the appropriate evidence. But if you look carefully, you will find that they are all in the same boat as the State - none can read the heart. Even the individual, though it is the most likely form of government to know the heart, is prone to be self-deceived. So, with the possible exception of self-government, none of these can enforce divine law.

However, there is an important distinction between these forms of government and a Republic/Democracy. The morality of these institutions is not based solely on its subjects. Except for the individual whose ruler is its lone subject, these forms of government can, and often do, impose external standards of morality upon its subjects.

Let's consider the employer first, since that's the easiest. If one chooses an employer that is religious (such as a denominational institution), then it is likely that the employer's morality will influence the job description. If your employer does not want stealing, then you will be bound to abstain from it. But you can always choose another employer if you wish.

Next comes the church. Ideally, the church imposes the morality that it learns from God as described in the Bible. If one disregards the church's interpretation of God's law, then he is liable to be disciplined by the church. As with the previous case, you can change churches if you wish.

The family, OTOH, cannot be changed. You have what you get, until you are able to leave and start your own family. This is the closest one we have to what Israel had at first. The father fills the role of Moses as the human leader who is, ideally, being led by God. The subjects - wife and children - are to respect and obey the human leader as the representative of God.

But the father, like Moses, is human and cannot read the hearts. Though he can enact laws that enforce physical compliance to God's law, He cannot judge spiritual conformity using only his natural abilities. To have any insight on true obedience to God's law, he must rely on divine revelation.

Here's something that many misunderstand. The father's primary job is not to teach his subjects to mindlessly comply with his demands. That's tyranny, totally unlike God's ways. The father's primary job is to establish an environment conducive to leading the subjects to submit themselves to God's direct leading. If he accomplishes that, he has done his job well. (In this aspect, the church has much the same job.)

That leads to the only form of government that has any shot at achieving true conformity to God's law - the individual. If one wants to obey God's law, God provides sufficient grace to do it. But the experience is between him and God. And in the end, the final arbiter of whether or not one has obeyed is God, not the individual. But it is within the individual's power, and only within the individual, to willingly submit himself to God's benevolent rule. And that is the only kind of obedience that God accepts.

So the way I see it, moral issues can only be truly implemented on the individual level. Other forms of government can and must enact laws in order to safeguard the individual's freedom to submit himself to God, but that is the extent of their jurisdiction. To go beyond the evaluation and reward/punishment of the "outward appearance" and try to legislate morality is to overreach their authority, and is an attempt to do that which they are inherently incapable of doing.

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

[This message has been edited by asygo (edited 06-27-2007).]

[Mimi]

Fabulous summation on home, family and church.  All ten, but especially the first four belong in this area. It is right on in my estimation of things; however, I cannot get past your statement on governments not legislating any part of the last six commandments.

What do we do about killing, abuse of parents, stealing, adultry, lying and the root of all sin, coveting - the silent sin of the heart?

Based upon your beautiful explanation given immediately above, as Christians in home and church we can apply every single commandment to the law of our lives and whatever the current civil governments decide is necessary to legislate, that goes along with God's moral law, and is the will of the people through their voting voices, then we can adhere to them in good conscience. Is that what you are saying?

[Mimi]

In reviewing the last several pages, it seems Thomas did rediscover an important aspect to this discussion: distinctions between divine law and human law.

When speaking to the distinctions between the two tables, this has always, always been the silent assumption on my part and have been unable to get past it. Jesus makes the distinction and so does the SOP. Purely speaking, Arnold is correct in saying the state cannot legislate divine law - only human law. However!!!!!!!!! The second table, the "last six" are laws dealing with human to human boundaries. They just so happen to also be divine law. The concepts are there - they are complete, lacking nothing. A good moral code. Governments (not dictatorships) have established grand social orders based upon these codes and have done quite well. We want laws that will keep the evil in us from harming our brothers and sisters and vice versa. Therefore, adaptations from the divine law to bring about social order through civil governments is where we are. See such an adaptation in SDA BC Vol. 1, page 616 to 619. The Code of Hammurabi - it is such an adaptation to the Mosaic Law of Statutes and Judgments - yet it even predates the giving of those statutes.

We want to know how to apply the binding statutes to our lives. Most of us can locate a witch - what do we do with her/him once we have located them? I have not heard of a witch burning in quite a while, much less a witch stoning - yet we are not to permit a witch to live.  What do we do? Do we accept the fact that there are witches all around us (spiritualism) and determine to keep ourselves and our children away from them because evil waxes on greater and greater levels in these last days and the government will not do anything about them? So we revert to the church law and the family law (Arnolds stated model which we did a fine job of defining in another topic) and be rulers unto ourselves by avoiding them? Or do we lobby for a return to the Salem days?

