[soc.religion.christian] Eternal Law of God

davidbu@tekigm2.men.tek.com (David Buxton) (10/05/89)

The mosaic law is never equated with the eternal moral code which  operated
from  the  very beginning of human history.  Although they were not written
down until Mount Sinai, the Law of God was understood and  honored  by  the
earliest patriarchs.

It is impossible for sin to  exist  where  there  is  no  law.   The  Bible
teaches,  "for  where  no  law is, there is no transgression"  (Rom. 4:15).
Again we are told, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth  also  the  law:
for  sin is the transgression of the law"  (1 John 3:4).  This principle is
amplified further by Paul's statement that "I had not known sin, but by the
law:  for  I  had  not  known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet"  (Rom. 7:7).

These verses nail down the truth that no sin can be imputed where the  ten-
commandment law is not in effect.  God's statement to Cain about "sin lying
at the door"  (Gen. 4:7) was in reference to his killing Abel, a  violation
of  one  of  those  commandments.   This is proof that the moral law was in
effect at that early date.  Later, Joseph revealed that he was aware of the
binding claims of that same law.  he said to Potiphar's wife, "how then can
I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?"  (Gen.  39:9).   He  knew
adultery was sin.

Abraham was commended by God in these words:  "Because that Abraham  obeyed
my  voice,  and  kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws"
(Gen. 26:5).  It is very obvious that  the  law  which  Abraham  faithfully
obeyed  was  not the law of Moses, because that law was not given until 430
years later.  And we  have  just  established  that  the  ten  commandments
existed  before  Abraham,  condemning  even Cain for murder.  Neither is it
possible for us to conceive that great, godly Abraham  was  not  acquainted
with the basic issues of right and wrong contained in the ten commandments.

It is absolutely certain that another law was added 430 years later, and it
was  in  addition  to the one Abraham kept so diligently.  "And this I say,
that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God  in  Christ,  the  law,
which  was  four  hundred  and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it
should make the promise of none effect"  (Gal 3:17).

The context of  this  verse  indicates  that  Paul  is  talking  about  the
ceremonial law rather than the moral law of the ten commandments.  In verse
10, he refers to the curses "which are written in the book of the law."  We
know this had to be the mosaic law because, as we have already noted, there
are no curses recorded in the law written on stone.

Can we find further confirmation that this later law was indeed the law  of
Moses?   The  answer  rests in Gal. 3:19.  "Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of transgressions till the seed should  come  to  whom
the  promise was made . . . "  Here we have two significant facts set forth
concerning the law which was added.  We are told why it was given and  also
how  long it would remain in effect.  These two bits of information will be
considered very carefully since they contain  compelling  evidence  in  the
case.

FIRST: WHY WAS IT GIVEN?  The verse  clearly  states  that  it  was  "added
because  of  transgressions."   This is most revealing because we have just
established that "where no law is, there is no transgression"  (Rom. 4:15).
One  can't  be guilty of transgressing a law which does not exist.  In this
case, one law obviously did exist; and it had been  "transgressed,"  making
it  necessary  to  add  another  law  430  years  after God's covenant with
Abraham.  And since it is recorded that "Abraham obeyed  .  .  .  my  laws"
(Gen.  26:5),  we  have  to  believe  that  that earlier law, which Abraham
observed, was the ten commandments.  Moses had not yet been  born,  and  it
could not have been his law.

So what must we conclude from this evidence?  The ten commandments had been
transgressed,  making  it  necessary  to  add  the  ceremonial  law.   Upon
reflection, this makes a lot of sense.  If a law is made forbidding murder,
and  it  is  broken, then another law would have to be enacted to prescribe
the penalty or punishment for breaking that first  law.   We  have  already
established  that  the  ten commandments contained no curses (penalties) or
judgments (punishments), but the mosiac law was characterized by those very
things.

SECOND:  HOW LONG DID THIS "ADDED" LAW REMAIN  IN  EFFECT?   The  Scripture
says  ,  "Till  the  seed  should  come."  There is no controversy over the
identity of that seed.  It is Christ.  But do we have evidence that the law
which  was blotted out and nailed to the cross was indeed the law of Moses?
Whichever law it was, it is designated as the "handwriting of  ordinances."
Nowhere  are  the  ten commandments identified as ordinances.  That term is
applied to local legal codes which are very narrow  and  limited,  such  as
"town ordinances" which extend only to the city limits.  In comparison, the
ten commandments are more like the constitution of the United States.

I tinkered with Joe Crews' material a little bit.

