------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Parts of the Mosaic law were types and shadows that ceased to be binding at the death of Christ. Other aspects were only for the state of Israel which was a theocracy. But, there are other parts of the Mosaic law which remain binding today. They are a revelation of the laws of our being. Like the health principles revealed, there is much that many do not wish to bring into their lives because they do not desire to give up a perverted heart. Let us study this subject that we might receive the blessings God has for us in the Bible.
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
But, what of the other judgments and statutes? What was their purpose? Are they related to the moral law? I think that we can say they are. There were some that were unique to the state of Israel as a theocracy. There is no longer a theocracy, so these statues are not binding upon us today. We can learn from them though. The statutes that are not shadows and are not related directly to a theocracy we have no reason throw away. They are light regarding the laws of our being. They are the instructions God has given that we may be successful in this world and prepared for the next.
At first glance many will seem to be too far removed from our way of life, from modern society. But, upon closer examination we shall find much wisdom in the statutes. What many will refuse to accept is in fact wisdom from God that will bless us as we walk in the light.
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
How about not eating fat? Not eating blood? Not drinking alcohol? We have only begun to scratch the light God has given to His people.
The classification of "civil" laws is not easy. We will need to discover the principles involved in doing so. There are statutes that were restricted to Israel. How do we discover which ones apply and which ones do not?
It is rather obvious that the state is not to stone those who build a fire on the Sabbath. This was a statute that was only to be executed by the theocracy. Same for the death penalty for the glutton. What many pass off as being of little importance is quite important. We must discover how to apply the statutes that we have been given in the Old Testament.
The shadows are only shadows. The theocracy laws were for Israel, but the rest are for our blessing today. A correct application will protect us from those who would attempt to apply the shadows and the civil laws to us today and will enable us to benefit from the laws of our being that have been lost.
The state will yield soon to the fallen churches and make a law which will attempt to force the conscience based on a wrong interpretation of this subject. The statutes regarding punishment for breaking the Sabbath Day were restricted to Israel as a theocracy. Yet, the church is to enforce the seventh-day Sabbath in her realm.
We must not look to man, but we must search the Bible and discover the correct principles in this important subject.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
We will need to discover the principles involved in doing so. There are statutes that were restricted to Israel. How do we discover which ones apply and which ones do not?
I think this needs to be fleshed out before we can go on to talking about examples. I can think of examples to talk about but until we can decide which ones are still binding we will be putting the cart before horse.
Can we agree that it is sin to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not? It is not good to drink blood. It is therefore sin to him that knows they ought not drink blood. Can we agree?
Leviticus:
3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.
I think of this in the same way as I do unclean meats. What is unclean is still unclean today. Nothing has changed in the unclean meats that can make them clean today.
If a person is unclean then they remain unclean. Only when one is willing to be made clean by the blood of Jesus can a person be made clean.
This is talking about salvation, not food so the food issues is still the same that we are not to eat fat nor blood or unclean things.
Revelation:
18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Notice the comparison between what is Babylon and that which is unclean. If all was fit for food what unclean bird is God speaking about to John here?
So therefore there still are unclean things to eat even today. Now we come to a very important verses in the Bible in 1 Timothy:
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
It does not say all meats, but meats that god had created to be eaten. Did God create unclean meats to be eaten? No!
If we are to speak about every creature of God is good, then man are creatures and is it good to eat each other?
There has to be logic and reasons that God gives in wisdom and when we seek that wisdom we seek the truth and are blessed.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Why is it that we ought not drink blood? The Bible says so, but can we know why the Bible tells us not to drink blood? Can we know which commandment this statute comes close to?
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
So we have statutes and judgments from the Mosaic law that are part of the moral law. They are an extension of the ten commandments.
The SOP says that, but I can't remember the quote. Anybody have a clue?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
The life is in the blood. I just read it while going through Exodus through Deuteronomy to review the statutes.
You asked:
quote:
Why is it that we ought not drink blood? The Bible says so, but can we know why the Bible tells us not to drink blood? Can we know which commandment this statute comes close to?
Because life is in the blood - it makes sense (to me) that it would be directly related to the Sixth Commandment. SOP says in the citations given below that the life current is in the blood. And by extention to that commandment it is a direct link to the health message. "Don't eat the blood." Doing so can poison the body, thus harm the temple and possibly kill it.
Ministry of Healing, 271-2
Counsels on Diet and Foods, 91
Counsels on Health, 59, 173
1SM, 114
Testimonies, Vol 2, 525
What also strikes me is the connection of one consuming what is the "life" of another living being.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-23-2007).]
For those that refuse to study this subject and continue to eat meat with blood in it, you are at great risk of infection from many diseases and so are your children. The Bible is warning us to refrain from ingesting blood and your doctor will warn you to not even touch human blood. How much worse to touch animal blood....and even much worse to allow it into your stomach. The animals are carrying many diseases and they can be transmitted via blood.
Any other great light in the Old Testament statutes? Or was it just for the Jews?
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
The SOP tells us the judgments and statutes guarded the Ten Commandments ...
June 17, 1880 The Law of Moses.
-
By Mrs. E. G. White.
-
The Lord did not leave his people with the precepts of the decalogue alone. Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute directions in regard to their duty, thereby guarding the commandments engraved on the tables of stone. Thus did the Lord seek to lead erring man to a strict obedience to that holy law which he is so prone to transgress. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 1}
If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved in the ark by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a token or pledge, they would never have gone into idolatry, nor been suffered to go down into Egypt; and there would have been no necessity for God to proclaim his law from Sinai, engraving it upon tables of stone, or guard it by definite directions in the judgments and statutes given to Moses. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 2}
Moses wrote these judgments and statutes from the mouth of God while he was with him in the mount. The definite directions in regard to the duty of his people to one another, and to the stranger, are the principles of the ten commandments simplified and given in a definite manner, that they need not err. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 3}
The Lord said of the children of Israel, "Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols, wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." Because of continual disobedience, the Lord annexed penalties to the transgression of his law, which were not good for the transgressor, or whereby he should not live in his rebellion. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 4}
By transgressing the law which God had given in such majesty, and amid glory which was unapproachable, the people showed open contempt of the great Lawgiver, and death was the penalty. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 5}
"Moreover also, I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them. But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my Sabbaths they greatly polluted. Then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them." {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 6}
The statutes and judgments given of God were good for the obedient. "They shall live in them." But they were not good for the transgressor; for in the civil law given to Moses, punishment was to be inflicted on the transgressor, that others should be restrained by fear. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 7}
Moses charged the children of Israel to obey God. He said unto them, "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you." {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 8}
The Lord gave Moses definite instructions in regard to the ceremonial offerings which were to cease at the death of Christ. This system, first established with Adam after his fall, and taught by him to his descendants, was corrupted before the flood, and also by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel. They had no faith in the Redeemer to come, and they sacrificed to gods of their own choosing, instead of the God of Heaven. Their superstition led them to great extravagances. They taught the people that the more valuable their offerings, the greater would be the pleasure of their gods, and consequently the greater the prosperity and riches of their nation. Hence, human beings were often sacrificed to these senseless idols. Many of the laws which governed these nations were cruel in the extreme. They were made by men whose hearts were not softened by divine grace, and while the most debasing crimes were passed over lightly, a small offense would be visited by the most cruel punishment. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 9}
Moses had this in view when he said to Israel, "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? and what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 10}
God was a wise and compassionate lawgiver, judging all cases righteously, and without partiality. While the Israelites were in Egyptian bondage, they were surrounded with idolatry. The Egyptians were regarded as the most learned nation then in existence, and their worship was conducted with great pomp and ceremony. Other nations held the most cruel and absurd traditions as a part of their religion, and revolting customs found a place in their idolatrous service. Prominent among these was the practice of causing their children to pass through the fire,--to leap over the altar upon which a fire was burning before their idol. If a person could do this without injury, the people received it as evidence that the god accepted their offerings, and favored especially the one who had passed through the fiery ordeal. He was loaded with benefits, and was ever afterward greatly esteemed by all the people. He was never punished however aggravated might be his crimes. Should another person be burned in passing through the fire, his fate was sealed; the people believed that their gods were angry and could be appeased only by the life of the unhappy victim, and he was accordingly offered as a sacrifice. Even some of the children of Israel had so far degraded themselves as to practice these abominations. The Lord manifested his displeasure by causing the fire to consume their children in the act of passing through it. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 11}
Because the people of God had confused ideas of the sacrificial offerings, and mingled heathen customs with their ceremonial worship, the Lord condescended to give them definite directions, that they might understand the true import of those sacrifices which were to last only till the Lamb of God should be slain, who was the great Antitype of all their sacrificial offerings. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 12}
Moses understood the plan of salvation through Christ, by these sacrificial offerings, and by the manifestation of his glory which he had been permitted to behold. The perfection of God's goodness, his image, his excellency and glory had been revealed to him. He saw the suffering, self-denial and self-sacrifice of Him who was one with the Father, to save fallen man. It had been revealed to Moses that the glory enshrouded in the pillar of cloud was the Son of the infinite God, whom the sacrificial offerings typified. In answer to his most earnest pleadings, "Show me thy way," the future had been opened before him when the type would meet antitype in the death of Christ. He saw mercy and justice blended in harmony and love expressed without a parallel. Israel was just as fully and amply saved through Christ as we are-today. Moses had the assurance that the Mediator of Israel had the guardianship of his people, and that he was just the protection which their necessities required. If disaster came upon them, if their enemies prevailed against them in battle, it was the rebuke of God upon them because they had sinned and in sinning had broken the law of God. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 13}
This Signs of the Times article is astoundingly enlightening and has caused me to edit this post. The statutes and judgments were a hedge, so to speak, guarding the Ten Commandments.
And however we look at these laws and judgments that were meant to teach the COI the various aspects of the TC, we know the health laws are still binding - we do know this ... can we agree that they are still binding?
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-23-2007).]
I agree that the health laws are still binding. It only makes sense to me since the physiology of the pig did not magically change at the cross.
However, are all the hygiene laws still binding?
Civil laws typically relate to how man is to treat man.
I am thinking ... bear with me as I am from Texas and am slower than most! ;D
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-23-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Jim B:
However, are all the hygiene laws still binding?
Outside the ceremonial system? Like burying human excrement instead of wasting good fresh water to flush it away? Good question ... my first impression is that they are, indeed, because they are directly related to the health of the individual and of those around the individual, but let's find out!
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-23-2007).]
KJV-R (Webster) Exodus 21:1 Now these arethe judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver himinto his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with hisfist, and he die not, but keepeth hisbed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote himbe quit: only he shall pay forthe loss of his time, and shall cause himto be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if anymischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall bequit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
34 The owner of the pit shall make itgood, andgive money unto the owner of them; and the dead beastshall be his.
35 And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
Verse 12 - smiting a man so that he dies - you die. Sixth Commandment
Verse 15 - smiting father or mother - you die. Fifth Commandment
Verse 16 - steal a person (kidknapping a slave?) - you die. Eighth Commandment
Verse 17 - cursing father or mother - you die. Fifth Commandment
Verse 23 - life for life. Sixth Commandment
Verse 29 - you have an ox that kills and you do not notify people of it and it kills someone - you and the ox die. Ninth Commandment
These are all commandment based - they are still binding but the state does not enforce them except for murder and even special circumstances, at that.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-23-2007).]
Why did we quit killing witches, sorcerers, adulterers, idolators, rebellious children who cursed parents, homosexuals, and people who defamed the Sabbath?
Is it because we became a secular society and got accustomed to the sin and just let it slide, like so many things these days, or chose more "civilized ways" to deal with it?
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-23-2007).]
2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shedfor him.
3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall beblood shedfor him; forhe should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to seewhether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
9 For all manner of trespass, whether it befor ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, orfor any manner of lost thing, which anotherchallengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; andwhom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:
11 Thenshall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.
13 If it be torn in pieces, thenlet him bring it forwitness, andhe shall not make good that which was torn.
14 And if a man borrow oughtof his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof beingnot with it , he shall surely make it good.
15 But if the owner thereof bewith it, he shall not make itgood: if it bean hired thing, it came for his hire.
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
20 He that sacrificeth unto anygod, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
22 Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
25 If thou lend money to any of my people that ispoor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
26 If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:
27 For that ishis covering only, it ishis raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I amgracious.
28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
29 Thou shalt not delay to offerthe first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
Time for a question ... and be gentle with me as I have six thousand years of sin and degradation, along with inherited sinful tendencies - as this question is burning in my mind at this point in my schooling on this subject.Why did we quit killing witches, sorcerers, adulterers, idolators, rebellious children who cursed parents, homosexuals, and people who defamed the Sabbath?
Is it because we became a secular society and got accustomed to the sin and just let it slide, like so many things these days, or chose more "civilized ways" to deal with it?
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-23-2007).]
Good question! I've been wondering when, or if, this very question would come up. Where is the command or direction from God saying the penalty proclaimed against these sins has been repealed? Have we becomed so "civilized" that we have turned against God's commands in this?
quote:
Originally posted by Jim B:
However, are all the hygiene laws still binding?
SOP on this issue and a few others:
Ministry of Healing Chap. 21 - Hygiene Among the Israelites
In the teaching that God gave to Israel, the preservation of health received careful attention. The people who had come from slavery with the uncleanly and unhealthful habits which it engenders, were subjected to the strictest training in the wilderness before entering Canaan. Health principles were taught and sanitary laws enforced. {MH 277.1}
Prevention of Disease
Not only in their religious service, but in all the affairs of daily life was observed the distinction between clean and unclean. All who came in contact with contagious or contaminating diseases were isolated from the encampment, and they were not permitted to return without thorough cleansing of both the person and the clothing. In the case of one afflicted with a contaminating disease, the direction was given: {MH 277.2}
"Every bed, whereon he lieth, . . . is unclean: and everything, whereon he sitteth, shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And he that sitteth on anything whereon he sat . . . shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And he that toucheth the flesh of him . . . shall wash his clothes,and bathe himself in water
, and be unclean until the even. . . . And whosoever toucheth anything that was under him shall be unclean until the even: and he that beareth any of those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whomsoever he toucheth . . . and hath not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And the vessel of earth, that he toucheth, . . . shall be broken: and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water." Leviticus 15:4-12. {MH 277.3}
The law concerning leprosy is also an illustration of the thoroughness with which these regulations were to be enforced: {MH 278.1}
"All the days wherein the plague shall be in him [the leper] he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be. The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment; whether it be in the warp, or woof; of linen, or of woolen; whether in a skin, or in anything made of skin; . . . the priest shall look upon the plague: . . . if the plague be spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in a skin, or in any work that is made of skin; the plague is a fretting leprosy; it is unclean. He shall therefore burn that garment, whether warp or woof, in woolen or in linen, or anything of skin, wherein the plague is: for it is a fretting leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire." Leviticus 13:46-52. {MH 278.2}
So, too, if a house gave evidence of conditions that rendered it unsafe for habitation, it was destroyed. The priest was to "break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place. Moreover
he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even. And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes." Leviticus 14:45-47. {MH 278.3}
Cleanliness
The necessity of personal cleanliness was taught in the most impressive manner. Before gathering at Mount Sinai to listen to the proclamation of the law by the voice of God, the people were required to wash both their persons and their clothing. This direction was enforced on pain of death. No impurity was to be tolerated in the presence of God. {MH 279.1}
During the sojourn in the wilderness the Israelites were almost continually in the open air, where impurities would have a less harmful effect than upon the dwellers in close houses. But the strictest regard to cleanliness was required both within and without their tents. No refuse was allowed to remain within or about the encampment. The Lord said:
"The Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy." Deuteronomy 23:14. {MH 280.1}
Diet
The distinction between clean and unclean was made in all matters of diet: {MH 280.2}
"I am the Lord thy God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing, . . . which I have separated from you as unclean." Leviticus 20:24, 25. {MH 280.3}
Many articles of food eaten freely by the heathen about them were forbidden to the Israelites. It was no arbitrary distinction that was made. The things prohibited were unwholesome. And the fact that they were pronounced unclean taught the lesson that the use of injurious foods is defiling. That which corrupts the body tends to corrupt the soul. It unfits the user for communion with God, unfits him for high and holy service. {MH 280.4}
In the Promised Land the discipline begun in the wilderness was continued under circumstances favorable to the formation of right habits. The people were not crowded together in cities, but each family had its own landed possession, ensuring to all the health-giving blessings of a natural, unperverted life. {MH 280.5}
Concerning the cruel, licentious practices of the Canaanites, who were dispossessed by Israel, the Lord said: {MH 280.6}
"Ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." Verse 23. "Neither shalt thou
bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it." Deuteronomy 7:26. {MH 280.7}
In all the affairs of their daily life, the Israelites were taught the lesson set forth by the Holy Spirit: {MH 281.1}
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17. {MH 281.2}
Rejoicing
"A merry [rejoicing] heart doeth good like a medicine." Proverbs 17:22. Gratitude, rejoicing, benevolence, trust in God's love and care--these are health's greatest safeguard. To the Israelites they were to be the very keynote of life. {MH 281.3}
The journey made three times a year to the annual feasts at Jerusalem, the week's sojourn in booths during the Feast of Tabernacles, were opportunities for outdoor recreation and social life. These feasts were occasions of rejoicing, made sweeter and more tender by the hospitable welcome given to the stranger, the Levite, and the poor. {MH 281.4}
"Rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God hath given unto thee, and unto thine house, thou, and the Levite, and the stranger that is among you." Deuteronomy 26:11. {MH 281.5}
So, in later years, when the law of God was read in Jerusalem to the captives returned from Babylon, and the people wept because of their transgressions, the gracious words were spoken: {MH 281.6}
"Mourn not. . . . Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength." Nehemiah 8:9, 10
And it was published and proclaimed "in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, everyone upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim.
And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths. . . . And there was very great gladness." Verses 15-17. {MH 282.1}
God gave to Israel instruction in all the principles essential to physical as well as to moral health, and it was concerning these principles no less than concerning those of the moral law that He commanded them: {MH 283.1}
"These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates." Deuteronomy 6:6-9. {MH 283.2}
"And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord our God hath commanded you? Then thou shalt say unto thy son, . . . The Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day." Verses 20-24. {MH 283.3}
Had the Israelites obeyed the instruction they received, and profited by their advantages, they would have been the world's object lesson of health and prosperity. If as a people they had lived according to God's plan, they would have been preserved from the diseases that afflicted other nations. Above any other people they would have possessed physical strength and vigor of intellect. They would have been the mightiest nation on the earth. God said: {MH 283.4}
"Thou shalt be blessed above all people." Deuteronomy 7:14.
"The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments; and to make thee high above all nations which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honor; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as He hath spoken." Deuteronomy 26:18, 19. {MH 284.1}
"And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store. Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out." Deuteronomy 28:2-6. {MH 284.2}
"The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and He shall bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto Himself, as He hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in His ways. And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee. And the Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers to give thee. The Lord shall open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand. . . . And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the Lord thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them." Verses 8-13. {MH 284.3}
To Aaron the high priest and his sons the direction was given: {MH 285.1}
"On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,
"Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee:
Jehovah make His face to shine upon thee,
And be gracious unto thee:
Jehovah lift up His countenance upon thee,
And give thee peace.
So shall they put My name upon the children of Israel;
And I will bless them."
"As thy days, so shall thy strength be.
There is none like unto God, O Jeshurun,
Who rideth upon the heaven for thy help,
And in His excellency on the skies.
The eternal God is thy dwelling place,
And underneath are the everlasting arms. . . .
Israel dwelleth in safety,
The fountain of Jacob alone,
"In a land of corn and wine;
Yea, His heavens drop down dew.
Happy art thou, O Israel:
Who is like unto thee, a people saved by the Lord,
The shield of thy help,
And that is the sword of thy excellency!"
Numbers 6:23; 6:24-27, A.R.V.;
Deuteronomy 33:25-29, R.V. {MH 285.2}
The Israelites failed of fulfilling God's purpose, and thus failed of receiving the blessings that might have been theirs. But in Joseph and Daniel, in Moses and Elisha, and many others, we have noble examples of the results of the true plan of living. Like faithfulness today will produce like results. To us it is written:
"Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." 1 Peter 2:9.
"Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord,
And whose hope the Lord is."
He "shall flourish like the palm tree:
He shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
Those that be planted in the house of the Lord
Shall flourish in the courts of our God.
They shall still bring forth fruit in old age."
"They shall be vigorous and covered with foliage."
"Let thine heart keep My commandments:
For length of days, and long life,
And peace, shall they add to thee."
"Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely,
And thy foot shall not stumble.
When thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid:
Yea, thou shalt lie down, and thy sleep shall be sweet.
Be not afraid of sudden fear,
Neither of the desolation of the wicked, when it cometh.
For the Lord shall be thy confidence,
And shall keep thy foot from being taken."
