Calvinist belief in OT Holy Codes

[Joe Brummer]

Just out of curiousity, many christians divide the "holiness codes" of the bible into moral, civil and ceremonial. Others feel there is no scriptual justification for this division. Many fundementalist christians use this (IMHO) as justification of how they can still use Leviticus and other old testament laws as reasons to find homosexuality immoral. The claim is that the civil and ceremonial laws were wiped out by the new covenant but the moral law still stands.

Does anyone have a thought about this?

[keltic63]

I think it can be countered by asking where the Bible gives direction on which part of the codes belong where, and how God instructed later readers of the text to make that decision. *crickets chirping*

To me it just smacks of what they accuse others of doing: selectively "choosing" which scriptures to follow.

[Joe Brummer]

I think it can be countered by asking where the Bible gives direction on which part of the codes belong where, and how God instructed later readers of the text to make that decision. *crickets chirping*

To me it just smacks of what they accuse others of doing: selectively "choosing" which scriptures to follow.


I actually asked the question. I offered Mel whites list of bible verses from the link above. The response, and I have heard it a doaen times before, is that those laws are part of the holiness code that are defined as "ceremonial, not ,moral code" the ceremonial code was replaced by the new covanent, where the moral code is for all time. I myself don't belive in this, but I wouldn't mind understanding it better. The link he gave me to look at was.....


http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc19.html

[ps403]

I heard this recently, but don't know if it was from a post here or not. If so, sorry for stealing someone else's thunder! :)

Morals are how society rates right and wrong...and this sense of morality can change depending on the society.

Ethics is what is always right or wrong, no matter the societal context.

I think that's good to think about. It gives us a perspective and a vocabulary to discuss the fine line between the two...especially when religiosity seeks to blur the boundary!

...just a thought. Interesting discussion, though!

[NathanATX]

I heard this recently, but don't know if it was from a post here or not. If so, sorry for stealing someone else's thunder! :)

Morals are how society rates right and wrong...and this sense of morality can change depending on the society.

Ethics is what is always right or wrong, no matter the societal context.

I think that's good to think about. It gives us a perspective and a vocabulary to discuss the fine line between the two...especially when religiosity seeks to blur the boundary!

...just a thought. Interesting discussion, though!

Feel free to quote me anytime! :) It's from my post on sex...

[Joe Brummer]

I heard this recently, but don't know if it was from a post here or not. If so, sorry for stealing someone else's thunder! :)

Morals are how society rates right and wrong...and this sense of morality can change depending on the society.

Ethics is what is always right or wrong, no matter the societal context.

I think that's good to think about. It gives us a perspective and a vocabulary to discuss the fine line between the two...especially when religiosity seeks to blur the boundary!

...just a thought. Interesting discussion, though!



I may agree with this but my adversary doesn't, I am looking to understand where he is coming from, and the response that shows him where I am coming from.....if that makes any sense.

[Catt of the Garage]

I've never heard of this either and some research is probably in order. It sounds like a reasonable theory on the different categories of law and why we should still follow some but ignore others; but like keltic63, I would be wondering how you know which verse fits into each category - without some kind of guidance on whether a particular precept is moral, legal or ceremonial it seems of little practical use. You don't know which is which, so you don't know which to follow and which to ignore, and you're back to square 1, aren't you?

The real flaw in this argument to my mind is that the splitting up of the Holiness Code into three different categories could just as well be used as an argument for homosexuality as an argument against it. Your adversary is assuming that the prohibitions on homosexuality are "moral" precepts, but who's to say? The word used to mean "abomination" in these verses is one which is usually used in the context of ritual uncleanness or idolatry; and that could place those verses in the category of "ceremonial" law. Alternatively, the early Israelites were charged (unless I'm much mistaken) to stone people indulging in this behaviour, which smacks of a "legal" precept. It's a matter of interpretation, and if there is no way to determine which interpretation is correct then it's a dead end.

If I were you the first thing I'd do is take the discussion back to your adversary and get them to explain to you how they make the distinction between the different categories of law in the Holiness Code. If their basis isn't biblical or very, very logical, then this is a human construct and of no particular value in the argument.

[Joe Brummer]

I agree and will try that, he brings this up often and I never have a reply.

[keltic63]

I just emailed my pastor on this one. I'm waiting for her reply. I also emailed another friend who likes to use the same argument, that there is a division and thus the ceremonial code doesn't apply. I asked her where she received this teaching.

[keltic63]

so my pastor got back to me with some initial info on this idea of splitting the levitical laws into different sections. Here's some of what she had to say:


For what it's worth, I believe the most responsible Christian approach is to look to Jesus as the fulfillment or "best of" the Law. Every law we run across in the OT (or NT for that matter) should be run through the Jesus-Checker: What would he say? would he agree? disagree? would he follow this? tell us to do the same? expound, explain, except, excerpt?

