Levitical Law, how does one determine?

[keltic63]

I pulled this from another discussion at the request of u-dog. I've often heard this statement that there are 3 types of law, yet I've never heard any scriptural foundation for dividing them.


Originally Posted by ml1 http://www.soulforce.org/forums/sfstyle/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=24160#post24160)
Here is the answer:

The Bible has 3 types of law, two of which were overridden by Christ:

1. Ceremonial Law - written specifically for the Jews predating Christ and governing exactly HOW they were to worship God. It dealt with things that were "clean" and "unclean." One example is Passover. They were to slaughter an unblemished lamb that would act as the recipient for the guilt of the sins of the family. From a NT perspective, this was pointing to the final sacrifice of the Pure Lamb of God, Christ. So the OT Jews were not saved by the animal itself, but rather by their faith in a symbol of something to come. This Ceremonial law was abolished or made irrelevant once Christ was sacrificed for us. He came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." In other words, modern Christians no longer have to follow the OT ceremonies to worship God.

2. Moral Law - Basically, the "moral intent" of both the OT and the NT. The ten commandments, the 'golden rule,' etc. This law still applies, and is consistant between the testaments. Adultery is bad in both. So is lying, stealing, dishonoring our parents, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. This was NOT abolished by Christ.

3. Judicial Law - The Judicial Law was basically the governmental regulations given by God for the Nation of Israel. It was how they were to react to every situation. This is where the whole stoning of adulterers thing comes in. Christ clearly abolished both the limitations of belonging to the nation of Israel to be a follower of God AND the rules and regulations that nation had to follow. This is why his reaction to the whore who was to be stoned was to say, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Could you tell us which scriptures inform us as to how we decide which laws are Ceremonial, Moral, or Judicial?

The best answer to this question really needs to come from scripture.

[andrewlittle]

I pulled this from another discussion at the request of u-dog. I've often heard this statement that there are 3 types of law, yet I've never heard any scriptural foundation for dividing them.


Could you tell us which scriptures inform us as to how we decide which laws are Ceremonial, Moral, or Judicial?

The best answer to this question really needs to come from scripture.:D :D :D

Have I told you I love you lately. (And you too, u-dog)

I'll sharpen up my brain a little and be prepared for some fun. This is the stuff I love.

[kara speltz]

I pulled this from another discussion at the request of u-dog. I've often heard this statement that there are 3 types of law, yet I've never heard any scriptural foundation for dividing them.


Could you tell us which scriptures inform us as to how we decide which laws are Ceremonial, Moral, or Judicial?

The best answer to this question really needs to come from scripture.

Not sure I agree with that Keltic. I think common sense in this could apply. My first response is that ceremonial and judicial change as we come to know more about the Universe. Though as I write that, I find myself wondering if that might not always be true of moral laws. It would be so easy if everything was black and white and there were no grey spaces in between. The older I get the greyer everything becomes:eek:

It seems to me slavery was always immoral, even if it was condoned in the bible. And only 150 years ago the Vatican was holding to a line that said that slavery was not against natural law and was not intrinsicly evil!!!!!

But this sure makes for some interesting dialogue, doesn't it?

kara

[pnggrad79]

Not that I am any biblical scholar, but my understanding of Levitical law is this-all of it was God's way of showing us that we desperately needed a Savior. We are a stubborn people who don't take God at face value and need to be shown that we are in need of a savior and that we cannot hope to please a holy God in our own pitiful efforts. I believe this is why Jesus boiled all the prophets and laws into two basic principles-Love God and Love others. That is what it is all about. God knew we couldn't live the life He originally intended for us to live, so he made provision for remission of our sins in Jesus's death on the cross, and then sent the Holy Spirit to help us live the life of Christ when we lay down our lives to let Christ's life be in us and be shown to others through us.

Sadly, I think this basic principle is lost among a lot of people who call themselves Christian. There have been scores of things done in the name of God, that were nowhere near what He ever intended to be done. Love God and love others. If we did that, we wouldn't have the world we live in today. Gay people wouldn't be discriminated against and families wouldn't disown their own children for being gay, and slavery would never have existed, and the Spanish Inquisition would have never happened, the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, etc... Love God and love others. Very simple, yet we have made God so hard and mean. God's love is very complex, yet so beautifully simple. He made it that way. Why do we make it so hard?

