Letter of the Law

[systemstrike_7]

Keeping the spirit of the law means that the intended purpose of a particular commandment is achieved when one is incapable of fulfilling the letter.

For example, you are sitting at a stoplight at an intersection. The law says you must remain stopped until the light is green for you to go. Now, you are the only one at the light; there no other cars and no police. You could violate the law and pass on through without hurting anyone, but the law says you must stay until the light is green. Simple enough.

Let's say, however that you look into your rear view mirror and see a huge truck like a dump truck barrelling straight for you, at a high rate of speed. The driver is laying on his horn and it is clear from the erratic movement of the truck and the horn, that he is about to lose control and for some reason can't stop. You have only seconds to decide what to do. Do you stay at the light? The letter of the law says you must stay, but if you obey the letter, there is a good chance you will be killed.

So, you quickly decide to move your car through the intersection and out of the way of the out of control truck. The purpose of traffic lights is the safety of the driver. However, in this case the letter of the law meant death, not safety. In this case the letter could save you. Even though you violated the letter, you still observed the spirit of the law, by moving your vehicle a safe distance from the other vehicle.

In the example of the people who were living together, it doesn't really matter that they intended to get married. They were still living in sin, and in doing so, they were already violating the both the spirit and the letter of the law where God's moral law is concerned. The whole, "Oh, we plan getting married anyway" thing, is just a means of justification of sin. There was no "spirit" of the law involved. That kind of logic does not play out in any other context. Can I just take something from the the store and use it for three days on the grounds that I am going to buy it later? No, you will rightly prosecuted for shoplifting if you leave the store with it for even a second.

On the issue of the couple living together before marriage, I thought that this was mainly done because of financial issues. If they were to get their own place, they would not be able to afford it, which could then lead to poverty, and maybe even being homeless. Therefore, you could argue that following the letter of the law would result in living on the streets which could lead to much more disastruous situations. So, could you not apply the spirit of the law here? Maybe to save their relationship and their lifestyle?

[systemstrike_7]

But other than that, I would say you did a better job than I did.

[Ovedya]

Keeping the spirit of the law means that the intended purpose of a particular commandment is achieved when one is incapable of fulfilling the letter.

For example, you are sitting at a stoplight at an intersection. The law says you must remain stopped until the light is green for you to go. Now, you are the only one at the light; there no other cars and no police. You could violate the law and pass on through without hurting anyone, but the law says you must stay until the light is green. Simple enough.

Let's say, however that you look into your rear view mirror and see a huge truck like a dump truck barrelling straight for you, at a high rate of speed. The driver is laying on his horn and it is clear from the erratic movement of the truck and the horn, that he is about to lose control and for some reason can't stop. You have only seconds to decide what to do. Do you stay at the light? The letter of the law says you must stay, but if you obey the letter, there is a good chance you will be killed.

So, you quickly decide to move your car through the intersection and out of the way of the out of control truck. The purpose of traffic lights is the safety of the driver. However, in this case the letter of the law meant death, not safety. In this case the letter could save you. Even though you violated the letter, you still observed the spirit of the law, by moving your vehicle a safe distance from the other vehicle.

In the example of the people who were living together, it doesn't really matter that they intended to get married. They were still living in sin, and in doing so, they were already violating the both the spirit and the letter of the law where God's moral law is concerned. The whole, "Oh, we plan getting married anyway" thing, is just a means of justification of sin. There was no "spirit" of the law involved. That kind of logic does not play out in any other context. Can I just take something from the the store and use it for three days on the grounds that I am going to buy it later? No, you will rightly prosecuted for shoplifting if you leave the store with it for even a second.

On the issue of the couple living together before marriage, I thought that this was mainly done because of financial issues. If they were to get their own place, they would not be able to afford it, which could then lead to poverty, and maybe even being homeless. Therefore, you could argue that following the letter of the law would result in living on the streets which could lead to much more disastruous situations. So, could you not apply the spirit of the law here? Maybe to save their relationship and their lifestyle?

I think that your hypothetical is setting up a false dilemma: Either move in together or face poverty and homelessness.