Jeremiah 17:7; Psalm 92:12-14; 92:14, Leeser;
Proverbs 3:1, 2, 23-26. {MH 286.1}
That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. These laws were called judgments, both because they were framed in infinite wisdom and equity and because the magistrates were to give judgment according to them. Unlike the Ten Commandments, they were delivered privately to Moses, who was to communicate them to the people. {PP 310.1}
The first of these laws related to servants. In ancient times criminals were sometimes sold into slavery by the judges; in some cases, debtors were sold by their creditors; and poverty even led persons to sell themselves or their children. But a Hebrew could not be sold as a slave for life. His term of service was limited to six years; on the seventh he was to be set at liberty. Manstealing, deliberate murder, and rebellion against parental authority were to be punished with death. The holding of slaves not of Israelitish birth was permitted, but their life and person were strictly guarded. The murderer of a slave was to be punished; an injury inflicted upon one by his master, though no more than the loss of a tooth, entitled him to his freedom. {PP 310.2}
The Israelites had lately been servants themselves, and now that they were to have servants under them, they were to beware of indulging the spirit of cruelty and exaction from which they had suffered under their Egyptian taskmasters. The memory of their own bitter servitude should enable them to put themselves in the servant's place, leading them to be kind and compassionate, to deal with others as they would wish to be dealt with. {PP 310.3}
The rights of widows and orphans were especially guarded, and a tender regard for their helpless condition was enjoined. "If thou afflict them in any wise," the Lord declared, "and they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry; and My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." Aliens who united themselves with Israel were to be protected from wrong or oppression. "Thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." {PP 310.4}
The taking of usury from the poor was forbidden. A poor man's raiment or blanket taken as a pledge, must be restored to him at nightfall. He who was guilty of theft was required to restore double. Respect for magistrates and rulers was enjoined, and judges were warned against perverting judgment, aiding a false cause, or receiving bribes. Calumny and slander were prohibited, and acts of kindness enjoined, even toward personal enemies. {PP 311.1}
Again the people were reminded of the sacred obligation of the Sabbath. Yearly feasts were appointed, at which all the men of the nation were to assemble before the Lord, bringing to Him their offerings of gratitude and the first fruits of His bounties. The object of all these regulations was stated: they proceeded from no exercise of mere arbitrary sovereignty; all were given for the good of Israel. The Lord said, "Ye shall be holy men unto Me"--worthy to be acknowledged by a holy God. {PP 311.2}
These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. {PP 311.3}
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-24-2007).]
1, 2. Become Familiar With Levitical Law.--We are to become familiar with the Levitical law in all its bearings; for it contains rules that must be obeyed; it contains the instruction that if studied will enable us to understand better the rule of faith and practice that we are to follow in our dealings with one another. No soul has any excuse for being in darkness. Those who receive Christ by faith will receive also power to become the sons of God (Letter 3, 1905). {1BC 1110.4}
Agricultural and Tithing Laws a Test. --The tithing system was instituted by the Lord as the very best arrangement to help the people in carrying out the principles of the law. If this law were obeyed, the people would be entrusted with the entire vineyard, the whole earth. [Quotes Lev. 25:18-22.] . . . {1BC 1112.5}
Men were to cooperate with God in restoring the diseased land to health, that it might be a praise and a glory to His name. And as the land they possessed would, if managed with skill and earnestness, produce its treasures, so their hearts, if controlled by God, would reflect His character. . . . {1BC 1112.6}
In the laws which God gave for the cultivation of the soil, He was giving the people opportunity to overcome their selfishness and become heavenly-minded. Canaan would be to them as Eden if they obeyed the Word of the Lord. Through them the Lord designed to teach all the nations of the world how to cultivate the soil so that it would yield healthy fruit, free from disease. The earth is the Lord's vineyard, and is to be treated according to His plan. Those who cultivated the soil were to realize that they were doing God service. They were as truly in their lot and place as were the men appointed to minister in the priesthood and in work connected with the tabernacle. God told the people that the Levites were a gift to them, and no matter what their trade, they were to help to support them (Ibid.).
Diet Modified Disposition, Activated Mind. --The state of the mind has largely to do with the health of the body, and especially with the health of the digestive organs. As a general thing, the Lord did not provide His people with flesh meat in the desert, because He knew that the use of this diet would create disease and insubordination. In order to modify the disposition, and bring the higher powers of the mind into active exercise, He removed from them the flesh of dead animals. He gave them angel's food, manna from heaven (MS 38, 1898). {1BC 1112.8}
No Thread of Selfishness in Web of Life.--Deuteronomy contains much instruction regarding what the law is to us, and the relation we shall sustain to God as we reverence and obey His law. {1BC 1118.6}
We are God's servants, doing His service. Into the great web of life we are to draw no thread of selfishness; for this would spoil the pattern. But, oh, how thoughtless men are apt to be! How seldom do they make the interests of God's suffering ones their own. The poor are all around them, but they pass on, thoughtless and indifferent, regardless of the widows and orphans who, left without resources, suffer, but do not tell their need. If the rich would place a small fund in the bank, at the disposal of the needy ones, how much suffering would be saved. The holy love of God should lead every one to see that it is his duty to care for some other one, and thus keep alive the spirit of benevolence. . . . With what goodness, mercy, and love God lays His requirements before His children, telling them what they
1119
are to do. He honors us by making us His helping hand. Instead of complaining, let us rejoice that we have the privilege of serving under so good and merciful a Master (Letter 112, 1902). {1BC 1118.7}
No Uncleanness of Body, Word, or Spirit. --In order to be acceptable in God's sight, the leaders of the people were to give strict heed to the sanitary condition of the armies of Israel, even when they went forth to battle. Every soul, from the commander-in-chief to the lowest soldier in the army, was sacredly charged to preserve cleanliness in his person and surroundings; for the Israelites were chosen by God as His peculiar people. They were sacredly bound to be holy in body and spirit. They were not to be careless or neglectful of their personal duties. In every respect they were to preserve cleanliness. They were to allow nothing untidy or unwholesome in their surroundings, nothing which would taint the purity of the atmosphere. Inwardly and outwardly they were to be pure [Deut. 23:14 quoted] (Letter 35, 1901). {1BC 1119.4}
We know His will, and any departure from it to follow ideas of your own is a dishonor to His name, a reproach to His sacred truth. Everything that relates to the worship of God on earth, is to bear in appearance a striking resemblance to heavenly things. There must be no careless disregard in these things, if you expect the Lord to favor you with His presence. He will not have His work placed on a level with common, temporal things (MS 7, 1889). {1BC 1119.5}
All those who come into His presence should give special attention to the body and the clothing. Heaven is a clean and holy place. God is pure and holy. All who come into His presence should take heed to His directions, and have the body and the clothing in a pure, clean condition, thus showing respect to themselves and to Him. The heart must also be sanctified. Those who do this will not dishonor His sacred name by worshiping Him while their hearts are polluted and their apparel is untidy.
God sees these things. He marks the heart- preparation, the thoughts, the cleanliness in appearance, of those who worship Him (MS 126 1901). {1BC 1119.6}
Ceremonial, health, hygiene, agricultural and civil.
For the sake of this examination, we will not address the ceremonial aspects of the first five books of the Bible. And we will label the judgments into one of the remaining categories and whether or not they are still applicable today.
How's that?
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-25-2007).]
"It would be a scene well-pleasing to God and angels, would His professed followers in this generation unite, as did Israel of old [referring especially to the revival in the days of Nehemiah], in a solemn covenant to "observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes" (SW June 7, 1904). {3BC 1139.2}
So does the word all apply to the judgments and statutes?
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
quote:
They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon men in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law (Ibid., April 15, 1875). {1BC 1104.6}
Also - from everything I have read, it appears that the statutes belonging to hygiene also apply to us today.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-24-2007).]
quote:
The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. These laws were called judgments, both because they were framed in infinite wisdom and equity and because the magistrates were to give judgment according to them. Unlike the Ten Commandments, they were delivered privately to Moses, who was to communicate them to the people. {PP 310.1}Moses wrote these judgments and statutes from the mouth of God while he was with him in the mount. If the people of God had obeyed the principles of the ten commandments, there would have been no need of the specific directions given to Moses, which he wrote in a book, relative to their duty to God and to one another. The definite directions which the Lord gave to Moses in regard to the duty of his people to one another, and to the stranger, are the principles of the ten commandments simplified and given in a definite manner, that they need not err. {1SP 265.1}
In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts which were to govern the everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the ten commandments. They were not shadowy types to pass away with the death of Christ. They were to be binding upon man in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law. {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 10}
Moses wrote these judgments and statutes from the mouth of God while he was with him in the mount. The definite directions in regard to the duty of his people to one another, and to the stranger, are the principles of the ten commandments simplified and given in a definite manner, that they need not err. {ST, June 17, 1880 par. 3}
These statements seem to say that the statutes were based on the 10C, and therefore are just as binding today. WDYT?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
Yes - when they are solidly attached to the Ten Commandments, they are binding.
What do you think of the four categories thus far? Can you think of any others we have missed?
To the First Commandment? That is my guess.
So are you saying that there are some civil, diet and hygiene laws are shadows? I thought the ceremonial laws were the only shadows, did I miss something in reading above?
I read the same statements as Arnold above and it appears to me that all are binding by the Tenn Commandments.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
[This message has been edited by Liane H (edited 05-24-2007).]
"to "observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes"
The issue is these are not binding upon the world but to us for our own good. We may not be able to fulfill the punishments as they are written, but we are obligated to obey them ourselves.
This could be pushing the church into a place of new light and knowledge with God for the last generation that follow the Lamb.
It is worth the study.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
When Roger Williams lived in Massachusetts and he sinned against the church there he was banished from the church and sent to the wilderness to die. Some wonderful indians took him in and he lived.
He founded the state of Rhode Island that I was born and opened the door to freedom of thought and worship of God which was the foundation of our first amendment right to worship.
Our standard in the church is so low that we should hold our head down in shame for what we are today as a denomination. It must grieve God to see how we are today, but time is coming when that all will be behind us and the 144,000 will reflect Jesus and cause His coming soon.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Jim and I are working on a chart with all the five categories. We will pass it around via e-mail after we have finished entering all the statutes so we can get everyone's input.
I'd say there are many more binding than not binding.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
[This message has been edited by Liane H (edited 05-25-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
Arnold, my brother! Glad to see you once more!Yes - when they are solidly attached to the Ten Commandments, they are binding.
What do you think of the four categories thus far? Can you think of any others we have missed?
Sis Sybil,
I've been rather busy lately, with moving to a new residence and all the packing and unpacking that entails. But this is a very interesting topic.
I would like to categorize the statutes, but not in the way you have been doing it. The foundation of life is God's character, the transcript of which are the 10 Commandments. The SOP tells us that the statutes were given to help the people understand and keep the commandments.
So, here are my categories:
1) Shadows - done away by Christ's death.
2) Same - continue as is.
3) Modified - continue concept, but implementation is different.
I haven't studied this as much as I'd like, but I'm guessing most end up in #3. The hard part is figuring out the core concept, then figuring out the new implementation.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
On #3 Would you please give me an example of this? For just looking at it the first thing that came to mind was that Sunday keepers keep the concept, they have just added a new implementation of it. So of course, we don't want to do that. So please provide for me an example of what you mean. :) Thanks
P.S. #1 and 2 are very good, for this is the core of interest we are trying to decide, if we should keep them or not.
Another thought that is coming is that the Moslems keep most if not all of these things, and it is with this idea in mind that they come against the Christians with fever, considering us to be no good and worthy of death because we do not keep them. They feel it gives them the right to kill us with God's go ahead. They too have the concept but have added their own desired implementation of the concept.
We don't want people to think of us as being like them, so does one pick and chose, and how do we keep ourself from having people think of us as they do them. We are here to water the earth with Truth that they may be saved, they are here to kill all but themselves. (Those who follow their faith). That is one way we are different. Just thoughts.
So are there rules that really were "just for them" and just for their time frame?" And how do we know how to tell the difference? I'm just sort of thinking out loud.
------------------
With Christian Love,
Sister Marie
[This message has been edited by Sister Glass (edited 05-28-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
On #3 Would you please give me an example of this?
One example could be in the area of slaves. The rules for slavery were different for Israelites than for strangers. We don't have slaves today, but are there underlying principles that apply to employees? Perhaps.
Another is the cancellation of debt on the Jubilee. How do we implement that? Is that #3, or maybe it is #2?
Another is the Feast of Tabernacles. What did it typify? From what I can tell, the anti-type has yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, shouldn't it still be binding? At least, the parts that have not yet been fulfilled?
On that note, maybe there should be a 1a and 1b: Fulfilled Shadows and Unfulfilled Shadows.
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
For just looking at it the first thing that came to mind was that Sunday keepers keep the concept, they have just added a new implementation of it.
Indeed, they do keep SOME of the concepts. But their failure to keep ALL of the concepts is what leads to the faulty implementation.
One concept is that we do exactly what the Lord commands, no additions or deletions. The failure here leads to failures in other commands.
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
So are there rules that really were "just for them" and just for their time frame?"
I don't think so. God is the same, so His character is the same, so His requirements are the same.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
Now, we need to get straight on the categories. I like the generalized categories Arnold suggested, but I also like specific categories. Let us decide which ones to use.
Now - Jim and I just finished the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of all the texts dealing with statutes and judgments: Exodus to Deut. If anyone wants me to send it to them for a study sheet, I will. Just give me your e-mail address. It did copy onto MS Word for those who do not have Excel.
So here we go.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Most of the Christian world accepts that the shadows have passed away and that the reality is Christ. We do not observe the Passover, but rather the Lord's supper has taken its place.But, what of the other judgments and statutes? What was their purpose? Are they related to the moral law? I think that we can say they are. There were some that were unique to the state of Israel as a theocracy. There is no longer a theocracy, so these statues are not binding upon us today. We can learn from them though. The statutes that are not shadows and are not related directly to a theocracy we have no reason throw away. They are light regarding the laws of our being. They are the instructions God has given that we may be successful in this world and prepared for the next.
At first glance many will seem to be too far removed from our way of life, from modern society. But, upon closer examination we shall find much wisdom in the statutes. What many will refuse to accept is in fact wisdom from God that will bless us as we walk in the light.
Intimately living with them over the past week through simply reading them carefully, then entering them, text by text, I have been incredibly moved by the depth and detail of each - the broad implications as well as the simplicity encompassed in a very short command. For one, I can see many we do not practice today because we ARE so far removed from their giving four thousand or so years ago. Aren't we privileged to still have the account?
Reading toward the end of Deuteronomy the curses associated with disobedience, you can clearly see "Israel gone wrong" throughout her history. How that nation has been plagued, right down to specific curses.
It makes one tremble.
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
Another thought that is coming is that the Moslems keep most if not all of these things, and it is with this idea in mind that they come against the Christians with fever, considering us to be no good and worthy of death because we do not keep them. They feel it gives them the right to kill us with God's go ahead. They too have the concept but have added their own desired implementation of the concept.
The law of love being the foundation of the government of God, the happiness of all intelligent beings depends upon their perfect accord with its great principles of righteousness. God desires from all His creatures the service of love--service that springs from an appreciation of His character. He takes no pleasure in a forced obedience; and to all He grants freedom of will, that they may render Him voluntary service. {PP 34.3}
These murderers might know of some of God's truth, but they lack the foundation of His government.
Who can read the heart but God? Yet, they will presume to read your heart and kill you if they don't like what they see. In that, they echo their father: I will be like the Most High.
quote:
Originally posted by Sister Glass:
We don't want people to think of us as being like them, so does one pick and chose, and how do we keep ourself from having people think of us as they do them. We are here to water the earth with Truth that they may be saved, they are here to kill all but themselves. (Those who follow their faith). That is one way we are different.
We cannot be different by picking and choosing. In fact, that is how they are. We are called to walk in truth - all truth.
Here's how we are to be different:
John 13:34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
1John 2:9-11 - He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
2John 1:5 - And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
On the other hand, the strongest witness that God has sent His Son into the world is the existence of harmony and union among men of varied dispositions who form His church. This witness it is the privilege of the followers of Christ to bear. But in order to do this, they must place themselves under Christ's command. Their characters must be conformed to His character and their wills to His will. {AA 549.1}
The grace of Christ must mold the entire being, and its triumph will not be complete until the heavenly universe shall witness habitual tenderness of feeling, Christlike love, and holy deeds in the deportment of the children of God. {AG 235.2}
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
You are absolutely right, many of the relevant laws still apply and are not spoken of. I remember Dr. Hardinge in his book about the Sanctuary related one of these laws how women are not to have intercourse within so many days of their period and then turned to some research that was done on cervical cancer in the general population and a group of orthodox Jewish woman in the Boston area. The Jewish women cancer rate was easily a 3rd of the general female population thus signifying that these laws are there today for our protection. I view the 10 commandments as for our protection and therefore Mosaic statutes are the same – for our wellbeing.
As we study these statutes, we will see so many that have been dropped off and virtually forgotten - meanwhile disease runs rampant.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 05-29-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:Quote...women are not to have intercourse within so many days of their period...
As we study these statutes, we will see so many that have been dropped off and virtually forgotten - meanwhile disease runs rampant.
Yes, many have been neglected, to our loss. But the one mentioned here is still remembered in some circles. But it's really hard to bring it up in Sabbath School. ;)
BTW, the husbands should also abstain during this time.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
isn't seduction considered false witness
Adultery and covetousness, too.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
[This message has been edited by asygo (edited 05-29-2007).]
Doesn't this statute (paraphrased) nullify the arguments for cultural applications regarding some Paulien statements in the NT?
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
One law, one custom shall be for you and for the dwelling stranger. Num 15:16Doesn't this statute (paraphrased) nullify the arguments for cultural applications regarding some Paulien statements in the NT?
I don't think so. Lev 25:39-46 specifies different statutes for the Israelite and the stranger regarding slavery. Whether we like it or not, they were not treated equally.
But when it comes to offerings, sacrifices, and atonement (which Num 15 is addressing) the requirements are the same for the Israelite and the stranger. Maybe there's a lesson there.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
When we see that there are both ceremonial and moral statutes we have made an important distinction. We throw out the ceremonial and now look at the moral statutes. But, is it not true that a distinction needs to be made in regards to the laws that would apply to a theocracy and those that would not be limited in such a manner? If we can discern the basis for this distinction then it appears that we would be able to rule out those that would only apply in a theocracy and be left with those that are still binding today. Is there any other reason to nullify the moral statutes that God gave to Moses? I can think of nothing else to restrict the application of these judgments and statutes.
How can we know which statutes would apply only to a theocracy?
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
How can we know which statutes would apply only to a theocracy?
Plus, isn't the church a theocracy? If so, those statutes should still apply today, sans the death penalty.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
Plus, isn't the church a theocracy? If so, those statutes should still apply today, sans the death penalty.
Brother Arnold, I'm also looking for an answer to brother Richard's question. However, if we used your logic that the church is still a theocracy therefore the death penalty is still binding. You'd also have to enforce the death penalty for adulterers.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim B:
However, if we used your logic that the church is still a theocracy therefore the death penalty is still binding. You'd also have to enforce the death penalty for adulterers.
The church, in its sphere, is a theocracy. But, the sphere of the church today is much smaller than the church of Moses' day. The church no longer has the authority to impose physical death; that's the state's sphere. Therefore, in whatever way it chooses to "cut off" the sinner, it cannot be physical death.
But the church has full authority to enforce its laws within its boundaries. Moreover, its laws are theocratic, rather than democratic. In that sense, it is as much a theocracy today as in Moses' day.
However, there are those who insist that the laws and penalties prescribed through Moses are just as binding today, and must be enforced in the same way today. That puts such people in direct conflict with the state. But they don't care.
Has God authorized the separation of church and state, as we often hear today? Or is the church supposed to function as it did under Moses?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
The idea that the state has separate responsibilities from the church is important. We do not want the state to legislate in regards to the first four commandments. But, do we wish them to use the death penalty for adultery? If not, why not?
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
we need to answer the question as to the principles involved in setting aside those moral statutes that do not apply today.
I think all moral statutes apply today. Moreover, I think all the statutes are moral in nature. And therefore, we are not at liberty to set any aside.
My questions are: 1) What are the underlying principles for each statute, and 2) how do we implement it today?
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
The idea that the state has separate responsibilities from the church is important. We do not want the state to legislate in regards to the first four commandments. But, do we wish them to use the death penalty for adultery? If not, why not?
I believe all of God's commands are moral in nature. Therefore, I don't think the state has any business in enforcing them.
If the state feels it necessary to control and regulate actions, then it is within its authority to do that. But only God reads the heart.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
I believe all of God's commands are moral in nature. Therefore, I don't think the state has any business in enforcing them.
Are not we to distinguish between the ceremonial and the moral laws?
And, God has told us that the rulers in the land are to enforce morality. Think of what the world would be like if killers were not killed and thieves were not arrested.
You have lost me on this one, Brother Arnold.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Are not we to distinguish between the ceremonial and the moral laws?
I understand the distinctions made between them, but I don't personally make those distinctions. To me, every law God gives is moral in nature. The only question is how to apply them in my life today.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
And, God has told us that the rulers in the land are to enforce morality. Think of what the world would be like if killers were not killed and thieves were not arrested.
God's laws are primarily concerned with character - thoughts and feelings. Different actions may be called for in different circumstances, but the crux of the matter is the character underlying the action.
When God is at the head of the state - a theocracy - then the state can make judgments about our thoughts and feelings. God reads hearts accurately.
But when man is at the head of the state, the state has no ability to read the heart. In such cases, the state is limited to judging actions. That's where we are today.
If one ends the life of another, then the state can punish for killing. But it is in no position to punish one for hating his brother.
If one has intimate relations with another's spouse, then the state can punish for adultery. But it is in no position to punish one for looking at a woman lustfully.
If one takes what belongs to another, then the state can punish for stealing. But it is in no position to punish one for coveting.
The state can judge actions and punish or reward accordingly, but its jurisdiction ends there. But as Christians, we answer to a higher standard. Our Judge reads the heart, judges motives. The state has no business in that sphere.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
You have lost me on this one, Brother Arnold.
I hope I'm clearer today than yesterday.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
[This message has been edited by asygo (edited 05-31-2007).]
Our minds have been running in different channels.
We are trying to see which laws are still binding. The types and shadows are not. That seems to be a good place to begin. The ceremonial laws called forth actions that are no longer to be done. They were binding before the death of Christ, but no longer.
The rest of the statutes and judgments were moral not ceremonial. They were not types and shadows that passed away with the death of Christ.
Some of the moral laws require action today, some do not. We do not stone the glutton. We are looking for the principles that are involved that we might understand which laws we are to obey.
I like your thought, Brother Arnold that none can judge the motive, so when a motive is needed in carrying out the law, those are no longer binding. How many statutes called for a punishment for a violation that only involved motive? Did the command to kill those who willfully killed another involve motive? If it was an accident, then the motive was not to kill. If the motive was to kill, then the penalty for murder was to be death. What if the motive was to kill in war? Then if the war was a just war, the motive was good. If the war was one of conquest, then the motive to kill was evil. Seems have have run into a small problem with this basis of thinking?
quote:
If the war was one of conquest, then the motive to kill was evil.