[andrewlittle]

1. Ceremonial Law - written specifically for the Jews predating Christ and governing exactly HOW they were to worship God. It dealt with things that were "clean" and "unclean." ... This Ceremonial law was abolished or made irrelevant once Christ was sacrificed for us. He came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." In other words, modern Christians no longer have to follow the OT ceremonies to worship God.

2. Moral Law - Basically, the "moral intent" of both the OT and the NT. The ten commandments, the 'golden rule,' etc. This law still applies, and is consistant between the testaments. Adultery is bad in both. So is lying, stealing, dishonoring our parents, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. This was NOT abolished by Christ.

3. Judicial Law - The Judicial Law was basically the governmental regulations given by God for the Nation of Israel. It was how they were to react to every situation. This is where the whole stoning of adulterers thing comes in. Christ clearly abolished both the limitations of belonging to the nation of Israel to be a follower of God AND the rules and regulations that nation had to follow. This is why his reaction to the whore who was to be stoned was to say, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

I basically agree with the tripartite breakdown of the laws, although not necessarily some of ml1's commentary. Overall, however, it seems workable to me.

Missing from his description of moral law are the laws of the prophets.

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth."
Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled."

Among other passages referring to the law and the prophets are Matt 7:12, 11:13 & 22:40, Luke 16:16, Acts 13:15 & 28:23, Rom 3:21.

This distinction becomes important because of Matt 22:
36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
37 He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 This is the greatest and first commandment.
39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The laws of Moses are the Ten Commandments, which basically fall into one of two categories - how to revere and worship God or how to co-exist with each other. The laws of the prophets, in an oversimplified but useful synopsis, dealt with extending the concepts of care beyond just the Israelites themselves, and to strangers, widows and orphans (no stipulation generally on being Jewish), the poor, oppressed, etc.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

These laws are consistent with the teachings of Jesus throughout the New Testament.

The other laws, such as those found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy for instance, were traditionally attributed to Moses before the advent of any reasonable critical exegesis. We know, as Jesus seemed to, that these laws were developed much later than the time of Moses. (Although inerrentists and legalists may have problems with this generally accepted scholarly opinion.) Even logically following the history (OT as theological development as opposed to historical timeline), the Levites became the priestly class and became most significant after Moses' death.

The laws in Leviticus and other OT writings expanded, to some extent, on the ten commandments, but largely strayed from them considerably into areas of ceremonial and social legislation - prescriptions, proscriptions and punishments.

By the time of Jesus there were two main groups who had oversight of these laws, with one being further broken into two camps that sometimes contested with each other for power. The scribes, grammatewn (from gramma meaning written account or written law), were the keepers of the legal code of the Hebrews. The Pharisees and Sadducees were the keepers of the ceremonial and religious laws, and the first were also commonly the teachers.

Jesus contended with the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes repeatedly in his parables and actions, leading, of course, eventually to his crucifixion. Jesus was contending with those who were legalistic, authoritarian, and callous in their application of laws.

I do not believe, and many scholars agree, that the Levitical laws were developed as God's intention for righteous living - but as the tools by which the religiously powerful gained and maintained control of the Hebrew population. They set themselves up to be the arbiters of "righteousness". By teaching and enforcing these laws, their hegomony and wealth (and they were among the wealthier and more powerful Hebrews by the time of Jesus) were assured. To me, the only reason Jesus railed against them was becasue they were not "of God" but "of humankind".

There is a large amount of evidence that, of all the OT writings, Leviticus and Deuteronomy have been the most revised and redacted. These "laws" developed over a long period of time, presumably as situations arose which threatened the power of the priesthood. (Now where have we seen that in play?).

Jesus' parables and actions sought to bring attention back to the essentials - love God, love neighbor - and to demonstrate the inherent inequities and unrighteousness of legalistically following the Levitical laws.

[u-dog]

Keltic: Could you tell us which scriptures inform us as to how we decide which laws are Ceremonial, Moral, or Judicial?... the best answer will be from Scripture

Kara: Not sure I agree with that Keltic. I think common sense in this could apply.

Keltic is right Kara. Michael and his PCA community have constructed (or adopted) an elegant theological argument but because it is an "inerrantist" argument it rises and falls on whether or not Scripture itself (god writting through human instruments) articulates it. so the question stands: "where in Scripture is this system commended to us?" a further and more basic question would be "where does scripture commend the inerrantist view of scripture to us?"

