# Distinguishing between Ceremonial and Moral laws



## Afterthought (Oct 24, 2011)

Oftentimes, I've heard that some (though I know not if they are correct or not) ways we can distinguish between ceremonial and moral laws is that (1) if a practice is said to be an abomination in God's eyes, it must be moral because what God detests at one time He detests at all other times, (2) if a law bound more than the Israelites, then it must be moral because only they had to keep the ceremonial law, (3) if something is referred to as "iniquity" it must be referring to the moral law. (I've also heard it argued that the death penalty given for breaking a law shows its moral nature)

Yet in Leviticus 17, we find

Laws that appear to be ceremonial yet applying to the "stranger" among Israel. Indeed, such have to make sacrifices for the wrong doing here, which seems to imply moral sin of some sort (though I could be wrong in my notion of that). Although, I must admit the strange caveat that the strangers are to be "cut off" from the people if they refuse to make atonement.

"8And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, 

9And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people. 

10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 

11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 

12Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 

13And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust."


We find laws that appear ceremonial yet speak of bearing inquity (and there are others).

"15And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. 

16But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity."


In Leviticus 11, we find laws that use "abomination" without qualification yet in a cultic sense. Although admittedly, concerning the other food laws, the term "abomination" is used in relation to the people, not God. If I can find another example I'll get it, or if anyone else remembers one (if there is any other), let's look at that instead.

"42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination. 

43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby."


Indeed, it appears the use of "cultic" language is often applied to what we usually see as moral laws (e.g., that of being defiled, or making oneself abominable, or making oneself unclean).


Now, perhaps there may be some special exception in the examples I chose that shows the law to be ceremonial, but are there special exceptions in all such like cases? If not, what in general can we infer about or use for distinguishing between ceremonial and moral laws (perhaps that the things I referred to above do not necessarily a moral law make and that cultic language does not necessarily make a ceremonial law?)?


For those wondering, yes, this has to do with my other thread, haha. Just preparing and refreshing my memory concerning some of these issues.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 25, 2011)

Bumping the thread.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 25, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> Oftentimes, I've heard that some (though I know not if they are correct or not) ways we can distinguish between ceremonial and moral laws is that (1) if a practice is said to be an abomination in God's eyes, it must be moral because what God detests at one time He detests at all other times, (2) if a law bound more than the Israelites, then it must be moral because only they had to keep the ceremonial law, (3) if something is referred to as "iniquity" it must be referring to the moral law. (I've also heard it argued that the death penalty given for breaking a law shows its moral nature)



Out of curiosity, where did you hear this?


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 25, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Out of curiosity, where did you hear this?


I'm not really sure. It's one of those things that one finds in one's head, yet one is not really sure how it got there. It's probably a conglomeration of what I've seen argued at pro-theonomic places, anti-homosexual sites (like Mr. Gagnon's; he's the one who argued the "iniquity" thing, albeit, in the context of a cumulative argument), stuff here, and whatever I was taught growing up.


----------



## MarieP (Oct 25, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> I'm not really sure. It's one of those things that one finds in one's head, yet one is not really sure how it got there.



I've heard the same thing about the use of "abomination." Can't remember where either.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 26, 2011)

Bumping again. From David Dickson's _Truth's Victory Over Error_:

"Quest. III. "Are all the ceremonial laws abrogated under the New Testament?" 

Yes; Col. 2.14,16. Dan. 9.27. Eph. 2.15,16. 

Well then, do not the Judaisers err, who maintain, That all the ceremonial laws remain, in their former strength and vigour, and are obliging to believers under the gospel, and not abrogated or disannulled by Christ? 

Yes. 

By what reasons are the confuted?
......
8th, Because they were given to the Israelites to foresignify, and represent Christ and his death, and to be marks of difference between them, and the unbelieving nations, Col. 2.17. Eph. 2.14. where it is said, Who hath made both these namely Jews and Gentiles, one; and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, whereby the ceremonial law is understood, which made a difference between the Jews and Gentiles. Now since Christ hath suffered death, and the Gentiles are called, all these ceremonies which did foresignify his death, and made that difference, of necessity cease."

Also, it appears that ultimately, we can see what is moral or not by whether they relate to the Ten Commandments, though how to do that in an objective manner, I'm not sure.


Not trying to detract from the actual topic at hand in the OP (It doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with the three points I made in my OP because "unbelieving nations" are different from strangers living in Israel); I just wanted to post something a little more than "I'm bumping this thread."


----------



## py3ak (Oct 26, 2011)

Given the examples you posted and what you quoted from Dickson, it looks like only the 2nd of the 3 criteria you posted has much validity.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 26, 2011)

^It certainly seems that way. It does run into some "complications" though.

Leviticus 18:19
"Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness."


Compared with Leviticus 18:24-28 makes the above seem to have to be moral according to this scheme (not that I have a problem with that if it is moral, but it seems some would say that was ceremonial, as also seen from a previous PB thread, though I do not know the old Reformed opinion on this verse):

"24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 

25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 

26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 

27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled; ) 

28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. "


And without the "abomination" rule, Deutoronomy 22:5 may need to be decided on other grounds, and I'm quite certain those who argue for its morality due so on the basis of the "abomination unto the LORD thy God" (unless "all" really means "all"):

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."



(Incidentally, even though it wasn't part of the 3 I mentioned, I'm quite certain now that Charles Hodge was the one who originally put it in my head that the death penalty showed that a law was moral from his defense of the perpetuity of the Sabbath.)


----------



## Todd King (Oct 26, 2011)

I'm not sure if this answers your question or not, but moral laws tie back to the 10 Commandments. Basically, due to our sinful nature, God had to extrapolate out the 10 to show all of the different nuances of each.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 26, 2011)

^Yes, that does help and makes sense; if the Ten Commandments are a summary of the moral law then any law that is moral is an application/extension of them. But the problem to me seems to be how we can objectively arrive at which laws are applicatons/extensions of the Ten Commandments and which aren't.


----------

