Did Jesus assert that some OT laws weren't God's ideal

[janxharris]

I originally posted this elsewhere but thought it might get more responses if I made it the subject of it's own thread:

I wonder how many agree with Charles Ellicott's commentary on Matthew 19:8 where Jesus says:

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Ellicott writes:

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts." --The force of the answer lies (1) in emphasized substitution of "suffered" for "commanded." The scribes of the school of Hillel had almost turned divorce into a duty, even when there was no ground for it but incompatibility of temper or other lesser fault, as if Deuteronomy 24:1 had enjoined the writing of divorcement in such cases. (2) In the grounds assigned for the permission. Our Lord's position in the controversy between the two schools was analogous to that in which those who are true at once to principles and facts not seldom find themselves. He agreed, as we have seen, with the ideal of marriage maintained by the followers of Shammai. He accepted as a legitimate interpretation of the Law that of the followers of Hillel. But He proclaimed, with an authority greater than that of Moses, that his legislation on this point was a step backwards when compared with the primary law of nature, which had been "from the beginning," and only so far a step forward because the people had fallen into a yet lower state, in which the observance of the higher law was practically impossible. But for the possibility of divorce the wife would have been the victim of the husband's tyranny; and law, which has to deal with facts, was compelled to choose the least of two evils. Two important consequences, it will be obvious, flow from the reasoning thus enforced: (1) that the "hardness of heart" which made this concession necessary may be admitted as at least a partial explanation of whatever else in the Law of Moses strikes us as deviating from the standard of eternal righteousness embodied in the law of Christ--as, e.g., the tolerance of polygamy and slavery, and the severity of punishment for seeming trivial faults;

Would really appreciate people's comments.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I originally posted this elsewhere but thought it might get more responses if I made it the subject of it's own thread:

I wonder how many agree with Charles Ellicott's commentary on Matthew 19:8 where Jesus says:

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Ellicott writes:

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts." --The force of the answer lies (1) in emphasized substitution of "suffered" for "commanded." The scribes of the school of Hillel had almost turned divorce into a duty, even when there was no ground for it but incompatibility of temper or other lesser fault, as if Deuteronomy 24:1 had enjoined the writing of divorcement in such cases. (2) In the grounds assigned for the permission. Our Lord's position in the controversy between the two schools was analogous to that in which those who are true at once to principles and facts not seldom find themselves. He agreed, as we have seen, with the ideal of marriage maintained by the followers of Shammai. He accepted as a legitimate interpretation of the Law that of the followers of Hillel. But He proclaimed, with an authority greater than that of Moses, that his legislation on this point was a step backwards when compared with the primary law of nature, which had been "from the beginning," and only so far a step forward because the people had fallen into a yet lower state, in which the observance of the higher law was practically impossible. But for the possibility of divorce the wife would have been the victim of the husband's tyranny; and law, which has to deal with facts, was compelled to choose the least of two evils. Two important consequences, it will be obvious, flow from the reasoning thus enforced: (1) that the "hardness of heart" which made this concession necessary may be admitted as at least a partial explanation of whatever else in the Law of Moses strikes us as deviating from the standard of eternal righteousness embodied in the law of Christ--as, e.g., the tolerance of polygamy and slavery, and the severity of punishment for seeming trivial faults;

Would really appreciate people's comments.

I'd say that it sounds like a fairly accurate way of how mainstream Christian thought would look at it; many of the instructions given to ancient Israel were context sensitive; applying to being in the land, or applying in particular because of the cultural perceptions of the time. Rather than compelling a total plunge, it may be seen as "baby steps" toward the fuller reality that would come.

Throughout the Old Testament we see an evolving sense of who God is. Early on God is often treated much like Israel's tribal deity; "other nations have their gods, and we have our God". But the sense of God's size and relationship with the nations outside of Israel can be seen in the writings of the prophets, in Isaiah we read about God viewing Egypt and Assyria as his beloved children, in the story of Jonah we see a man who hates the Assyrians and doesn't want them to be shown mercy, but God is precisely the God who is merciful and good, not just to Israel, but to the world. YHVH isn't just Israel's God, YHVH is the God, He's the God of everyone and everything. For Christians this naturally and organically flows out in the Gospels, and later in the history of the Church with the full inclusion of the Gentiles into the household of faith in the Messiah: "There is neither Jew nor Greek..."

