Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.