Lamentations of a single woman.

[CecilW]

I am somewhat taken aback by the comment that the first wife does not have the authority or right to make the decision regarding adding another woman into the family. ... Don't get me wrong, our husband ruled the house and family, but my opinion is that life is better if the women are involved first.

No-one here suggests that wives should not take an active role in the process, BluGrnIz4U, only that the husband makes the final decision, and carries the final responsibility. Not the wife or wives. And that there are times when he needs to act from principle, not giving in to a wife's tirade or insecurities. One example would be where the new relationship has progressed past the point where he has effectively made another his wife. Another would be if the Levirite law is being invoked.

Yes, Sarah offered Hagar as a second wife to Abraham. This is not, however, stated in Scripture as prescriptive (it must follow this pattern) but only as descriptive (it is what happened in this case). He had the right to accept his wife's suggestion or not. And in doing so, he should not have been submitting to her will / leadership, but making his own leadership decision -- preferably after consulting his own Boss.

Did Abraham do right in accepting Hagar to wife? *shrug? Dunno. Doesn't say. I propose that he did poorly as a husband to Hagar by not liberating her from bondage to Sarah and normalizing her relationship to that of a full wife, but that is strictly my own personal opinion.

Btw, I'm glad you had such a wonderful first experience of PM. Sorry you lost them. Hope your next family is as fulfilling.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Another would be if the Levirite law is being invoked.

Cecil,

How do you see this being invoked, i.e. by personal choice or because it is a universal mandate? Is this in your view a mandatory law for all today? Where do you class this, as a moral law, ceremonial law?

 

[CecilW]

Not as a moral law (10 Commandments, spoken by God from Sanai), fer sure. Those 10 stand in a class by themselves. And Moses made a point of writing just after their re-iteration in Deuteronomy, "These God spoke from the mountain, and He added nothing more.

Further, even in that day it was understood as a "should" rather than a "shall". There was honor for doing so, and dishonor in refusing, but it wasn't a life or death issue like having sex with your favorite goat.

Having said that, I do believe that the "law" or, perhaps "rule" is universal in application. In other words, if your brother dies without heir, it is honorable in all places and all times for all people to take your brother's wife and raise up a child in his name. Refusing to do so is dishonorable, though neither you nor she nor your society may even be aware of it.

However, as it happens there are many societies which have or have had this rule operating in them in one way or another. I therefore believe that it is something which God put universally into men's hearts long, long ago. In the nature of those things meant when the Bible says that even heathen know many things to be right or wrong 'cause God put them there.

This falls under the same classification as dietary laws. Better health to eat "clean" meats, and since God said we should, we should. Not a life or death "you're going to hell" issue if you don't. But if your intent and motive is to please God, not figure out how little obedience you can get away with, why not do what He said?

Let me put them this way: Moses spent 40 days with God on the mountain. Twice if memory serves. Didn't even manage a burger and fries between! Apparently God taught him and he wrote out a bunch of stuff in addition to "The Ten" which God Himself inscribed on tablets of stone and therefore set apart as unique and which presumably still exist somewhere in the currently "lost" Ark of the Covenant.

Of those which Moses wrote out, all are indeed moral. God didn't tell him to write no immoral stuff. However they are in a different class.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Cecil,

I have some questions for you. You said:

Of those which Moses wrote out, all are indeed moral. God didn't tell him to write no immoral stuff. However they are in a different class.

How does that square with this other statement of yours earlier in that same post?

Not as a moral law (10 Commandments, spoken by God from Sanai), fer sure.

Did not Moses write/record the entire law code in Scripture? As you say, he could not write any immoral stuff. So if that is the case who decides with authority which laws are moral laws and which ones are ceremonial and thus not morality issues? Is it not true that if someone broke a ceremonial law that was indeed also a violation of the law and thus immoral? I am unclear as to how you can claim or support an idea that purposeful disobedience to any law no matter what it is classed as would be anything but a moral violation or a breach of duty and order before a holy and righteous God. For example, was there not a penalty imposed for failing to offer the right sacrifices and even in the right place at the right times (see Leviticus 17:4, & 8-9)? Was it not true that failing to even obey some ceremonial laws like washing would result in death (Exodus 30:20)?

I'm not wanting to derail this thread into a discussion on the law but there is a point I have that will go back to the original point of this thread after I figure out how to figure your comments into the whole. I'm confused as to your dual statements and your division of the law into moral and non-moral as ceremonial while there are still penalties associated with each of the laws, even the ones you call moral and the others that would I guess fall into your ceremonial classification. (?)

If you feel better about it we can move this over to the debate thread so it is not dangerous to the original intent of this post. Either way is fine as I'm not out to make a scene over these points with you but I sure am confused as to how your comments can all align and fit harmoniously and then even apply back to the original idea being discussed here.