For Christians Jesus is the Revelation of God to the world. The prophets of old were messengers, they had revelation, but THE Revelation is Jesus Himself. Jesus is God's Word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[janxharris]

I'd say that it sounds like a fairly accurate way of how mainstream Christian thought would look at it; many of the instructions given to ancient Israel were context sensitive; applying to being in the land, or applying in particular because of the cultural perceptions of the time. Rather than compelling a total plunge, it may be seen as "baby steps" toward the fuller reality that would come.

You think there is a consensus regarding which scriptures are a compromise?

I have a Christian friend who could not accept that even Deut. 24:1 was a law that was not God's ideal.

 

[Hawkins]

It's quite a yes and no to me.

The big picture is that God sets up a set of laws for both humans and angel to obey. Both Satan and Adam broke this set of Law and since then Adam was driven out of Eden (God's realm) and dwell on earth. Satan and those angels breaking the Law are chained in Abyss till the final judgment comes.

Humans after Adam are living on earth - a place influenced by Satan and his angels. If the innocent Adam failed to observe the Law, it's understandable that humans on earth can't abide by God's Law to its full under the deep influence of Satan and his horde. This is proven openly from the period of Adam till Noah. It's a no-one-man-can-be-saved situation and God's purpose of creating humans is defeated. Earth together with everything in it thus needs to be destroyed.

However God has Jesus. By the blood Jesus to be shedding, a series of covenants can be granted to different scopes of humans in different periods of time. A covenant simply says, "since you humans can't abide by God's Law to its full, you are given a set-aside set of Law (such as Mosaic Law) for you to observe to a said standard thus to be deemed righteous and to be saved. In a nutshell, no one can keep the original set of God's Law, we can only keep the set-aside set of Law in a covenant applicable to us. Thus the Law we can keep may have something deviated from the Law we can't keep. We however can't tell for sure which one is, unless we are explicitly told.

We can't assume anything besides what Jesus told us about what the original Law should look like. Examples of what Jesus told include that lust is a sin, and one husband one wife. We can't extend this to anything else not said by Jesus, simply because we don't have a reference for us to know.

 

[janxharris]

It's quite a yes and no to me.

The big picture is that God sets up a set of laws for both humans and angel to obey. Both Satan and Adam broke this set of Law and since then Adam was driven out of Eden (God's realm) and dwell on earth. Satan and those angels breaking the Law are chained in Abyss till the final judgment comes.

Humans after Adam are living on earth - a place influenced by Satan and his angels. If the innocent Adam failed to observe the Law, it's understandable that humans on earth can't abide by God's Law to its full under the deep influence of Satan and his horde. This is proven openly from the period of Adam till Noah. It's a no-one-man-can-be-saved situation and God's purpose of creating humans is defeated. Earth together with everything in it thus needs to be destroyed.

However God has Jesus. By the blood Jesus to be shedding, a series of covenants can be granted to different scopes of humans in different periods of time. A covenant simply says, "since you humans can't abide by God's Law to its full, you are given a set-aside set of Law (such as Mosaic Law) for you to observe to a said standard thus to be deemed righteous and to be saved. In a nutshell, no one can keep the original set of God's Law, we can only keep the set-aside set of Law in a covenant applicable to us. Thus the Law we can keep may have something deviated from the Law we can't keep. We however can't tell for sure which one is, unless we are explicitly told.

We can't assume anything besides what Jesus told us about what the original Law should look like. Examples of what Jesus told include that lust is a sin, and one husband one wife. We can't extend this to anything else not said by Jesus, simply because we don't have a reference for us to know.

You admit that you do not know for sure what God's 'original Law' commands of you?

 

[janxharris]

It's quite a yes and no to me.

The big picture is that God sets up a set of laws for both humans and angel to obey. Both Satan and Adam broke this set of Law and since then Adam was driven out of Eden (God's realm) and dwell on earth. Satan and those angels breaking the Law are chained in Abyss till the final judgment comes.

Humans after Adam are living on earth - a place influenced by Satan and his angels. If the innocent Adam failed to observe the Law, it's understandable that humans on earth can't abide by God's Law to its full under the deep influence of Satan and his horde. This is proven openly from the period of Adam till Noah. It's a no-one-man-can-be-saved situation and God's purpose of creating humans is defeated. Earth together with everything in it thus needs to be destroyed.

However God has Jesus. By the blood Jesus to be shedding, a series of covenants can be granted to different scopes of humans in different periods of time. A covenant simply says, "since you humans can't abide by God's Law to its full, you are given a set-aside set of Law (such as Mosaic Law) for you to observe to a said standard thus to be deemed righteous and to be saved. In a nutshell, no one can keep the original set of God's Law, we can only keep the set-aside set of Law in a covenant applicable to us. Thus the Law we can keep may have something deviated from the Law we can't keep. We however can't tell for sure which one is, unless we are explicitly told.

