Sex with the ex

[WirelessRouter]

Biblically, there are no divisions in the Mosaic law, civil, moral, or otherwise. The law was never even a moral code because then one could be morally right (e.g. righteous) by following it, which we know is not true because Paul hammered that idea into the dust. We have been set free from the law through our death with Christ. Full stop. End of discussion. Romans is not unclear about this. That covenant has been done away with. Again, this is unambiguous so many different ways. Y'all can choose to believe whatever you want, but I choose to believe the Bible over theologians. Especially with an issue as plain as this one.

P.S. Years ago Paul had a great blog post related to this topic.

[Irnmyk]

I think that we are conflating issues here.

That the "old covenant" was nailed to the cross, and we are under a "new" one I don't think is in dispute. The question is what do we do with what we know (due to our study) about the principles taught by the "old" one.

Remember that the "Ancient Tribe" was a Theocracy. The church was the state. The state was administered by the Priests - the Levites.

The civil and moral laws, and, yes the food laws, were given to insure a people - a people that would be a different people than the Pagans around them - that would be ready for Him to deliver a Savior from (which we know now what happened).

At one point, when His people abandoned His laws, and "did what every man thought was right in his own mind", he hauled them off into captivity and scattered them and started all over again with just a remnant.

That remnant must have taken things pretty serious because when Jesus arrived, they seemed not to have a problem anymore with idol worship, and had developed full-fledged Pharisee-ism - made a fine art out of religion.

All that said, when Jesus substituted His blood on the cross for the blood of many, many bulls and goats (that couldn't get us there) he didn't wipe what we see about the "mind of God" from what He taught his people in previous times regarding civil, moral and food things.

As much as I like shrimp and oysters, I certainly don't want to be bound by those old rules. And, who among the Christian world doesn't eat pork now that we have refrigeration and understand how important cooking it completely is?

But, back to the topic, that doesn't mean that if a man re-marrying a woman that had been defiled by another man was an abomination to God back then, that it isn't now. (To my way of thinking, at least.)

God is about relationship - then and now. The Ten Commandments were about relationship - between ourselves and between us and Him. The moral laws were about relationship. I think the principles never died.

I still think the principles still apply, not as rules - to be administered by a Priest class, but as guidelines that will produce a quality (and righteous) life for his disciples.

I also think that the New Testament writers, from whom we get our knowledge of the "new covenant" assumed that the readers were already familiar with the moral living called for by the "old system", so they didn't set about establishing a new set of rules. Most of the "do not do's" in the NT refer back to the old Jewish code, and in some cases, special provision for Gentile converts new to that system had to be dealt with.

These are just a few thoughts that have come to me as I have read along in this thread.

One more thought occurs that I'd like to add: God hates sin - divorce being named as but one among many sins mentioned - but he does not hate sinners. He paid a HUGE price for us sinners. Those of us that don't have divorce in our past to deal with have other baggage issues that makes us equally guilty of being separated from a just God by our sin, reconciled only by His Son's blood.

[David]

@Irnmyk I think I broadly agree with you.

The question really is how we interpret and relate to the Old Testament law in light of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
The law had several purposes, and one of those purposes was moral - it teaches us right and wrong. Jesus didn't change what's morally right and wrong, which is why we still teach our kids the Ten Commandments, and is why the Book of Common Prayer included in its liturgy a recitation of the Ten Commandments along with a response after each of "Lord, incline our hearts to obey this law". The Ten Commandments are also included in various catechisms and declarations of faith.

Much of the Law in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy is actually expounding the Ten Commandments, and is helping Israel to apply the principles of the Law in various situations. That will apply slightly differently to us today, for instance we no longer live in a theocracy, so determining the temporal punishment is the job of the secular authorities. Similarly, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is the one perfect sacrifice for sin, so there is no need for priests to continue to offer sacrifices for the atonement of sins.
That's why theologians use the categories of civil law, ceremonial law and moral law - they're trying to help us to understand what different aspects of the law are teaching us as an aid to understanding how we are to relate to them today. God's moral standards haven't changed, so where the law is teaching us what is right and wrong, that still applies.

I think there's an element of that in Deuteronomy 24, which is why I think the prohibition still stands, although it is true that it's not purely telling us right from wrong but is also forming part of the legal code of the nation state.

[Hiswifeagain]

That's why theologians use the categories of civil law, ceremonial law and moral law - they're trying to help us to understand what different aspects of the law are teaching us as an aid to understanding how we are to relate to them today. God's moral standards haven't changed, so where the law is teaching us what is right and wrong, that still applies.

I think there's an element of that in Deuteronomy 24, which is why I think the prohibition still stands, although it is true that it's not purely telling us right from wrong but is also forming part of the legal code of the nation state.

Given that, how do we apply this passage? It is not my intention to cherry-pick verses so I'm open to hearing if this doesn't apply for some reason, but this passage came to mind after reading your post quoted above. I read from the beginning of James and as I understand it James is teaching on how we apply religion to our lives and he seems to imply the "royal law" is now the standard to follow.
Bible:

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. James 2:8-13

ETA: Paul seems to be saying virtually the same thing in Galations 3:10-14Bible:

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[a] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Don't these verses demonstrate the futility of trying to apply the old law to the new Covenant?

[David]

I think it depends what you mean by applying the old law to the new covenant.
It's not a simple question to answer, and Christians disagree about exactly how to interpret and apply the Law given through Moses today.

The law has different purposes. One purpose of the law is to tell us what sin is, and that hasn't changed. Lying, theft, murder, coveting, adultery, idolatry and the like were wrong under the old covenant and are still wrong under the new. There's continuity there, and the New Testament doesn't re-make those laws.
However, other aspects of the Mosaic law no longer hold because they were for a particular people in a particular place. The land of Israel doesn't belong to Christians, so laws about dividing up the land don't apply. Similarly, we no longer need priests or a temple because they were a shadow of what was to come, and now that Christ has come they've fulfilled their purpose.
James and Paul are saying that we're not saved by keeping the law. That's true. We're saved by Christ's death on the cross paying the penalty for our sin because we haven't kept the law. However once we're saved what then? Do we keep on sinning so that grace may increase? No! We're to turn from our sin and live upright, Godly lives. How do we know what sin is, so that we can turn from it? Because God tells us in the law what sin is.

[LBD]

@David: "There's continuity there, and the New Testament doesn't re-make those laws."

In fact....Jesus does remold many of those laws, and gets to the heart of the matter.
Bible:

Mat 5:21-22  “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’  (22)  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Mat 5:27-28  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  (28)  But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Mat 5:31-32  “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’  (32)  But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mat 5:33-35  “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’  (34)  But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,  (35)  or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:38-39  “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  (39)  But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[SeekingChange]

!	Message from: SeekingChange
	Please remember guideline #7: 7. Know when enough is enough. Please feel free to state your point of view and go back to clarify if necessary, but know when to stop too! If a line of discussion has dwindled to a back and forth between two or three people rehashing the same arguments, make your final point and then drop out of the discussion. ....