Are the 10 Commandments based on God's Law or Man's?

[Sparko]

OK I usually think of the moral law (thou shall not murder, steal, etc) is absolute. That is, if you murder someone it is a sin. If you steal, its a sin.

But then today, I started thinking about it. It seems that the Law is dependent on Man's Laws and are not absolute standards of morality.

For example, if a Christian lives in a country where there is no law against murdering your neighbor, then strictly speaking, couldn't he kill his neighbor for fun and it NOT be a sin?

Or what about living in a country where ALL killing is murder? If a Christian killed someone in self defense, would it be a sin?

What standard do we use to determine when a killing is Murder? Man's?

And what about stealing. (This is what got me thinking about this in the first place)

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is so strict that what used to be fair use is now illegal. Of course they don't enforce the DMCA this strictly, but it is basically illegal to make copies of a tape you made of a TV show and giving it to a friend to watch, or probably to even lend him YOUR copy. Basically under the DMCA everyone is a thief, you can't help it. They could choose to come after anyone they choose and they could probably find something you have done that they would consider stealing. Does that make us thieves sinners?

What about if you live in a country that basically has NO laws against copyright violations. It might be perfectly legal to copy movies and MP3s and such. Would a Christian who did that in that country be sinless?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

There are matters of interpretation of what is murder vs non-murder killing, or stealing vs non-stealing taking and that isn't exhaustively set out for us in the Bible. Hence, the controversy among Bible-believing Christians about when exactly we shd make the human unborn legally-protected persons or whether some changes in the tax-code to reduce income inequality might be for the greater good.

dlw

[Dwevlo]

For example, if a Christian lives in a country where there is no law against murdering your neighbor, then strictly speaking, couldn't he kill his neighbor for fun and it NOT be a sin?
No. There is such a thing as an unjust law.


Or what about living in a country where ALL killing is murder? If a Christian killed someone in self defense, would it be a sin?
Thats more complicated. For example there is nothing strictly wrong with driving 85mph down the interstate, but there are laws against it. Breaking a countries laws, without good reason (where a good reason would be something like, breaking the law would entail blasphemy), is sinful.


What standard do we use to determine when a killing is Murder? Man's?
God has given us a general outline on things like murder, and we have our intuition to work with, so while our conclusions certainly involve Man's standards thats not the end of the story.


What about if you live in a country that basically has NO laws against copyright violations. It might be perfectly legal to copy movies and MP3s and such. Would a Christian who did that in that country be sinless?
Copyright protection is a complicated ethical issue, especially in countries where there is no law respecting those copyrights. Its probably wrong to steal movies and such in a country with no copyrights, especially if there is a legal way to possess those items. If there is no legal way to possess the items - no where to buy it from for example - the moral reasons aren't as clear, since the copyright owner doesn't seem to be hurt. But then again copyright protection is supposed to allow the owner to control his method of distribution, and maybe he doesn't want those countries to have his product. In which case it sure seems like stealing.

-----


There are matters of interpretation of what is murder vs non-murder killing, or stealing vs non-stealing taking and that isn't exhaustively set out for us in the Bible. Hence, the controversy among Bible-believing Christians about when exactly we shd make the human unborn legally-protected persons or whether some changes in the tax-code to reduce income inequality might be for the greater good.
I don't think those are particularly good examples. Things like murder and stealing are a lot more obvious than tax reform.

[Sparko]

The reason I first brought up murder is because that is an area where we can look and see that no matter what a government says is murder, we have a conscience given by God that tells us what is right and wrong in that case. A government can say that abortion is not murder, but we know it is. They can say that killing in self defense is murder but we know it is not. We know where to draw the lines as Christians. Well most of us anyway.

But when it comes to stuff like "stealing" it is harder to draw the line.

the Digital Millennium Copyright Act basically takes ordinary actions performed by people and turns them into criminals.

For instance, with a printed book, you can do anything you want with it, except copy and sell the copy to someone. You can lend it out, you can sell it, you can give it away. But with an ebook, you can't do that. If you sell it you are a criminal, if you give it away you are a criminal.