It is seemingly a monumental task bordering on the barbaric, of course, yet what do we do with some of these statutes?

[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-27-2007).]

[asygo]

 

quote:Originally posted by Sybil:
I cannot get past your statement on governments not legislating any part of the last six commandments.

Human governments cannot legislate the 10th commandment. I am well-nigh immovable on that point, unless somebody can convince me that man can somehow read the heart accurately. Porcine flight is closer to reality.

As for the other commandments, human governments can legislate those, but they cannot justify such laws using God or the Bible. To do so would be using the apparatus of the state to enforce the will of God - an impossibility that results in disaster whenever attempted.

If you want to legislate certain aspects of the 10C, and I'm sure many of us do, then you have to do it based on YOUR desires, not God's. Instead of saying, "We should outlaw killing because God doesn't like killing," you should say, "We should outlaw killing because WE don't like killing." Keep the divine will out of it and it should be fine. Then your biggest problem would be getting enough people to see it your way.

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

[asygo]

 

quote:Originally posted by Sybil:
Arnolds stated model which we did a fine job of defining in another topic

Which topic is that?

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

[Mimi]

Ordination, women elders, and the order in the church. I love those studies.

[Mimi]

 

quote:Originally posted by asygo:
Human governments cannot legislate the 10th commandment. I am well-nigh immovable on that point, unless somebody can convince me that man can somehow read the heart accurately. Porcine flight is closer to reality.

As for the other commandments, human governments can legislate those, but they cannot justify such laws using God or the Bible. To do so would be using the apparatus of the state to enforce the will of God - an impossibility that results in disaster whenever attempted.

If you want to legislate certain aspects of the 10C, and I'm sure many of us do, then you have to do it based on YOUR desires, not God's. Instead of saying, "We should outlaw killing because God doesn't like killing," you should say, "We should outlaw killing because WE don't like killing." Keep the divine will out of it and it should be fine. Then your biggest problem would be getting enough people to see it your way.

We have, a few pages back, discussed the impossibility of legislating the tenth commandment - it quite possibly goes to motive in the punishment phase of a "wrong"
where mercy or added sentence could be considered. I would never agrue that the 10th could be legislated. Unfortunately it has been batched in with the last six when reference is being made to the conversation. I apologize for doing so because I am remembering the specificity, fine detail we mulled through when dealing with other topics.

We are one in thought, but probably not exact words when it comes to the principles involved in who creates what laws. The porcupines can rest at ease - there is peace in this discussion   xox S

[asygo]

 

quote:Originally posted by Sybil:
The second table, the "last six" are laws dealing with human to human boundaries.

Then we should make human to human laws - laws made by humans, to be obeyed by humans, required by humans, judged by humans, enforced by humans....

But keep in mind that human to human relationships also exist in the 4th commandment. Also, the 10th is between the individual and God, no one else.

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

[Liane H]

Can one tell me if they can legislate the fifth one? How does one go about to make people honor their parents?

Let say a father who committed incest or abuse their children that can be done in so many ways that cannot be seen by the public.

You know our homes are suppose to be our private place and the public and the government is not to interfere what goes on behind closed doors and on our property, though we are seeing much of it taking place over and over again.

Was this touched upon before as I have not seen it?    

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

[Thomas M]

In reading through these posts, one feature arises from Brother Arnold's messages that is very important. Human institutions can legislate outward behaviour, but not heart motives.

There are countries that attempt to legislate divine law, mostly Islamic. In Islam every action is defined in terms of 1) motive expressed in the heart and 2) outward action. For example, before a Muslim begins to pray, he silently makes an expression of his motivation "I lay two protrations of obligatory morning prayer in sacrifice to Allah the Most High". Then he performs the act of prayer. All Muslims consider that both are necessary for the act to be valid. But in countries where Islamic law is legislated, it is only the outward form of an Islamic act that is considered. Correspondingly, law refers to public acts and leaves private acts to the discretion of the individual. This only to show that State attempts to legislate divine law must and do fall back on the same distinction that Brother Arnold has so wisely defined. I think we all agree, however, that such attempts to legislate divine law are illegitimate on the part of the State, whether they are Islamic or Christian or the expression of any other religious tradition.

I turn to focus on an issue that Sister Sybil and I believe Sister Liane brought up or at least implied, and that is the implementation of human laws in regard to human relations (that may reflect divine laws especially in commandments six to nine and elsewhere).

Agreeing that human societies may legislate human laws (and as Brother arnold points out, these are human laws even when they correspond to divine statutes in the Bible), the act of legislation implies implementation, and implementation implies the right and duty of punishing the offender. In the USA, punishment seems to be mostly in the realms of fines, community service, incarceration, and death.

