Category: Apologetics

3 Types of Biblical Law Distinguished in Scripture in Response to Same Sex Love

I recently received the following comment on a Facebook post:

If we aren’t stoning women for being married when they are not virgins and we aren’t burning animals then why the hate on gays?

I actually receive variations of this question a lot!  I have found that the best reply is to share the three types of Law found in the Bible: Civil-political Law, Ceremonial Law, and Moral Law. 

Civil-political Laws found in the Bible are those that were given to ancient Israel under the theocracy of God.  The command to stone witches and men who lie with men as men lie with women, would fit into this category.  Since we no longer live under that government, it would be breaking the law of the government we are currently under if we were to drag out the palm readers from their shops and stone them to death, or to hurl rocks at the gay men on the floats at the gay pride rallies. 

Ceremonial Laws dealt with purity and ritual cleansing, the Jews being set apart from all other peoples on earth.  These involved dietary restrictions, circumcision, hygiene, specific dress, and of course animal and grain sacrifices and the many Jewish festivals.  These laws point to Christ, and in light of Christ and his fulfillment of these, we do not have to observe them any longer.  In certain situations it would be sinful for us to do so, such as with the animal sacrifices, that if we made would be a denial of the work of Christ’s sacrifice that was once for all.

Moral Laws are the laws that apply to all people throughout all time – laws of morality – what God desires of us to do and not to do.  All sexual sin, including homosexual activity, would fall into this category of sin found in the Bible, therefore, it would still be sinful for two men to have sexual relations as a man and a woman would have, just as it would be for a man and a woman to have sexual relations if they are not married to one another.  But, we don’t stone them anymore, just as we don’t stone the Wiccans or other fornicators!

[Check out my website: www.contradictmovement.org]

These arguments usually get a well received response, because the people hearing it are usually not Christians and this is all new information that they have never heard explained to them before.  In the case of this Facebook discussion, I received a unique reply because it was from a Christian who had heard who wasn’t foreign to this information:

“I feel like the Cival/Moral/Ceremonial distinction is pretty ad hoc. Rabbis recognize no such distinction in the law they are experts in.  Jesus made it pretty clear to the religious leaders of the time that the distinctions they imagines were in the text were in no way apparent. He then went on to make no such distinction between Moral/Cival/Ceremonial laws in the Torah, do you know who did? Other religious leaders, from a much later time, who had done much less study in the Hebrew bible than either the pharisees to whom Jesus was talking or the Talmudic rabbis upon whom modern Jewish scholarship is based. Is that supposed to be better? If it was really an obvious key to unlocking the OT why did it take until Augustine for anybody to figure it out?

Augustine who by the way was wrong about pretty much every other theological subject about which he spoke.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a better answer than any other answer I know of, and probably has some use in helping us to understand the OT. But that doesn’t change how unsatisfying ad hoc it is. We had a problem, scripture did not have an answer, so we made up this answer after the fact in order to make our problem go away. There is no reason to believe it is true except that it solves the problem and that’s what we think should truly happen…”

I really appreciate this question because it is asking for Scripture!  If there really are such distinctions of types of Law in the Bible, then Scripture should indicate it.

But based on the fact that Ceremonial Laws were fulfilled by Christ and no longer necessary to be observed, and in some cases would be sinful, and the fact that Jesus was pretty clear that his kingdom was not of this world so we wouldn’t be striving to set up a nation that follows the governmental laws of the Old Testament, I see no reason why Jewish Rabbis would be the experts in the Law on this matter as this Christian seems to propose.

I recognize that these divisions are tough to piece together in Scripture, especially since the words Civil-Political Law, Ceremonial Law, and Moral Law are not used in Scripture.  Despite the absence of these categorical labels in Scripture, it doesn’t mean the teaching of these divisions isn’t present, because many accepted words in Christian Systematic Theology are not in Scripture, such as the Bible, the Trinity, and Sacraments.  The following is my best shot to put together Scriptural support for the three types of Law distinguished in the Bible:

Acts 15 – The first Church council distinguished Ceremonial Law!