[systemstrike_7]

Keeping the spirit of the law means that the intended purpose of a particular commandment is achieved when one is incapable of fulfilling the letter.

For example, you are sitting at a stoplight at an intersection. The law says you must remain stopped until the light is green for you to go. Now, you are the only one at the light; there no other cars and no police. You could violate the law and pass on through without hurting anyone, but the law says you must stay until the light is green. Simple enough.

Let's say, however that you look into your rear view mirror and see a huge truck like a dump truck barrelling straight for you, at a high rate of speed. The driver is laying on his horn and it is clear from the erratic movement of the truck and the horn, that he is about to lose control and for some reason can't stop. You have only seconds to decide what to do. Do you stay at the light? The letter of the law says you must stay, but if you obey the letter, there is a good chance you will be killed.

So, you quickly decide to move your car through the intersection and out of the way of the out of control truck. The purpose of traffic lights is the safety of the driver. However, in this case the letter of the law meant death, not safety. In this case the letter could save you. Even though you violated the letter, you still observed the spirit of the law, by moving your vehicle a safe distance from the other vehicle.

In the example of the people who were living together, it doesn't really matter that they intended to get married. They were still living in sin, and in doing so, they were already violating the both the spirit and the letter of the law where God's moral law is concerned. The whole, "Oh, we plan getting married anyway" thing, is just a means of justification of sin. There was no "spirit" of the law involved. That kind of logic does not play out in any other context. Can I just take something from the the store and use it for three days on the grounds that I am going to buy it later? No, you will rightly prosecuted for shoplifting if you leave the store with it for even a second.

On the issue of the couple living together before marriage, I thought that this was mainly done because of financial issues. If they were to get their own place, they would not be able to afford it, which could then lead to poverty, and maybe even being homeless. Therefore, you could argue that following the letter of the law would result in living on the streets which could lead to much more disastruous situations. So, could you not apply the spirit of the law here? Maybe to save their relationship and their lifestyle?

I think that your hypothetical is setting up a false dilemma: Either move in together or face poverty and homelessness.

You're right. The case might not be this radical in their situation, but if it is, then it is certainly something to consider. The dilemma isn't altogether false, it just might not be that radical. I was merely speculating and I apologize, I should have included that in the post.

[secondeve]

I think that your hypothetical is setting up a false dilemma: Either move in together or face poverty and homelessness.

In the example I gave, this may well be a false dilemma. So let's construct a better hypothetical for the purposes of discussion.

OK. Imagine you've got two Christians who are engaged, living dutifully in separate houses until their wedding. But before they get married, one of the houses burns to the ground. The person whose house it was has nobody else they can live with bar their future spouse, and, because of the money they've lost in the fire, they can now no longer afford to get married for some time. In this situation - at least until the unfortunate partner can find somewhere else to live - it would seem prudent for them to move in together, even though the wedding has been postponed. One partner sleeps on the couch, the other, the bed. To the best of their abilities, therefore, I would say they are keeping to the spirit of the law where it is otherwise impossible to keep the letter of the law. Do you agree?

[billie]

The spouse whose house burned down could stay at a member of the church's home if they didn't have family.

God always makes a way for us to do what's right in His eyes.

[systemstrike_7]

The spouse whose house burned down could stay at a member of the church's home if they didn't have family.

God always makes a way for us to do what's right in His eyes.

I believe she stated that there was no other person to stay with. What if they weren't a member of any church? Or they didn't personally know any of the other church members?

But, secondeve, I am agreeing with your overall statement. Now, the real question is: Are they commiting a sin?

[GeneV]

This is a strong philosophical argument.

Well then let us try to break it down in under a philosophical light.

The law of the letter is essentially theological certainties. Concrete doctrine that cannot be changed or interpreted differently, no matter what the circumstance. A good analogy would be gravity, it cannot be bent nor changed. Gravity is constant.

The spirit of the letter is something completely different. It allows for a subjective view into certain doctrines that can be bent or completely changed due to certain situations or issues.

