Many evangelical Christians distinguish between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws, when it comes to the Law (Torah). My question is, how valid is that?
Did ancient Israelites think in terms of such categories? Such that, if pressed, one could discount a ceremonial or civil law, but not a moral law?
Here’s a common “fer instance.” God said not to eat pork or shellfish, or wear clothes that mix wool and linen. He also said to keep the Sabbath holy (however interpreted).
Many evangelicals eat pork and shellfish, and wear mixed-fiber fabrics, and even go to work on Sundays. (Sunday/Sabbath is another topic, but then they often work on Saturdays too, so there’s that.)
So why is it now okay to breach those rules, but not other rules (like how to treat slaves, or stone unruly kids)? Sometimes they try to boil it down to just the Ten Commandments, but even that brings up the Sabbath thing… ?
(And of course they try to make such rules universal/full time when it suits them, such as the whole anti-gay “lay with a man” thing.)
I can’t speak to what distinctions the Jews themselves made among the laws, but Christian fathers noted that the 10 Commandments were given prior to the rest of the Mosaic law; the remainder of the precepts were given only after the Golden Calf incident (the implication being that God always wanted them to follow the 10 Commandments, but the rest of the Mosaic law was imposed as a punishment for their faithlessness).
The 10 Commandments’ preeminence is shown in other ways as well: They are the only laws that God gave in writing, and the tables were kept in the arc of the covenant, so even on a plain reading of the narrative, those 10 were special.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)