The need for the distinction is established in verses 1 and 5:

Vs 1 – “But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'”

Vs 5 – “But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'”

James comes to the conclusion that circumcision isn’t necessary (vs. 19).  But he does command them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from meat that came from animals that had died by strangulation, and from blood.  The things that he commanded of them not to do were things that fell into the realm of weak and strong brother issues (except that of sexual immorality) which can be seen to be explained in Romans 14.  James essentially said, “Don’t be circumcised; you don’t have to observe that Law, but with these other ceremonial issues, please avoid them so as to not offend or cause problems with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who are Jewish and still find such practices to be unclean!” At which point, I’d point you to Romans 14 for more clarity.

Paul and James on observance of the WHOLE Law. 

In his letter to the Galatians Paul addresses circumcision and how it is unnecessary:

5:3 – If you accept circumcision, then you must keep the whole law.

5:4 – Are you justified by law, or by grace?

5:6 – Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith through love.

5:11 – If I still preach circumcision, why am I being persecuted?

Through this chapter we see that Paul is placing circumcision into a different type of law, because clearly Paul still taught the law, just not certain parts of the law to be observed any longer.  He still commanded us to seek holiness and do the things of Christ (the Moral Law).  A good way to establish what is Moral Law vs. Ceremonial Law would be to ask what laws would fall in line with loving God and loving your neighbor.  Ceremonial Laws pertain to keeping one’s self and community ritually clean, where as Moral Laws focus on one’s relationship with God and neighbors through love.  The Moral Laws would be the Laws that Paul still preached!  He didn’t preach the need for circumcision, dietary laws, or any of the Jewish sacrifices, festivals, or days of observance.  He concludes chapter 5 in his letter to the Galatians by listing the works of the flesh that we SHOULD abstain: “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these” (vs. 19).  The things that we SHOULD have present in our lives in accordance to the works of the Spirit of God are “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.”  Moral Law stuff – these things still apply to all people as things to do and pursue and things not do and pursue.

James takes a similar approach as Paul to the observance of the whole of the Law of God.  Whereas Paul says if you accept circumcision you are obligated to keep the whole Law, James flips it and says if you have kept the whole of the law, but have stumbled in just one part of it, you are guilty of breaking all of it, for you are a lawbreaker (James 2:10)

The Book of Hebrews Demonstrates the Unnecessary Observance of Ceremonial Law

When I was first asked, where are the distinctions of types of the law in Scripture, I thought – THE WHOLE BOOK OF HEBREWS!  But here is a sprinkling of verses from the Book of Hebrews to demonstrate the distinction:

7:27 – We have no need for the high priests of the order of Aaron or for their sacrifices.

8:5 – What should we make of the Ceremonial Laws? “They serve a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things.”

9:8-10 – “By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age).  According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.”

10:1 The Law [referring to all the ceremonial laws mentioned throughout the preceding chapters] is but a shadow of the good things to come!

10:28-29 – Don’t put away the blood of Christ by keeping the ceremonial, sacrificial system of the Law of Moses.

Civil-Political Recognized in Scripture

Romans 13 – Paul provides instruction to submit to the governing authorities that were put in place by God, essentially to keep order in society by punishing the evildoer and rewarding the person of good works.  We must observe the laws of the land, essentially!  The theocracy of God that was established with certain laws for that nation in the Old Testament is no longer an established government, therefore we shouldn’t hold to them.

The Jews of Jesus’ day didn’t just go by those rules either.  This is evidenced by John 18:29-32.  The Jews wanted to kill Jesus, but they had to go to Pilate, because it was unlawful under Roman rule for them to execute anyone. This shows that the Jewish leaders were submitting to the law of the land, the law of Rome in this case.  This means the Civil-Political Laws of Israel in the Old Testament were essentially abolished at this point.  They were trying to observe them, but could only do so in as much as Rome allowed them to keep them.