If you want to make a backup copy of your ebook, movie or music CD, bam, you are a criminal.

So does that mean you morally sinned? If your kid loves "The Little Mermaid" and you make a copy of the DVD to protect it from damage, are you really a thief? You broke the law, which Romans 13 says you are supposed to obey, and you are technically a thief according to the government, but does that make you a thief in God's eyes?

Where is the line drawn?

[FormerFundy]

The reason I first brought up murder is because that is an area where we can look and see that no matter what a government says is murder, we have a conscience given by God that tells us what is right and wrong in that case. A government can say that abortion is not murder, but we know it is. They can say that killing in self defense is murder but we know it is not. We know where to draw the lines as Christians. Well most of us anyway.


How do you explain the Christians who do not believe abortion is murder?

How do you explain the teachings of Jesus to turn the other cheek and to do good to your enemies? That would seem to rule out self-defense.



But when it comes to stuff like "stealing" it is harder to draw the line.

the Digital Millennium Copyright Act basically takes ordinary actions performed by people and turns them into criminals.

For instance, with a printed book, you can do anything you want with it, except copy and sell the copy to someone. You can lend it out, you can sell it, you can give it away. But with an ebook, you can't do that. If you sell it you are a criminal, if you give it away you are a criminal.

If you want to make a backup copy of your ebook, movie or music CD, bam, you are a criminal.

So does that mean you morally sinned? If your kid loves "The Little Mermaid" and you make a copy of the DVD to protect it from damage, are you really a thief? You broke the law, which Romans 13 says you are supposed to obey, and you are technically a thief according to the government, but does that make you a thief in God's eyes?

Where is the line drawn?

I think that if you take Rom. 13 seriously, you must acknowledge that you sin when you break the laws of the govt that you are under (unless the govt tells you to break the law of God, in which case you must obey God rather than man)

Biblical Ethics is a Christian only forum with in TWeb. please Review the stickies in each forum for posting rules before posting. Thanks. ~Pilgrim

[Dwevlo]

How do you explain the Christians who do not believe abortion is murder?
Well thats easy. They are wrong.


How do you explain the teachings of Jesus to turn the other cheek and to do good to your enemies? That would seem to rule out self-defense.
I don't think so, seems to rule out personal revenge to me.


So does that mean you morally sinned? If your kid loves "The Little Mermaid" and you make a copy of the DVD to protect it from damage, are you really a thief? You broke the law, which Romans 13 says you are supposed to obey, and you are technically a thief according to the government, but does that make you a thief in God's eyes?
Probably not. But it might make you non-submissive to the governing authorities. I think the DMCA is stupid, but copying "The Little Mermaid" isn't a great reason to break it.


I think that if you take Rom. 13 seriously, you must acknowledge that you sin when you break the laws of the govt that you are under (unless the govt tells you to break the law of God, in which case you must obey God rather than man)
To a certain extent Yeah, but that doesn't mean we can't try and change the laws of this country. I think with the internet and stuff copyright law needs a serious rethinking. Course I don't have any wonderful ideas, just the current system is broken.

[Sparko]

dwelvo, please dont reply to both me and someone else in the same post. You have my quote right in the middle of former fundy's without identifying who is who.

[sc_q_jayce]

Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?How did Abraham know that justice required God treating the wicked and righteous differently? No law or commandment had yet been given.

[Dwevlo]

dwelvo, please dont reply to both me and someone else in the same post. You have my quote right in the middle of former fundy's without identifying who is who.
Oops, not sure what happened. Sorry about that. (I should start typing up responses in something besides notepad I'm thinking)

[Alien]

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

I think this is on topic ...

I've never been able to understand this passage. Taken literally, and it does seem to be intended to be read that way, it says that the Nazi government in Germany was appointed by God and no one who behaved well had anything to fear from them. Tell that to 6 million Jews! In fact, we don't have to go that far to pick an example; the treatment of the early Christians by the Roman authorities is just as good.