I disagree, my Brother. Not all wars of conquest are wrong. When Joshua led Israel into the promised land, was this not a war of conquest? Did they not, in obediance to God, kill and destroy the prior inhabitants and take their land? Was this war of conquest evil?
Principles governing warfare - first, set your houses in order Deut 20:1-9
Going near a city, proclaim an offer of peace Deut 20:10
If accepted, the people will serve you Deut 20:11
If not accepted and they war against them, besiege them Deut 20:12
As it is delivered to you, slay all the males but keep the women and children along with livestock and plunder. Do such to all cities that are far from you, not the nations here
Deut 20:13-15
But the cities of your inheritance, let nothing that breathes live Deut 20:16,17
Otherwise they could teach you according to their gods Deut 20:18
Do not cut down trees for food during warfare, only those that are not for food Deut 20:19,20
If a man is found dead in a field, an offering and prayer for the guilt not to be charged to the COI Deut 21:1-9
quote:
Originally posted by Cop:
I disagree, my Brother. Not all wars of conquest are wrong. When Joshua led Israel into the promised land, was this not a war of conquest? Did they not, in obediance to God, kill and destroy the prior inhabitants and take their land? Was this war of conquest evil?
Very good, Brother Cop! :)
But, I would suggest that this was not a war of conquest, but one of liberation. When the King returns to His land and finds barbarians occupying it, is He not entitled to drive out those who are in rebellion?
Some would try and make the analogy for today, but it does not work. God is not as man. I guess we need to better define a war of conquest so that the nations of the world will understand when they may go to war and when they may not, in God's eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
We are trying to see which laws are still binding. The types and shadows are not. ... They were binding before the death of Christ, but no longer.
I use a simple definition: If the law prefigured something that Christ has already done, then it is no longer binding. Otherwise, it is still binding.
For example, killing lambs is abolished because Jesus, the Lamb of the world, has already been killed in the antitype.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
I like your thought, Brother Arnold that none can judge the motive, so when a motive is needed in carrying out the law, those are no longer binding. ... Seems have have run into a small problem with this basis of thinking?
God's laws are still binding even when motives are in question. But how we enforce them will be different because the church and state are separated.
Consider the guy caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath. He was obviously doing that which was forbidden. But Moses did not immediately execute him. Instead, they arrested him, then asked God what to do about it. Only after God told them to stone him did they enforce the prescribed punishment.
Here are a couple of points I get from that story:
Today, God's government on earth - the church - still judges motives. But it no longer has the power to execute sinners. Therefore, the enforcement will be different. God will have to bring about radical changes to fully enforce His laws, i.e. returning in glory.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
Consider the guy caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath. He was obviously doing that which was forbidden. But Moses did not immediately execute him. Instead, they arrested him, then asked God what to do about it. Only after God told them to stone him did they enforce the prescribed punishment.
As I am understanding this - you made the point - which was a beginning point of the command to execute the man who broke the Sabbath in this manner.
God set about creating laws that required death of the sinner. Not that is matters in this particular discussion but what kind of sin was that? Was this man sinning in ignorance or was he in full rebellion? Various penalties for various sins against God and fellow men.
A murderer is obviously in full rebellion - and it appears as if the man who picked up sticks, against the command not to do it, was also in full rebellion and the result was death by stoning.
So after Moses got the command as to what to do regarding this sin, he carried it out and we have no record of his going before the Lord a second time on this offense - or others, for that matter that I can find. There was no doubt about this man's guilt. The command set a precedence, so to speak, giving the remedy of such a person in rebellion.
In our discussion of the death penalty in another forum (Mod 2 - ask for entrance), it has been stated that God wanted purity among His people. Penalties, in their various forms, were meant to either correct bad behavior or to absolutely put to death, cleansing the camp of one in full rebellion. If gone unchecked, it would spread from one individual to another.
It is not my understanding that Moses consulted the Lord every time sin was committed in the camp AFTER he had the statutes and judgments in hand. However, when situations came up and the Lord needed to be consulted, the High Priest did have the Urim and Thummim.
We have a command related to the Sabbath upon which Ellen White further elaborates - and that is cooking on the Sabbath. We have a Preparation Day to ready ourselves, our homes and our food for the Sabbath. It is SO HOLY that cooking as done on other days of the week is not permitted. Manna did not fall on the Sabbath - double portions were given on Friday - no one cooked on the Sabbath while in the wilderness. How much worse is picking up sticks and making a fire on the Sabbath in the eyes of God?
Well, I see I'm getting carried away - and to finish this post, it is evident that it was a serious offense that God gave an order to remedy and Moses and the COI took it from there. It was a law on the books, so to speak.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-04-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
God's laws are still binding even when motives are in question. But how we enforce them will be different because the church and state are separated.
Three considerations on this point:
First, the state is not to enter into legislation that involves the first four commands that deal with our responsibilities to God. So, where there is a punishment for violating a statute that has to do with the first four commandments, the state is not to be involved.
Second, how about the church? The church does not "punish" for sin. It may restrict participation, but there is no punishment as in Israel when a theocracy. And, the church is not to disfellowship except in the area where there are violations of the tests of fellowship, and there is open sin unrepented of.
Third, legislation and punishment regarding the last six commandments is in the hands of the state. While we agree the statutes are binding, we now need to understand how far the state is to go in legislation and punishment.
[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 06-04-2007).]
What's left? Everything that supports the Ten Commandments - which is all of them. Our duty to God: the first four; our duty to each other: the last six. The SOP says this: Become Familiar With Levitical Law.--We are to become familiar with the Levitical law in all its bearings; for it contains rules that must be obeyed; it contains the instruction that if studied will enable us to understand better the rule of faith and practice that we are to follow in our dealings with one another. No soul has any excuse for being in darkness. Those who receive Christ by faith will receive also power to become the sons of God (Letter 3, 1905). {1BC 1110.4}
The church upholds and considers all ten in church life. As a very smart friend so recently reminded me, there are tests of fellowship recorded in the book of Acts as well as other things that have been shown to us since the writing of that book (SOP for instance) - we use them as far as church discipline - and we can certainly discuss these; however, the state is to legislate the moral laws that have to do how people treat other people in society - so they specifically handle the last six commandments.
The statutes and judgments give practical application to the Ten Commandments, so as far as I can tell, all the statutes outside the ceremonial laws are binding.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-05-2007).]
The first four commandments pertain to our relationship with God and no state is to legislate in this area. God does not want forced worship and He has not provided tools for the state to persecute those who refuse to bow down to Baal. This is what America has been very successful with, the separation of church and state. No legislation in the area of worship.
We appear to be moving forward as we seek wisdom regarding the moral laws of God.
quote:
The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. These laws were called judgments, both because they were framed in infinite wisdom and equity and because the magistrates were to give judgment according to them. Unlike the Ten Commandments, they were delivered privately to Moses, who was to communicate them to the people. {PP 310.1}
The first of these laws related to servants. In ancient times criminals were sometimes sold into slavery by the judges; in some cases, debtors were sold by their creditors; and poverty even led persons to sell themselves or their children. But a Hebrew could not be sold as a slave for life. His term of service was limited to six years; on the seventh he was to be set at liberty. Manstealing, deliberate murder, and rebellion against parental authority were to be punished with death. The holding of slaves not of Israelitish birth was permitted, but their life and person were strictly guarded. The murderer of a slave was to be punished; an injury inflicted upon one by his master, though no more than the loss of a tooth, entitled him to his freedom. {PP 310.2}
The Israelites had lately been servants themselves, and now that they were to have servants under them, they were to beware of indulging the spirit of cruelty and exaction from which they had suffered under their Egyptian taskmasters. The memory of their own bitter servitude should enable them to put themselves in the servant's place, leading them to be kind and compassionate, to deal with others as they would wish to be dealt with. {PP 310.3}
The rights of widows and orphans were especially guarded, and a tender regard for their helpless condition was enjoined.
"If thou afflict them in any wise," the Lord declared, "and they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry; and My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." Aliens who united themselves with Israel were to be protected from wrong or oppression. "Thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." {PP 310.4}
The taking of usury from the poor was forbidden. A poor man's raiment or blanket taken as a pledge, must be restored to him at nightfall. He who was guilty of theft was required to restore double. Respect for magistrates and rulers was enjoined, and judges were warned against perverting judgment, aiding a false cause, or receiving bribes. Calumny and slander were prohibited, and acts of kindness enjoined, even toward personal enemies. {PP 311.1}
This is the extent of comments I could locate on the statutes specifically in one setting.
So --- to begin with one that really has my curiosity: why are we not to mix fabrics? Does this pertain to health? Is there something unhealthy about mixing cotton, linen, and wool?
And what about days of purification for women after childbirth or after menstruation? It is interesting that birthing a female requires 66 days of purification over that of a male, which is only 33. One Jewish website says the difference may be explained that a female child is born with the ability to produce life, thereby the difference. Any thoughts?
I am coming to believe the long days of purification after childbirth were ceremonial in nature but the seven day purification after a regular menstruation cycle is strictly for the woman's health. And this, in my mind, goes to waiting those days before a husband and wife come together. It is healthier for her and her body to wait. And on a related issue, science is now showing us the prevelance of cervical cancer in non-Jewish women and not so much at all in Orthodox Jewish women who practice the days of purification as given in the statutes.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-06-2007).]
quote:
The law prohibiting Shatnez (mixing of threads on fabrics) falls into the category of what is known as a Chok, a law that cannot be explained. Various reasons have been suggested however. The explanation given by Maimonides is that pagan priests were required to wear garments made of wool and linen. The prohibition may have been established to separate Jews from pagan practices. It is interesting to note however, that the clothing of the priests in the Temple were exempt from the prohibition giving rise to an alternate explanation that the prohibition was designed to separate priestly from public practice.A second and more colorful explanation is that Abel brought wool as an offering, whereas Cain brought flax. The mixture was lethal and Abel lost his life. The Zohar from the Kabalah, the study of Jewish mysticism, says that wearing Shatnez causes an evil spirit to lurk within the wearer.
A further explanation is that the Parochet, the curtain used in the Temple, and the garments worn by priests in the Temple were made from wool and linen. Therefore. Jews were forbidden to wear anything that was similar.
A more esoteric explanation is that everything has its own spiritual force. By mixing certain items together, these forces are destroyed and cannot perform their assigned task.
Regardless of the reason, the law remains "on the books "
Admittedly even by the author, some of these reasons are almost comical. Do we know of other reasons? Hygiene, static electricity, water absorbtion or repelling? Or was it spiritual?
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-05-2007).]
Further, the Bible commentary on Deut. 23
14. No Uncleanness of Body, Word, or Spirit.--In order to be acceptable in God's sight, the leaders of the people were to give strict heed to the sanitary condition of the armies of Israel, even when they went forth to battle. Every soul, from the commander-in-chief to the lowest soldier in the army, was sacredly charged to preserve cleanliness in his person and surroundings; for the Israelites were chosen by God as His peculiar people. They were sacredly bound to be holy in body and spirit. They were not to be careless or neglectful of their personal duties. In every respect they were to preserve cleanliness. They were to allow nothing untidy or unwholesome in their surroundings, nothing which would taint the purity of the atmosphere. Inwardly and outwardly they were to be pure [Deut. 23:14 quoted] (Letter 35, 1901). {1BC 1119.4}
We know His will, and any departure from it to follow ideas of your own is a dishonor to His name, a reproach to His sacred truth. Everything that relates to the worship of God on earth, is to bear in appearance a striking resemblance to heavenly things. There must be no careless disregard in these things, if you expect the Lord to favor you with His presence. He will not have His work placed on a level with common, temporal things (MS 7, 1889). {1BC 1119.5}
All those who come into His presence should give special attention to the body and the clothing. Heaven is a clean and holy place. God is pure and holy. All who come into His presence should take heed to His directions, and have the body and the clothing in a pure, clean condition, thus showing respect to themselves and to Him. The heart must also be sanctified. Those who do this will not dishonor His sacred name by worshiping Him while their hearts are polluted and otheir apparel is untidy. God sees these things. He marks the heart-preparation, the thoughts, the cleanliness in appearance, of those who worship Him (MS 126 1901). {1BC 1119.6}
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-06-2007).]
Leviticus 13 & 14 discuss laws of leprosy. Leslie Hardinge has this to say in his book, With Jesus in His Sanctuary:
quote:
"Leprosy develops in two stages: nodular and anesthetic. At first the skin, stretched over rounded, firm cysts, presents a shiny surface. The sluggish circulation of blood then causes the complexion to grow pale until it appears as "white as snow," while underneath lurks rottenness. The nodules, becoming reddish brown, eventually ulcerate into "raw flesh." The survace nerves slowly cease to register pain, and this results in leprosy's anesthetic stage. This is the quiescent side. One might almost call it, its merciful side, when sensation and power to feel disappear. Weakness and paralysis follow, and because he is conscious of no hurt, the leper grows careless, inadvertently allowing his extremeties to bump sharp objects and thus break open. These wounds ulcerate, suppurating toxic "issues."
A most dreaded disease. Two chapters in the Bible are dedicated to its discussion, quarantine and remedies - and remember a leper is cleansed rather than healed. Outside of the obvious solutions the one that caught my attention is the treatment of garments and houses of the leper.
Leprosy in garments was probably caused by various molds. It is reported that these fungi are ubiquitous and grow as readily on clothing as on house walls, when left in damp, ill-ventilated, ill-lighted places and produce reddish patches produced by the growth of the sporendonema, or red mold, very common on cheese.
Symbolically leprous garments typify self-made cloaks of good deeds and benign feelings ingrained with poisonous streaks of selfish uncleanness. The Levitical law provided no hope for such clothing - it must be stripped off and destroyed. And so it is with the houses - producing green mold with millions of minute spores, which, when airborne to suitable sites, establish themselves with incredible speed. The plaster and stones were to be scraped away and the walls rebuilt - but should it reappear, the building was to be destroyed. But if it was rendered clean by the priests the blood of the sparrow was sprinkled on its door posts.
The quarantine of lepers, as we have various quarantines today is a necessity, along with the destruction of clothing and infected areas.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-06-2007).]
5th - also includes rulers, ministers whom God has placed in authority
6th - hatred, selfish neglect and oppression are included
8th - forbids wars of conquest, kidnapping, theft and fraud
There are several issues that have come up, but which I do not think have been completely resolved.
1) The law as a type of Christ. This is the foundation of Adventism and the bedrock on which the doctrine of the sanctuary is based. It is bound to and ought to color the way we say the law in entirety. It also has some bearing on the idea of the law (or a part of it) coming to an end at the death of Christ, which in the light of the sanctuary service takes on quite a different aspect from what we see in Christianity generally. Thus, for example, the matter of the feast of tabernacles was raised.
2) The implementation of the law. I see the individual, the church, and the state mentioned here as implementers. Also, the family is implied. Not only are these three agencies not yet defined in terms of their authority and responsibility, but they have not yet been noted in tyerms to ther relationship to the Mosaic and post-Mosaic institutions. There is rather an assumption of the rather Baptist view of separation of church and state, each having divinely appointed areas of application. The process of getting from a theocracy to a church-state dichotomy is not clear, and raises some skepticism of its validity.
3) The three-fold approach to statutes as being binding, no longer binding, and binding in principle is not adequate. There needs to be more precision in why a particular statute is no long binding, and why another is binding in principle but not in literal detail. It is easy to allow personal and cultural prejudices to determing these.
In sum, I would remark that attempts to summarize the law are many, and some of them might give an indication of what the pitfalls may be. Such attempts are the Mishna and its commentaries in Rabbinical Judaism, and Karaite formulations that reject Rabbinical method and relate to the Pentateuch more directly. There might be something to learn from Karaim. The Samaritan tradition also focuses on the law of Moses in a specific and enlightening way. Furthermore, Islamic views of divine law are very much the heir of the Books of Moses as well. The Islamic process of interpreting the law is fourfold. For Sunnis this consists of sourcing Scripture, tradition, concensus and comparison. The Shi'ites replace comparison with a system of Aristotelian logic.
As I read early Advent history, I think there was a specific assumption apparent in the interpretation of law as well as the bible generally. The process included individual study as a background for Sabbath conferences, where the participants presented their findings and through prayer and discussion came to a concensus of views. When that was impossible, they relied on the Spirit of Prophecy to solve the dilemma. This forum and thread can and does serve in some sense like the Sabbath conferences. It's a good system.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
The information on health is really great. We need to consider how stupid the world was 200 years ago about germs. Now we take it for granted and don't appreciate the light that we have been given in the statutes and judgments in Scripture.
Brother Thomas likes the thought of dividing the carrying out of the law into three divisions, the church, the state, and the individual which includes the family.
He says "The process of getting from a theocracy to a church-state dichotomy is not clear, and raises some skepticism of its validity." Yes, this is the problem area. But, we are making progress in that we have our three-fold division. That helps a lot.
We know a few things that we will list:
1. There is a broad distinction between the moral and the ceremonial.
2. The ceremonial law is no longer binding.
3. The state is to refrain from legislating in respect to the first four commandments and any statutes or judgments that pertain to them.
4. The state is to legislate morality as we see in all societies. The only standard of morality is the Bible standard of which the last six of the Ten Commandments pertain to the laws that would regulate society. The statutes and judgments that uphold the last six which deal with our relationship with each other provide principles that are to guide the state.
5. The church has a test of fellowship that specifies which laws are to be enforced with disfellowshipping. The Bible states what that test was 2,000 years ago, but the standard is to be broadened as the church grows.
6. The church is not to "punish" any lawbreaking beyond restrictions of fellowship, employment, or office holding.
7. It appears that the statutes and judgments that are not ceremonial and are moral remain binding upon individuals except for the punishment aspect.
8. The statutes and judgments given to Israel were given to a theocracy which was to be under the direct hand of God. As such the penalties stated were more harsh than would be called for today.
9. There is at least one moral law which specified the punishment that was pre-Israel that remains binding today. Out of regard for human life, God specified very clearly that if one tried for murder were proved guilty, no atonement or ransom could rescue him. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Genesis 9:6. "Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." "Thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die," was the command of God; "the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Numbers 35:31, 33; Exodus 21:14. The safety and purity of the nation demanded that the sin of murder be severely punished. Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded. And, provision was made that none could be condemned by the witness of only one. Two witnesses were required to safeguard the innocent.
That is the best I can do with my feeble and darkened mind. I know that God has much more to add and if there are corrections to be made, then let us set about doing it.
Thomas: your points 1 and 2 I am completely clear on. Ceremonial - gone, fulfilled. The distinction between the church and state, very clear - however, it appears that God even made provisions for that as well. Point 3 is one that will be critical to our understanding - applications of those that are true in principle and how they are still binding. I like your thoughts on these. Precision will count to delete the haze.
I feel we need to look purely at Exodus through Deuteronomy, the Pentateuch. We, as a people, have the advantage of the SOP when considering these; however, very little is said regarding them outside the vast amount written regarding the health message and hygiene in general.
I think, through God's leading, we can flesh these out and come to an understanding of how we can continue to apply them to our lives.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-08-2007).]
It comes to mind that several of the Spirit of Prophecy statements quoted on this thread seem to make the ten commandments central and primary, and other statutes secondary and supportive. That is an idea that does not seem foreign to pre-Adventist Christian thought, but is not reflected in Jewish and Islamic approaches to the law, which tend to accumulate vast numbers of legislation without any visible hierarchy. I think it is a fruitful way of thinking, and it is reflected in the Excel page where some of the statutes are referred to commandments. I think this is one of the ways of achieving some objectivity in reference to the abiding validity of certain statutes. This remark is intended to bring some slight precision into the process.
Continuing the idea of the special place of the ten commandments, I would see some development even within the Bible. Purity laws, for example, seem to change a bit from one era to another. There are other examples as well. My thought is that the ten commandments are the universally binding law of God, whereas the supporting statutes may relate to one prophetic era. The supporting statutes are shown to be universal as they appear time and again in the various prophets. Other statutes are neglected by the prophets and fall by the wayside as no longer being relevant. The principle would be to demonstrate the abiding value of a particular statute by showing that it appears over a long period of time in the Scriptures as evidenced by two or three prophetic witnesses.
There is a fundamental concept here. It is that right action in any prophetic dispensation consists of adherence to the ten commandments plus a partly variable body of statutes. That presupposition is impled in the SDA Fundamentals, where the ten commandments are maintained on one hand and a list of standards or areas of standards on the other. Note the sequence in SDA Fundamentals 19-23.
Assuming that the configuration of ten commandments plus statutes is valid, then the specific SDA configuration is found here. The specific statutes taken are tithing and offerings (21), amusement, entertainment, dress, adornment, rest, exercise, proper diet, abstention from Biblically unclean meat, alcohol, tobacco, abused drugs and narcotics, (22) and statutes regarding marital relations (23).
Are there elements in the Fundamentals are go beyond the Biblical statutes? Are there Biblical statutes that we may find to be binding, but are not mentioned here? My gut feeling at the moment is that the ten-commandments-plus principle is valid, and that the SDA movement has been providentially guided to focus on the "plus" standards that are particularly relevant to our time and place in the Great Controversy. If that is so, it may give us a rule of thumb in evaluating the Biblical statutes, suggesting that some are temporary, local and superceded, while others are still binding and deserve to be examined and fortified with Biblical evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
I am in high "student" mode here - so direction from you experienced ones is necessary. So far, I like what is presented as a basis from which to begin. Richard, you summed it up well!Thomas: your points 1 and 2 I am completely clear on. Ceremonial - gone, fulfilled. The distinction between the church and state, very clear - however, it appears that God even made provisions for that as well. Point 3 is one that will be critical to our understanding - applications of those that are true in principle and how they are still binding. I like your thoughts on these. Precision will count to delete the haze.