In John 8, Jesus demonstrates this principle, or recognition of Civil-Political Law when handling the stoning of a woman caught in adultery.  I must note however that this passage of the Bible isn’t in our earliest manuscript copies however.  In this passage, Jesus says, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”  They could have been sinning by stoning the lady caught in adultery, because they weren’t also stoning the man, who apparently they let off the hook.  Or… maybe Jesus was recognizing Civil-Political Law, knowing that they would be breaking Roman Law by executing her. 

Jesus further demonstrates this principle of Roman Law being the Law of the Land and not the Civil-Political Laws of the Old Testament by responding to a question about paying taxes by saying, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s” (Luke 22:19-26).  

As to Civil-Political Law, we should submit to the Law of the Land as Paul exhorts in Romans 13, but we should not do so at the expense of God’s Moral Law.

Daniel and his amigos demonstrate this in the Book of Daniel.  They still kept the Ceremonial Laws, because Christ had not yet come, but they also kept the Moral Law, praying to God and not bowing to worship the Babylonian king.  They faced due penalty for it too, however, God spared them from that penalty through supernatural intervention.

Peter addresses how to handle Civil-Political Laws of the Land that go against God’s Moral Law by stating, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Distinction in the Old Testament

So far, the distinctions of these laws have been drawn from the New Testament, which I think is the correct place to draw them since the Ceremonial Laws foreshadowed Christ and until his arrival and fulfillment, we wouldn’t have been able to fully understand their proper role.

But… I found looking at CARM’s website an article on these distinctions:“Leviticus18:22, 20:13, homosexuality, shellfish, mixed fabrics, and not being under Old Testament Law”

In the article, the author Matt Slick, notes that certain laws were given to “the Sons of Israel” whereas other laws were given to “the nations”.  And when you look at the laws given specifically to Israel, we see that they were Ceremonial Laws, and when they were given to all people, they were Moral Laws.  Check out the linked article above for more details.

[Check out a review of my book, Contradict – They Can’t All Be True]

There is plenty more that can be shared and written on how these types of the law are distinguished in Scripture, but this is a good start I believe.  What do you think?  What verses would you add?  Or do you think the verses I have shared don’t support a distinction in types of the Law?

Andy Wrasman5 Comments

Believing without seeing, isn’t believing blindly!

Someone posted in response to an article about providing answers and evidence to non-believers as they raise their doubts and objections to Christianity by saying, “Blessed is he who believes without seeing.” In reply, I say:

Yes, Jesus did say that, but at the same time he did show his wounds to Thomas, and he did show himself to the other apostles. He appeared numerous times and one time to even 500 people at once according to the early Church creed recorded in 1 Corinthians 15. In other words, Jesus didn’t leave everyone in the 1st century doubting about why the tomb was empty. He made it known, and though he hasn’t shown himself to everyone, the recorded testimonies of the apostles always pointed to their firsthand witness of the resurrection, and the witness and knowledge of their audience. Essentially they were in the business of providing evidence to support the good news of Jesus Christ and his life, death, and resurrection. They weren’t asking people to believe “blindly” and we shouldn’t do that either.

Michelangelo Merisi (or Amerighi) da Caravaggio's painting of Jesus showing and letting Thomas touch his wounds.
Michelangelo Merisi (or Amerighi) da Caravaggio’s painting of Jesus showing and letting Thomas touch his wounds.

Andy Wrasman1 Comment

The Blind Men and the Elephant – The Response!

The following is an excerpt from my book, Contradict – They Can’t All Be True (FYI – the spacing doesn’t always transfer correctly from my PDF file to the blog):

Drawing by my friend Danny Martinez.
Drawing by my friend Danny Martinez.

A popular analogy that depicts an “all religions lead to God” form of pluralism is the story of several blind men touching various parts of an elephant and being unable to agree on a single description of the creature they’re touching. This story has connections to Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Sufi Islam, a mystical branch of Islam. The story is found in the teachings of the Buddha within the Pali canon of Theravada Buddhism. One of the most popular versions comes from a nineteenth-century poet, John Godfrey Saxe, who rewrote the story in rhyme.