Also, there is nothing in there about disobeying the law if it goes against God's principles. In fact it suggests that there can be no such conflict

The only explanation I have been able to come up with is that perhaps Paul put this in in case the letter was intercepted by the Roman authorities, so they would think that the Christians were law abiding.

Has anyone got a better explanation?

[Dwevlo]

The only explanation I have been able to come up with is that perhaps Paul put this in in case the letter was intercepted by the Roman authorities, so they would think that the Christians were law abiding.
I don't think it so much fear of being intercepted as making sure Christians didn't turn rebellious. Actively rebelling against the roman empire would've been a very bad move on the Early Church's part. It just didn't fit the way the Church was supposed to act given the Church's mission, and Jesus' instructions.


Has anyone got a better explanation?
One suggestion I've heard on the verse is that Paul is describing (in a way) what good governments are like. Possibly the governing authorities here did indeed "hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." But maybe it would be stretching to make this a universal claim. Since its obviously false and Paul would've known its false (think of pharao for example) he's probably making a local point. But those are just my immediate thoughts... I need to study this verse some more.

[Alien]

I don't think it so much fear of being intercepted as making sure Christians didn't turn rebellious. Actively rebelling against the roman empire would've been a very bad move on the Early Church's part. It just didn't fit the way the Church was supposed to act given the Church's mission, and Jesus' instructions.

Agreed. But he's not saying, "Look guys, keep your heads down and don't upset the authorities, we need to keep a low profile". He's stating quite clearly that the authorities are appointed by God, act fairly, and obeying them is line with our consciences.



One suggestion I've heard on the verse is that Paul is describing (in a way) what good governments are like. Possibly the governing authorities here did indeed "hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." But maybe it would be stretching to make this a universal claim. Since its obviously false and Paul would've known its false (think of pharao for example) he's probably making a local point. But those are just my immediate thoughts... I need to study this verse some more.

As he's writing to the church in Rome, then I guess we can assume that the rulers he is talkng about are the Roman authorities. But I can't help remembering that it would not be long before those same authorities would be insisting that Christians worship the emperor as a god and killing them if they didn't. Once more, when we read the passage, it doesn't seem to be intended to be local and limited in temporal scope.

But I'll look forward to your further thoughts.

Anyone else?

[Sparko]

well the context is that God appoints governments to do what is right and lead us. When they do so we are to obey them. But when God appoints a government and they REJECT his guidance and do what is wrong (like Hitler) then we are not under obligation to listen to them.

verses 4 - 6 show this clearly:

4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

The governments talked about in this passage are called God's servants. Servants listen to God and do what he want. Hitler and his government did not. They were in no way God's servants. They were Satan's servants.

[Alien]

well the context is that God appoints governments to do what is right and lead us. When they do so we are to obey them. But when God appoints a government and they REJECT his guidance and do what is wrong (like Hitler) then we are not under obligation to listen to them.

verses 4 - 6 show this clearly:

4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

The governments talked about in this passage are called God's servants. Servants listen to God and do what he want. Hitler and his government did not. They were in no way God's servants. They were Satan's servants.




I agree with everything you say in the sense that if Paul had written that I would have no problem with it ..... but I don't see any conditional statements in the passage at all. There is nothing that suggests that there are good and bad governments ("the authorities are God's servants") and that this only applies to the good ones.

Maybe you can explain further. Have I missed some other verses that make it clear?

[Sparko]

I agree with everything you say in the sense that if Paul had written that I would have no problem with it ..... but I don't see any conditional statements in the passage at all. There is nothing that suggests that there are good and bad governments ("the authorities are God's servants") and that this only applies to the good ones.

Maybe you can explain further. Have I missed some other verses that make it clear?


The fact that Paul uses language like "servant" and "to do you good" means that it is speaking of a government that listens and follows God. In what way was Hitler a servant of God or the Nazi Government? They were not. Just using simple logic shows that the verses were not talking about following such a government.

Not all governments are servants of God (Yahweh). You only have to look around to see that. Are the muslim governments servants of God? They might claim to be, but they follow a different "God." - They are servants of the evil one.