**Special note: if you are reading this and you're not Cecil how about let him answer these questions as I do not want to get too far off into a debate over this and not be able to get back to the original thread subject; there is a related point from this but before I add that I'd like to get Cecil's clarification on his own position before moving along.**

Maybe even along that vein is a more proper question: how many law classifications do you see in the Bible? I know you have referenced the moral law, the ceremonial law, the dietary law, and natural law.

You also say that a "should" is not the same as a "shall." Where is that supported in the Hebrew terms? For example in Exodus 35:1 we find the "should" that translates the Hebrew term asah which parsed is in the Qal Infinitive construct (an active voice verb). This is the verb after the idea of God "commanding" which is from the tsvah which when parsed is in the Piel perfect tense and means a command that is to be obeyed. Yet too even in what would be ceremonial sacrificial laws we see that the Hebrew term shall is only such by its verbal ending. Many many words are translated with the verb shall added to the root: For example: Exodus 30:9 is alah, and it is attached to a sacrificial ceremonial law. Also "rachats" in Exodus 30:20 is another verb with the shall added to the root and applied to the law of washing lest they die for not doing so. But that too was a ceremonial aspect so would that not in your theology mean that even ceremonial shoulds and shalls are still binding?

I know you have said that ceremonial law can change but not God's moral law. But where do you find that disobedience to ceremonial law was still not considered immoral? The penalty for a violation of not washing, a ceremonial aspect, was indeed enough for one to die over. In your words you say a violation of some laws, like ceremonial (?) maybe as you class them, is not as serious as a moral classification but does not that conflict with the overall data of terms, even in regard to the shall connected to the Exodus 30:20 washing law? In your words it seems like yoyu're saying some laws, like ceremonial shoulds are not as important as moral shalls. Or in your words:

it wasn't a life or death issue like having sex with your favorite goat

How do you justify internally from the Bible the various classifications of laws into moral, civil, and ceremonial and then claim that one class is moral yet disobedience to let's say a ceremonial is not also an immoral act? The way it looks to me a command of God is a command of God. A should or a shall is a law as both imply a moral obligation or principle of ought on the ones it is spoken to and thus where do you find room to divide the two consistently? If you are saying "shall"s apply to all moral laws which carry the death penalty for violation then how would that square with the fact we have "shalls" connected with ceremonial laws that you seem to be saying do not carry the same weight of a death penalty?

I guess I am sitting here hoping you should enlighten me but hoping you shall not if you're right that shalls always carry the high penalty of a moral violation like death. Or maybe it does not matter either way and whether you should and do or shall and will it all boils down to the same :shock: :? Just kiddin there. But I am seriously curious as to how you harmonize all of that consistently.

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Allen,
When most of us who use the distinction between moral, ceremonial, or civil laws refer to the "moral law" we are identifying those laws given by God at anytime, including the 10 in Exodus 20, that relate to or regulate moral behavior. We are not saying that one set of laws are moral and others not so much. Some laws regulate the ceremonial behavior of sacrifices and offerings, but not moral behavior, yet violating them could be considered a moral failure. Some laws regulate the management and ownership of property, the violation of those laws would be a civil infraction, and in so doing would be a moral failure. However, neither civil laws or ceremonial laws regulate the moral character of a man and his relationship with God. The "moral laws" do.

I wanted to point this out because I sensed a confusion of terms in the last post. Of course, I could be wrong, happens every ten years or so. Right now I'm working on my allotment of errors for the year 2247. :lol:

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Thanks Pastor!

On my end what I am trying to discern is how does Cecil harmonize the idea of moral violations versus violations of ceremonial or dietary laws. How can disobedience to any law, moral, dietary, or ceremonial be anything other than sin from his perspective? And is not all sin a moral violation? In other words, is it not more biblical to classify all sin as immoral, or against God's order for what is moral or right?

And if only violation of the moral law category is sin to the degree justifying death then why do we see even some ceremonial violations that justify death?

All of this relates to the issues of the single woman, especially in regard to the Levirate issue and single women in this era.

But before I can ask and propose an idea I need to get clarification from Cecil in how he sees all of those laws and how they work and harmonize together, especially since in his position he says ceremonial laws can indeed change from one era to another.

 

[CecilW]

Sorry. Discussing this topic on forums is starting to bore me. Those who look for an excuse to ignore what God spoke on the mountain in the hearing of all, and wrote on tables of stone with His own finger, will do so regardless of what I say. But I wonder where they find an equivalently definitively order abrogating it?

You're not the only one, Keith. And it certainly is off topic for this thread. See ya at the retreat. Talk then if you like.