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

[-V-]

Can you explain?

One specific law might sound grim, but David is talking about the Law in its entirety, the effects of living by the whole thing.

Like our law today. Being imprisoned or even executed is part of the law, and no one wants to be imprisoned or executed. Yet, if everyone followed the law, imagine how peaceful society would be.

 

[janxharris]

You're missing the forest for the trees.

I merely seek understanding...if such is possible. If not, then perhaps it is you missing something.

 

[janxharris]

One specific law might sound grim, but David is talking about the Law in its entirety, the effects of living by the whole thing.

Like our law today. Being imprisoned or even executed is part of the law, and no one wants to be imprisoned or executed. Yet, if everyone followed the law, imagine how peaceful society would be.

Jesus explicitly singles out Deut 24:1 as a compromise. Divorce is not God's will.

 

[-V-]

Jesus explicitly singles out Deut 24:1 as a compromise. Divorce is not God's will.

Ok, it's not God's will. So? It's not God's will that any should perish, but He is still going to condemn some people.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, it's not God's will. So? It's not God's will that any should perish, but He is still going to condemn some people.

Does this mean God's will does not always play out in reality?

 

[-V-]

Does this mean God's will does not always play out in reality?

Yes and no. It's both yes and no because "God's will" is not a single type of quality. There are different aspects of God's will. There are things that occur that adhere to one aspect of God's will while going against a different aspect of His will.
What is the difference between God’s sovereign will and God’s revealed will?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes and no. It's both yes and no because "God's will" is not a single type of quality. There are different aspects of God's will. There are things that occur that adhere to one aspect of God's will while going against a different aspect of His will.
What is the difference between God’s sovereign will and God’s revealed will?

And how do you know this an accurate description of God's will?

 

[-V-]

And how do you know this an accurate description of God's will?

It fits the details given in the Bible.

 

[janxharris]

Ok, it's not God's will. So? It's not God's will that any should perish, but He is still going to condemn some people.

The point I am trying to make is that if we humans aren't clear as to what is being put forth about an entity that claims, through a book, to be our creator, then belief in such an entity becomes difficult.

I am unclear, now, as to what does and does not constitute the will of the creator as outlined in the bible.

The ambivalence scripture has regarding polygamy, as I have discussed on another thread, also troubles me and tends to make me sceptical.

Did it really take Jesus's words to explain the truth about Deut 24:1? Is there an equivalent EXPLICIT assertion in the OT?

 

[eider]

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.

Hello......
I think that Ellicot sat in total and complete safety, far from the contention of those moments as he considered the above account, and Jesus's reply.

Just as with the insidious questions by Temple priests about taxation, this was yet another question which sought to cause contention and conflict for Jesus.

As usual Jesus answered perfectly for that moment, that time and those interrogators.

'....... because of the hardness of your hearts.' Love it!

And so, each one of us has to go back to that time, stand in that crowd, feel the tensions, see the blatant animosity and malicious intent, and hear the questions as put, before we can go back to our armchairs to make any judgement about how Jesus answered. And then we see it, a perfect deflection of the missile!

Incidentally, when Jesus answered the taxation question in the Temple, if we follow exactly the same mindset before reviewing Jesus's answer we see the situation with a new mindset. And, for what it's worth, I don't think that that coin was a denarius...... ! Just saying.

 

[janxharris]

Hello......
I think that Ellicot sat in total and complete safety, far from the contention of those moments as he considered the above account, and Jesus's reply.

Just as with the insidious questions by Temple priests about taxation, this was yet another question which sought to cause contention and conflict for Jesus.

As usual Jesus answered perfectly for that moment, that time and those interrogators.

'....... because of the hardness of your hearts.' Love it!

And so, each one of us has to go back to that time, stand in that crowd, feel the tensions, see the blatant animosity and malicious intent, and hear the questions as put, before we can go back to our armchairs to make any judgement about how Jesus answered. And then we see it, a perfect deflection of the missile!

Incidentally, when Jesus answered the taxation question in the Temple, if we follow exactly the same mindset before reviewing Jesus's answer we see the situation with a new mindset. And, for what it's worth, I don't think that that coin was a denarius...... ! Just saying.

You accept that Deut. 24:1 is a compromise?

 

[Hawkins]

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?

That's it. Our conscience don't agree because we have our hearts hardened on a daily basis. However, from our altered version of the Law (which is our conscience), the majority can still gain the concept of right and wrong. That's actually why we don't need to read the law details (such as federal or state laws in US) in order to abide by our own laws to a good extent.

 

[eider]

You accept that Deut. 24:1 is a compromise?

I accept that the situation was not one of Pharisee questions, but insidious Pharisee interrogations, just like the incident over the taxation question.

I accept that Jesus just avoided it.

But Jesus's tenet was thus:-
Matthew {5:17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {5:18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The point I am trying to make is that if we humans aren't clear as to what is being put forth about an entity that claims, through a book, to be our creator, then belief in such an entity becomes difficult.

I am unclear, now, as to what does and does not constitute the will of the creator as outlined in the bible.

