A time for long posts, but on the other hand we are probably the only 2 in this thread at the moment so not a big problem
Jesus was / is the new Moses. Therefore he should perform a new exodus, and he could make a new law if he desired. As regards the sermon on the mount, it seems however in Matthew that he spoke with authority on their law, rather than break down their law.
As regarding John 8:1-11, interpretations are that Jesus could lawfully dismiss the case since (1) the male offender was not there, thereby the demand of the law that they should both be killed could not be fulfilled (2) according to practice, those who were guilty of a crime could not convict others, this is why Jesus said, he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Not just any sin, but this sin. And concerning his finger writing in the sand, do you remember what the finger wrote on the wall? "mene mene tekel ufarsin", which means "you have been weighed and found too light".
hmm careful now
Any other place in Matthew that you observe Jesus overriding the law? I mean, not the tradition, but the law itself? So why go to these 2 verses with that intent?
My attitude to that video is like yours. I do not see zanah as possibly being that "erwat dabar". I think he is making a (pedagogical) stretch.
I should add to this, that in both hebrew and greek there are specific words for fornication and for adultery, so one would not be in doubt as to what was addressed
greek 4202 inappropriate contenteia and 3431/3429 moicheia
hebrew 2181 zanah and 5003/5004 na'aph
This may be considered a good argument, but again, I think the argument is "exception-centered", and loses sight of the main rule. I have stated in my interpretation, that Jesus seems to disown the divorce allowance (Deuteronomy 24:1), while upholding the legal culpability (Deuteronomy 24:4). The only instance where a culpability would be relaxed, was if Deuteronomy 22:21 could be invoked. In my understanding, a reference to Deuteronomy 22:13-21 would not be obsolete, but would however state, that this is the very only exception possible regarding the culpability. Whether or not the wife would subsequently be stoned does to me not impact the release of culpability.
But as regarding the latter, it is of course interesting that Joseph "was minded to put her away privily", as if seemingly there was a way to avoid that death penalty.
Greek 2010 epetrepsen epitrepo
to turn over (transmit) i.e. allow
OK, point taken. Well done
I will need to build a little argument here.
So Moses allowed them to divorce (by force of what is written in Deuteronomy 24:1), but it does not say that Moses instituted a divorce paper, or that God from now on approved of the divorce paper.
There is a verse that Paul speaks in a totally different context, that for me gives some view about what Paul thought
Acts 17:30 “and the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent”
Also another funny expression from Paul I found in
Acts 13:18 “and about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness”
the word for suffering their manners is in greek one word 5159 tropoforeo. And it means just that, tolerating another person’s quirks.
So just to make the argument, that “suffer” is not a far-fetched idea, comparing to “allow” or even “prescribe”. I do think the idea holds that when Jesus speaks about “it” not having been so since the beginning, the “it” refers to God favorably instituting divorce. Remember the question “why did Moses command?”, and the answer being that Moses did not ( ←) command, but he permitted, and from / since the beginning it has not ( ←) been so.
It isn't very clear to me that Jesus should differ from Moses, but again I see how one can with a little mingling arrive at it. To sum up how we arrive at 2 different positions:
(1) the understanding whether or not Jesus could overrule the mosaic law in the gospel of Matthew
(2) whether Jesus actually overrules D24 in Matthew 5:31-32
(3) the question of what "was not so" in Matthew 19:8
(4) the question whether "not for/over inappropriate contenteia" reflects a legal categorization or a genuine exception
(5) whether Matthew 19:9 is to be understood reflexively (pointing back) or declaratively (pointing forward)
These are the differences which I can think of just out the top of my head. More may apply. I think we are here testing the strength of the "exception" position, do we agree?
And I will also give you the privilege of time to think through my answers. Feel free to focus on the most relevant parts. I for my part feel a little bit obliged to respond to almost your entire post, in order to honor your desire to work through the matter.
I guess at present we are not debating, but more like exploring the different options.