                               by Joe Crews
                               Amazing Facts
                     P.O. Box 680 Frederick, Md 21701

pgaughan@nmsu.edu (Patrick Gaughan) (10/08/89)

>The mosaic law is never equated with the eternal moral code which  operated
>from  the  very beginning of human history.  Although they were not written
>down until Mount Sinai, the Law of God was understood and  honored  by  the
>earliest patriarchs.

True, but the eternal moral code was never equated to the Ten
Commandments either.  I agree that the patriarchs knew the
commandments and laws of God from the very beginning, but that
the law WAS the Ten Commandments is not self evident.  For example,
there is no reference of the patriarchs observing the sabbath before
the law of Moses.

Here is one reference to the passing of the old law that I have not
seen used yet:
"But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at
the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory
was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more
glorious?" 2 Corinthians 3:7,8.

He refers to the law written and engrave in stone.  That seems like a
very clear reference to the ten commandments and the rest of the law.
In fact this verse is alludingecifically to the ten commandments since
it is refering to the time when Moses' face shined so brightly that it
had to be covered (Exodus 34:29-).

I am not saying that the all of ten commandments are not to be
observed.  At least nine of them are repeated as principles of the new
law. Observance of the sabbath is not.  
"Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or
a new moon or sabbaths"

Patrick Gaughan
(pgaughan@nmsu.edu)

daemon@garage.att.com (Joseph H. Buehler) (10/13/89)

It's a mistake to look at the 10 commandments as a purely arbitrary act
of God's will.

The principals behind the 10 commandments are eternal.  They can't be
any other way.

It's called the natural law.  Human beings should act according to right
reason, in accordance with their nature.  For example:

God made us from nothing, and preserves us in existence from moment to
moment.  Therefore, we should show Him some respect: "Thou shalt not
take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain."

All 10 are like that; there's some intrinsic undelying reason for the
command, something underlying that must be, and cannot be any other way.

What else could the law be?  Thou shalt kill?  Thou shalt occassionally
insult thy father and thy mother?

lohr@wsqtb8.crd.ge.com (P. J. Lohr) (10/16/89)

I almost hate to jump into the fray, but someone has to come to the defense
of those who agree with both sides of the arguement, and see the only 
disagreement as one of emphasis.

I believe that the 10 commandments are both a binding moral code, separate
from the ceremonial law given as part of the Mosaic covenant (which has 
been superseded in Christ), AND that we are not bound by any law other than
that which is written on our heart.  The reason I can say these seemingly
contracdictory statements is that I believe that the moral code of the 10 
commandments and the law written on our hearts (or DNA) are one in the same.  

The difference in how to treat the Sabbath "law"  comes in how literally we 
take the written commandment.  The key to the correct balance is in 
Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28 (and other places) where Jesus teaches us that in God's 
eyes, to lust (which the commandments don't mention) is actually no different 
than adultry and hatred, no different than murder.  In this Jesus shows us
that God is not so much concerned with physical acts as the attitudes of our
heart.  

How this relates to the Sabbath is that we ARE commanded to set time apart
in our week to rest, and seek and worship God.  No one can disagree that this
is also written on the hearts of all believers.  However, based on Jesus's
teachings I must believe that God is concerned that this is a desire of our 
hearts and not that we strickly adhere to a particular time schedule (Jewish
Sabbath). 
 
                                                     Phil Lohr
                                                     lohr@crd.ge.com
                                                     uunet!crd.ge.com!lohr

[hmmm....  Yes, we haven't heard that much from the middle ground.
There are certainly two "pure" positions.  One says that all of the
specific commands of the Law still apply.  The other says that
"anything goes".  As far as I can tell, almost no one in this group
has taken either of those extreme positions.  By and large the
"legalists" manage to limit their observance to some portion of the
Law, e.g. the 10 Commandments.  And I don't think we've heard from any
true "libertines".  Even those who reject the Law's specific authority
seem to recognize that there are moral principles that are constant,
and that the Law is one embodiment of them.  So we've been hearing
from people who I would more or less characterize as "semi-legalists"
and "semi-libertines".  In fact I suspect that your position is more
common than the "semi-libertine" position among those who worship on
Sunday.  Actually, I'm tempted to classify your position as
"semi-legalist", and say that you simply draw the line between the
moral and ceremonial Law differently than those who keep the Sabbath.
A common exegesis is to say that the specific institution of worship
on Saturday was part of the Jewish ceremonial law, and passes away
together with circumcision, the kosher laws, etc.  However the general
principle of regular worship is part of the moral law, which is still
binding.  In general, those who adopt your position tend to use the
term Sabbath to refer to Christian worship on Sunday, because they see
it as carrying out the intent of the Sabbath law.  Those who reject
the Law generally also reject the use of the term Sabbath to refer to
Christian worship, preferring "the Lord's Day".  --clh]