Though there are minor discrepancies among the versions, they all present the same basic scenario: since each blind man is touching a different part of the elephant, they disagree on what the elephant actually is. The one touching the tail might think the elephant is a broom; the one touching the side of the elephant might think the elephant is a wall; the one touching
the elephant’s trunk might think the elephant is a snake. Individually, they each know a part of the elephant accurately, but not the sum total of the animal. They fail to grasp what the elephant actually is because of their blindness. Their dispute is futile since they are all mistaken.

It is pretty clear how this story can be used within the framework of pluralistic relativism. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and the like are all touching the same sacred elephant, God. But because all of humanity is spiritually blind, we are incapable of knowing God as he actually is. Any fighting among religious faiths is thus futile.

On the flip side, the good news within pluralism is that every religion is true based on what its adherents have experienced of the sacred reality. Since all religions have touched the sacred elephant, all religions lead to the same divine truth. Religious pluralists argue that if humanity could only come to “see” this predicament, all religious fighting could stop. We could recognize what each religion has learned about God and, by compiling the parts of the whole, come to a better understanding of who or what the nature and personhood of the sacred reality is.

The view of the divine expressed by the sacred elephant analogy is plausible and worth considering. Before considering the accuracy of its assertions, I want to stress the pluralistic uses of the story. Far from saying all religions are true, the story of the blind men and the elephant takes all religions and throws them under the bus, where they are left broken in their false perceptions of ultimate truth. As hopeful as this story can appear, in reality it just drops the bomb on absolute truth, at least absolute truth concerning God. The blind men show us that truth concerning God is unobtainable due to our limited faculties.

Skepticism toward God doesn’t invalidate this brand of pluralism. The problem lies within itself. Nestled within the story of the blind men and the elephant is a self-contradiction that makes the entire claim crumble in on itself. The pluralists claim that God is unknowable; every religion is wrong about its perceived understanding of the divine. However, in making this claim, the pluralists also implicitly declare they have an inside track on who God is. If no one is capable of knowing God due to our lack of sight in the realm of the divine, then what prescription glasses have enabled the pluralists to know the nature of God with such certainty? Pluralists are rejecting all exclusive truths concerning God, but making one themselves.

End of excerpt from Contradict – They Can’t All Be True.

In my book, I intentionally wrote with a non-Christian voice for the first six  chapters.  I first present what religious pluralism is and why its so dominant in our culture and society right now.  I then demonstrate how religious pluralism doesn’t actually work logically.  Responding to the elephant analogy was near the end of that section of the discussion before moving into presenting an evaluation of religious truth-claims and ultimately landing on the trustworthy nature of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth to save us from sin and death and reconcile us into a right relationship with God!  Since I wasn’t ready to let it out of the bag that I was a Christian yet in that stage of the book writing process, I didn’t  respond to the elephant analogy the way I typically would.  The following is a more complete Christian response to this popular analogy:

A critique of this parable would contain the following points:

  1. This parable is actually claiming that all religions are false.
  2. This parable makes all aspects of life subjective.  There is no absolute, objective reality that we can be certain we are experiencing correctly.  If absolutes don’t exist in a way that we can comprehend them, morals and ethics also become subjective.  There would no longer be such a thing as right and wrong.
  3. Any exclusive religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are forced to give up their claims to exclusivity to fit into the inclusive, pluralism which this parable projects.
  4. With Christianity’s exclusive claim that Jesus is the only way to salvation, all other religions would have to be false if Christianity is true, or Christianity could be false and other religions true.  This does not fit with the elephant analogy at all.
  5. The original telling of this legend has a king who sees the blind men groping at the elephant arguing about what they are touching.  The king reveals to them in laughter that they are all foolish men that they are all touching the same reality, the elephant!  This is very interesting that the original legend has a word from above revealing the truth to the blind men.  This indicates that the truth is actually discernible – we might just need some help from someone up above.
  6. The original ending of this parable lends itself very well to Christianity.  Christianity teaches that help did come from above.  That God has revealed himself to mankind through what he has created as well as through special revelation from the Scriptures and in particular through the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, taking on flesh and walking amongst us, revealing the truth to us, healing the blind and helping them see.  This revelatory claim of Christianity isn’t even considered or introduced in pluralistic uses of this parable.