1. God institutes Governments as his servants. He wants them to lead us and be his arm of justice and do good, punish evil, etc.

2. Those that follow him are good and should be followed.

3. Those that rebel and reject his leadership are no longer acting as his servants and should not be followed.

Think of it like this: God made all men to be his servants too. But are we all his servants? Do we all follow him and worship him?

[Alien]

The fact that Paul uses language like "servant" and "to do you good" means that it is speaking of a government that listens and follows God. In what way was Hitler a servant of God or the Nazi Government? They were not. Just using simple logic shows that the verses were not talking about following such a government.

Not all governments are servants of God (Yahweh). You only have to look around to see that. Are the muslim governments servants of God? They might claim to be, but they follow a different "God." - They are servants of the evil one.

1. God institutes Governments as his servants. He wants them to lead us and be his arm of justice and do good, punish evil, etc.

2. Those that follow him are good and should be followed.

3. Those that rebel and reject his leadership are no longer acting as his servants and should not be followed.

Think of it like this: God made all men to be his servants too. But are we all his servants? Do we all follow him and worship him?

OK, I see where you are coming from. I still don't see why Paul would have used language that seems to refer to all government, when he meant only a particular form of government. Why didn't he say "this applies to governments that follow God"?

Also, which government is he commanding them to follow? Rome? This the most likely candidate, because he was writing to the Romans, but they didn't qualify. In fact I doubt that any government then existing (or ever?) did qualify. So why did he write it at all? To say what people should do in the unlikely event that a God-fearing government should ever arise?

I'm sorry to seem obtuse, and your explanation certainly removes the problem. But I just carefully reread the passage, verse by verse, and I still see no qualification at all in it. Why didn't he phrase it differently? Why does he never say anything like "But this is not the government you are under, that one you don't have to obey"?

Imagine this was Paul's letter to the Germans, written in 1939. How would you expect his readers to interpret "the governing authorities", "The authorities that exist", "the authority", "rulers", "the one in authority", "he is God's servant", "submit to the authorities", "the authorities are God's servants"? Would they immediately assume he meant some government that they were not subject to, and might not exist anywhere in the world? Or would they maybe think he meant Hitler and the Nazi party?

I guess you've said all you can; I still don't get it. It's not that your explanation doesn't make sense, it does. I just can't make the text mean that. Thanks for taking the time.

[Sparko]

OK, I see where you are coming from. I still don't see why Paul would have used language that seems to refer to all government, when he meant only a particular form of government. Why didn't he say "this applies to governments that follow God"?

Also, which government is he commanding them to follow? Rome? This the most likely candidate, because he was writing to the Romans, but they didn't qualify. In fact I doubt that any government then existing (or ever?) did qualify. So why did he write it at all? To say what people should do in the unlikely event that a God-fearing government should ever arise?

I'm sorry to seem obtuse, and your explanation certainly removes the problem. But I just carefully reread the passage, verse by verse, and I still see no qualification at all in it. Why didn't he phrase it differently? Why does he never say anything like "But this is not the government you are under, that one you don't have to obey"?

Imagine this was Paul's letter to the Germans, written in 1939. How would you expect his readers to interpret "the governing authorities", "The authorities that exist", "the authority", "rulers", "the one in authority", "he is God's servant", "submit to the authorities", "the authorities are God's servants"? Would they immediately assume he meant some government that they were not subject to, and might not exist anywhere in the world? Or would they maybe think he meant Hitler and the Nazi party?

I guess you've said all you can; I still don't get it. It's not that your explanation doesn't make sense, it does. I just can't make the text mean that. Thanks for taking the time.

Well, the way I take it is that all governments do good and bad things, even the Nazi's. It is up to us as Christians to decide if their particular actions/rules are in line with God's ideals or not. If the Nazi's tell you not to speed, then that is a good law, obey it. If they tell you to turn in your Jewish neighbor so they can gas him, then they are NOT serving God and you should not obey them. If a government is so overwhelmingly evil (like the Nazi gvmt) then you should do your best but get out if you can.