I feel we need to look purely at Exodus through Deuteronomy, the Pentateuch. We, as a people, have the advantage of the SOP when considering these; however, very little is said regarding them outside the vast amount written regarding the health message and hygiene in general.
I think, through God's leading, we can flesh these out and come to an understanding of how we can continue to apply them to our lives.
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-08-2007).]
Also your reference to the FBs is also something I have not considered - but you are right - nice little connection.
I am away from home base this weekend but will try to locate what I need on the web to further the study. Let's do it!
Regarding various dispensations - if a statute is morally correct in any era, good for spiritual ethics, health, relationships and stewardship, it is binding.
Something came to mind that I have not thus far considered in our study. We see in the statutes provisions for some things that are contrary to God's law. It is not that God is commanding these things that He does not support, but He has made provision for dealing with them....even though they are contrary to His law. I know that some will object and have a problem with this, but in our present company I think we understand.
An example: Multiple wives by Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. We all understand that God allowed this, made provision for dealing with it, but it is not His law that man should have more than one wife.
Another example: Slaves. This is not God's will that man should be in servitude to another. But, He made provision for dealing with this foul practice.
And one last thought along this line. God abhors death. It was never His desire that anything should die. Yet, we have death. And, not only do we have death, we have God participating in it and commanding it.
As we move forward, we must do so without any consideration that God is arbitrary. He is not. His ideas are far past ours. As we contemplate His laws, we must always keep in mind His love for us and that His ways are perfect. He has made provision of us who are not perfect, but rather great sinners.
I have been reading all of this with great interest and do have some concerns with Brother Richard's number 8 and 9. Let me share:
Genesis:
26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
God's laws and statutes were given to God's people long before Moses and I believe clear back to Adam.
Noting that commandments, statutes and laws are all plural implies that God was giving to His people through His words with those such as Adam, Enoch, Noah and Abraham that the people were without excuse in knowing the true living God.
It is in Moses that God put it in writing for the people to remember and to follow with each generation.
Moses was given the written record of God's ways for all generation to follow when they walk with God. There had been to many generations raised in captivity with the Egyptians that the people lost their way and forgotten the wisdom that God had given before that time.
Moses was a restorer of the breach and what we have today is the same given to us through the Spirit of Prophecy and the Word of God.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
I find no record of any kind of theocracy prior to Israel. These statutes and judgments were very specific in regards to punishment. They were intended for a nation, not independent families. I agree that that the moral laws were not just for Israel, but for all of humanity before and after Israel, for they are moral in nature. The ceremonial were shadows and are no longer binding. But, the application of the moral laws with their spelled out punishment was directed at Israel and and again I find nothing in Scripture to suggest that they were given prior to Israel in the form given to Moses.
Also you say "Moses was given the written record of God's ways for all generations to follow when they walk with God." I think this is the point where we are having a problem. We agree that the moral laws remain binding, but not as given to Moses. As it was given to Moses it included punishments that we do not consider appropriate today as we are not a theocracy.
As for 9, I am not sure what you wish to disagree with.
You Said:
"But, I don't see any Biblical evidence to suggest that all of the statutes and judgments given to Israel were given in their same form prior to then."
This is true, but we do not also know that they were not given either. God gave three important things before Moses, His Commandments, His Statutes and His Laws.
The only thing left out was the judgments given to Abraham, but the other three were given.
Now from what we know about the written statutes, laws and commandments, which ones would you suggest that God might have left out before that He gave to them to Moses?
Were the Ceremonial Laws left out before that time? What would have God not given before Moses that was needed and given to the Children of Israel after four hundred years of captivity? Did man change that much from Noah to Moses?
Though God could not be seen as did Adam and Eve after the fall God still was in direct contact with the people through those He communicated what the people should do and not do.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Adam taught his descendants the law of God, and it was handed down from father to son through successive generations. But notwithstanding the gracious provision for man's redemption, there were few who accepted it and rendered obedience. By transgression the world became so vile that it was necessary to cleanse it by the Flood from its corruption. The law was preserved by Noah and his family, and Noah taught his descendants the Ten Commandments. As men again departed from God, the Lord chose Abraham, of whom He declared, "Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:5. To him was given the rite of circumcision, which was a sign that those who received it were devoted to the service of God--a pledge that they would remain separate from idolatry, and would obey the law of God. The failure of Abraham's descendants to keep this pledge, as shown in their disposition to form alliances with the heathen and adopt their practices, was the cause of their sojourn and bondage in Egypt. But in their intercourse with idolaters, and their forced submission to the Egyptians, the divine precepts became still further corrupted with the vile and cruel teachings of heathenism. Therefore then the Lord brought them forth from Egypt, He came down upon Sinai, enshrouded in glory and surrounded by His angels, and in awful majesty spoke His law in the hearing of all the people. {PP 363.2}
He did not even then trust His precepts to the memory of a people who were prone to forget His requirements, but wrote them upon tables of stone. He would remove from Israel all possibility of mingling heathen traditions with His holy precepts, or of confounding His requirements with human ordinances or customs. But He did not stop with giving them the precepts of the Decalogue. The people had shown themselves so easily led astray that He would leave no door of temptation unguarded. Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1}
If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, they would never have been seduced into idolatry, nor would it have been necessary for them to suffer a life of bondage in Egypt; they would have kept God's law in mind, and there would have been no necessity for it to be proclaimed from Sinai or engraved upon the tables of stone. And had the people practiced the principles of the Ten Commandments, there would have been no need of the additional directions given to Moses. {PP 364.2}
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
The implication is that any statute that we find written in the Pentateuch that is still binding is to be inferred from the ten commandments. Inversely, in any specific prophetic dispensation, any new statute that may be needed might also be inferred from the ten commandments (unless it is in the second category, such as circumcision).
In the prophetic dispensation of Jesus, a statute in the first category, an amplification or specific application of the ten commandments might be "a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another." An example of the second might be baptism, which is not found anywhere as such in the Pentateuch (unless it is hidden in the purity codes), and only obliquely suggested by such passages as the healing of Namaan. The first would in principle go back to Adam. The second apparently only goes back to the New Testamnet.
Going back to my ten commandments plus idea, articles 21 to 23 in the Fundamental Beliefs can therefore be seen as the practical application of the ten commandments as God guided His people in the last days according to the specific needs of the times. As such, they correspond in content (not in cononicity!) to the civil and ceremonial Mosaic laws, which were needed for that time.
So we should relate to the Pentateuch from several points of view:
1) How does a specific statute relate to the ten commandments, and does it have an abiding application or not?
2) How does a specific statute relate to the particular needs of our own time, which are identified for us in the Fundamental Beliefs, articles 21-23, which are in fact a very succinct summary of Spirit of Prophecy principles?
3) Are some of the statutes in the Bible that arose because of the crisis of sin still binding today, or have they been superceded because of changing circumstances? A possible example of that might be the cities of refuge.
These are the things that come to the surface for me as I read Sister Liane's extraordinary quotation from Patriarchs and Prophets.
As you can see, I am trying to get a firm grasp on principles of interpretation, before I get specific with myself and others). I'm sorry to harp on that, but I find myself in trouble as I engage in discussion with people generally (not on this forum). A great deal of the results of any study depend on the presuppositions in the point of departure. Also, this question is so broad, that we can never get any practical results unless the rules of the game are clear and limited from the beginning.
There is another issue nagging my mind. That is the fact that so many people over the centuries have already done this, not just various Jewish individuals and groups. They have all come to differing conclusions, based largely on their starting presuppositions. There is a danger that one or more of us might suddenly come up with something that conflicts with the principles of the Advent Movement. The Spirit of Prophecy should protect one from that, but observation shows that not always to be the case. While studying the Bible with only the motivation of finding truth is admirable, it generally ignores some vital assumptions. I'd hate to participate in the founding of an Advenist splinter group of people going around with a little shovel hanging from their belts anathemetizing all Adventists who use flush toilets.
quote:
Originally posted by Liane H:
Finally found it:Adam taught his descendants the law of God, and it was handed down from father to son through successive generations. But notwithstanding the gracious provision for man's redemption, there were few who accepted it and rendered obedience. By transgression the world became so vile that it was necessary to cleanse it by the Flood from its corruption. The law was preserved by Noah and his family, and Noah taught his descendants the Ten Commandments. As men again departed from God, the Lord chose Abraham, of whom He declared, "Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." Genesis 26:5. To him was given the rite of circumcision, which was a sign that those who received it were devoted to the service of God--a pledge that they would remain separate from idolatry, and would obey the law of God. The failure of Abraham's descendants to keep this pledge, as shown in their disposition to form alliances with the heathen and adopt their practices, was the cause of their sojourn and bondage in Egypt. But in their intercourse with idolaters, and their forced submission to the Egyptians, the divine precepts became still further corrupted with the vile and cruel teachings of heathenism. Therefore then the Lord brought them forth from Egypt, He came down upon Sinai, enshrouded in glory and surrounded by His angels, and in awful majesty spoke His law in the hearing of all the people. {PP 363.2}
He did not even then trust His precepts to the memory of a people who were prone to forget His requirements, but wrote them upon tables of stone. He would remove from Israel all possibility of mingling heathen traditions with His holy precepts, or of confounding His requirements with human ordinances or customs. But He did not stop with giving them the precepts of the Decalogue. The people had shown themselves so easily led astray that He would leave no door of temptation unguarded. Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1}
If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, they would never have been seduced into idolatry, nor would it have been necessary for them to suffer a life of bondage in Egypt; they would have kept God's law in mind, and there would have been no necessity for it to be proclaimed from Sinai or engraved upon the tables of stone. And had the people practiced the principles of the Ten Commandments, there would have been no need of the additional directions given to Moses. {PP 364.2}
Great post though you write at a much higher level than I could ever do and it takes me time to check certain words to know their meaning I like what you post a great deal.
I never finished High School though I did pass the City College of Pasadena entrance exam, but with other factors I have limited scope in knowledge, but I do try.
Anyway a point that I was looking for also was found:
"From the first, the great controversy had been upon the law of God. Satan had sought to prove that God was unjust, that His law was faulty, and that the good of the universe required it to be changed. In attacking the law, he aimed to overthrow the authority of its Author." {FLB 80.6}
The Holy Precepts were even before the earth was made and was in Heaven for all to know. It is God's great laws that Satan did not like and caused the fall in heaven and on this little planet give to us in which to live.
God never leaves any being or place without the knowledge needed to obey and follow Him in all things. There never has been a cover up or lack from God to where we need to stand in our lives to have a happy and good life.
Everything has and is provided to us for which we live from God. Those that find the Law of God a burden are in rebellion against their Creator who knows what is best for our lives.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
A word of assurance: "It won't happen!" That is not the purpose of our study. I know of no one on the forum who is that radical. However, during the time of trouble, we may be reduced to using those little shovels in the woods.
quote:
Originally posted by Liane H:
Now from what we know about the written statutes, laws and commandments, which ones would you suggest that God might have left out before that He gave to them to Moses?Were the Ceremonial Laws left out before that time? What would have God not given before Moses that was needed and given to the Children of Israel after four hundred years of captivity? Did man change that much from Noah to Moses?
I cannot presume to know what is not written. But, I see Biblical principle that would indicate that the statutes and judgments were given to help man keep the Ten Commandments as He saw need. The system that established a nation is different than that which was used to deal with families. There was no high priest that ministered in a Sanctuary. Offerings could be made anywhere, but not so according to the Mosaic law. The laws given to Israel pertained specifically to Israel. There were ceremonial laws in place prior to Israel, but again they were of a different nature. We are talking apple and oranges when it comes to the specific commands included in these statutes. It is obvious that there was no ark of the covenant, no candlestick, no course of priests to make the offerings, no laver in which the priests must wash. No most holy place, no holy place, no bird to be ripped apart, no blood to sprinkle upon the curtain, no etc. etc.
The statutes that were given to Moses that pertained to the civil laws of Israel were given in such a manner to meet the needs of the nation. The same applies to the ceremonial law. We must make a distinction. This is where we need to begin our study. We need to discern how this can be done. The moral nature of these statutes did not disappear with the coming of Christ as did the ceremonial laws.
The economies of the world who legislate in an attempt to provide security and morality can learn much from the economy of Israel. And, churches, families, and individuals are to study the moral aspect of these laws that they may be blessed to learn more about the laws that we live by.
But, I don't think we are ready for churches or states to begin stoning the Sabbath breaker or the glutton. Or how about the homosexual or the adulterer? We need to better understand the nature of the Mosaic law and the application to be made today.
I am sure that there were instructions in how to do this given by God to Adam and then tot he sons of Adam.
After the falling away in being in bondage God was going to imprint into the people His written word in what was to be done so that these laws, statutes, judgments will remind them what they should do.
God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He gives the same principles over and over again to each generation in their need to follow Him. There are no apples and oranges, but a centerpiece of truths that expand each time for us to know and understand in the age that we live in.
It is for us to seek these treasures and make them practical in our own lives.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
I wonder if I understand correctly. The ten commandments are the universal law of God once given to Adam and transmitted to his descendants. As need arose, God gave additional, specific statutes which were in fact either 1) detailed amplifications of what was already embodied in the ten commandments and 2) statutes to cover the new situations that disobedience and disregard for the ten commanments produced. An example of the second type is stated as circumcision as given to Abraham.
I believe this is very accurate. Let me add to this thought. The Ten Commandments were not given in their present state in heaven. There was no need. But, when there became a need, then we were given the Ten Commandments. They are eternal, but they are not needed by all in the universe. They were specifically designed for us in our particular need.
This is a Biblical principle and we can discern this from Scripture.
quote:Going back to my ten commandments plus idea, articles 21 to 23 in the Fundamental Beliefs can therefore be seen as the practical application of the ten commandments as God guided His people in the last days according to the specific needs of the times. As such, they correspond in content (not in cononicity!) to the civil and ceremonial Mosaic laws, which were needed for that time.
That is an interesting thought. The ceremonial laws are no longer binding, but we have some "ceremonies" that are not shadows but have taken their place. One that comes quickly to mind is the Lord's Supper. It is not a "moral" law, but it is part of our church service. It is an important part of our service, but it has nothing to do with moral law or the old ceremonial law that pointed to the future ministry of Jesus. The Lord's supper points us back to the cross and to the current ministry of our Lord.
quote:So we should relate to the Pentateuch from several points of view:
1) How does a specific statute relate to the ten commandments, and does it have an abiding application or not?
2) How does a specific statute relate to the particular needs of our own time, which are identified for us in the Fundamental Beliefs, articles 21-23, which are in fact a very succinct summary of Spirit of Prophecy principles?
I don't think we can say that the FBs are a succinct summary of the Spirit of Prophecy. I think there is too much left out to say this. But, we ought to be on track if the FBs are Bibical to say that they are like the statutes and judgments, given to help us keep the law of God.
quote:
3) Are some of the statutes in the Bible that arose because of the crisis of sin still binding today, or have they been superceded because of changing circumstances? A possible example of that might be the cities of refuge.
Great example. This speaks to the nation Israel and their theocracy. We must look beyond the definitive statute to see the moral principle involved. The statute directed the judiciary of the nation. This is not binding upon the nations today, but the principle involved ought to be. It is not a ceremonial law so it is moral. But, here we have an example that deals precisely with our difficulty at hand. There was no statute with identical language prior to Israel and we certainly can't use this language today. But, the moral nature of the statute is for us.
It is for us to discern the "morality" of the law. It is for us to benefit from the principle that God gave to the world even though it was directed specifically to Israel.
quote:There is another issue nagging my mind. That is the fact that so many people over the centuries have already done this, not just various Jewish individuals and groups. They have all come to differing conclusions, based largely on their starting presuppositions. There is a danger that one or more of us might suddenly come up with something that conflicts with the principles of the Advent Movement. The Spirit of Prophecy should protect one from that, but observation shows that not always to be the case. While studying the Bible with only the motivation of finding truth is admirable, it generally ignores some vital assumptions. I'd hate to participate in the founding of an Adventist splinter group of people going around with a little shovel hanging from their belts anathemetizing all Adventists who use flush toilets.
It is no wonder there are so many different interpretations. The same thing applies to why there are so many different religions. If we reject light, if we reject Scripture, if we do not surrender to Christ fully, then how is it the Holy Spirit is going to give us discernment of advanced light? He won't. The cutting edge of truth will be given to those who are walking in the light and are where God wants to lead His people. He will not give the Baptists who preach you will burn in hell forever, the advanced light. He will not give the Hindus advanced light on the gospel. He is leading His people into one flock, out of Babylon.
Binding upon the church these statute and judgments has not been given to us today just as the Feasts Days are not, but I do seen a powerful revelation in learning of them and incorporating some of them into our lives.
I think the health message is one of the most important to learn. God gave them their manna from heaven and gave them their water in the desert and those that did so were blessed.
The same is true today. The right arm of the church is a powerful and great tool in which to learn of God's blessings and character for our lives.
Exodus:
15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
The idea seems to converge with mine in terms of ten commandments plus. The plus area may change, perhaps during the times of different prophets (the seat of the temple was changed to Jerusalem in David's time for example), but at least with the coming of Christ.
The questions that come to mind are: 1) Are there other New Testament ceremonies that take the place or function of the Old Testament typical ceremonies? 2) Should such ceremonies, that we seem to find appropriate if not obligatory, be evidenced in the Law, or is it sufficient that they are evidenced in the New Testament? This may seem off subject, but I think it is relevant to how we understand Mosaic Law and its binding character.
In the Anabaptist-Pietist traditions that preceded the rise of Adventism, there was a conscious attempt to identify all such New Testament ceremonies and practice them. As we compare Adventism, Protestantism, and Anabaptist-Pietist traditions, it seems to me that Adventism is at least a partial heir of the Anabaptist-Pietist traditions. Rather than seven sacraments of Catholicism or the two ordinances of Protestantism, there is an Adventist equivalent to the old Anabaptist ordinances.
Among these ordanances found in 18th-century German Seventh Day Baptist practice (a tradition that disappeared before the rise of Adventism, for the most part), there were the following.
1) Baptism of believers by trine immersion; 2) laying on of hands; 3) Love feast; 4) The washing of feet; 5) The Lord’s supper; 6) The greeting with a holy kiss; 7) The anointing and laying hands on the sick; 8) Blessing of children.
The Adventist practice is very similar. Adventists differ in the mode of baptism, single backward immersion rather than triple forward; in laying on of hands only for ordination and not after every baptism; and the rejection of the Love Feast and the holy kiss in greeting. I understand that the holy kiss in greeting was practiced among early Sabbatarian Adventists. The practices are remarkably similar, based as they are on a literal and comprehensive view of the New Testament. In sum, Adventists preserve of these 1) baptism by immersion, 2) laying on of hands, 3) footwashing, 4) the Lord's supper, 5) anointing of the sick, 6) and blessing of children, that is six out of eight.
The second question, whether these are evidenced by the Old Testament or the Books of Moses specifically is hard to answer straight off. 18th-century German Seventh Day Baptists did rely heavily on the Books of Moses, at one point even instituting the high priestly regalia. The most important sources for identifying such Old Testament evidence are missing however, as the writings of the Eckerlins have all been destroyed, and these were the most prominent ones having such interests.
Would it be appropriate in summary to say that the ceremonial law of Moses is replaced by the New Testament ordinances of the church? That is my sentiment.
If this is a proper way of viewing the ceremonial laws of Moses, that accounts for a sizeable chunk of the material on the Excel page. The shadows and types of things to come are replaced by memorials from the life, death and resurrection of Christ. That, in principle, would also account for the neglect of Love Feast and the holy kiss, which do not seem so clearly memorials of Christ, as all of the other ordinances are.
Thomas
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
It is no wonder there are so many different interpretations. The same thing applies to why there are so many different religions. If we reject light, if we reject Scripture, if we do not surrender to Christ fully, then how is it the Holy Spirit is going to give us discernment of advanced light? He won't. The cutting edge of truth will be given to those who are walking in the light and are where God wants to lead His people. He will not give the Baptists who preach you will burn in hell forever, the advanced light. He will not give the Hindus advanced light on the gospel. He is leading His people into one flock, out of Babylon.
quote:
Would it be appropriate in summary to say that the ceremonial law of Moses is replaced by the New Testament ordinances of the church? That is my sentiment.If this is a proper way of viewing the ceremonial laws of Moses, that accounts for a sizeable chunk of the material on the Excel page. The shadows and types of things to come are replaced by memorials from the life, death and resurrection of Christ. That, in principle, would also account for the neglect of Love Feast and the holy kiss, which do not seem so clearly memorials of Christ, as all of the other ordinances are.
I like that idea, Thomas.
quote:
Originally posted by Liane H:
Binding upon the church these statute and judgments has not been given to us today just as the Feasts Days are not, but I do seen a powerful revelation in learning of them and incorporating some of them into our lives.
Sister Liane, our supposition is that the moral law is still binding. While we can see that the punishment for many of the statutes were for a theocracy and do not appear to apply, we can see that in other statutes that they in fact apply and are binding upon the church. Why do you think otherwise?
A clear example in the order of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are some of the statutes that relate to the health message. Part of our test of fellowship states that we will refrain from eating unclean food. This is a direct enforcement of the Old Testament statute.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
Would it be appropriate in summary to say that the ceremonial law of Moses is replaced by the New Testament ordinances of the church? That is my sentiment.If this is a proper way of viewing the ceremonial laws of Moses, that accounts for a sizeable chunk of the material on the Excel page. The shadows and types of things to come are replaced by memorials from the life, death and resurrection of Christ. That, in principle, would also account for the neglect of Love Feast and the holy kiss, which do not seem so clearly memorials of Christ, as all of the other ordinances are.
Never thought of it that way, but it appears to be accurate. I don't see a direct relationship between very many from Old to New Testament.