Both in legislation and punishment, the Bible believer probably has the duty to use her influence for bringing human laws into as close agreement with divine law as is possible for human laws. The first concern is to prevent clashes, as for example human laws requiring sacrifice to idols, which was the big issue between early Christians and the Roman state. The second concern is to close the gap in values.

Incarceration is not a Biblically-evidenced form of punishment. The death sentence is. Fines and restitution are also found in the Bible. In addition, the Bible accepts physical mutilation as punishment.

Just as we cannot, according to Brother Arnold and I believe he is correct, legislate divine law, we cannot legislate divine punishment. Punishment must be within the bounds of human authority.

I am going to express my opinion on punishment just as an illustration that there will arise disagreement among humans (and Adventists!) on the matter. I believe fines are valid, and that is in common with the Bible and the State. I believe, along with the Bible, that restitution is important. In this area, the State falls down and needs improvement. The victim of a crime often becomes the victim of the court as well. I believe that death and mutilation are valid forms of punishment under divine law, but not under human law. In this I disagree with the State (USA) which practices the death sentence, and agree with the State in its refraining from physical mutilation. I am not sure about incarceration, but I believe that the State has the right to enact human punishment that is different from the divine punishment noted in the Bible, as Brother Arnold's principle implies.

Now someone here may argue that the State has the right to inflict the death sentence, because the death sentence is Biblical. My response would rest on Brother Arnold's principle of human law, human punishment and human enforcement as being distinct from divine law, even in the matter of murder, false witness, etc. The argument must be that appeal to divine law in regard to punishment is not valid for human laws. If the death sentence is a valid act of the State, it must be so on the basis of other arguments than Biblicity. If human punishment must follow the model of divine punishment, thus accepting the death sentence, then it must do so, at the minimum, consistently. To be consistent would mean that the State must relinquish incarceration, which is not Biblically-sound punishment, and begin to implement physical mutilation. You can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, the State should then implement the death sentence for crimes in the Bible that demand the death sentence, such as cursing one's mother. In fact, the Spirit of Prophecy predicts the legislation of the death sentence for Sunday-breaking.

In sum, in my opinion, human punishment that involved fines and restitution would be valid and reflect divine principles as well. In addition, human punishment that included community service and incarceration is extra-Biblical, but in my view within the bounds of human authority.

How do we resolve disagreement on what human punishment is within the bounds of human authority? In practice, we do so democratically. It would be my duty, therefore, in the USA, to lobby for legislation against the death sentence and for the improvement of restitution.

Actually, in practice, considering the forecast, we should be lobbying not only against the legislation of Sunday laws, but against the death sentence as well. The prediction is that the two go hand in hand.

quote:Originally posted by asygo:
Then we should make human to human laws - laws made by humans, to be obeyed by humans, required by humans, judged by humans, enforced by humans....

But keep in mind that human to human relationships also exist in the 4th commandment. Also, the 10th is between the individual and God, no one else.

[asygo]

 

quote:Originally posted by Thomas M:
Just as we cannot, according to Brother Arnold and I believe he is correct, legislate divine law, we cannot legislate divine punishment. Punishment must be within the bounds of human authority.

Bro Thomas,

Though I have not thought through the punishment aspect as much as the legislation aspect, the argument seems reasonable. At this point, I agree with your basic thrust.

I was thinking about incarceration, and I remembered one instance. When they caught the guy picking up sticks on the Sabbath, they put him in "jail" until they received the divine order to mete out divine punishment.

Of course, in a government that cannot promote one deity over another, that won't work. While the minority is protected from undue restraint or coercion, the majority's will is irrelevant. But that protection is currently eroding, and will someday completely disappear. In the meantime, we must protect it in every way possible.

That's why I always view legislation of moral issues with a wary eye. Even if the idea being promoted is correct, it makes it easier for the majority to trample upon the minority. And if we do not slow it down, the day when we are the minority being trampled underfoot will come that much sooner.

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

[asygo]

 

quote:Originally posted by Liane H:
Can one tell me if they can legislate the fifth one? How does one go about to make people honor their parents?

It is not humanly possible to force one to positively honor his parents. However, it is possible for men to forbid practices that may be construed as dishonorable, and/or require practices that my be construed as honorable.

In the Bible, cursing one's mother was a capital offense.

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

[Richard Myers]

If we do not execute the cold blooded killer and do not incarcerate him, and he is poor, what shall we do after he kills four or five kids?

And if we do not legislate in areas of morality, then we would not have laws dealing with murder, since it is a moral law.

Somewhere we seem to have gotten off track and even those who do not read a Bible could see a difficulty here.

I think we may need to become just a little more practical and stay with the Bible as we look for answers to our questions.