A good analogy to this would be water. Someone could say that cold water is better than hot water, but in reality, it depends upon how the water is used. If the water is being used as a refreshing drink, cold would prove to be the better choice. But if the water is being used to take a bath in, hot would prove to be the better choice. From a cultural point it depends where you live

So, in light of the above statements, what is better? Law or spirit? Well, this can hardly be answered because the question in itself is subjective. In certain cases, a believer would say that the law is the way to go with a certain passage such as Jesus declaring that he is the only way to the father. In another case, they will say that you must use the spirit, and interpret the passage according to different circumstances. For instance, when the question of whether or not God sends people to hell who never had the chance to hear Jesus' name.

There, thats the best I can do. Maybe someone can do a bit better.

Just for the record the following order works for me; The Word, prayer then the Holy Spirits' guidance / illumination / enlightenment generally follows See Bold in your post

[stafy]

Something I've just noticed is that the differing interpretations some Christians have of various Biblical verses centre on making a distinction between the 'letter' of the law and the 'spirit' of the law. An example would be a recent thread in the Inner Court talking about Jesus's commands re divorce - that divorce for any reason other than infidelity is a sin - made in the context of a query about Mosaic law. And basically, I saw a lot of people get up and say that the reason Jesus spoke as he did, in response to the question posed, was largely cultural, in that there was a political message behind the statement, i.e. a criticism of King Herod, and that it was in this context that Jesus was speaking, rather than (or so it seemed to be inferred) to all potential divorcees. Because, as one might reasonably assume, stating that you can only divorce on grounds of adultery is, if read literally, an effectuve prohibition on divorcing for reasons of domestic violence.

Then I went back to the Outer Court and saw that a new poster had commented that they and their partner, who were planning to marry, were living and sleeping together. Unequivocally, the response was that they were living in sin and to repent. And that's what made me think: in this instance, they are applying the Biblical law to the letter, rather than to what might arguably be called the spirit - which is, that two people, once joined, should stay together. So I'm wondering, if in their case the intention really is to get married, might it be argued that, although they are currently unmarried, they are still living in the spirit of the law, which is ultimately the loving union of man and woman under God, even if they are not living to the letter? And so, comparably, couldn't we say that someone who divorced their first partner because of domestic violence and then remarried is not living according to the letter of the law, but to its spirit?

These are just two examples, and I'm sure there are many others we could all think of, given the time. But what I'm basically asking is, which is more important: the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law? Is one always more important than the other, or not? If so, why? How is it possible to always know whether the spirit or letter is more important in one instance than another? And, perhaps most importantly, is it possible that this can differ on an individual basis - by which I mean, is it possible that the spirit of a law should be applied for one person, but the letter to another?

If we are not under the law then you can not apply the letter of the law, which leaves us with the indervidaul option only.

[wildside]

I am no teacher, but I think this argument can find its consummation in the fact that Christ did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them. His life began the New Covenant through His blood which was poured out for us all. This is the covenant that was promised to be made by God with the house of Israel and the house of Judah which can be found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah. This covenant was given by God through the death of Jesus the Messiah at Golgotha and the Old Covenant of the Law was fulfilled as was written by the prophet Jeremiah, and the New Covenant began. He told the disciples about this New Covenant at his last Passover feast. We can see the record of this in Luke chapter 22 and an exposition of it in 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

Jeremiah chapter 31 verse 33 in the New International version according to www.biblegateway.com states:

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel

after that time," declares the LORD.

"I will put my law in their minds

and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people.

We will understand this better in its context that this covenant will not be like the covenant which God made with the forefathers of Israel. Also that no one will teach eachother anymore saying "Know the LORD" for we will all know Him. Obviously this has not happened yet, but more clearly it has not been fulfilled yet as it has begun and is rapidly being fulfilled itself throughout the world. One may ask, "If this New Covenant has begun why hasn't the nation of Israel accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah?" This is explained in Romans chapter 11 verse 11 per the New International Version per www.biblegateway.com: "Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious." Anyone who desires knowledge is free to search out this mystery for themselves.