Moses gave the statutes having received them from God. There was no written Record until that time. Today, we have Bibles, and in the Bible we are instructed by both Jesus and the Apostles how we are to conduct our lives and the ordinances of our church service. It is good to see that other churches perceived many of the ordinances correctly. And of course there are many who add their tradition to the Word.
In the Old Testament the church was commanded to make sacrifice that foreshadowed the death of Christ. Today, in the New Testament we have been instructed as to ordinances in the church that help us to remember the Sacrifice of Christ and His current ministry.
I don't see a direct relationship between the two, but there surely is a similarity in that these ordinances in both dispensations have nothing to do with the "moral" law, but rather they are lessons for us to learn of and to remember Christ, His love, and His great Sacrifice.
In sum, might we say that all of the ceremonial laws come to an end with Christ's ministry on earth? That is my sentiment. That would include all that are types of his life and death, all that are types of his heavenly ministry, and all that are ceremonial, but not types of Christ.
Instead of ceremonial law, we have the six ordinances of the church: baptism by immersion, laying on of hands, footwashing, the Lord's supper, blessing of children, and anointing of the sick. These are all memorials of Christ's earthly ministry.
With these principles clearly in mind, I would review the Excel file and point out one or two issues. In number 47, the law against sacrificing to idols is considered ceremonial, no doubt because it is in reference to sacrifice. At the same time, it is considered binding. Just as a matter of clarity, I would suggest that all prohibitions of idolatry are moral rather than ceremonial, even though the may be compared with positive ceremonial injunctions. It is a more elegent solution to see all ceremonial laws as coming to an end in Christ.
By the same token, number 167 relating to eating meat on the third day, should be seen in my view as a health law rather than ceremonial, and still binding in principle. It speaks against the contemporary habit of ripening meat, which also contains blood. This is an issue that Adventists ought to take into consideration from a health standpoint. I suggest discussion of this point.
While there may be some clarification of a few other laws marked ceremonial as to whether they are part of a ceremonial purity code or health laws, those are the two points on the ceremonial law that caught my eye.
Thomas
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Never thought of it that way, but it appears to be accurate. I don't see a direct relationship between very many from Old to New Testament.Moses gave the statutes having received them from God. There was no written Record until that time. Today, we have Bibles, and in the Bible we are instructed by both Jesus and the Apostles how we are to conduct our lives and the ordinances of our church service. It is good to see that other churches perceived many of the ordinances correctly. And of course there are many who add their tradition to the Word.
In the Old Testament the church was commanded to make sacrifice that foreshadowed the death of Christ. Today, in the New Testament we have been instructed as to ordinances in the church that help us to remember the Sacrifice of Christ and His current ministry.
I don't see a direct relationship between the two, but there surely is a similarity in that these ordinances in both dispensations have nothing to do with the "moral" law, but rather they are lessons for us to learn of and to remember Christ, His love, and His great Sacrifice.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
I don't see a direct relationship between the ceremonial laws and the church ordinances either. Even the Lord's supper is only tenuously related to the Passover. But there seems to be an agreement, at least between the two of us, Brother Richard, that the ceremonial laws are replaced by the ordinances, and that they have in common the fact that they are not moral in character.
Amen!
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:...I would review the Excel file and point out one or two issues. In number 47, the law against sacrificing to idols is considered ceremonial, no doubt because it is in reference to sacrifice. At the same time, it is considered binding. Just as a matter of clarity, I would suggest that all prohibitions of idolatry are moral rather than ceremonial, even though the may be compared with positive ceremonial injunctions. It is a more elegent solution to see all ceremonial laws as coming to an end in Christ.
I agree. This is not a ceremonial statute in the least. There is nothing ceremonial about it. It is one of few moral statutes besides the Ten Commandments that the new church was given. To confuse this with the ceremonial law is to be way off the mark. I am not studying the excel study, Brother Thomas, so I cannot comment on other than what you post here.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:By the same token, number 167 relating to eating meat on the third day, should be seen in my view as a health law rather than ceremonial, and still binding in principle. It speaks against the contemporary habit of ripening meat, which also contains blood. This is an issue that Adventists ought to take into consideration from a health standpoint. I suggest discussion of this point.
While there may be some clarification of a few other laws marked ceremonial as to whether they are part of a ceremonial purity code or health laws, those are the two points on the ceremonial law that caught my eye.
I think whomever did this other study has created confusion where there need be none. When we speak of ceremonial laws, we really ought to limit this to the Old Testament types and shadows. While we have "ceremonies" today, we ought to limit our verbiage to other than the word ceremonial. Ordinances seems to be the acceptable terminology.
Brother Thomas, I think in this study we are all of the same mind in this respect and are able to move to the moral statutes of the Old Testament which will include the civil statutes given for a theocracy. The sticking point for which I have not yet discovered the principles, is the removal of those things that are no longer binding in these "civil" statutes. It would appear that these statutes , not being ceremonial, are in fact moral. Being moral, then they have meaning for us today. The idea that homosexuality may run rampant in society with no legislation seems unlikely. But, I do not think that the penalty today ought to be capital punishment as in the civil statutes given in Scripture.
And as for stoning the glutton, I cannot even bring myself to say that he ought to be imprisoned. So, I am shamefully lost in this maze. I know that there are lessons for us to day in these statutes and they are very important as we labor with others in the world. We may not darken the counsel of God with words that are just plain foolishness that did not come from Him, as so many have done and continue to do.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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-
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).
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!
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.
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.
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).]
I guess a good question to Brother Arnold would be: which of the ceremonials do you see as unfulfilled?
I think that the light is shining much brighter today than then. They had much to learn and unlearn. It took a little time to do so. These ceremonial rites were part of their culture and we would not expect those who thought Christ to not be God when He died on the cross to be perfect in their knowledge of Scriptural interpretation.
There is no question today that the Passover is no longer to be kept. So, how do we look at the situation under study? It is not too difficult to sort it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim B:
I can't answer for brother Arnold but I think that most people who look into this would say that the Feast of Tabernacles has not yet been fulfilled.
I have heard that but have never studied it to a conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:There is no question today that the Passover is no longer to be kept. So, how do we look at the situation under study? It is not too difficult to sort it out.
No, it isn't when we use the words "binding" and "not binding" ... especially as that was the original intent of the topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
No, it isn't when we use the words "binding" and "not binding" ... especially as that was the original intent of the topic.
Happy Sabbath, all.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Amen! We are blessed to have this understanding. The moral laws are the laws of our being. To understand them is to be truly blessed! We need to figure out how these civil laws apply today. They are indeed moral, but it appears that punishment is not to be followed. We are getting close. :(Happy Sabbath, all.
But, in regards to the Roman Church, she is no better. Look at the Vatican. It is a state and has not allowed her citizens to vote at all!
And, look throughout the world at the large number of Catholic countries that in practice are very Catholic. Most of South America is Catholic. The church has much power in these countries and also has fostered much corruption.
But, your point is well taken, that Protestant nations are not Protestant at all, they have state supported churches, official religions. America's day is coming to an end. She too is going backwards. Come soon Lord Jesus.
You stated and well:
"I think one can roughly divide the Old testament into two parts: the theocratic prophets and the post-exilic prophets. The one expresses how to live within the theocratic system, the other how to live within the pagan empires. The church and state today are basically in the pagan empire system."
The separation of church and state has grown and has protected us from what is going on today, but there are those that say the separation of church and state is a myth that needs to be killed.
Soon there will be men that will do all they can to bring a theocratic form of government which was existing here before the constitution and will come back again that will come with the National Sunday Law and finally the death penalty for those that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
It does not take much reading or awareness to see what is going on around us. The evidence is coming from all directions that we are in the last hour of earth and life as we know it.
I pray that God will give us the wisdom to stand in these dark days and that those that learn at the feet of Jesus will be well prepared for the trying hours before us.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
This is not an answer to anything. It is just opening up the issues of church and state in view of what is binding in moral law and how it should be implemented.
Yes, dear brother, this is the issue. It is a concern for us in our individual lives, in the church, and in the nation. Moral is moral. It is what is right. What we read in Scripture is the only standard of morality. There is no other for indians, blacks, whites, Chinese, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims or atheists. These statutes express what is right and what is wrong and it makes no difference what anyone says.
We want to know how we are to implement them in our lives and in our nations. If they are not ceremonial they are moral. If they are moral, then they are binding. But, there is the aspect of penalties and some cases the statute may have been written for a specific application in Israel, a theocracy. Are there cases where the application for Israel is not possible for us today? And, what about the penalties? They appear to be too severe in many cases for today when we have no theocracy.
I have no problem with the state enforcing the moral laws, but we surely don't want the same penalties applied in the old testament for Israel, a theocracy. Let us get this settled out. What else is needed to get on solid ground here?
Which of the moral laws do we not want to see enforced by the state today even without severe penalties?
Killing, stealing and lying are the easy ones to see the state enforce - we want them enforced; but how do they enforce the fifth (well, possibly charges of neglect on this one), the seventh and the tenth? How are those enforced by the state?
Adultry is not something I have ever seen anyone charged with except as a "cause" for divorce - but no penalty or jail time. Loss of home, income and children is likely the penalty one pays.
Coveting sometimes leads to stealing, but coveting alone? How does the state bring charges against that?
Questions to ponder and work out.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
The first four, for sure. They are reserved between man and God; however, how we relate to our fellow human beings are a matter of commandments five through ten.Killing, stealing and lying are the easy ones to see the state enforce - we want them enforced; but how do they enforce the fifth (well, possibly charges of neglect on this one), the seventh and the tenth? How are those enforced by the state?
Adultry is not something I have ever seen anyone charged with except as a "cause" for divorce - but no penalty or jail time. Loss of home, income and children is likely the penalty one pays.
Coveting sometimes leads to stealing, but coveting alone? How does the state bring charges against that?
Questions to ponder and work out.
You gave a reason, but I don't like it ;D for legislating the Sabbath. If we lived in a theocracy, we would do it - it has been done before ... but since we don't, how do we handle it? You don't want to consider "freedom of conscience?" Then how about loyalty to God that no man can come between - and those owing to God are the first four in the great Law of love.
If the Sabbath could be legislated by the civil authorities, then we could legislate against bowing down to idols or outlaw all the gods except One - or legislate against taking His Name in vain ... that would set us up as a state run by a religion. And we could throw in public stoning as the punishment. We know what happens when that is the case. So I would vote against it and leave the first four commandments out of the hands of the civil authorities and give them the last six to deal with.
Tell me, Thomas - what do we do with coveting? You have the mind for that one. :)
It is an issue today and the main reason is because it is easy to see that society has fallen to such a state that the last six of the commandments are no longer held in high esteem, but rather are said to be only for the religious and not a matter for legislation. Such an absurd statement. It may be that there is some room for discussion, but this flies in the face of not only reason, but history. The laws of most nations are grounded in Scripture even if they don't know it. Most cultures have laws against murder and stealing. We are so far removed from holiness that we can't even see a man or woman going to jail for adultery. Even though it is destroying society. And, we even go further and when there is adultery reward the guilty party with half of the assets including half of the children. We have been blinded.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
I prize your mind! You have such a unique way of approaching these things, you rascal!You gave a reason, but I don't like it ;D for legislating the Sabbath. If we lived in a theocracy, we would do it - it has been done before ... but since we don't, how do we handle it? You don't want to consider "freedom of conscience?" Then how about loyalty to God that no man can come between - and those owing to God are the first four in the great Law of love.
If the Sabbath could be legislated by the civil authorities, then we could legislate against bowing down to idols or outlaw all the gods except One - or legislate against taking His Name in vain ... that would set us up as a state run by a religion. And we could throw in public stoning as the punishment. We know what happens when that is the case. So I would vote against it and leave the first four commandments out of the hands of the civil authorities and give them the last six to deal with.
Tell me, Thomas - what do we do with coveting? You have the mind for that one. :)
And for the last six commandments that cannot be legislated, because of the world's fallen condition, conscience must be the rule as far as I can reason.
How about number ten? This is a little confusing to me. It seems very close to Thou Shalt Not Steal. Help me out and let us see what the difference is so we can see if there are indeed moral laws that already spring from this important commandment.
Paul, I believe, tells us to be content with what we have been given ... (thinking out loud)
KJV: "Thou shalt not covet they neighbour's HOUSE, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's WIFE, not his MANSERVANT, nor his MAIDSERVANT, nor his OX, nor his ASS, nor ANYTHING that is thy neighbour's."
Thoughts?????
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-19-2007).]
We are making progress!! No arbitrary rules of interpretation have been laid down, but rather a pleading with God to teach us His ways that we may glorify Him.
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!
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.
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.
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).]
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).]
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.
I'm out of here until the first - do carry on!
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-20-2007).]
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?
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-
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-
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-
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
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.
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.
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.
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? :)
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.
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.
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.
The last six commandments do not force anyone to believe in God the way I do but they do try encourage people to behave civilly towards one another. As much as some would like to deny it not stealing and not murdering is based on the Bible.
Yes, our country is becoming more liberal and turning a blind eye to many things and we are loosing our protestant heritage. Which is why I believe we are loosing the blessing of the Lord.
However, now I think I'm dragging this discussion of course.
The world has moved further and further from God and His truths. Though they believe they are following God and His principles, they have left the sacred light that was given to them by standing still instead of moving forward to advance light that could have been theirs.
Thus was born the Seventh-day Adventist Church given to a last generation that will follow the Lamb.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
[This message has been edited by Liane H (edited 06-25-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
May we assume we can never legislate a Sabbath's rest as we will never again have a theocracy on this earth?
Why? Why is a theocracy required to eradicate physically obvious manifestations of disobedience? Isn't that what is being suggested for the last 6 commandments?
Let us be careful what principles we espouse, lest it be turned against us.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
You asked:
"May we assume we can never legislate a Sabbath's rest as we will never again have a theocracy on this earth?"
Here is what the Pen of Inspiration states:
"The principles of the Ten Commandments existed before the fall and were of a character suited to the condition of a holy order of beings. After the fall the principles of those precepts were not changed, but additional precepts were given to meet man in his fallen state." {SR 145.2}
We need to think about this also:
"The law of God existed before man was created. The angels were governed by it. Satan fell because he transgressed the principles of God's government. After Adam and Eve were created, God made known to them His law. It was not then written, but was rehearsed to them by Jehovah." {SR 145.1}
If God's law is eternal then on the New Earth we will still have those Ten Precepts as well and if we have those Ten Precepts in God's perfect world we should have once again a theocracy government headed by God and given in order to all of mankind.
Am I missing anything here?
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
sn't that what is being suggested for the last 6 commandments?Let us be careful what principles we espouse, lest it be turned against us.
Brother Arnold, please explain more. I'm not sure that I'm following you (maybe I am).
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim B:
Brother Arnold, please explain more. I'm not sure that I'm following you (maybe I am).
My questioning was designed to highlight why we think we need a theocracy to enforce the 4th commandment. And the question remains. Why do we need a theocracy to enforce the Sabbath?
When that question is answered, we need to answer another. Why don't we need a theocracy to enforce the last 6? Especially in light of the fact that the 10th is kept or violated without any physical manifestation whatsoever.
Then, let's think carefully about the principles that guide us in deciding what we can or cannot enforce. Once that principle is specified, let's imagine how we would like it if that "gun" was pointed in our direction.
Yes, I'm being purposely vague at this time. I want people to think very honestly and candidly, without me influencing their train of thought. Take the principles to their logical conclusion and decide if that's where you really want to be.
When we speak of legislating the lives of others, we must tread very carefully.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
A law requiring everyone to keep the Sabbath - even for unbelievers? That is what I am talking about. If one is legislated, what happens to freedom of conscience in a fallen world?
OK. Keep thinking about that.
Who is being legislated? Upon whose authority does such legislation rest?
Then see if those answers apply to the last 6 commandments.
This goes back to the original question. When we speak of binding aspects of the law, who is bound and who is doing the binding?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
We cannot legislate the Sabbath and you know it, genius friend of mine. It would backfire on us in a New York second and is contrary to all that is God ... that is why I say it cannot happen. He will not have someone forced to serve Him. He wants it done willingly, not because of a law stipulating such. It is the law of liberty, not of bondage.
In my pea brain it comes down to this: we don't have a theocracy - we are in a dismal fallen state of affairs - but we do have the spiritually minded. God's people are bound to the first four absolutely because of HIM - and we are bound to the last six because of our love for brothers and sisters. It is simple. We cannot expect the UNspiritual persons around us to give a flip about the first four, especially not a holy day - THE holy day. It is foreign business to them.
Talk to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Liane H:
That is why we need to hold onto the separation of church and state, but then again that is a liberal idea and we are suppose to be conservative, but as some of us we find ourselves on different place on different issues and more like a checkered mind in the way the world is, then we are with God's principles.
It is the ideal for freedom - it holds no party affiliation.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
It is the ideal for freedom - it holds no party affiliation.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
He will not have someone forced to serve Him. He wants it done willingly, not because of a law stipulating such. It is the law of liberty, not of bondage.
Does this hold true for the last 6 commandments?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
God's people are bound to the first four absolutely because of HIM - and we are bound to the last six because of our love for brothers and sisters.
Think about this for a moment. What power or authority makes the law binding to me? I see 3 options:
Which of these 3 determines whether or not a law is binding?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
[This message has been edited by asygo (edited 06-26-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
legislating the ten commandments would be a highly questionable act. Nevertheless, the Spirit of Prophecy clearly supported believers being actively involved in achieving Prohibition.
Upon whose authority do the 10C rest? Upon whose authority does the US Constitution rest?
The answers should clarify things a bit, I think.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 06-26-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
OK. Keep thinking about that.Who is being legislated? Upon whose authority does such legislation rest?
Then see if those answers apply to the last 6 commandments.
This goes back to the original question. When we speak of binding aspects of the law, who is bound and who is doing the binding?
God and God - to the first two questions.
God's people are bound and He is the binder. God would have it that ALL men should be saved - thus binding all the people He possibly can to His will. "If ye love Me, keep My commandments."
And we cannot throw a moral obligatory blanket over the entire ten precepts as they are distinctly separate in duties to God (not legislated) and the duty to man - (legislated). God does not force worship, but man will before the Second Coming.
The secular mind does not profess to be governed by the commandments of God, especially through the "first four." They will, however, agree that most, if not all, of the "last six" are a guard against complete lawlessness. They are "moral" in their minds and good for society.
On those points Thomas brought up against prohibition, etc., it is our duty to assist society with our involvement ... we must do more of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
God and God - to the first two questions.
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.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
We cannot, through freedom of conscience, legislate worship - the "first four" - Babylon will do that through a spurious command that will persecute the saints. The seventh day Sabbath will stand as the very test to define those "of God" and those who are not. To legislate such would require a force of the will and that is contrary to the nature of God.And we cannot throw a moral obligatory blanket over the entire ten precepts as they are distinctly separate in duties to God (not legislated) and the duty to man - (legislated). God does not force worship, but man will before the Second Coming.
The secular mind does not profess to be governed by the commandments of God, especially through the "first four." They will, however, agree that most, if not all, of the "last six" are a guard against complete lawlessness. They are "moral" in their minds and good for society.
On those points Thomas brought up against prohibition, etc., it is our duty to assist society with our involvement ... we must do more of it.
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-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).]
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?
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).]
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-
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-
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 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 ;D xox S
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-
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.
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.
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-
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-
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
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.
Indeed, it is a moral law. And we humans cannot legislate it as such.
But still, we humans don't like getting killed. So, we legislate it amorally. "Killing is forbidden because we humans don't like it." Keep morals and God out of it, and we don't get into the unenviable position of sitting in God's seat.
I know, it seems like a very fine technicality, but it's the only way I've figured out so far to keep myself from getting killed AND uphold God's standard of freedom of conscience. It might not seem very practical right now, but the time it buys will seem well worth it when we are being hunted down like animals because we do not conform with the majority's idea of what constitutes morality.
Consider carefully what kind of gun you wield, because it might be pointed at you someday.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
[This message has been edited by asygo (edited 06-28-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
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.
As I see it, considerations of human legislature are really off-topic. When we speak of the binding aspects of the Mosaic law, we must necessarily keep thinking in terms of divine requirements, and not human enforcement.
But how we address divine requirements with human government is a very important topic. As I previously wrote, it has implications from the international level all the way down to the individual level. I'm seriously considering making that the topic for my upcoming sermon on 7/14. We'll see.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
As I see it, considerations of human legislature are really off-topic. When we speak of the binding aspects of the Mosaic law, we must necessarily keep thinking in terms of divine requirements, and not human enforcement.But how we address divine requirements with human government is a very important topic. As I previously wrote, it has implications from the international level all the way down to the individual level. I'm seriously considering making that the topic for my upcoming sermon on 7/14. We'll see.
I thought we did a good job of showing how the last commandment is utilized in establishing degrees of murder. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we can know the heart man, but an act is pre-meditated, then at times it can be seen to be such. It is good that there is a difference in the penalties for murder, just as there was in the Mosaic Law.
It is good that we can learn from the Bible how we ought to act and how we ought to deal with such things. It is the only source of truth in matters of morals.
What we see today are societies that have rejected Bible truth and by their laws have rejected Bible morality. It is good to have laws against murder, theft, adultery, homosexuality, parental abuse, and perjury.
Because there are those who hate God and His laws is no reason to allow them to do as they please when it comes to these areas of life. God would have society protected from immorality by law. It is not the church that is to legislate or punish, but the people are to elect those who will enact moral laws.
This is seldom the case today. Babylon has failed and thus society reflects this fallen condition. It will only get worse, but there are many who are searching for answers to this problem of morality.
The Mosaic Law gives us a pattern that God established and as we study this pattern we can learn much. The morality has not changed, but the implementation of the law has.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
You people are living on American Indian land and you have no right to do so. The US government is an illegal system.
