Hi Bob(x1):
The subtle subtext here is that we, you and I, will answer this question differently; or that this question pertains more to me than it does to you. But DOES it?
No, the dividing line between “moral and ceremonial” (or between the “10 and the rest of them”) is incredibly unfortunate, and perhaps of not so much use. Did I make that distinction? Sure. But why did I do that?
Well, lets be honest: am I to place on an equal moral plane killing with the using of two fabrics in the same garment? Good heavens! Don’t we ALL recognize that as absurd?
Of course Jewish scholars would find such a distinction utterly out of line and of little usefulness. Yet don’t you make similar distinctions? Don’t you find not killing to be on a higher moral plane than weaving two fabrics in the same garment? Which of course is the fascinating thing here because the text, as you note, does not make these kinds of distinctions! So no, I’ve go no texts – but neither do YOU! So you are quite right in that this distinction I’ve offered is one of modernity – it is not one made by the folks back then, nor of Jewish scholars who followed.
But if this is a “hook” upon which I hang, I fail to see that you do not hang there with me.
Which of course I hope you realize brings us much closer to the position of Kelly here! For she has said something similar; it is ALL moral and is ALL a reflection of God’s character. (sorry Kelly if that paraphrase is too imprecise)
Here’s what has (ok; I’ll just blurt it out…) “bugged” (ok, to read “frustrated”) me about the line of thought I believe you’ve put forth here (or at least implied): The claim is made you are no longer “under the law” and yet you remain committed to not killing, or stealing, or committing adultery. But isn’t THAT the law? So which exact law are you “no longer under?”
What I don’t “get” is the shiftiness of saying we are no longer under the law, yet still believing it’s pretty reasonable to order our lives under the law; that is, keep the 10. (or the nine for most of you…)
OK: lets do an experiment. Let’s assume that we all can agree that there really is some sort of “hierarchy of morality” (the thing we probably both agree the Jewish scholars DON’T recognize…) and lets make a list. Most important to least; violations of which are most egregious, to the least.
- killing
- denying/blaspheming/cursing God (theoretically this should be placed first; so maybe 1A and 1B. or switch places. But lets face it: killing is a far more tangible evil that disparaging a distant and unseeable God. Let’s not get hung up here; both are bad!
- violating another’s property; disrespecting him by dishonoring his ownership; stealing…
- bearing false witness; lying; speaking untruths about another (perhaps a form of “killing” in that one seeks to assassinate another’s character)
- committing adultery
- envy/coveting (come on! who’s really harmed here?)
seamlessly (?) merge here into the non decalogue portion of “the law”
- do not reap the corners of your field (abstract maybe, but a potent visual of giving the poor among us a break; charity; the cup of cold water and all that…)
- don’t have sex with animals; don’t draw your drinking water downstream from where you eliminate bodily wastes; (all quite practical, and to good purpose and sensible…)
- the seemingly completely irrelevant things like not using two fabrics in the same garment.
(Please recognize this list as merely for discussions sake!!! I recognize the list will vary in countless ways given countless circumstances!!! This hierarchy is partly what auggy has been bringing our attention to…)
Lets just admit here straight away that it’s unlikely we will endorse a system which equates killing with some of the more mundane and seemingly (to us) irrelevant commands.
And where might I place “violation” of the 4th commandment? Probably down near 5 or 6 to be honest; though higher than you would place it. And I’m guessing you’d place it somewhere below 7, or maybe below 8. I’m not sure.
Except there’s something that makes us uneasy about even making a list like this isn’t there? Like maybe we don’t have the “right” to; or maybe in so doing we miss some important truths??? Or maybe wonder if we err in making, if indeed the law is a “transcript of God’s character” (that’s a phrase heard in my denomination) these sorts of divisions to God’s character…
Ah; maybe this is it. Yes; some good Old Testament firmness. Here’s what it says: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
That settles it doesn’t it! Break one, you’ve broken all! And isn’t that the kind of thing we’ve said through the years? Old Testament: all about salvation through the law…
Except that’s not Old Testament at all – it’s New! James 2:10. Yup. The same New Testament which supposedly has “done away with” the law.
So what exactly IS it that we both are uncomfortable with in the above scenarios? Yes, we see a reasonable hierarchy, yet no, we also see the unity of God’s law and prescriptions??
Here’s what I think it is Bob:
What’s WRONG with the above is that it asks, in essence, WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO?? What will help me reach the mark? How can I measure up?
But that’s entirely backwards from the transformed heart we have all agreed that God desires.
For the transformed heart asks, instead, WHAT DO I GET TO DO?
It’s like night and day. How may I serve You Master? Not because I must, but because I’m privileged to!
And therein lies, I’m suggesting, the difference between the way YOU approach the 4th commandment and the way I do. You say, why do I have to keep it? I fulfill it in other ways and other days…. (therefore I feel no obligation to it today)
I say, Wow! I GET to keep this day Holy! Cool idea God!
And I think this difference is, in at least good part, why the Jewish scholars so dislike our distinctions…
Does this mean that I am a better Christian than you? or more mature in the faith? or closer to God? or more holy?
Good heavens NO!!
Do I believe I see a piece of the puzzle that you don’t? You bet I do!!! And I thank God for it and wish I could share it with YOU!!
Anyway, getting wordy again… must sign off.
Much more could be said, but that’s kind of the gist of it…
Bobx3
(auggy; I hope this helps answer your above question… If not, can you please rephrase it for me?)