Texting and the New Law

Beginning today it is illegal in Texas to text while driving.  Now, we can argue the details of the law [like how the officer can tell you're texting and not putting an address into google maps, which is still legal], but it is, in my opinion as one who has texted while driving, a step in the right direction.

As I just admitted that I have texted while driving in the past, let's suppose just for a moment, that I get pulled over while texting next week.  I can pay the ticket, or go to court.  And, just for this discussion, let's say I choose to defend myself in court.

When I go to court, the judge may ask me if I was texting while driving, and I would say 'Yes, Sir".  He would say "According to current Texas law, you are guilty of a misdemeanor and must pay a fine".  That is justice.

However, what if I were to protest?  What if I were to [respectfully] say "But your honor, if you will read right here, in the laws of the State of Texas, 2016, you will clearly see that there is nothing condemning texting while driving.  In fact, if you will read EVERY LAW that has ever been in force in Texas, back to and including Spanish law, Mexican law, and even Indian law, you will find that none of these laws ever condemned texting while driving."

Do you think the judge would be swayed by my argument?

No.

"But why not, it is true."?

Yes, but it really doesn't matter what Spanish law over Texas was, or for that matter, what the law over Texas yesterday was.  What matters is what the law over Texas today is. 

As of today, it is legal to text and drive in Arizona.  What if I were driving through Arizona, was stopped and given a ticket for texting and driving.  I would challenge the ticket, and if the officer cited current Texas law as a reason for the ticket, the judge would say "But we are not in Texas, we are in Arizona and Arizona law has jurisdiction here."

This idea is not difficult to understand is it?  The law that we are judged by is the law that is in force at the place we are   at that moment.

Now, consider this concept in scripture.  What if I were to tell you that God requires you to build an ark to be saved and I have a scripture in the Bible that says so:

What would you tell me?  Do you believe God expects you to build an Ark?

No.

Why not?  It is a command in the Bible.

Yes, but God was talking to Noah about a very specific destruction [worldwide flood].  He has never asked anyone else to build an Ark like that.  In fact, in Genesis 9 God promised to never flood the world that way again.

Ahhh, I see.  So you are applying the same principle I mentioned above Biblical law then.

Right.

Well, Okay, that was a command given to Noah, for a specific situation, but what about God's law regarding sin?  You know, the one, in Numbers 15:27:

If one person sins unintentionally,
he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering.

Have you offered a one year old female goat for your sins recently?

Of course not.

But why not?  It is a command in the Bible.  It is a command to God's people, telling them what to do about sin.  Surely you don't think that was a one time event like the flood?

No, sin is not a one time event, however, numbers 15 is the Law of Moses.  Jesus is our sin offering.  He is our lamb, we no longer offer bulls and goats.  Hebrews 9:11-12 says:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Ahhh, you are completely right.  There is a difference in the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.  In fact, Jeremiah told us that God would be changing His covenant when the Messiah came.  He said [Jeremiah 31:31-34]

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,  not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

The writer of Hebrews clearly explained this in Hebrews 1:1 where he said:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

In the past, God spoke by the prophets to our Fathers [ancestors], but He has spoken to us through His son, Jesus Christ.

So, what is your point?

My point is that the law that you and I are judged by are the words of Jesus, not the words of Moses.  Jesus himself said:

The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge;
the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. [John 12:48]

And Paul tells us that our judge will be Jesus, not Moses.

 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ

Because that is true, when you seek to understand what God's will [commands, law] is for you today, don't look in the book of Leviticus, or Genesis, or one of the prophets.  When you look to defend something that you do in your life, either in congregational worship, or in your personal life, don't go to Moses, or David, or Isaiah to defend it, look in the teachings of Christ and His apostles. It's pretty easy to find that in your Bible, it's called the New Testament.