The ambivalence scripture has regarding polygamy, as I have discussed on another thread, also troubles me and tends to make me sceptical.

Did it really take Jesus's words to explain the truth about Deut 24:1? Is there an equivalent EXPLICIT assertion in the OT?

A major difference between Christianity and Islam is that in Islam God is chiefly known, understood, and revealed in a sacred book, the Qu'ran; in Christianity that's not the case. The Bible isn't the "Christian Qur'an", in Christianity God is known, understood, and revealed through His interaction with people throughout history and, most importantly, in and through the Person of Jesus.

The Bible serves an invaluable purpose in Christianity in that it redirects us back to Jesus. The chief Christian hermeneutic can be seen, for example, in John 5:39, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me," St. Augustine writes that all Scripture contains one Utterance, that Utterance is Jesus Christ. The Bible, we believe, is about Jesus. Jesus is how we come to know God, understand God, and have faith in God. That is what it means when Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one may come to the Father but by Me". Jesus, uniquely, can show us the Father because Jesus, uniquely, knows the Father because the Father is Jesus' Father. We therefore know Him as our Father on account of Christ who brings us into Himself by grace to know and share of God even as Christ Himself shares of God and knows Him. To know God even as God knows Himself revealed as He is to us in the Person of Jesus.

The Bible is not the chief revelation of God, the Revelation of God is Jesus Himself. The Bible serves the purpose of bringing us back to Jesus.

To be a bit more Lutheran here: in Lutheran hermeneutics we have what's known as the Law-Gospel Dialectic, the distinction and dichotomy between Law and Gospel is a central thesis to how Lutherans "do" theology; and it is also a vitally important way in which we engage Scripture. That in our encounter with Scripture we receive both God's Law (what God commands as righteousness) and God's Gospel (what God promises as grace). Thus the Bible serves the purpose in delivering to us this double-edged sword of God's word, of Law and Gospel. The Law (which includes, but is not limited to, the Torah) which serves to make known justice, to curb evil, and--on account of our sin--to reveal our own sinfulness like a mirror; and the Gospel which serves to show forth God's kindness to us in Jesus who offers Himself freely in love to save us and on His account we are, by God's grace, freely justified. Thus both in the hearing of Scripture and in preaching we are to hear both Law and Gospel, driving us to repentance, reminding us of grace, declaring us forgiven, etc.

The Law is made more plain in Jesus' teaching, who reveals that mere outward observance to commandments are nothing at all, God desires true contrition, true righteousness. It was said of old an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but Jesus reveals a higher law, "If someone strikes you on the one cheek, turn and offer the other as well"; to love our neighbor does not mean to only love our friends and kin, but to love even our enemies, to love those who would curse us, persecute us, or seek us harm. And so on and so forth. The Law, ultimately, is to reveal true righteousness which is found in Jesus, the Righteous One of God. What was given through Moses ultimately points to Christ, but the fullness of it is in Christ, not Moses; Jesus Himself saying, "I did not come to abolish the Law ... I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" the Greek for "fulfill" here (πληρῶσαι) means "to make full": Jesus is the perfect righteousness of the Law.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[eider]

Jesus was supporting the Law, all of which he wanted to restore, but he needed to answer the Pharisee interrogation trap as cleverly as it had been phrased by the Pharisees.
He succeeded well, but later scrutiny by folks who were NOT present to witness how fraut these situations must have been can only be clouded by historical myopia.
The laws were clear, and written for national success through good health, strength, etc....
One of the main objectives of the Israelites was to increase quickly for strength and success and so wedlock and family were of major importance, Deut.24:1.
Wedlock which could not increase the people was outlawed, Deut. 23:2
Each wedded couple were given every opportunity and support in starting a family quickly and successfully, Deut. 24:5
Yet another main objective was to protect Israelites from illnesses that could decimate the people, and by eliminating polygamy this could be achieved, Deut.23:18.
Where a Jew violated a virgin, then both must remain in wedlock, because otherwise the woman would be shunned and not have the opportunity to provide children, Deut.22:28-29.
The Israelites needed to protect from foreign sicknesses and weaknesses, Deut.23:3, Deut. 23:4, Deut. 7:3
Where a marriage had failed (possibly barren?) then the husband could divorce, and then the women was free to accept wedlock with another which might be successful, but she could not resume the previous unsuccessful marriage, Deut. 24:4

Of course Jesus supported the above laws, but at the same time he was constantly under pressure from hypocritical antagonists attempting to catch him out.

 

[janxharris]

I accept that the situation was not one of Pharisee questions, but insidious Pharisee interrogations, just like the incident over the taxation question.

I accept that Jesus just avoided it.

But Jesus's tenet was thus:-
Matthew {5:17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {5:18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I am not following you eider. Surely it is clear that Jesus tells the Pharisees that this Mosaic law of divorce was not God's ideal?

Where is the avoidance you mention?