Bro Thomas,
That's some heavy-duty stuff you wrote there. And I thought I was getting radical by thinking that true Christians might have to establish a new state if that is what is needed to be able to keep God's law, including the statutes & judgments. It seems that I have only scratched the surface. ;)
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
That says to me that all moral law is encompased in the ten commandments and there is nothing binding that is not stated or implied there. However, because of human weakness, we are not always able to see our duty with clarity. Therefore, prophetic judgements are given in mercy to help us understand what the ten commandments require. These judgements are not universally binding laws in themselves, but particular applications of the ten commandments for people of that time, to help them understand how the law applied to them. I draw the conclusion that they are not binding on us as such, since we live under different conditions, but they are enlightening and help us to apply the ten commandments to our situation.
We can go back to my earthy example, the carrying of a trowel to bury excrements. I think it is valid to see this as a health and hygiene law as well as a law of purity. The text relates to respect for God in keeping the camp clean. It therefore focuses on two human responsibilities: to take care of filthy substances in view of hygiene and health, and to keep the places of living and worship appropriately clean in view of the divine presence. But the specific law does not apply to us today. What applies are the commandments to recognize God's holiness and not to kill, that is, not to diminish health and hygiene. The Mosaic law in enlightening, since it reveals a specific area of importance in keeping these two commandments in the Decalogue. We are still required to remove excrements in an appropriate way, out of regard for health and respect for God.
But the Mosaic "judgements" in and of themselves do not appear to be, in Ellen White's understanding, specifically binding upon us today.
The principle can be seen in the way Ellen White writes about the blue fringes as well. She states that modest dress that reminds us that we are commandment-keepers is the blue fringe for us today. The law of the blue fringe in itself is not binding, but it does enlighten us on how to keep the commandments today in a relevant rather than merely formal way.
I feel ready to give an answer to the question raised at the beginning of this thread. The moral law, which is summed up in the Decalogue, is universally binding upon all people. The ceremonial law is no longer binding since the death of Christ, but is a lesson-book for us to enlighten us about his life, death and priestly ministry. The other judgements were temporary and specific to the Israel of the time, but are enlightening as illustrations of how the ten commandments were applied under specific conditions, and draw our attention to areas that may be of concern to us today. The ten commandments are, in their statements and implications, the expression of the moral law which is still binding today on humankind as creatures of God.
If I may go back to my earlier note on the ten-commandments-plus principle, the "plus" is what Ellen White calls "judgements". They are specific applications of the ten commandments in view of the special situation of a given time. Ellen White, for example, notes that the use of tobacco is an infringement against the first commandment. She also notes that following fashion in dress is an infringement against the first commandment. It appears to me that the specific standards mentioned in the SDA Fundamentals are all applications of the ten commandments for our time.
My conclusion is that the SDA Fundamentals do a very good job in summarizing the moral law for us today in the light of the Books of Moses.
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
Bro Thomas,That's some heavy-duty stuff you wrote there. And I thought I was getting radical by thinking that true Christians might have to establish a new state if that is what is needed to be able to keep God's law, including the statutes & judgments. It seems that I have only scratched the surface. ;)
Deuteronomy:
4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
Notice the difference in these two verses. The first one: God declared unto YOU His covenant, which He commanded YOU to perform.
In the next verse: The Lord Commanded ME to teach YOU statutes and judgments.
One was given directly from God by Moses to the people and the other one was given by God to and through Moses to teach the people.
Daniel makes this same point:
9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed THY LAW, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the LAW OF MOSES the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.
When we come to understand the difference of the Ten Commandments written in stone and the Law of Moses written on skin we see a difference in the eternal aspect of the Ten to the statutes and judgments which are temporal to this world.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
We can see the outwardly sins, but only God can see the inwardly character of sin in a person.
Because of the factor it is important for us to realize the importance of those thousand years that we will be with Jesus in heaven and learn the reasons of why many will not be there and why some will be.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
If I understand Brother Arnold correctly, he is being nice to me despite my "radical" views!
I have no problem with radical views, as long as they are correct.
It seems to me you're saying that the statutes and judgments are specific applications of the principles found in the 10C. The principles are binding today, but the specific application might not be applicable anymore. Therefore, we must discover the underlying principles, and apply them in the context we find ourselves in today. Essentially, the law is still binding, but the modern implementation might be different. Is that right?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
Mind you, after having been raised on a continual, daily diet of the Spirit of Prophecy, I, like many on this forum no doubt, am likely to draw a conclusion from reading the Pentateuch that I think is based on my own human wisdom, but when I make a search in the Spirit of Prophecy, I find it there. Someone has said that originality consists in having a faulty memory, having forgotten where we read something. But it is the "judgement" of the Spirit of Prophecy that is relevant.
Let me give another example: the tithing system. The Mosaic tithing sytem is a system of three tithes that cannot be separated from the annual feasts. It is a part of the ceremonial law. The Spirit of Prophecy makes a "judgement" on this that does not follow the details of the Biblical tithing laws at all. Rather, it relates to returning a tenth of the income (not the increase of certain agricultural products). This is technically not a Biblical system. Rather, it is a "judgement" related to the commandment "thou shalt not steal" with echoes in the Mosaic tithing system. The Spirit of Prophecy "judgement" goes even further afield from the Mosaic law when it comes to the ribbon of blue. The Spirit of Prophecy "judgement" is simplicity, modesty and health-hygiene in dress.
A search of the Spirit of Prophecy on the word "circumcision" is very revealing in this regard as well.
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
I have no problem with radical views, as long as they are correct.It seems to me you're saying that the statutes and judgments are specific applications of the principles found in the 10C. The principles are binding today, but the specific application might not be applicable anymore. Therefore, we must discover the underlying principles, and apply them in the context we find ourselves in today. Essentially, the law is still binding, but the modern implementation might be different. Is that right?
Although the ceremonials were a fulfilled shadow, there are contained within them practical moral lessons we take from them.
We have stated time and again that the Ten Commandments are binding - the statutes explain in a very practical way the Ten Commandments. That has been stated and generally accepted; however, there has been shown some difficulty in realizing the importance of civil governments legislating commandments five through nine, leaving the tenth that cannot be legislated - we have about settled that.
The basic premise is that the civil governments, through freedom of conscience, have no hand in the first four commandments. They are thusly relegated to the individual and the church. So why, again, should the civil government not be involved with commandments five through nine? If they did not, lawlessness would abound. We need to work through this, Arnold, in order to be in agreement and carry on with the study.
This does not mean that government is not valid, and that it may not legislate on matters of murder, stealing, adultery and lying among other things.
There are two systems in the Bible. First, there is the Noachian covenant with all people, granting Gentile societies the right and obligation to legislate order and justice as written on the human heart. Completely separate from this is the order of the ten commandments, spoken in the singular, and expressing the moral obligations of every individual in personal obedience to God. These moral injunctions, known from creation, were incorporated into the law of the theocracy of Israel, but moral law must not be incorporated in a man-made state.
Thus, the citizen refrains from killing because his representatives in his elected government have legislated a law forbidding killing. But the follower of God refrains from killing because it is a moral principle stated in the ten commandments. When the citizen is a believer, he carries out the behaviour demanded by the state and by the Decalogue for two separate and distinct reasons. In many cases, however, the demanded behaviour will be the same.
This distinction does not in any way ignore the very true fact, established by the Spirit of Prophecy, that the first part of the moral law relates specifically to human relations with God and the second part specifically to human relation with each other.
It is easy to attribute to the State authority that it simply does not have, authority that it has sometimes forcefully and illicitly taken to itself. There is a movement today to focus on the ten commandments, but may SDAs recognize the dangers involved in mixing the ten commandments with public institutions. That has been the general consensus on this forum. Brother Arnold has made no point beyond that, insofar as I can see, and it is an important and consistent one, even if it may seem like hair-splitting.
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
Back to page 1 ... what is binding? What isn't?Although the ceremonials were a fulfilled shadow, there are contained within them practical moral lessons we take from them.
We have stated time and again that the Ten Commandments are binding - the statutes explain in a very practical way the Ten Commandments. That has been stated and generally accepted; however, there has been shown some difficulty in realizing the importance of civil governments legislating commandments five through nine, leaving the tenth that cannot be legislated - we have about settled that.
The basic premise is that the civil governments, through freedom of conscience, have no hand in the first four commandments. They are thusly relegated to the individual and the church. So why, again, should the civil government not be involved with commandments five through nine? If they did not, lawlessness would abound. We need to work through this, Arnold, in order to be in agreement and carry on with the study.
America "was" a Protestant nation. As such, she would not force the conscience in matters of conscience when it came to worship of God. Did she have the responsibility to legislate "moral" laws? And, if so, how was she to understand what moral meant?
In our desire to keep the state out of the first four commandments, we seem to have suggested that the state has no responsibility to legislate according to the only moral standard there is, commandments five through nine.
To say that the state must be blind to the laws of our being is contrary to God's desire that we not only have moral laws, but know that God is the one who gave them. Those who fight against God may do so, but they at least ought to know that God has given us a standard of righteousness. We are told that the law is for the lawbreakers. We are told that the government is there to punish the lawbreaker and to cause fear to come upon him that he might keep the law.
A society without laws based upon commandments five through nine would indeed be a very sorry society. America was blessed to have laws based upon these commandments, but as the church failed in her realm, society has reflected the church's failure in her laws. We now have laws that have rejected much of the law of
God and we see the results.
There is no difficulty in advocating for laws based upon commandments five through nine. Those who kill in cold blood need to know that they will die. They also need to know that they will die again after the thousand years. The first is the state's responsibility, the second is the church's responsibility. Is this a violation of conscience? Absolutely not. God never ever suggested that man be free to choose to kill. If a man says he is going to kill, then God would have the man arrested. This is not a violation of conscience. This is a specious argument that finds no basis in Scripture.
Even in matter of worship, including the day of worship, man is not given a free pass to violate God's law. If a Seventh-day Adventist breaks the Sabbath and refuses to cease to do so, after being labored with, he is to be removed from fellowship. Freedom of conscience is not what many have made it to be. Freedom to do as one pleases is not found in the Bible. It is a modern concept, but actually it dates back to Cain when he thought he was free to do as he pleased. No, God does not want man to be free to kill, free to steal, or free to remain in the church when violating the test of felloswhip. Restraint is to be used to force people to refrain from some kinds of sin.
The state is to stay out of the first four commandments. But, the church is to remove from fellowship those who violate the first four. Yes, forced out of the church if they do not repent. Freedom is not as broad as the world paints it. And sadly the church has followed after the world in allowing Sabbath breakers and adulterers to remain in the church even though unrepentant.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
The issue of the responsibility of the state and the Chrisitian is important. The separation between church and state is important. We need to understand the principles involved.America "was" a Protestant nation. As such, she would not force the conscience in matters of conscience when it came to worship of God. Did she have the responsibility to legislate "moral" laws? And, if so, how was she to understand what moral meant?
In our desire to keep the state out of the first four commandments, we seem to have suggested that the state has no responsibility to legislate according to the only moral standard there is, commandments five through nine.
To say that the state must be blind to the laws of our being is contrary to God's desire that we not only have moral laws, but know that God is the one who gave them. Those who fight against God may do so, but they at least ought to know that God has given us a standard of righteousness. We are told that the law is for the lawbreakers. We are told that the government is there to punish the lawbreaker and to cause fear to come upon him that he might keep the law.
A society without laws based upon commandments five through nine would indeed be a very sorry society. America was blessed to have laws based upon these commandments, but as the church failed in her realm, society has reflected the church's failure in her laws. We now have laws that have rejected much of the law of
God and we see the results.There is no difficulty in advocating for laws based upon commandments five through nine. Those who kill in cold blood need to know that they will die. They also need to know that they will die again after the thousand years. The first is the state's responsibility, the second is the church's responsibility. Is this a violation of conscience? Absolutely not. God never ever suggested that man be free to choose to kill. If a man says he is going to kill, then God would have the man arrested. This is not a violation of conscience. This is a specious argument that finds no basis in Scripture.
Even in matter of worship, including the day of worship, man is not given a free pass to violate God's law. If a Seventh-day Adventist breaks the Sabbath and refuses to cease to do so, after being labored with, he is to be removed from fellowship. Freedom of conscience is not what many have made it to be. Freedom to do as one pleases is not found in the Bible. It is a modern concept, but actually it dates back to Cain when he thought he was free to do as he pleased. No, God does not want man to be free to kill, free to steal, or free to remain in the church when violating the test of felloswhip. Restraint is to be used to force people to refrain from some kinds of sin.
The state is to stay out of the first four commandments. But, the church is to remove from fellowship those who violate the first four. Yes, forced out of the church if they do not repent. Freedom is not as broad as the world paints it. And sadly the church has followed after the world in allowing Sabbath breakers and adulterers to remain in the church even though unrepentant.
Since the judgments and statutes that were not ceremonial are moral, and they were given to uphold the great moral standard, the ten commandments, we are on topic here as we try and sort out our personal responsibility, church responsibility, and state responsibility in regards to the law of God.
Semantics is indeed an issue in our discussion. We are not used to the words being used in this study, at least not from a Biblical point of view. Some of the words are not understood correctly as they are being used. One such phrase that I use is misunderstood I believe. Brother Thomas says that the US was not a Protestant nation, but here he is wrong. I think in this case, Brother Thomas considers a Protestant nation to be a nation where there is not separation of church and state. Here I disagree. Because some have been called Protestant nations and have usurped their authority does not mean that a nation cannot be truly a Protestant nation. America was.
She is now giving up her Protestant heritage and beginning to speak as a dragon. A true Protestant nation would not legislate in matters of worship, but would protect liberty of conscience in this area. So, it is a misunderstanding of the correct definition of "Protestant" nation that has caused a problem for us.
Brother Thomas, I am not at my computer, so I cannot give you any help, but only can point you in the right direction. You will find that my understanding is not my own, but what I have learned in my past studies of the subject from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. If you will take a few minutes, I have confidence that you shall find that America was indeed a Protestant nation in the truest since of the word. As long as she looked to God for her wisdom and strength she was great, but now that it is only a profession of faith, she is about to suffer great destruction. By earthquake, fire, war, disease, the winds of strife are being let loose. All because America has forsaken her God and her Protestant heritage.
My basic thrust is that human governments cannot enforce matters of conscience. And God's law, at its most fundamental level, is a matter of conscience. Therefore, human government cannot ever hope to enforce God's law in the way that God requires.
However, human governments can make and enforce laws that regulate human actions. Even in commandments 5-9, we are limited to regulating actions. That's just the way non-divine beings are.
In short, man can police man to make sure that they fulfill man's requirements. But we cannot police anyone but ourselves when it comes to God's requirements. Regardless of what laws we make, let's not mistake them for God's law.
That will have to do for the next couple of weeks. I have a program to prepare for this Sabbath, and another sermon the following Sabbath. Be nice while I'm gone. ;)
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
Regarding what you just posted ... no, civil governments can ever implement moral laws to complete satisfaction worthy of God's honor; that should be the goal of all people - to reach His ideal. I am getting a clearer picture of what exactly you are intending. And it appears as if I can agree with you in man dealing with man outside the ideal of a theocracy as the laws that are created for our well being and safety are "borrowed" from the original from heaven.
We should never legislate God or worship to Him; however in a fallen society that has a healthy respect for religious liberties, keeping separate church and state, we should legislate behavior toward one another.
Does this wording help in our agreement?
Yes, I think that wording works better for me. ;)
Anyway, I hope the distinction between divine requirements and human enforcement crystallizes better in my mind between now and 7/14.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Brother Thomas, I respect your opinion as I do Brother Arnold's. Here we can look to the Bible and discuss matters without emotion and anger, looking to Christ for our wisdom. I know that we all want His understanding not our own. :) I appreciate this opportunity and look forward to our coming into agreement as much as possible. This is a very important subject.Since the judgments and statutes that were not ceremonial are moral, and they were given to uphold the great moral standard, the ten commandments, we are on topic here as we try and sort out our personal responsibility, church responsibility, and state responsibility in regards to the law of God.
Semantics is indeed an issue in our discussion. We are not used to the words being used in this study, at least not from a Biblical point of view. Some of the words are not understood correctly as they are being used. One such phrase that I use is misunderstood I believe. Brother Thomas says that the US was not a Protestant nation, but here he is wrong. I think in this case, Brother Thomas considers a Protestant nation to be a nation where there is not separation of church and state. Here I disagree. Because some have been called Protestant nations and have usurped their authority does not mean that a nation cannot be truly a Protestant nation. America was.
She is now giving up her Protestant heritage and beginning to speak as a dragon. A true Protestant nation would not legislate in matters of worship, but would protect liberty of conscience in this area. So, it is a misunderstanding of the correct definition of "Protestant" nation that has caused a problem for us.
Brother Thomas, I am not at my computer, so I cannot give you any help, but only can point you in the right direction. You will find that my understanding is not my own, but what I have learned in my past studies of the subject from the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. If you will take a few minutes, I have confidence that you shall find that America was indeed a Protestant nation in the truest since of the word. As long as she looked to God for her wisdom and strength she was great, but now that it is only a profession of faith, she is about to suffer great destruction. By earthquake, fire, war, disease, the winds of strife are being let loose. All because America has forsaken her God and her Protestant heritage.
The SDA Fundamentals and SDA practice generally, establish practices that are not mentioned specifically in the ten commandments, but are taken from underlying principles in the Bible, the guidance of the Spirit of Prophecy, and in reaction to the challenges faced by believers today. Perhaps these additional issues should be seen, not so much as binding, but as necessary to our situation.
The things found in the SDA Fundamentals that are given specifically in addition to the ten commandments and apparently to support them and apply them effectively today are:
Tithes and offerings, discrimination in entertainment and amusements, neatness and modesty in dress, a healthful diet, rest and exercise, abstenance from unclean meats, alcohol, tobacco and drug and narcotic abuse, and divorce and remarriage only in the case of "Biblical grounds".
Adventist standards not mentioned in the Fundamentals include not wearing jewelry and make-up, not participating in secret societies, not joining labour unions, and not gambling or playing card-games commonly used in gambling, and not drinking coffee, tea or cola drinks.
Presumably in theory the standards mentioned in the Fundamentals are matters for church discipline, whereas those not mentioned have lesser degrees of sanction and to some extent remain a matter of conscience for the individual.
These standards not stated in the ten commandments, which are either necessary or very strongly recommended, are tenuously based on Scripture to varying degrees. But they certainly do not reflect, in anything like a literal correspondence, the judgements found in the Books of Moses.
Might we say that the ten commandments are binding on all people as God's moral law, but everything else in the Pentateuch is in the character of emergency measures for a limited time or place, or guidance in understanding and applying the ten commandments?
Such an emergency measure might be the establishment of the cities of refuge. Such a guidance, illuminating the commandment not to kill with its implication to guard health, would be the laws concerning unclean meats.
The question arises, whether some of this guidance has been overlooked. Here is an example. I noticed living among Muslims that they remove their shoes as an act of reverence before coming into the place of prayer. Removing shoes when coming onto "holy ground" is mentioned in the Bible as well. Is this a matter of new light that will help to prepare the people of God for the coming of Christ?
I think the Spirit of Prophecy protects Adventism from such distraction.
In time past there have been presented to me for my opinion many non-essential, fanciful theories. Some have advocated the theory that believers should pray with their eyes open. Others teach that, because those who ministered anciently in sacred office were required, upon entering the sanctuary, to remove their sandals and wash their feet, believers now should remove their shoes when entering the house of worship. Still others refer to the sixth commandment, and declare that even the insects that torment human beings should not be killed. And some have put forth the theory that the redeemed will not have gray hair --as if this were a matter of any importance. {GW 313.1}
I am instructed to say that these theories are the production of minds unlearned in the first principles of the gospel. By such theories the enemy strives to eclipse the great truths for this time. {GW 313.2}
I just returned from visiting some old Sabbath-keeping communities in the Ukraine, communities that existed before the coming of Adventism and do not use the writings of Ellen White. They had some practices that are different from SDAs. The women do not cut their hair, and always have their heads covered in public and in prayer. The electrical and water lines to both church and homes is shut off during the hours of the Sabbath, so that nothing will be purchased on that day. Musical instruments are not allowed in accompaniment to Scripture portions sung in Ruthenian plain chant. Musical instruments are allowed only for the singing of hymns. Maybe some of these things are standards that Adventists should emulate. Maybe some of them are nitpicking distractions. Maybe the Spirit of Prophecy could enlighten us on such matters.
[This message has been edited by Thomas M (edited 07-04-2007).]
You said in your above post:
"Adventist standards not mentioned in the Fundamentals include not wearing jewelry."
#22 of the fundamnental beliefs states:
While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently."
What do you believe "outward adornment" to mean? Maybe I am missing something here.
Thanks,
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
The lower we sink, the more instruction we need.
quote:
Originally posted by Liane H:
Hi Brother Thomas:You said in your above post:
"Adventist standards not mentioned in the Fundamentals include not wearing jewelry."
#22 of the fundamnental beliefs states:
While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently."
What do you believe "outward adornment" to mean? Maybe I am missing something here.
Thanks,
quote:
Originally posted by Sybil:
The SOP also states, Thomas, that had the Scriptures been prayerfully studied, the Spirit of Prophecy would also be unnecessary.The lower we sink, the more instruction we need.
Yes I do see what you are saying very clearly. The words "outward adornment" can mean many things to different people.
It could mean jewelry but one could wear jewelry as long as the jewelry is tastful. It indeed is not specific and very dangerous.
I think the church has tried to take on the role to be all things to all people so as not to rock the boat of any. It has for a long, long time tried to be a peacemaker without making any peace.
The greater danger of this is in the outcome more souls will be lost than if they took a firm stand in the first place.
One of my great blessings in coming into this church as that I came in through the law first and love second. It was God's love that opened my eyes of His precious Ten Precepts and showed me His love through them.
I believe that the first three books of Genesis is the whole gospel and would have been more than enough for man, but we being what we are in a sin sick filled world God had to step in again and again to make His message clearly to those that just were not getting it.
Even when God put his precepts on stone and His statutes and judgments in writing it took the children of Israel forty years, yes forty years before they got it right.