Uncle Andy: I basically agree with the tripartite breakdown of the laws, although not necessarily some of ml1's commentary. Overall, however, it seems workable to me.

Andy, your body may be old and slow and ugly, but your mind is as agile, svelt, and lovely as ever. You never cease to amaze me. Your arguments are subtle, well reasoned, and thorough... even convincing! But I don't think that they work if you are an inerrantist. (Ironic isn't it? that a critical biblical scholar is able to confirm the ideas of an inerrantist but only by resorting to arguments and methods that an inerrantist might find repulsive?)

So, anyway, I still want to hear the answer to Keltic's question from Michael. Where does God say that the law is divided into three parts, two of which have been made obsolete by Christ and the other not?

Also, two tangential but not unrelated questions for Michael and PCA:

1. What are your teachings about the Sabbath (fourth commandment)? will you ordain men who are willing to work on Sunday? Presumably Christ has not rendered any of the TEN obsolete, right?

2. Will you ordain (or even baptise) men who are remarried following divorce? or does the PCA require divorced men to live celibately?

[tpdncr4christ]

Would be great here... I would love to show some of my religious right friends any peice of scripture that talked about these three laws. They always wonder why I don't believe much of what is said in the Bible, and I tell them I listen to what Jesus said, and the Commandments, but I just read the rest of it; I don't actually practice anything but Jesus's words. If there is a scripture that says or defines these three law types, I would love it...

[Pablo Rafael]

Why are you guys starting all these interesting threads during Holy Week. Don't you know that we Catholic musicians run ourselves ragged at this time of year!

I researched a little on resources that I have at home I found an interesting essay Concepts of Purity in the Bible by Jonathan Klawans (A Jewish Biblical scholar) regarding ritual laws and moral laws. Following is a very abbreviated quote.

The bulk of the religious purity laws concerns situations and substances that render one ritually impure, and therefore temporarily unfit to encounter the sacred. Ex: childbirth, skin diseases, fungi in clothing, genital discharges, the carcasses of certain impure animals, and human corpses.

That the sources of ritual impurity are natural is really quite clear and unavoidable. It is not a sin to contract these ritual impurities. Ritual impurity is contagious but is not a sin in itself. As long as Israelites remain aware of their status and avoid contact with the temple and holy objects while impure, there is not danger of transgression.

Moral impurity consists of committing acts so heinous that they are considered defiling. They include, certain sexual sins, idolatry, and bloodshed. These abominations bring about an impurity that morally, but not ritually, defiles the sinner, the land of Israel and the sanctuary of God.

While ritual impurity is generally not sinful, moral impurity is a direct consequence of a sin.

Ritual impurity results in contagious defilement.

Moral impurity leads to the long-lasting degredation of the sinner and eventually the land of Israel.

While ritual impurity can be ameliorated by rites of purification, that is not the case for moral impurity. Moral purity is achieved by punishment, atonement or best of all, by refraining from committing morally impure acts in the future.

I don't know if this clarifies anything, but I found it interesting.


Also in the same book I found an interesting note on Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman.")

Biblical and ancient near eastern culture was not familiar with homosexuality in the sense of a defined orientation or lifestyle. It acknowledges only the occasional act of male anal intercourse, usually associated with an act of force associated with humiliation, revenge or subjection.

I thought this comment was more reasonable than most comments I have seen in Bible commentaries. Most comments I have read use this passage as the primary passage to condemn same-sex orientation.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[BrentRichards]

Many excellent points here ... speaking as someone who embraced the anti-gay arguments and interpretations for a long time, I have to say that the "three streams" argument is A. quite prevalent in the evangelical community B. widely accepted by rank and file evangelicals, and C. indefensible from the Scripture (IMHO). It's one of the arguments I used, but one that fell apart for me fairly early on.

The three categories, though logically useful, are simply never set out in the Levitical Code, or any Biblical commentary on it (it could be in Talmudic or other rabbinical tradition, I couldn't say). Even if the categories are valid (which can't be shown Biblically), we would then run into the problem of how to tell which law belongs in which category ... inconveniently enough, they aren't labelled or color coded or anything. Ultimately, even those of us who hold to a very high and authoritative view of Scripture have to acknowledge that Levitical Law does not provide a basis for Christian ethics.

