Old Doxoblogy

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

'Moral' Law

Is there really any other kind? Isn't this just a redundancy?

If it is God's Law then it is moral. We have a moral obligation to comply with it. And consider the implications if God gave a law that wasn't moral.
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." (Rom 7:7)
Just some thinking fodder.

5 comments:

Peter D. Nelson said...

Is there any other kind? I assume this is rhetorical Jeremy. Then these presidents and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, "O King Darius, live forever! All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked."
(Dan 6:6-8 ESV)


Above is a classical example of an immoral law. Now granted all of God's law are "moral" ie: good or right. But are the laws regarding what you can or cannot eat(kosher)dealing with ethics? I say no, the dietary restrictions were to identify Israel as "God's peculiar people" (ESV has treasured possesion Deut. 14:2)and different from the rest of the people. When I speak of "moral" law I am talking about those laws that speak to the ethics of the people what is right or wrong.

Jeremy Weaver said...

Is it therefore 'a'moral for the Jews under that Old Mosaic Covenant to disregard the dietary regualtions which had been imposed by God?

Peter D. Nelson said...

Jeremy when David ate of the bread of the Presence he sinned against the Lord according to the Law (Lev. 24:9). Yet God allowed it. Why? Because David's heart was right with God. So what was more important to God at that time?

Like wise if a Jew during the Mosaic Covenant willfully violated the dietary restrictions was his sin the dietary violations or his hearts intent?
And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
(Mar 7:18-19 ESV)

Jeremy Weaver said...

Actually, I think God allowed David to eat the consecrated bread because of necessity.
I would agree that God does not view some matters as weighty in certain circumstances, this fits the context in Luke where Jesus and the disciples are plucking corn and cooking it on the Sabbath.
But to argue from this one instance and say then that the whole ceremonial aspects of the Law were 'a'moral is not correct.
Certainly God requires obedience at all times. And I would agree that the sacrifices were not pleasing to God when the weightier matters of the Law were being rejected.
But again, this does not create an instance of "Obedience when it is convenient." Rather, these are exceptions to the rule.
God commanded all things in the Law and He expected all things commanded to be done. To have disobeyed willfully, not out of necessity, would have been immoral.

ThirstyDavid said...

I think we have a lot of immoral laws</ignorant wisecrack>