We can't assume anything besides what Jesus told us about what the original Law should look like. Examples of what Jesus told include that lust is a sin, and one husband one wife. We can't extend this to anything else not said by Jesus, simply because we don't have a reference for us to know.

I guess it must be this:

Romans 2
14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

...but do our consciences agree...ever?

 

[janxharris]

On the other hand

Romans 7:
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Paul explicitly says that he would know what sin was without the law - and yet Jesus explicitly asserts that the law of divorce (Deut. 24:1) is not God's law, but that, essentially, a compromise.

 

[-V-]

Did Jesus assert that some OT laws weren't God's ideal?

That's kind of the whole point of the new covenant - the old covenant wasn't ideal (but it wasn't intended to be perfect in the first place).

"He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second."
Hebrews 8:6-7

 

[bhsmte]

If scriptures were inspired by an all powerful God, why would you need a better covenant? Would God have have not inspired the right one the first time around?

 

[-V-]

If scriptures were inspired by an all powerful God, why would you need a better covenant? Would God have have not inspired the right one the first time around?

It WAS the right covenant for God's purposes. The new one was also planned from the beginning. It's NOT a situation where God said, "oops, this isn't working, we need something else." The old covenant being lacking and its subsequent replacement was God's intention the whole time.

 

[bhsmte]

It WAS the right covenant for God's purposes. The new one was also planned from the beginning. It's NOT a situation where God said, "oops, this isn't working, we need something else." The old covenant being lacking and its subsequent replacement was God's intention the whole time.

Why was the first covenant the right one for God's purposes?

 

[-V-]

Why was the first covenant the right one for God's purposes?

Long story short, it points out man's failure and his need for God. The new covenant is the solution, the old covenant points out the problem.

 

[janxharris]

That's kind of the whole point of the new covenant - the old covenant wasn't ideal (but it wasn't intended to be perfect in the first place).

"He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second."
Hebrews 8:6-7

I thought it was clear that the old covenant wasn't perfect because it did not obtain eternal redemption. It wasn't not perfect because some of the laws were a compromise.

The writer of Hebrews says so chapter 9 from verse 11 onwards. Also, Hebrews 10:
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

 

[janxharris]

Psalm 19:7-9
The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.

Since Jesus asserts that Deuteronomy 24:1 is NOT God's perfect will (for it allowed divorce), then Psalm 19:7ff cannot reference this written law.

 

[-V-]

Psalm 19:7-9
The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.

Since Jesus asserts that Deuteronomy 24:1 is NOT God's perfect will (for it allowed divorce), then Psalm 19:7ff cannot reference this written law.

You have to keep in mind, though, two things: Psalms is poetry, and "perfect" is a term that has more flexibility than people typically think.

Poetry is, by nature, filled with imagery and non-literal expression. Hyperbole, for example, is often used. So something being called "perfect" in poetry doesn't necessarily mean the poet is expressing actual, literal, without-any-flaw-whatsoever "perfection".

As to the flexibility of "perfect", something can have a flaw and still be called "perfect" in a sense if it still behaves exactly as intended, if those flaws are supposed to be there intentionally.

 

[janxharris]

You have to keep in mind, though, two things: Psalms is poetry, and "perfect" is a term that has more flexibility than people typically think.

Poetry is, by nature, filled with imagery and non-literal expression. Hyperbole, for example, is often used. So something being called "perfect" in poetry doesn't necessarily mean the poet is expressing actual, literal, without-any-flaw-whatsoever "perfection".

As to the flexibility of "perfect", something can have a flaw and still be called "perfect" in a sense if it still behaves exactly as intended, if those flaws are supposed to be there intentionally.

Ok. Is it possible that David means the law of God that Jesus refers to as how things were 'from the beginning'?

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

 

[-V-]

Ok. Is it possible that David means the law of God that Jesus refers to as how things were 'from the beginning'?

Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

I think David is talking about the Mosaic Law, the old covenant.

 

[janxharris]

I think David is talking about the Mosaic Law, the old covenant.

The OT law permitting divorce:

Is a perfect law? Refreshes the soul? Is trustworthy? Is wise? Is right? Gives joy to the heart? Is radiant, giving light to the eyes?

 

[-V-]

The OT law permitting divorce:

Is a perfect law? Refreshes the soul? Is trustworthy? Is wise? Is right? Gives joy to the heart? Is radiant, giving light to the eyes?

You're missing the forest for the trees.

 

[bhsmte]

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Can you explain?