Letter of the Law

[Masked Chris]

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?

hey

I think the line draws with love. Jesus says that love fullfills the law. So following the law is needed but if you follow the law with anything other than love as your motivation [like hate or self-rightiousness] than you are missing the heart of God and why he created the law. For example: The bible preaches against homosexaulity.... however to use this to bash humans is not using the law in the nature of love. I personally think it's love and love only thats important. i found that if I just consenterated on loving God and loving my neighbor than I ended up following the entire law by default. Sence the law is made with love in mind than you will find yourself fullfilling the law by just being loving to one another and to God. I DO think the law is important though.... but we just gotta keep love as the center and be unshakable with that. The moment we find ourselves thinking more about the law than we think about love that is the moment that we miss the entire point.

[GeneV]

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?

hey

I think the line draws with love. Jesus says that love fullfills the law. So following the law is needed but if you follow the law with anything other than love as your motivation [like hate or self-rightiousness] than you are missing the heart of God and why he created the law. For example: The bible preaches against homosexaulity.... however to use this to bash humans is not using the law in the nature of love. I personally think it's love and love only thats important. i found that if I just consenterated on loving God and loving my neighbor than I ended up following the entire law by default. Sence the law is made with love in mind than you will find yourself fullfilling the law by just being loving to one another and to God. I DO think the law is important though.... but we just gotta keep love as the center and be unshakable with that. The moment we find ourselves thinking more about the law than we think about love that is the moment that we miss the entire point.

Nicely said - if the Master is at the centre of your heart and mind then how can you go wrong

[Guest shiloh357]

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?

Your scenario is unrealistic. There are always options. If I were in the scenario, and my future spouse's house burnt to the ground, she could stay at my parent's home, or the homes of our friends. Same would be true if it were my house that got destroyed. There is always help if you really want it.

Furthermore, two unmarried people sleeping in the same apartment or home gives the appearance of something happening even if it is not, and we are commanded to avoid even the very appearance of evil. We are not to do anything that would even give the impression that we are living in immorality.

I think you need a bit more understanding about the relationship of the spirit to the letter of the law. Here is another example, given by Jesus, Himself. Jesus taught that not only are we not to murder, but that putting someone to open shame by accusing them falsely of something for which they are innocent (slander) is akin to murder. Jesus said that when you hate someone, who have already committed murder in your heart. Jesus demonstrates that one can violate the spirit of the law long before the letter of the law is physically violated. The "spirit" of the law against murder is not to hate. There should be nothing in my heart that would prompt the act of murder in the first place. Observing the "spirit" of the law means that you not only keep the actual commandment, but also that you avoid any compromising situations where you would be tempted to violate God's law.

In another case, look at Jewish law. One of the commandments concerning the Sabbath is that one is not to carry a burden on the Sabbath. Yet, if your child is sick, you are fully permitted to load him up in the car and take him to the hospital. Jewish law prohibits the use of money on the Sabbath, but you are still allowed to buy medicine for your sick child. You are also allowed, on the Sabbath to carry food to a family who has no food.

In Jewish law the preservation and sanctity of human life take precedence over all other commandments in the Torah. This is because the Torah is both fixed and fluid. When keeping the letter of the law would cause harm to another person, the letter can be set aside to preserve human life, when the letter itself would actually be detrimental.

The spirit of the law is not a convenient loophole to get around the law itself. The "spirit" of the law simply refers to the "intent" of the law.

[cjrose]

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.

Divinely answered!

[EricH]

Frequently the Spirit of the Law requires more from us than the letter. For example the command not to commit adultery. Literally it means the act of cheating. According to Jesus, the spirit of the law extends to our thought lives as well

[secondeve]

Alright. My belief with hypotheticals is that if they *could* happen then there are no grounds for deflecting the question by saying that a different scenario was more likely. Unless you can provide me with 100% evidence that this could never, ever happen, then my question deserves to be answered. The ambiguity in any law or its application is generated by these kinds of 'what if' scenarios, which is why I think they are relevant.