Conclusion: Declare truth where truth is found!

It seems clear that all religions cannot be fully and equally true.  There are direct contradictions within the teachings of the world’s religions, such as Jesus is God (Christianity) and Jesus is not God (Islam), which eliminate the possibility that all religions are true.

This however doesn’t mean that aspects of the truth cannot be found within various religions.  Christians would do good to point these truths out from time to time.  If Christ’s claim is true that he is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), then all truth would be God’s truth, no matter where it is found.  Where truth is found, declare it, use it, put it in its full context of which it is fully and directly revealed from God in the Bible.  The Apostle Paul did when he quoted the philosophers of the Athenians (Acts 17).  We can do it too!

Andy WrasmanLeave a comment

True for You, But Not True for Me (Or is it?)

 

Truth is not opinion

When speaking with famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, on his Fox News program, The O’Reilley Factor, Bill O’Reilley told Dawkins, “I can’t prove to you that Jesus is God, so that truth is mine and mine alone. But you can’t prove to me that Jesus is not God, so you have to stay in your little belief system.” O’Reilley’s statement fits into a view of truth called relativism. It is common to hear relativistic expressions within and without the Christian community. Relativism holds that truth is relative to each person’s experiences, culture, and needs. Since such guideposts for truth are not universal, truth is subjected to individual determination.  Approaching all truth claims from a relativistic approach fails in three specific ways: failure to distinguish between subjective and objective claims, denies basic laws of logic, and is an inherently self-contradictory worldview.

First, relativism fails to distinguish between objective and subjective truth claims. Subjective truth claims are relative to each individual, because these claims deal in preference and personal opinion, often based on experience and feelings. For example, the best seats at a movie theater are the front rows. There are less people there to bother you, you don’t have anyone sitting in front of you to block your view, you always have a middle seat, and the screen encompasses the totality of your vision. I think the majority of the population would disagree with my claim, judging from my experiences of sitting by my lonesome in the front few rows of movie theaters. Others claim that the middle rows are the best. Others assert the back rows are superior. “The front rows are the best” is a true statement for me, but it might not be true for you, because determining the best row in a movie theater is based on subjective values.

Objective claims on the other hand lie outside of one’s individual partiality and experience for determining their truthfulness. They are unbiased claims that are determined to be true based on external realities that can be verified or tested.   Objective claims pertain to facts, not opinions. Sticking with movie examples, the Best Picture of 2013 according to the Academy Awards was 12 Years a Slave. That is an objective claim. It can be factually verified to be true or false. If it were simply stated that 12 Years a Slave was the best movie of 2013, it would be a subjective claim, because everyone has a different opinion on the matter, but the specific Oscar winner of the 2013 Best Picture award is not a matter of opinion. A movie either won or did not win the Oscars for Best Picture. Relativism fails to realize this distinction by handling objective claims as if they were subjective, which is what Bill O’Reilly failed to do, when saying that “Jesus is God” is his truth, but not Richard Dawkins’ truth.

A second failure of relativism is its denial of basic laws of logic. When relativists state that all religions are true, they reject the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that “A” cannot equal “Non-A”. This means a statement cannot be true and not true at the same time in the same respect. Plugging statements into this equation, “Jesus is God” (Christianity) cannot equal “Jesus is not God” (Judaism and Islam). Already, the Law of Non-Contradiction has disproven the notion that all religions can be true, however the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Identity further demonstrate relativism’s denial of reason. The Law of Excluded Middle states that “A” is either “A” or “Non-A”. This means an objective claim is either true or not true.  Jesus is either God or he is Not-God. Finally, the Law of Identity dictates that “A” is “A”; a thing is what it is. Therefore, if “Jesus is God” is a true statement, Jesus must be God.