Even worse Moses stumbled at the end, but God redeemed him. What a loving God we have.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Liane H:
Dear Brother Thomas:Yes I do see what you are saying very clearly. The words "outward adornment" can mean many things to different people.
It could mean jewelry but one could wear jewelry as long as the jewelry is tastful. It indeed is not specific and very dangerous.
I think the church has tried to take on the role to be all things to all people so as not to rock the boat of any. It has for a long, long time tried to be a peacemaker without making any peace.
The greater danger of this is in the outcome more souls will be lost than if they took a firm stand in the first place.
One of my great blessings in coming into this church as that I came in through the law first and love second. It was God's love that opened my eyes of His precious Ten Precepts and showed me His love through them.
I believe that the first three books of Genesis is the whole gospel and would have been more than enough for man, but we being what we are in a sin sick filled world God had to step in again and again to make His message clearly to those that just were not getting it.
Even when God put his precepts on stone and His statutes and judgments in writing it took the children of Israel forty years, yes forty years before they got it right.
Even worse Moses stumbled at the end, but God redeemed him. What a loving God we have.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
"As we cultivate the soil day by day, we may learn precious spiritual lessons. The fallow ground of the heart must be broken up. It must be warmed by the rays of the sun, and purified by the air. Then the seed, to all appearance lifeless and inactive, is to be dropped into the soil prepared for its reception. Trees also are to be planted, and cultivated with care. And after man has done his part, God's miracle-working power gives life and vitality to the things placed in the soil. Man is not to overlook the power of God, nor is he to neglect his part of the work, appointed to him by God. Man is not to be slothful. His industry is essential if he would have a harvest. And so it is with the work to be done in the human heart and mind. "The seed is the word of God." "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man." {RH, October 18, 1898 par. 14}
" Lessons to Be Learned From Agricultural Process--As they cultivate the soil, the students are to learn spiritual lessons. The plow must break up the fallow ground. It must lie under the rays of the sun and the purifying air. Then the seed, to all appearance dead, is to be dropped into the
-178-
prepared soil. Trees are to be planted, seeds for vegetables sown. And after man has acted his part, God's miracle-working power gives life and vitality to the things placed in the soil. In this agricultural process, there are lessons to be learned. Man is not to do slothful work. He is to act the part appointed him by God. His industry is essential if he would have a harvest.--Ms. 71, 1898, p. 2. ("Come Up to the Help of the Lord," June 14, 1898.) {11MR 177.4}"
The agricultural principle that appears to be inherent in the Sabbath years is rotation of crops in view of preserving the fertility of the land. I am not aware that Ellen White speaks of crop rotation. This would thus fall in the category of judgements that are not redefined in the Spirit of Prophecy for our time, but suggested in principle, but not binding detail, in the Pentateuch.
quote:
Originally posted by asygo:
How about the Sabbaths for the land? Is that literal (i.e. we don't take care of our fruits/vegetables in our yard that year) or figurative (i.e. we quit our jobs for a year) or symbolic/typical (i.e. Christ was the antitype, abolishing the statute)?
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
I have been slowly coming to the view, as this discussion goes on, that the ten commandments constitute the eternally and universally binding moral law of God. Everything else in the Books of Moses is of limited value, temporary, local, or ceremonial. But the moral judgements are enlightening and the ceremonial laws have lessons in salvation.
I would see a ceremonial aspect in the cycle of Jubilees and the Sabbath years. At the same time, there is a judgement aspect, one that relates to agricultural continuity. Some of these judgements are redefined in the Spirit of Prophecy in ways that are relevant to here and now. Here is all that I can find on fallow ground and trees."As we cultivate the soil day by day, we may learn precious spiritual lessons. The fallow ground of the heart must be broken up. It must be warmed by the rays of the sun, and purified by the air. Then the seed, to all appearance lifeless and inactive, is to be dropped into the soil prepared for its reception. Trees also are to be planted, and cultivated with care. And after man has done his part, God's miracle-working power gives life and vitality to the things placed in the soil. Man is not to overlook the power of God, nor is he to neglect his part of the work, appointed to him by God. Man is not to be slothful. His industry is essential if he would have a harvest. And so it is with the work to be done in the human heart and mind. "The seed is the word of God." "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man." {RH, October 18, 1898 par. 14}
" Lessons to Be Learned From Agricultural Process--As they cultivate the soil, the students are to learn spiritual lessons. The plow must break up the fallow ground. It must lie under the rays of the sun and the purifying air. Then the seed, to all appearance dead, is to be dropped into the
-178-prepared soil. Trees are to be planted, seeds for vegetables sown. And after man has acted his part, God's miracle-working power gives life and vitality to the things placed in the soil. In this agricultural process, there are lessons to be learned. Man is not to do slothful work. He is to act the part appointed him by God. His industry is essential if he would have a harvest.--Ms. 71, 1898, p. 2. ("Come Up to the Help of the Lord," June 14, 1898.) {11MR 177.4}"
The agricultural principle that appears to be inherent in the Sabbath years is rotation of crops in view of preserving the fertility of the land. I am not aware that Ellen White speaks of crop rotation. This would thus fall in the category of judgements that are not redefined in the Spirit of Prophecy for our time, but suggested in principle, but not binding detail, in the Pentateuch.
Let us discuss the statute to let the land rest one in seven years. Is it moral or ceremonial? And if moral, ought we allow our land to rest one in seven years? Is this a law of our being or just a suggestion for the Jews prior to the time of Christ?
So doing a work to separate the ceremonial laws from the moral laws seems unneccesary. The moral laws are already clearly separated from the rest as the ten commandments.
Ellen White may seem inconsistent in relegating everything else to "ceremonial law", but that is perhaps not so. Even the health laws have a ceremonial aspect.
But let me turn to the question posed, the rest of the land every seventh year. First of all, the texts simply do not say every seventh year. It is a question of a particular year in the cycle of seven, just as the Sabbath is a question of a particular day. The law does not refer to one year in seven, but a particular year in seven. The cycles of seven make up a cycle of 49 years with a Jubilee year. The Gospel clearly makes the coming of Christ the antitype of the Jubilee year. The system is therefore ceremonial. It fits into type and antitype.
Yet there may be a "judgement" or moral aspect in allowing the land to lie fallow. Just as the Spirit of Prophecy has led the church to set up scertain standards that are not in strict adherence to Mosaic judgements but informed by them, we can draw the value of crop rotation from the "judgement" aspect of the Sabbatical years. Crop rotation is moral, as it is part of maintaining the earth as the source of livelihood, something implied at least in the Sabbath commandment if not others.
So I would say that there is little value in difining the statute as a ceremonial law or a judgement, since they are not muturally exclusive. Furthermore, everything outside the ten commandments seems to be called ceremonial in the Spirit of Prophety texts quoted earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
It seems we have a work to do in separating the ceremonial from the moral laws?Let us discuss the statute to let the land rest one in seven years. Is it moral or ceremonial? And if moral, ought we allow our land to rest one in seven years? Is this a law of our being or just a suggestion for the Jews prior to the time of Christ?
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Is this a law of our being or just a suggestion for the Jews prior to the time of Christ?
Also, it is possible that its purpose is not merely agricultural. Maybe God is telling us something about our need to rest (in some way) every 7 years. Maybe like the weekly Sabbath and tithe, God is trying to teach us that He can do more with 6 years than we can with 7 - i.e. trust Him with our temporal needs.
When I lived in the country, this was a very real concern. I talked to some farmers, and the stock answer was that it does not apply to us today. But I was not ready to adopt their cavalier attitude toward the statutes.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
But there was an topic that I read is that our bodies change every seven years and that this grand cycle of change is the bodies way of renewing itself to keep us in balance.
I do not recall the details, but seven's are an important number to God and should be better known by us. Thus the seventh day is applicable as well.
------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
That is how I see matters at this point of the discussion. You will note that I've made some progress here.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
From what I am hearing, it is not a sin to violate the principles of the Mosaic law that is not ceremonial?
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
Thanks for letting us know. :)
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 07-17-2007).]
You should get DSL or cable. It will open up a whole new world. If you're in the middle of nowhere, satellite might be the way to go.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
Regarding civil governments: Again, commandments 5 through 9 can be legislated through the "action" of the offender. The moral law happens to control behavior one to another. I truly believe you take liberty in this area. You speak of it as man controlling man with no right to enforce the Ten Commandments. Who else on earth has God entrusted this control through? If man does not do it, who does it? He set up magistrates within the body of the Children of Israel to do just this. And all throughout the OT, the same thing is practiced as ordained by God.
You seem to be applying the entire 10 to our behavior, man to man. You made no attempt to separate that which is required to God - first four commandments, yet lump all of them together saying man has no right to legislate any of them. That they are God's to legislate. And, yes, you briefly state that man will want to legislate worship ...
Where does the difference between right and wrong come from - which is actioned behavior, except through the moral law? Where would man get the idea that stealing from a neighbor is wrong except through one of the commandments?
No problem with church, family and individual forms of government that you speak of ... you brought out some very nice points.
I made a new topic in the Worship forum for the sermon (Roots and Fruits (sermon by Arnold Sy Go)). Do you want to discuss the specifics over there? I don't want to derail this thread, since the sermon wasn't exactly about the binding aspects of the Mosaic Law.
------------------
By God's grace,
Arnold M. Sy Go
-end-
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
When I plant a new fruit tree, does God have any counsel in regards to when I ought to eat the fruit from my new tree? Is this a law of our being or just a suggestion that we may obey or ignore?
To those not familiar with this topic, see this connection.
http://remnant-online.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000075.html
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 07-18-2007).]
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Is this statute a moral law or ceremonial, and was it a civil law only to be followed by Israel when a theocracy?
There are blessings in the moral law for us. If we look for the blessings we shall find them.
The law is holy just and good. There is a topic on the fruit tree in the Nature Forum that explains this lesson for us. It is for our good that we understand this statute.....if we intend to plant a fruit tree. :)
1) Ellen White sees the Mosaic law as a two-fold system: the ceremonial and the moral.
God's people, whom He calls His peculiar treasure, were privileged with a twofold system of law; the moral and ceremonial. . . . {FLB 106.2}
2) Ellen White defines the moral law as the ten commandments.
In answer to the claim that at the death of Christ the precepts of the Decalogue had been abolished with the ceremonial law, Wesley said: "The moral law, contained in the Ten Commandments and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which 'stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven.' . . . This was from the beginning of the world, being 'written not on tables of stone,' but on the hearts of all the children of men, when they came out of the hands of the Creator. And however the letters once wrote by the finger of God are now in a great measure defaced by sin, yet can they not wholly be blotted out, while we have any consciousness of good and evil. Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God, and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other. {GC 262.1}
3) Ellen White defines the ceremonial law as the system of types that pointed forward to Christ.
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}
There are many who try to blend these two systems, using the texts that speak of the ceremonial law to prove that the moral law has been abolished; but this is a perversion of the Scriptures. The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear. The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Colossians 2:14. But concerning the law of Ten Commandments the psalmist declares, "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89. And Christ Himself says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. . . . Verily I say unto you"--making the assertion as emphatic as possible--"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17, 18. Here He teaches, not merely what the claims of God's law had been, and were then, but that these claims should hold as long as the heavens and the earth remain. The law of God is as immutable as His throne. It will maintain its claims upon mankind in all ages. {PP 365.1}
In sum, there is a two-fold system. The ceremonial law points to Christ and is no longer binding. The moral law, the ten commandments, is binding from Creation and to all time.
We need to keep that clearly in mind in order to focus on trees or woods as the case may be.
So what about fruit trees? We agree that this does not appear to be ceremonial, a type of Christ, but moral. Yet it is not found in the ten commandments.
If we are permitted to decide what is moral and what is not on the basis of our own individual moral sense, there can never be agreement. One will see something one way, another will see it another way. One is going to look at one tree, one is going to look at another.
Let's go back to the category of civil laws that was brought up on this thread. Ellen White recognizes that category in only one passage that I can find:
These words were but a reiteration of the teaching of the Old Testament. It is true that the rule, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord: "Say not thou, I will recompense evil." "Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me." "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth." "If he that hateth thee
71
be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink." Proverbs 20:22; 24:29, 17; 25:21, 22, R.V., margin. {MB 70.2}
The thrust of her argument is that the statute in reference is not to be carried out, BECAUSE it is a civil statute and not a moral one. She only refers to such a category as a way of denying the binding character of the Mosaic statute. We thus have no Spirit of Prophecy argument for binding civil statutes from the books of Moses.
Ellen White speaks of health laws very often. She sometimes evidences them on the basis of Scripture. But generally, either statedly or in an implied way, the basis is nature, the facts of human existence, and not Scripture or verbal revelation.
I do not know if there is any agreement with me on this perception. There are the ten commandments, which are the universally-binding moral law. In addition to the ten commandments, there are judgements specific to each time and place, brought forward by prophets as needed. These judgements illuminate the ten commandments and have a universally-binding foundation, but their detailed application may be specific and temporary.
Is this framework adequate?
It appears adequately to explain why the Fundamentals contain reference to the ten commandments followed by several articles on other issues which are especially adapted to this time and age.
It appears adequate to me as a way of relating to such Mosaic statutes as those relating to fruit trees. Let us take a look at the fruit trees again.
Question 1: Is this part of the moral law, the ten commandments, or a statute outside the ten commandments?
Answer: It is outside the ten commandments.
Question 2: Is this part of the ceremonial law, a type fulfilled in Christ?
Answer: There is no apparent fulfilment in Christ. (It may be that further contemplation will reveal one, however).
Question 3: If this is not a part of ceremonial law nor a part of the ten commandments, how should it then be understood?
Answer: It is a prophetic judgement given to Israel through Moses as a specific application of the ten commandments to their situation. It must therefore contain an element of universally-binding moral law, although the specific may or may not be applicable to our day and age.
Question 4: Does the prophetic light for this day illuminate this specific statute?
Answer: There does not seem to be a specific comment on the mosaic text. However, the use of fruit in the first years is mentioned otherwise. The following passages suggest that Ellen White used the fruit from trees as soon as it appeared, without regard to the Mosaic statute in question.
I came here and began work on my place so earnestly that it inspired all with fresh zeal, and they have been working with a will, rejoicing that they have the privilege. We have provoked one another to zeal and good works. The school workers were afraid I would plant the first trees, and now both they and and I have the satisfaction of having the first genuine orchards in this vicinity. Some of our trees will yield fruit next year, and the peaches will bear quite a crop in two years. Mr. -----, from whom we bought our trees, lives about twenty miles from here. He has an extensive and beautiful orchard. He says that we have splendid fruit land. {TM 242.1}
I determined to set my trees, even before the foundation of the house was built. We broke up only furrows, leaving large spaces unplowed. Here in these furrows we planted our trees the last of September, and lo, this year they were loaded with beautiful blossoms and the trees were loaded with fruit. It was thought best to pick off the fruit, although the trees had obtained a growth that seemed almost incredible. The small amount of fruit--peaches and nectarines--have served me these three weeks. They were delicious, early peaches. We have later peaches--only a few left to mature as samples. Our pomegranates looked beautiful in full bloom. Apricots were trimmed back in April and June, but they threw up their branches and in five weeks, by measurement, had a thrifty growth of five and eight feet. {8MR 252.2}
If the Lord prospers us next year, as He has done the past year, we will have all the fruit we wish to take care of, early and late. The early fruit comes when there is nothing else, so this is an important item. The peaches are rich and juicy and grateful to the taste. We have quince trees set out, and lemon, orange, apple, plum, and persimmon trees. We have even planted elderberry bushes. We planted our vineyard in June. Everything is flourishing and we shall have many clusters of grapes this season. {8MR 252.3}
Question 5: Are there reasons outside Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy for taking this Mosaic statute into consideration?
Answer: There may be rational reasons. To the extent that the statute can illuminate the moral law of the ten commandments, it may determine action here and now.
There may be scientific reasons. To the extent that the statute appears to coincide with agricultural principles, it may determine orchard husbandry today.
This five-step way of dealing with issues seems logical and adequate to me. It can be applied systematically to the whole of the Books of Moses.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
I think sometimes we get a little too close to the tree so that we cannot see the forest. This statute is indeed moral and not ceremonial. So, it is part of the great moral law of our being. Is it to be restricted to Israel of old? I don't see why. What does it have to do with Israel and not us?There are blessings in the moral law for us. If we look for the blessings we shall find them.
The law is holy just and good. There is a topic on the fruit tree in the Nature Forum that explains this lesson for us. It is for our good that we understand this statute.....if we intend to plant a fruit tree. :)
I think you are on the right path. I think we are moving forward in this most important work. Time does not permit me to fully discuss your post, but I wanted to thank you for your effort that we might come into unity and further our understanding of God's law. We will grow together in our love and knowledge of His ways.
One quick comment, an eye for an eye is said to be a civil statute and as I read the quoted passage I find the counsel to be telling us that we are to leave the execution of this justice to the civil authorities, we are not to take the matter into our own hands. Our work is to do good to them that despitefully use us. But, we are to have a system of justice, civil, that will render an eye for an eye. In the US we have an understanding that the punishment is to fit the crime. Am I wrong? If not, then the statute commanding an eye for an eye would still be a guide for our civil laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M:
So what about fruit trees? We agree that this does not appear to be ceremonial, a type of Christ, but moral. Yet it is not found in the ten commandments.If we are permitted to decide what is moral and what is not on the basis of our own individual moral sense, there can never be agreement. One will see something one way, another will see it another way. One is going to look at one tree, one is going to look at another.
If the statute is moral, then it is binding in some manner. My concern here is that I don't see that it is applicable to any particular point in time. It does not seem to have any importance specifically to the theocracy, but rather to us all as we think on the moral principle. Why does God say to not eat the fruit for the first three years?
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
If the statute is moral, then it is binding in some manner. My concern here is that I don't see that it is applicable to any particular point in time. It does not seem to have any importance specifically to the theocracy, but rather to us all as we think on the moral principle. Why does God say to not eat the fruit for the first three years?
Here is my anchor in this study: It has been shown that Ellen White stated that statutes and judgments were given to support the ten commandments. Those that are not ceremonial are moral supporting the ten commandments. We have a hard time knowing how they fit, but they do.
What we ought to be able to see because the line is broad is the separation between the ceremonial and the moral. Once we see that it is moral, then it is my understanding that a moral statute is still binding, but if it was a civil statute then we must make a further judgment. If the civil statute was dealing with the first four commandments, then we cannot ask for the state to enforce it. Does this sound right?
There are other concerns that need some study also. This is not an easy matter, but as we seek wisdom, God will help us.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the moral aspect of agriculture is found in the Sabbath commandment, where six days work is commanded. The first profession given to humankind in Genesis 2 is care of the earth and growing things. This is a moral duty.
The context, by the way, of Ellen White's remarks about fruit trees shows that she was very concerned with their care and well-being.
There is another moral aspect here as well, one that is of relevance today. The artificiality of contemporary life is associated with immorality. Coming closer to nature and the soil in our concerns is associated with a more successfully moral life.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
Brother Thomas I understand your thoughts and that is why I choose a specific example that we may study this in depth. There is something that we have not discerned clearly, but I believe as we labor together looking unto Christ, we shall learn together.Here is my anchor in this study: It has been shown that Ellen White stated that statutes and judgments were given to support the ten commandments. Those that are not ceremonial are moral supporting the ten commandments. We have a hard time knowing how they fit, but they do.
What we ought to be able to see because the line is broad is the separation between the ceremonial and the moral. Once we see that it is moral, then it is my understanding that a moral statute is still binding, but if it was a civil statute then we must make a further judgment. If the civil statute was dealing with the first four commandments, then we cannot ask for the state to enforce it. Does this sound right?
There are other concerns that need some study also. This is not an easy matter, but as we seek wisdom, God will help us.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL The case of the statute on the young fruit trees is a good example since we can see that it was not ceremonial and does not appear to be a civil statute that would apply only to the theocracy. The question now comes to mind, are there other considerations we have not identified? Yes, I am sure there are, but I do not think they apply to this statute. I have to say that I have a slight advantage in that I have already studied this from a scientific basis and found what appears to be the reason why this is to be a standard that we are to follow today and always. But, the lesson for us is that we do not need to know the reason for the statute to know that it is for us and our happiness. We are to find the principles relating to the statutes and judgments so that we might know which are binding today. Then we will apply them in a consistent manner even when we do not understand the reasons behind a specific statute. Case in point: The world did not know why man was not to eat pork, but it was a moral statute and is binding today. It is part of the standard we are to live our lives by. And, when we understand the science behind the statute, we then understand that not only pig, but cow and sheep are now classified with the pig. These moral statutes are not designed for Pharisees, but for those who want to live their lives within the laws given for our blessing. Rejecting these moral statutes is to reject the blessings God has given.
****************************
When we say these statutes are moral in nature, we mean they are to be the standard of our behaviour. In our study we know that there are some other considerations. We are setting about to define the "other considerations."
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Myers:
I agree. Let us look at the word "moral" for a moment.From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action
****************************
When we say these statutes are moral in nature, we mean they are to be the standard of our behaviour. In our study we know that there are some other considerations. We are setting about to define the "other considerations."The case of the statute on the young fruit trees is a good example since we can see that it was not ceremonial and does not appear to be a civil statute that would apply only to the theocracy.
The question now comes to mind, are there other considerations we have not identified? Yes, I am sure there are, but I do not think they apply to this statute. I have to say that I have a slight advantage in that I have already studied this from a scientific basis and found what appears to be the reason why this is to be a standard that we are to follow today and always.
But, the lesson for us is that we do not need to know the reason for the statute to know that it is for us and our happiness. We are to find the principles relating to the statutes and judgments so that we might know which are binding today. Then we will apply them in a consistent manner even when we do not understand the reasons behind a specific statute.