So. For the sake of pedantry: neither person in my example has any family in that state/country. They have only just moved there themselves, and have no friends yet to turn to. Maybe they're immigrants - who knows? As for the church, let's say that the only places available as a result of that community are too far away for the person to commute to their job, which, realistically, should take precedence, as they need the money. This isn't entirely unrealistic - if the only available church was a fair way away from their houses, it might be feasable to commute for a weekend service but not to live such a distance during the week. The person cannot afford a hotel. And look, once again - this is not the most likely example, but as it is still possible and within reason, until you answer it, you are effectively putting the question in the too-hard basket by saying 'that dilemma could never arise.' But as it is demonstrably within the realm of the possible, I think it deserves a considered response. So, I repeat: if the fiancees then lived together without sleeping together, would their intentions and actions, albeit restrained by circumstances, still make them covered by the spirit of the law, or would they be living in sin?

Edited February 7, 2007 by secondeve

[Guest shiloh357]

Alright. My belief with hypotheticals is that if they *could* happen then there are no grounds for deflecting the question by saying that a different scenario was more likely. Unless you can provide me with 100% evidence that this could never, ever happen, then my question deserves to be answered. The ambiguity in any law or its application is generated by these kinds of 'what if' scenarios, which is why I think they are relevant.

So. For the sake of pedantry: neither person in my example has any family in that state/country. They have only just moved there themselves, and have no friends yet to turn to. Maybe they're immigrants - who knows? As for the church, let's say that the only places available as a result of that community are too far away for the person to commute to their job, which, realistically, should take precedence, as they need the money. This isn't entirely unrealistic - if the only available church was a fair way away from their houses, it might be feasable to commute for a weekend service but not to live such a distance during the week. The person cannot afford a hotel. And look, once again - this is not the most likely example, but as it is still possible and within reason, until you answer it, you are effectively putting the question in the too-hard basket by saying 'that dilemma could never arise.' But as it is demonstrably within the realm of the possible, I think it deserves a considered response. So, I repeat: if the fiancees then lived together without sleeping together, would their intentions and actions, albeit restrained by circumstances, still make them covered by the spirit of the law, or would they be living in sin?

They would be living in sin for the following reason: You are using an example of two adults, Christians, who are obviously physically and otherwise, attracted to each other, living in the same house/Apartment or whatever. The problem that arises here is that they are both in a very compromising position as Christians not only from the standpoint of temptation, but also from the standpoint that as they get to know people in their area, and are known as Christians who are seen as living together, the obvious and most understandable conclusion that most people will draw is that they are sleeping together. The Bible says to avoid the appearance of evil and this scenario violates that edict from the Lord. '

One could offer the position that THEY know they are doing nothing wrong, and that they can be secure in that, but that is not how it works. We are responsible not only for what we do, but for how our actions are perceived. If I were married, and I sat down at a restaurant to have a soda pop with an old female friend, completely innocent, no wrong intentions, we simply talk and leave, but I am observed by my wife's friends, what are they going to think seeing me chatting and laughing up alone with another woman? What might my wife think? I am accountable for that even if I did not actually doing "wrong" per se. The fact that it was perceived as a betrayal of my wife's trust though, still means that I am in the wrong. I should not do ANYTHING that might even give a hint of the appearance of infidelity. If anything, I should run from it, and get as far from it as possible.

What you see an an impossible scenario, and all options gone, is simply an opportunity for God to be glorified. When a couple in that position really trusts the Lord to make a way, He will do it. The Bible is full of examples of hopeless situations, impossible odds, folks at the end of their rope and all options gone, yet God always makes a way.

God does not promise us that we will not have problems, setbacks etc. We have a source of supply and a provider who will always provide for us, so that we do not have to violate His Word, or compromise His values, AND He receives the glory for making another option out of impossible situations. You never know who the Lord will bring into your life to bring that previously hidden option that was not available.

The thing about being a Christian, is that sometimes you just have to trust God to be God. Sure, you can concoct a scenario that makes it completely impossible from the standpoint of the limited resources of the person subjected to said scenario, but you cannot create a scenario that God cannot intervene into and show His power in.

[secondeve]

Alright. My belief with hypotheticals is that if they *could* happen then there are no grounds for deflecting the question by saying that a different scenario was more likely. Unless you can provide me with 100% evidence that this could never, ever happen, then my question deserves to be answered. The ambiguity in any law or its application is generated by these kinds of 'what if' scenarios, which is why I think they are relevant.