Jesus respected the Law in word and deed, saying flat out that he'd not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it and saying that 'those who break the least of these commandments and encourage others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven'.

Yet Jesus broke the law on several occasions - healing on the Sabbath, eating with unwashed hands, stopping at least one 'lawful' execution, and consorting with outcasts, sinners, Gentiles and women. He also summed up the Law and the Prophets by the twofold command, 'Love God, love your neighbor'.

Overall, His pattern seems to be - follow the Law, but when in doubt, err on the side of humanity.


so Jesus fulfills the law, in a sense, no longer requiring us to follow it to the letter, or expect a terrible judgment for failing to do so.


'Law' that fails to help people, or that further burdens them, is not Law as God intended it. Law is supposed to guide us into being the We that God put us here to be. It's not supposed to batter us into playing at what we're not, never were, and never will be. Neither God nor God's world is served that way.

And anyone who accuses us of playing grocery-store with the scriptures, yet wants to break down Leviticus into This and That, Yes and No and Maybe, is under the same accusation. We ALL read scripture selectively and interpret it through our own lens; some of us are just more honest about it.



Did I mention that I LOVE my pastor????? :love:

[Joe Brummer]

I really like the last paragraph.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Did I mention that I LOVE my pastor????? :love:
After giving such an answer, I think Jesus would say to your pastor something such as, "You are not far from the realm of God."

Thanks for posting, keltic63.

[revtj]

I grew up Presbyterian and was taught the ceremonial/civil/moral formula for dividing up the OT Holiness codes. I have a lot of respect for it but as I studied the bible further it breaks down for me.

Example: Judges 19-21, the rape of the concubine. The nameless woman is chopped into 12 pieces and mailed to the tribes of Israel.

I do not want to explain that passage of scripture into irrelevancy. I want to lift it up for the sake of women and domestic violence. I want it to stand as is because it says something awesome about trying to force the bible to be something it is not and cannot be for us.

There are, of course, hundreds of similar conundrums of biblical interpretation. God help us all. :'(

[Legion]

The laws have not been exactly "wiped out". Fulfilled would be nearer the mark. The specific laws are no longer the means of salvation, but the principles of the laws are still in effect. For example, while growing up, I would be beaten if I hit my sister. Which I did, now and then. I am no longer beaten for hitting my sister. However, the theory is that after all these years of earthly laws and physical punishments, I have stopped hitting her.
Though I don't know about keltic63's humanity stuff. I would think it would be better to err on the side of the law, due to the fact that humanity is corrupt and wicked and incapable of independently acting rightly.

[Joe Brummer]

Sorry legion, I do not believe that humaninty is corrupt and wicked. I just do not think or believe that is true. I believe that humanity is amazing at acting rightly. It is so incredible to me how rightly it can be. name any disaster, name any cause and humanity is there in full force to do what is right and just. It may not always happen overnight, but is does always happen!

[NonLemming]

This is a good thread. I'm learning a lot by listening and haven't had much experience with this topic. Thank you.

[Legion]

Joe Brummer:
So does that mean you think that mankind has a history of behaving in a consistently moral and upright fashion of its own accord? Or would you agree that it is God's grace that allows humans to act virtuously?
Keltic63:
Of course we all interpret the Bible through the lens of our worldview, regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. However, the primary issue is the nature of the lens. Not every lens is equally valid and an intentionally selective reading of God-breathed scripture is rarely a good idea.

[Joe Brummer]

Joe Brummer:
So does that mean you think that mankind has a history of behaving in a consistently moral and upright fashion of its own accord? Or would you agree that it is God's grace that allows humans to act virtuously?

I think we some exceptions man is moral and just. I do not believe god interacts in that, it would contradict the idea of free will.

[Legion]

Alright, I can agree to that, depending on what you mean by free will. That idea can be problematic since it opens up the possibility that no one would choose God and that the work of Christ would be of no avail, which is of course absurd since a God who can potentially fail is no God at all, or certainly not a God worthy of our entire trust and worship.
But if you mean free will in the sense that men are free to do whatever they want, then, yes, I would agree. We are free to do whatever we want, which happens to be to sin. We want to sin, apart from God. Or at least thats what my Bible likes to tell me, with uncomfortable passages like:
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." -Romans 3:10,11
Also in James it says that we are to submit our lives to God's will: "For ye ought to say, If the Lord wills it, we shall live, and do this, or that."
Throughout the Bibloe there are countless references to God as playing an extrememly active role in the lives of His people, as well as the heathen. Check out practically any book of the Bible, but especiallythe prophets and the psalms and proverbs and also the epistles. Man's will is not his own. We are either in bondage to sin or to God. We are not "free" per se.

[Joe Brummer]

Well Legion, I agree with both of these meanings depending on what philosophy you are coming from. I am not a christian, I am more of an agnostic than anything. I do believe we choose god. One day, for whatever the reason, people make a choice to believe or not believe or like me...I just don't know.

on the other hand, some of what has always turned me from the biblical version of god is just what you speak of here in this post. Yes, god whas very active in people's lives. Parting the seas, speaking to people, sending angels, commanding people to build an ark, or free his people. Jesus was very similar, raising the dead, feeding the masses, etc....