Case in point: The world did not know why man was not to eat pork, but it was a moral statute and is binding today. It is part of the standard we are to live our lives by. And, when we understand the science behind the statute, we then understand that not only pig, but cow and sheep are now classified with the pig. These moral statutes are not designed for Pharisees, but for those who want to live their lives within the laws given for our blessing. Rejecting these moral statutes is to reject the blessings God has given.
It appears as a maze until we begin to see the principles involved in deciding how they were ordered. We have made a large step forward by understanding that our first division comes in separating the ceremonial from the moral laws. The next help comes from knowing that the statutes and judgements that were not ceremonial were given to help us keep the ten commandments.
Another great help in this work is to know that the state is not to legislate in a manner that would force or restrict one's ability to worship God. In matters of worship the conscience is to be left untrammeled. This is important because Israel was given statutes that did not reveal this truth. Being a theocracy, an individual Jew was to be stoned for breaking the Sabbath. This we can see is not binding today and the reason why is because there is no longer a theocracy. There will be other statutes and judgments that fit into this category and are no longer binding.
It is a joy to be able to enter into this study with others who have a desire to serve God more fully and to discover more of His law that we may spread this light in the world.
quote:
Lev. 19:19. Garments were ever taken as an emblem of the righteousness of Christ, and when different substances as linen and wool were mingled it spoiled the figure.
Additionally, there must be a health advantage to wearing only cotton/linen, unmixed with other sources of material that could possibly harm the skin or interfere with the body's electrical flows.
It has been a little while since we have discussed the binding aspects of these laws - let's not let them drop. Having re-read the last ten pages of this topic, I am thrilled at some of our discoveries, yet, our ways are not God's ways.
In addition to the spiritual aspect of not mixing linen with wool as Brother Haskell stated, this statute must have a health aspect to it that we have not addressed.
What happens to our bodies when wool and linen are mixed as clothing? Why is there a command against it?
Does it have to do with static electricity?
Does it have to do with perspiration absorbtion? Coolness in the heat, warmth in the winter?
Or is it an overall command not to mix things that has meaning much more far reaching? I cannot get this subject off my mind.
An Orthodox Jewish website gives this reason: Ancient pagan priests used to wear wool and linen processed together, because they knew how to make use of it for occult practices, including idol worship and other terrible things, and therefore the Torah forbade us to use it for all time, and ordered us to stay far away from shatnez, as well as all other practices of the pagans.
And another one: The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that `wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates it brings on malignant fevers, and exhausts the strength, and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister' (Whitelaw).” (emphasis mine throughout)
In other words, WEAVING WOOL WITH LINEN INTO THE SAME CLOTH, when used in a garment, CAUSES EXCESSIVE HEAT, SWEAT AND IRRITATION TO THE BODY - beyond what wool alone would do!
Does this sound reasonable? Or is there more?
[This message has been edited by Sybil (edited 10-15-2007).]
The Rabbi’s know to interpret Lev.19:19 in light of Deut.22:10-11. The teachings of Leviticus came before those of Deuteronomy. Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus began from the exodus out of Egypt and through out their wandering in the wilderness. Then after Israel’s wandering in the wilderness was about complete, Moses recapped, reminded, explained and expounded many of God’s Statutes, Judgments and Testimonies from Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus - in what is called Deuteronomy. In this summary of the previous teachings of the Pentateuch, Moses often explains these previous passages by adding a bit of clarification by way of additional information and by context. Thus Deuteronomy complements the previous three books, like the gospels complement one another. So let’s see the parallel Statute to Lev.19:19 in Deuteronomy.
Deut 22:9 You shall not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 You shall not wear a garment of divers sorts, of wool and linen together.
Notice verse 9 gives us the point of these Statutes of separation – to protect us from DEFILEMENT! There are certain types of seed, that if mixed together will cause them to be defiled because they are DIVERSE in nature. Others can actually complement each other. God’s point is to avoid the unnatural harmful union of things that don’t complement each other.
This word “divers sorts” in Hebrew is “shah-at-naze,” which literally means spun linen and wool into one fabric. This is a “diverse” mixture where the two fabrics are not compatible! Either material by itself is fine. It is the combination that is a problem.
The word translated “diverse,” or “mixed” from the Hebrew is “kala`” which comes from the root word meaning to refrain or restrain, to hold back and restrict.
This is talking about mixing seeds, or fabrics, or oxen – OR PEOPLE in a way that will HOLD THEM BACK causing defilement, friction, and a constant struggle. Other mixtures that are not “diverse” in nature are not prohibited.
Notice here this principle is expanded and explained by Moses by placing it right alongside the prohibition against the unnatural union of yoking the ox and the ass together. The spirit of this statute is against any unnatural or contrary union. It is also against imitating the pagan mystical practices – which is another form of UNNATURAL UNION BETWEEN BAAL AND GOD – paganism and God’s Truth.
That is why Paul made the comparison he did when referring to these Statutes. Notice Paul uses this Statute of not yoking an ox and an ass together (a clean animal with an unclean animal – see Deut.22:10 & Lev.11), to teach God’s principle of not yoking believers together with unbelievers.
2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (KJV)
There is a blessing for us as we search the Bible wanting to live in harmony with the laws of our being. Many don't see it this way and do not want to be disturbed. But, they will lose the blessing that God has in giving to the world much instruction.
If the command to not mix fibers had been part of the sacrificial system, then we would not be concerned, but it was not from all we see. The same applies to much of the Levitical law. The health message has been rejected by much of the Christian Church, to their detriment. The principles involved in this area are of great importance to our happiness and our religious experience.
Then what else does God have to reveal to us through His Word that will bless us today? How about the command to not mingle seeds when planting? Is there a blessing in taking care to follow this command? Or was it only for the Jewish economy?
Amen, by the natural, so may we understand the spiritual.BG: Do we need to mingle seeds in our crops today to feed us?
So, let us return to the natural. Does God mean that we ought not mingle the seeds of our crops?
Or was this injunction only for Israel. Has this law been abolished, or is it binding today?BG: Since we are no longer under the literal theocracy, but have chosen to live under the spiritual theocracy, the principles remain binding.
Thank you, Sister Sybil for the "cities of refuge" posts. Because we are not living in a theocracy, the government of Israel is not binding upon us today. But, there are principles involved in this. Do those principles put forth in the Old Testament dealing with the punishment for death carry over into our age? Do our laws reflect this in any way?BG: yes the laws are binding, but the application of the penalties will not be applied until the Jesus returns to earth.
yes the laws are binding, but the application of the penalties will not be applied until the Jesus returns to earth.
the application of the penalties will not be applied until the Jesus returns to earth.
We were thinking literal and you were thinking in more symbolic terms, although the Bible does call the hail "stones" - it is a supplied word.
Typically when there is a discussion of stoning people, our first thought is not of hail but of stone - rock ...
We need to either greatly expand our ability to see symbolic imagery in even the simplest words, or we might begin to suggest you use language that is readily identifiable with the subject matter.
Either way, communication is difficult at best. :)
Do we need to mingle seeds in our crops today to feed us?
The way I read the Bible, God is telling us not to mingle our seed, our food seed.
I think that we have indeed moved into a new area of "mingling seed". :(
In Bible times, I believe it was a command to not plant crops in the same field so as to cross pollinate various plants and lose the original plant. So, one ought to plant seeds for different plants that will cross pollinate in different fields to avoid this problem. Today, we suffer greatly from not having done so. We have lost many of our seeds.
And, yes this new science of genetic engineering has rapidly destroyed our "good" seeds. Sadly, too many do not value the counsel given in Scripture.
I agree! Scripture comes out on top and way ahead again!
What do you believe, brother Richard, that the following quote means to us as a people?
“The significance of the Jewish economy is not yet fully comprehended. Truths vast
and profound are shadowed forth in its rites and symbols...” COL 133
Good morning, friend. I am seeing more clearly your definition of what you mean when you speak of "moral law" and "ceremonial law." In order to clarify my thinking about your thinking :), let me ask you a couple questions. I'm asking because I believe we might be thinking too narrowly of what is moral law as well as defining too broadly what is ceremonial.
Would you define "moral law" as anything God asks us to do? -- and as you rightly point out, "the testimony (example and teaching) of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy is also moral law. He also told us to watch and pray. Right? He told us that we can know when the time is near -- even at the door. Yes? He gave us signs in the sun, moon and stars, which if we ignore, we do so at our own peril. I this moral law? How would you best define the law of gravity or the law of perpetual motion? Moral law? Natural law? What about natural consequences? How about this one -- the law of reciprocal influence, where speaking and hearing our own words have an effect on and strengthen what we think. Or this one, the law of mutual influence; those we associate with and listen to, influence and strengthen what we believe. What is the reason we are counseled to "forsake not the gathering together as some do?" Is this counsel moral law? When God created the "appointed times" to get together (spiritually), what do you imagine He we thinking?
As to ceremonial law -- “The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ ‘took...out of the way, nailing it to His cross.’” PP 365
Notice that the ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing both to Christ's "sacrifice" and His "priesthood." We agree that type met anti-type in Christ's death regarding his "sacrifice." What about his priesthood -- was that nailed to the cross as well? No. We notice that only "the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ took our of the way, nailing it to His cross."
To me this discussion about whether we should keep the feasts is a distraction -- what we should be asking ourselves is, what are the lessons God means for us to learn from these "appointed times?"
You keep saying that all types and symbols were nailed to the cross; this is not true and it teaches those who are listening to disregard that which was given to be a blessing from when "the foundations were laid."My dear brother Richard, I now wish that I had chosen different words that the ones in my quote. This, perhaps is the least of your concerns at this juncture, but I know you well enough, to know you would never teach anything you believed to be untrue. Please forgive my very public blunder. Is there any way that you could lengthen the time given to "modify" our posts? :) I think two or three days might be a good starting point for me and then we can see if I need more time for regrets at a later point. ::)
Is there any way that you could lengthen the time given to "modify" our posts? :) I think two or three days might be a good starting point for me and then we can see if I need more time for regrets at a later point. ::)
Seems to me that it is important to clarify and define what "binding" actually means in this discussion. Does it mean applicable and useful? Does it mean legally binding as the Decalogue is? It's been decided that it is not practical for the punishments to be carried out by us, but are we taking the route that God will carry out judgment on us on that day, an account of the statutes?
If some of the statutes were given as provisions (post #97), and they go against the high ways of God, then should we throw those ones out? I don't understand how they could have been given to guard the 10 Commandments, yet cause the breaking of them at the same time (to kill for killing). Yes, there are consequences, and dire consequences, but if we are to show mercy, and to forgive "seventy times seven" times our brother, then doesn't that eliminate a lot of the statutes? Or just the consequences?
Something came to mind that I have not thus far considered in our study. We see in the statutes provisions for some things that are contrary to God's law. It is not that God is commanding these things that He does not support, but He has made provision for dealing with them....even though they are contrary to His law. I know that some will object and have a problem with this, but in our present company I think we understand.
An example: Multiple wives by Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. We all understand that God allowed this, made provision for dealing with it, but it is not His law that man should have more than one wife. Another example: Slaves. This is not God's will that man should be in servitude to another. But, He made provision for dealing with this foul practice. And one last thought along this line. God abhors death. It was never His desire that anything should die. Yet, we have death. And, not only do we have death, we have God participating in it and commanding it.
As we move forward, we must do so without any consideration that God is arbitrary. He is not. His ideas are far past ours. As we contemplate His laws, we must always keep in mind His love for us and that His ways are perfect. He has made provision of us who are not perfect, but rather great sinners.
He magnified the purity of the Law (the moral law), not the statutes that dealt with sin. So that leaves us with the 10 Commandments. The rest seems to be useful, and we are wise to heed the instruction, but it does not seem binding, therfore is open for modifcation to our times?
So, the "eye for eye" principle was 'civil' (Ex. 21:24), and Jesus lifted the principle into the sphere of 'moral', in effect nullifying the 'civil' authority it had?
Mat. 5:38-39
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Now, look at what God did in Sacrificing His Son, I ask, was it fair? Was it just?
Here, the whole of the Jewish economy seems to be included as law that will in no wise pass, til all be fulfilled.
Here, the whole of the Jewish economy seems to be included as law that will in no wise pass, til all be fulfilled.
The Creator knows just what elements He has to deal with in human nature. He knows what means to employ to obtain the desired end. The Christian who accepts the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, will look at Bible history in its true bearing. The past--the history of the Jewish economy from beginning to the end--instead of being spoken of contemptuously and sneered at as "the dark ages," will reveal light, and still more light, as it is studied. {UL 96.4}
Man's word fails, and he who takes the assertions of man as his dependence may well tremble, for he will one day be as a shipwrecked vessel. But God's Word is infallible and endures forever. Christ declares, "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). God's Word will endure through the ceaseless ages of eternity. {UL 96.5}
Here, the whole of the Jewish economy seems to be included as law that will in no wise pass, til all be fulfilled.
The Creator knows just what elements He has to deal with in human nature. He knows what means to employ to obtain the desired end. The Christian who accepts the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, will look at Bible history in its true bearing. The past--the history of the Jewish economy from beginning to the end--instead of being spoken of contemptuously and sneered at as "the dark ages," will reveal light, and still more light, as it is studied. {UL 96.4}
Man's word fails, and he who takes the assertions of man as his dependence may well tremble, for he will one day be as a shipwrecked vessel. But God's Word is infallible and endures forever. Christ declares, "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). God's Word will endure through the ceaseless ages of eternity. {UL 96.5}
I do see, however, that the health message is an oft-reoccurring theme that you go back to, no matter what topic we are on. Whether you have meant this (rather direct) council for me personally or all in general, it is clearly uppermost in your mind. Many in the church create division over this subject and make it a test. Let me share this statement with you, not as an excuse for my dietary (which is improving as I struggle with it), but for perspective.
Let not individuals gather up the very strongest statements, given for individuals and families, and drive these things because they want to use the whip and to have something to drive. Let these active, determined temperaments take the Word of God and the testimonies, which present the necessity of forbearance and love and perfect unity, and labor zealously and perseveringly. With their own hearts softened and subdued by the grace of Christ, with their own spirits humble and full of the milk of human kindness, they will not create prejudice, neither will they cause dissension and weaken the churches. {3SM 286.3}
The question whether we shall eat butter, meat, or cheese, is not to be presented to anyone as a test, but we are to educate and to show the evils of the things that are objectionable. Those who gather up these things and drive them upon others do not know what work they are doing. The Word of God has given tests to His people. The keeping of God's holy law, the Sabbath, is a test, a sign between God and His people throughout their generations forever. Forever this is the burden of the third angel's message--the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. {3SM 287.1}
When I post an inspired quote with little of my own thought, you treat it as if I originated it -- we can all read it for what it may bring to each one, no matter what the dietary -- mental or otherwise. We both use the bold feature to point out what we think to be important, but I have noticed, my dear friend, that we do not read the texts and quotes to mean the same thing. It seems that we both find opposing inference in the same inspired writings.
Here, the whole of the Jewish economy seems to be included as law that will in no wise pass, til all be fulfilled.
Help us better understand what you are saying here, Brother Tim. I must be misunderstanding what you mean. To me this means that all of the law given to Moses is still binding. Is that what you are saying?
Here, the whole of the Jewish economy seems to be included as law that will in no wise pass, til all be fulfilled.
The Creator knows just what elements He has to deal with in human nature. He knows what means to employ to obtain the desired end. The Christian who accepts the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, will look at Bible history in its true bearing. The past--the history of the Jewish economy from beginning to the end--instead of being spoken of contemptuously and sneered at as "the dark ages," will reveal light, and still more light, as it is studied. {UL 96.4}
Man's word fails, and he who takes the assertions of man as his dependence may well tremble, for he will one day be as a shipwrecked vessel. But God's Word is infallible and endures forever. Christ declares, "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). God's Word will endure through the ceaseless ages of eternity. {UL 96.5}
Brother Tim, I am sorry if I misunderstand. It appears that you are trying to link the ceremonial law and the moral law. Am I wrong?
Let me ask you one question that will help me better understand if I am not seeing what you are saying. What do you think this statement means? The law of God is as immutable as His throne. It will maintain its claims upon mankind in all ages. Does it include any of the ceremonial laws?
Are we seeing a "false Gospel" behind every rock?
Is God not strong enough to keep us in the way that we should go?
I intentionally let the EGW quote speak for what it may instruct spiritually. What do you think it means? When I come across a quote from her including a Bible text, she usually ties it to her subject before or after she quotes it. This is how I know to interpret what she is saying. The subject is "the Jewish economy" from beginning to end. The text is "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, til all be fulfilled." Matt 5:18. I suppose this text could be read, "until each aspect of the law is fulfilled." -- but, to me she is definitely tying the whole Jewish economy to Matt 5:18.
I intentionally let the EGW quote speak for what it may instruct spiritually. What do you think it means? When I come across a quote from her including a Bible text, she usually ties it to her subject before or after she quotes it. This is how I know to interpret what she is saying. The subject is "the Jewish economy" from beginning to end. The text is "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, til all be fulfilled." Matt 5:18. I suppose this text could be read, "until each aspect of the law is fulfilled." -- but, to me she is definitely tying the whole Jewish economy to Matt 5:18.
I guess maybe I did not present my thoughts clear enough, so I will share again what we have been told she means:
In His sermon on the mount, Jesus did not dwell on the specifications of the law, but He did not leave His hearers to conclude that He had come to set aside its requirements. He knew that spies stood ready to seize upon every word that might be wrested to serve their purpose. He knew the prejudice that existed in the minds of many of His hearers, and He said nothing to unsettle their faith in the religion and institutions that had been committed to them through Moses. Christ Himself had given both the moral and the ceremonial law. He did not come to destroy confidence in His own instruction. It was because of His great reverence for the law and the prophets, that He sought to break through the wall of traditional requirements which hemmed in the Jews. While He set aside their false interpretations of the law, He carefully guarded His disciples against yielding up the vital truths committed to the Hebrews.
snipped . .
If there are other questions, dear brother, that you feel I have not responded to, I am sorry. Point them out and I will respond.
Brother Tim, if we were take this as truth, it would make shipwreck of our faith. We know that the ceremonial law has ended. We also know that the civil statutes for Israel are no longer binding. We are not to stone Sabbath breakers, nor those who are gluttons. We are not to sacrifice lambs and doves any longer.
In your effort to justify the keeping of the feast days, you appear to be looking for statements to do so? Your feast keeping friends have done this very thing until they have confused many in the church. The law given to Israel can be divided into three kinds of law. The moral law which is still binding.
The civil law which was for Israel, a nation under the direct rule of god, a theocracy. The penalties proscribed no longer are binding. Societies today are to decide the penalty for gluttony, if there is to be one.
The ceremonial law, which was to teach about the plan of salvation, ceased at the cross to be binding. Not all types had met their anti-types. They are shadows of things to come. Most have been fulfilled. Some have a secondary fulfillment. Because they reveal the future, does not mean that the church is to follow the law of the ceremonies. It was a lesson book that we can still learn from without dressing up and keeping a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
The seventh-day Sabbath is a moral law, but the ceremonial Sabbaths and other feast days have been "blotted out". The history of Israel is for us whom the ends of the world have come upon. How are we to know where our high priest is today if we do not understand the shadows that teach us not not only where He is, but what He is doing.
From the New Testament Book of Hebrews we are given much light. It reveals that we are to understand the lessons from the Hebrew economy. We are not to act out the ceremonies, but we are to understand the significance of the ceremonies.
[It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
We can now better understand why this statement was made: The past--the history of the Jewish economy from beginning to the end--instead of being spoken of contemptuously and sneered at as "the dark ages," will reveal light, and still more light, as it is studied. Many have no idea that the ceremonial law revealed the plan of salvation. Many "sneer" at the Old Testament. They want the lessons to be nailed to the cross as well as the laws. So sad! And, they rebel against the idea that the moral law is still binding. All who believe this lose great blessings by not understanding the moral laws that we are to live by. By so doing we find our happiness. It is hard when one does not live within the laws of our being.
There is a wide separation between the moral and the ceremonial law. We may all come to see this. It is my prayer that our discussion is helping many to better understand the Old Testament Scripture and thus much of the New Testament which is dependent upon Old Testament writings. I have given a good example from the Book of Hebrews. Those ignorant of the Hebrew economy cannot understand the meaning of these passages and many others like them.
It has been sometime since I have read anything here and find this subject quite fascinating. I hope y'all don't mind if I throw my two cents into this mix. First off I am not sure if anyone has posted this comment or not for the SOP.
Precepts Given to Guard Decalogue. - In consequence of continual transgression, the moral law was repeated in awful grandeur from Sinai. Christ gave to Moses religious precepts, which were to govern everyday life. These statutes were explicitly given to guard the Ten Commandments. THEY WERE NOT SHADOWY TYPES TO PASS AWAY WITH THE DEATH OF CHRIST. They were to be binding upon men in every age as long as time should last. These commands were enforced by the power of the moral law, and they clearly and definitely explained that law (ST April 15, 1875). Ellen G. White Comments - Exodus 20:3 pg 1104 SDA Commentaries Vol. 1
Secondly we find God speaking through Malachi:
“1 ¶ For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do [this], saith the LORD of hosts. 4 ¶ Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, WITH the statutes and judgments.” (Malachi 4:1-4)
Through Isaiah God tells us WHY this earth will be destroyed with plagues:
“1 ¶ Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. 2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. 3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word. 4 The earth mourneth [and] fadeth away, the world languisheth [and] fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.” (Isaiah 24:1-6)
We find in Daniel exactly what would be "nailed to the cross" other than Christ Himself:
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)
I do believe God is calling His people back, asking as to remember His statutes and judgments as admonished in Malachi 4.
Early on in this discussion or in another re feast days someone posted it was impossible to know when the fall feast could or should take place. I do believe God honors our best efforts to honor Him, even if we are ignorant of when.
When the Law is mentioned in the Bible it does not only refer to the 10 commandments but, refers to the Law as a whole with the ceremonial laws, levitical Laws, health laws, 10 commandments.