So. For the sake of pedantry: neither person in my example has any family in that state/country. They have only just moved there themselves, and have no friends yet to turn to. Maybe they're immigrants - who knows? As for the church, let's say that the only places available as a result of that community are too far away for the person to commute to their job, which, realistically, should take precedence, as they need the money. This isn't entirely unrealistic - if the only available church was a fair way away from their houses, it might be feasable to commute for a weekend service but not to live such a distance during the week. The person cannot afford a hotel. And look, once again - this is not the most likely example, but as it is still possible and within reason, until you answer it, you are effectively putting the question in the too-hard basket by saying 'that dilemma could never arise.' But as it is demonstrably within the realm of the possible, I think it deserves a considered response. So, I repeat: if the fiancees then lived together without sleeping together, would their intentions and actions, albeit restrained by circumstances, still make them covered by the spirit of the law, or would they be living in sin?

They would be living in sin for the following reason: You are using an example of two adults, Christians, who are obviously physically and otherwise, attracted to each other, living in the same house/Apartment or whatever. The problem that arises here is that they are both in a very compromising position as Christians not only from the standpoint of temptation, but also from the standpoint that as they get to know people in their area, and are known as Christians who are seen as living together, the obvious and most understandable conclusion that most people will draw is that they are sleeping together. The Bible says to avoid the appearance of evil and this scenario violates that edict from the Lord. '

One could offer the position that THEY know they are doing nothing wrong, and that they can be secure in that, but that is not how it works. We are responsible not only for what we do, but for how our actions are perceived. If I were married, and I sat down at a restaurant to have a soda pop with an old female friend, completely innocent, no wrong intentions, we simply talk and leave, but I am observed by my wife's friends, what are they going to think seeing me chatting and laughing up alone with another woman? What might my wife think? I am accountable for that even if I did not actually doing "wrong" per se. The fact that it was perceived as a betrayal of my wife's trust though, still means that I am in the wrong. I should not do ANYTHING that might even give a hint of the appearance of infidelity. If anything, I should run from it, and get as far from it as possible.

What you see an an impossible scenario, and all options gone, is simply an opportunity for God to be glorified. When a couple in that position really trusts the Lord to make a way, He will do it. The Bible is full of examples of hopeless situations, impossible odds, folks at the end of their rope and all options gone, yet God always makes a way.

God does not promise us that we will not have problems, setbacks etc. We have a source of supply and a provider who will always provide for us, so that we do not have to violate His Word, or compromise His values, AND He receives the glory for making another option out of impossible situations. You never know who the Lord will bring into your life to bring that previously hidden option that was not available.

The thing about being a Christian, is that sometimes you just have to trust God to be God. Sure, you can concoct a scenario that makes it completely impossible from the standpoint of the limited resources of the person subjected to said scenario, but you cannot create a scenario that God cannot intervene into and show His power in.

Alright, then. I accept that as an answer. But I have one more question: even if, as you say, I can't concoct a scenario in which God couldn't intervene, could there still be a scenario where God could intervene, but doesn't?

[Guest shiloh357]

Alright, then. I accept that as an answer. But I have one more question: even if, as you say, I can't concoct a scenario in which God couldn't intervene, could there still be a scenario where God could intervene, but doesn't?

God always intervenes when we trust Him.

Sometimes we don't always like it, sometimes the solution doesn't come the way we had hoped it would. Sometimes the solution amounts to personal sacrifice on our part, and it can be painful. Following the Lord is not always easy, especially when you can't see the bigger plan.

Sometimes the solution is better than we could have hoped for. God always provides options. Not everyone trusts Him, though.

I think it can be said that in most cases, everyone has options. This is true in any context, really. Common sense tells us that if we really want to live a Godly life, the way is always open.

The Bible says that God will not allow you to be tempted above that which you able, but with every temptation, provide a way of escape. If a person is serious about following the Lord, then they will trust Him to provide an alternative. God always has a way out. If they truly want to serve the Lord, they won't compromise, or live in sin they have to justify later. The Bible is replete with people who stayed the course and God never abandoned them. He who honors God, him will God honor.

[GeneV]

Frequently the Spirit of the Law requires more from us than the letter. For example the command not to commit adultery. Literally it means the act of cheating. According to Jesus, the spirit of the law extends to our thought lives as well

Nicely put Erich