 

[janxharris]

A major difference between Christianity and Islam is that in Islam God is chiefly known, understood, and revealed in a sacred book, the Qu'ran; in Christianity that's not the case. The Bible isn't the "Christian Qur'an", in Christianity God is known, understood, and revealed through His interaction with people throughout history and, most importantly, in and through the Person of Jesus.

I can only speak for myself and would say that, outside of scripture, I not aware of any definite interactions with someone called Jesus.

To be a bit more Lutheran here: in Lutheran hermeneutics we have what's known as the Law-Gospel Dialectic, the distinction and dichotomy between Law and Gospel is a central thesis to how Lutherans "do" theology; and it is also a vitally important way in which we engage Scripture. That in our encounter with Scripture we receive both God's Law (what God commands as righteousness) and God's Gospel (what God promises as grace). Thus the Bible serves the purpose in delivering to us this double-edged sword of God's word, of Law and Gospel. The Law (which includes, but is not limited to, the Torah) which serves to make known justice, to curb evil, and--on account of our sin--to reveal our own sinfulness like a mirror; and the Gospel which serves to show forth God's kindness to us in Jesus who offers Himself freely in love to save us and on His account we are, by God's grace, freely justified. Thus both in the hearing of Scripture and in preaching we are to hear both Law and Gospel, driving us to repentance, reminding us of grace, declaring us forgiven, etc.

Okay, but I'm not surely this dialectic has been resolved yet.

The Law is made more plain in Jesus' teaching, who reveals that mere outward observance to commandments are nothing at all, God desires true contrition, true righteousness. It was said of old an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but Jesus reveals a higher law, "If someone strikes you on the one cheek, turn and offer the other as well"; to love our neighbor does not mean to only love our friends and kin, but to love even our enemies, to love those who would curse us, persecute us, or seek us harm. And so on and so forth. The Law, ultimately, is to reveal true righteousness which is found in Jesus, the Righteous One of God. What was given through Moses ultimately points to Christ, but the fullness of it is in Christ, not Moses; Jesus Himself saying, "I did not come to abolish the Law ... I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" the Greek for "fulfill" here (πληρῶσαι) means "to make full": Jesus is the perfect righteousness of the Law.

-CryptoLutheran

Highlighting these differences surely only serves underline such dichotomies?

 

[janxharris]

Jesus was supporting the Law, all of which he wanted to restore, but he needed to answer the Pharisee interrogation trap as cleverly as it had been phrased by the Pharisees.
He succeeded well, but later scrutiny by folks who were NOT present to witness how fraut these situations must have been can only be clouded by historical myopia.
The laws were clear, and written for national success through good health, strength, etc....
One of the main objectives of the Israelites was to increase quickly for strength and success and so wedlock and family were of major importance, Deut.24:1.
Wedlock which could not increase the people was outlawed, Deut. 23:2
Each wedded couple were given every opportunity and support in starting a family quickly and successfully, Deut. 24:5
Yet another main objective was to protect Israelites from illnesses that could decimate the people, and by eliminating polygamy this could be achieved, Deut.23:18.
Where a Jew violated a virgin, then both must remain in wedlock, because otherwise the woman would be shunned and not have the opportunity to provide children, Deut.22:28-29.
The Israelites needed to protect from foreign sicknesses and weaknesses, Deut.23:3, Deut. 23:4, Deut. 7:3
Where a marriage had failed (possibly barren?) then the husband could divorce, and then the women was free to accept wedlock with another which might be successful, but she could not resume the previous unsuccessful marriage, Deut. 24:4

Of course Jesus supported the above laws, but at the same time he was constantly under pressure from hypocritical antagonists attempting to catch him out.

Jesus did not value and support the law of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1; he said it only existed because of the hardness of men's hearts. He is averring that it was a compromise - not God's ideal.

 

[eider]

Jesus did not value and support the law of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1; he said it only existed because of the hardness of men's hearts. He is averring that it was a compromise - not God's ideal.

How Jesus said what he said is directly connected to the fraut situation he was in at the time. A typically similar event would be the question in the Temple about taxation. In both cases Jesus's answer was a sidestep.

Jesus supported all of the laws of Moses, and where a union could not bear fruit I expect that Jesus agreed that a separation and second marriage FOR BOTH might be successful.

And so...... 'NO'...... I cannot agree with you, I will accept exactly what Jesus said, and recognise exactly the situation he was in.

 

[janxharris]

How Jesus said what he said is directly connected to the fraut situation he was in at the time. A typically similar event would be the question in the Temple about taxation. In both cases Jesus's answer was a sidestep.

Would you explicitly describe the sidestep please? I don't see any.

Jesus supported all of the laws of Moses, and where a union could not bear fruit I expect that Jesus agreed that a separation and second marriage FOR BOTH might be successful.

Jesus explicitly asserts that divorce was permitted because of hard heartedness. No mention is made of permitting divorce because there was no offspring.

Indeed, Jesus said that only marital infidelity legitimized divorce.

And so...... 'NO'...... I cannot agree with you, I will accept exactly what Jesus said, and recognise exactly the situation he was in.

I quoted what Jesus said.