A third failure of relativism is that it is a self-contradictory worldview. Relativists declare, “All truth is relative.” Yet, in their rejection of the existence of absolute truth, relativists are making an absolute truth claim themselves. If a relativist says, “There are no absolutes,” ask him, “Are you absolutely certain?” If a relativist says, “All truth is relative,” ask him, “Is that relative?” Such simple questions in response to relativism reveal the self-contradictions within such a worldview.

To answer this question directly, objective truth is not a matter of opinion. Jesus is God or Jesus is not God. We cannot have it both ways.   The truthfulness of these two positions is not contingent upon our subjective experiences. This means that it is intolerant to claim that all religions are true, because it would require the erasure, or change, of all exclusive teachings within all of the world’s diverse religious faiths to make them one. If relativism is not intolerance in action, then it must be ignorance that fails to distinguish between subjective and objective claims, denies basic laws of logic, and embraces an inherently self-contradicting worldview.

Consider ordering my book Contradict – They Can’t All Be True! 

 

Andy WrasmanLeave a comment

Why Does God Allow Evil?

The problem of evil is presented as follows:

An omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate evil.

An omnipotent God would be able to eliminate evil.

Yet evil still exists.

  1. God is willing to eliminate evil but not able. Therefore he is impotent.
  2. God is able but not willing. Therefore God is malevolent (lacking goodness).
  3. An omnibenevolent and omnipotent God must not exist.

Kenneth Samples in his book, Without a Doubt, provides 3 answers for how to respond to this objection to the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God:

1.  Free-will
2.  God would allow evil for a time if it would produce a greater good.
3.  For God to eliminate evil in a way that would produce a greater good, it might not be instantaneous or painless, even for Him.

The following video shares these arguments in much more detail:

After posting this video to Facebook, I received the following two comments:

1.  “Without faith it is impossible to please God. . .” Theology is wonderful, but too often many are left-out, because it is complex, controvertible, and can be confusing. The BEST answer is we can trust that God is good, because Jesus died on the Cross for us, took our sins and shared our sufferings: (1 Corinthians 2:2), was testified to by the prophets and fulfilled the prophecies: ( e.g. Psalms 22, Isaiah 53) .” – Dennis Tsiorbas

2.  “There’s a recently released book from CPH called “Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections,” where Dr. Angus Menuge’s chapter gives a wonderful response about how typical answers to that question (God has a plan, it’s for a greater good, good still outweighs evil, etc.) are all ultimately unsatisfactory, and the best answer to the question of what God is doing about evil is the cross of Jesus Christ. Highly recommend the entire book (save, perhaps, one chapter) to anyone interested in philosophy or dealing with typical “new atheist” objections.” – Joe Hanson

I agree with them and here is my reply:

I think explaining free-will and what life would be like if that were completely stripped away and explaining how God will allow evil for a time if it will produce a greater good are necessary to show how evil and the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God are not incompatible, but then closing with Christ as the ultimate example of this demonstration of God allowing evil to produce good is superb. Depending on the situation, I think this is a good baby-steps answer up to the cross of Christ. Just going straight to the cross of Christ is typically good, but for this objection I really do like to baby-step it, because through the process of the arguments it will dawn on the person for God to completely eradicate evil, God would have to remove all of us from this world, once that seeps in, and the person recognizes their sinfulness, the best answer of the cross is truly good news.

I like to ask people, “What’s the most evil act that has ever occurred in human history?” I offer that God dying in the person of Jesus by the hands of his own creation is the greatest act of evil ever to have occurred in history, and that from the worst evil, came the greatest good – salvation for mankind.

Andy Wrasman5 Comments