Where are these mass, huge miracles now. Did god get tired and decide he would only do small stuff? Soret od like and actor who doesn't wanna do the big screen anymore. Now, if you say god told you to do something you either need medication or your are on Channel Six with your wife asking for prayer request at $100 a pop.

Was has god stopped the big, grand scale miracles?

[keltic63]

Though I don't know about keltic63's humanity stuff. I would think it would be better to err on the side of the law, due to the fact that humanity is corrupt and wicked and incapable of independently acting rightly.

Jesus prevented the "lawful" execution of a woman caught in adultery. She was about to be stoned, as she should have been according to the law. Instead, he allowed the law to be broken! Jesus broke the law in order to save the woman, in both the physical (literal) sense, as well as in the spiritual sense. He "erred on the side of humanity." He acted "humanely" or with compassion.

[Legion]

Well Legion, I agree with both of these meanings depending on what philosophy you are coming from. I am not a christian, I am more of an agnostic than anything. I do believe we choose god. One day, for whatever the reason, people make a choice to believe or not believe or like me...I just don't know.

on the other hand, some of what has always turned me from the biblical version of god is just what you speak of here in this post. Yes, god whas very active in people's lives. Parting the seas, speaking to people, sending angels, commanding people to build an ark, or free his people. Jesus was very similar, raising the dead, feeding the masses, etc....

Where are these mass, huge miracles now. Did god get tired and decide he would only do small stuff? Soret od like and actor who doesn't wanna do the big screen anymore. Now, if you say god told you to do something you either need medication or your are on Channel Six with your wife asking for prayer request at $100 a pop.

Was has god stopped the big, grand scale miracles?


"But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign. But no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.'" -Matthew 12:39

[Legion]

Jesus prevented the "lawful" execution of a woman caught in adultery. She was about to be stoned, as she should have been according to the law. Instead, he allowed the law to be broken! Jesus broke the law in order to save the woman, in both the physical (literal) sense, as well as in the spiritual sense. He "erred on the side of humanity." He acted "humanely" or with compassion.


"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17,18

[Jamie McDaniel]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17,18
Legion, considering you chose the :tdown: as your icon for one of your previous posts, I'm guessing you feel the verse you typed is a rebuttal to keltic63's post. However, that's not the case. It supports it -- and very powerfully I should say.

The radical Christ, the one who continually scandalized his Jewish brothers who were zealous for scripture, was fulfilling the law and the prophets by disregarding the law for the sake of love.

We sometimes forget that Jesus was operating under the constant criticism of the Pharisees, scribes, and most of the religious leadership of his day. Their number one charge was that Jesus did not believe the Bible (I phrase it as such so it will register with today's Conservative christian rhethoric. Back then they would have worded it like, "This Jesus, a mere carpenter from Nazareth, obviously doesn't have a high view of the law of Moses like we do." They would (and did) work hard to falsely portray him as having a massive disregard for scripture.

So Jesus shot back with the verse you quoted (much more so later in Matthew chapter 23.) Never apologizing for his radical ways, Jesus proclaimed that his ministry, his eating with the "sinners", his touching of those it was not lawful for him to touch, his healing on the Sabbath, his inclusion of women and Gentiles, his opposing the death penalty though it was biblical, all of these things, were the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.

Then Jesus charged the people (and us) with doing the same. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, love your neighbor, and love yourself, he said. Do that, and you too will have done what God requires of you.

[Jamie McDaniel]

You know, I'm going to start placing an accompanying thought whenever I make reference to the greatest commandment. That passage really speaks to those of us who are liberal Christians and we are very fond of quoting it. There is nothing particularly difficult about our reciting the greatest commandment (and the one that was forever paired with it, "love your neighbor." These two are now one and what God has joined...)

But I think the greatest commandment also happens to be the greatest challenge -- for all of us in this life.

[Legion]

Hey Jamie Son of Daniel:
No. Christ did not "err on the side of humanity". He acted with mercy, yes. But compassion is not a exclusively human characteristic. Which was my point.

[keltic63]

Hey Jamie Son of Daniel:
No. Christ did not "err on the side of humanity". He acted with mercy, yes. But compassion is not a exclusively human characteristic. Which was my point.

Now I'm getting angry. You can't even keep the conversation correct when it's right in front of you; you're too busy trying to be sarcastic and condescending. Jamie is not the one who used the phrase "err on the side of humanity" I DID. If this is your behavior in real life, you are giving christians a bad name.

So is your point to engage in civil discussion, Legion? or are you here to stir up trouble and post your self-assured views that whatever you say is correct?

[Legion]

I was specifying to McDaniel which part of your post I disagreed with.