Jesus, of course, said that he did not come to destroy the law, but that the law through him might be reinforced ... no wait, that wasn't it. Selectively enforced? No ... hmmm... Oh, that's it, FULFILLED. Now, I have a contract with some folks called GMAC. I send them an excessive amount of money each month, and they in turn allow me to keep my car. When the balance on that contract hits zero, my contract is FULFILLED. Guess how many monthly payments I'll send them after that? Similarly, Jesus having fulfilled the law means that the Levitical code, in an of itself, has NO BINDING EFFECT on Christians. We don't have to "send in our payments" any more! We must get our ethics elsewhere in Scripture.

An interesting view on the Levitical issues, as related to us, is in "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Dan Helmeniak. Extensive discussion of the difference between "unclean" and "immoral" ... not entirely sure I buy his argument 100%, but it's a thought provoker, anyway.

Side trip: Has anyone seen "Trembling Before G-d?" Great documentary, dealing with how Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish people reconcile their faith with their homosexuality. Powerful.

[u-dog]

GREAT POST BRENT ! The analogy of the car payment is excellent. I will remember and plagerize it from now on! (let me know where to send the royalty check). The issue of what Jesus means when he says "fulfill" is right on the money. I have always understood him to mean that he has subsumed the law into himself and that from now (then) on HE would be the source of our morality and ethics. Certainly that is what Paul argues in his letter to the Galatians.

What you said about the "three streams" theory being biblically unsupportable was also good. I have asked four different times for Michael or Steve or somebody to show us where scripture commends this system to us. I wonder why they haven't responded? could it be?... hmmmmm.

Logo aired the documentary you mentioned "Trembling before G-d" it was fascinating.

[andrewlittle]

The three categories, though logically useful, are simply never set out in the Levitical Code, or any Biblical commentary on it (it could be in Talmudic or other rabbinical tradition, I couldn't say). Even if the categories are valid (which can't be shown Biblically), we would then run into the problem of how to tell which law belongs in which category ... inconveniently enough, they aren't labelled or color coded or anything. Ultimately, even those of us who hold to a very high and authoritative view of Scripture have to acknowledge that Levitical Law does not provide a basis for Christian ethics.
I agree entirely. I did not pick up that the three categories all had to do with Leviticus. I believe the Levitical codes and much of Deuteronomy make up the legalistic abuse that Jesus railed against.
GREAT POST BRENT ! The analogy of the car payment is excellent. I will remember and plagerize it from now on! (let me know where to send the royalty check). The issue of what Jesus means when he says "fulfill" is right on the money. I have always understood him to mean that he has subsumed the law into himself and that from now (then) on HE would be the source of our morality and ethics. Certainly that is what Paul argues in his letter to the Galatians.
You're going to have another source of income, Brent. How long will the contract be for those royalty payments, anyway?
Side trip: Has anyone seen "Trembling Before G-d?" Great documentary, dealing with how Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish people reconcile their faith with their homosexuality. Powerful.
I'm not a movie-goer, but I saw that one when it was first making the rounds in small movie theatres. Powerful movie - very sobering - I cried.

[BrentRichards]

Royalties ... hmmm. And I'm not even a queen! (Sorry, that was bad, but obvious, so I had to take it.) Free use, as long as you don't blame me for it ... in case it turns out not to work.

[u-dog]

ONE OF US WOULD HAVE !!!:lol:

[revtj]

This delves into biblical "gay bombs," the texts of terror used against us. (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/03/video_digging_d.html)

Very interesting.

[andrewlittle]

This gentleman used language, and even speech patterns, that should be very familiar to those of who have been involved with conservative, and many times non-denominational, Christianity. I don't mean to say that this man IS conservative or non-denominational, but that his approach would be comfortable and familiar to those folks.

It also seems, because of his approach, that he may be addressing a young adult crowd - but, that's a guess.

Either way, it is probably the most affirming lesson about GLBT, given in a style and langauge comfortable to conservative Christians, I have ever witnessed. The points I might be inclined to take away for presentation and preparation, I would gladly give back for content, authenticity, believability, and his promotion of critical thinking for Christians.

Who is this guy? Do we know?