Questioning the Bible

[pilgrimgal]

In what way?

And how do you understand 'properly understood'?

By using the bible to interpret the bible. (Again..i.e. in context).

To see life application in light of the New Covenant..in the light of Christ.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Jesus was sent to earth in part to update Old Testament teachings so of course we must disregard those verses He has disputed.The most blatant example is "an eye for an eye" which is the basis for the hatred of those who are still unsuccessfully trying to gain revenge for the Sept 11,2001 attack in New York City by supporting the crimes against humanity wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Christians realize that they must stop believing in this barbaric hatred and violence so they can follow Jesus' teaching to "love your enemies"!

The word 'hijack' seems to work well in a couple of contexts here, doesn't it?

 

[wayseer]

By using the bible to interpret the bible. (Again..i.e. in context).

I don't understand what you mean here. In what way can the Bible be used to interpret the Bible? Just sounds rather circular to me.

To see life application in light of the New Covenant..in the light of Christ.

And what is that 'light'?

Sorry for the questions but the use of jargonistic responses is not theology. I am encouraging you to think through your answers a little deeper.

 

[pilgrimgal]

I don't understand what you mean here. In what way can the Bible be used to interpret the Bible? Just sounds rather circular to me.



And what is that 'light'?

Sorry for the questions but the use of jargonistic responses is not theology. I am encouraging you to think through your answers a little deeper.

Wayseer, Not wanting to get off topic...Here is a question for you and last comment to you as well:

Why not try participating yourself in the conversation beyond the probes and challenges and in a deeper way offer something yourself especially in response to the original poster?

God bless.

 

[wayseer]

Wayseer, Not wanting to get off topic...Here is a question for you and last comment to you as well:

Why not try participating yourself in the conversation beyond the probes and challenges and in a deeper way offer something yourself especially in response to the original poster?

God bless.

It takes two to have a conversation. I am trying to understand you better. If you find that confronting then let's stop.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, in order to understand what it means it helps to know what it meant and the Word is written not just for those who lived but if understood properly it is for those of us who live now. It is the living Word because it comes via the Holy Spirit who gives new life.

"Word" refers to Jesus, not to scripture. The reason we have the "living Word" is because Jesus lives.

When Luther first proposed sola scriptura it was in contrast to what the Catholic Church was teaching in the early 1500s. In those days the Church was teaching that priests were mandatory in order to find God. Luther stated that you only needed scripture to find God, not intermediary priests.

I would disagree that all scriptures are meant for us who live now. Yes, many of them do have messages about ideas we struggle with today. But not all of them. According to Peter's dream the dietary laws are no longer meant for us. According to Paul, most of the Laws no longer apply to us. So some parts of scripture are specific to the people who lived at the time. Some parts of scripture are don't really speak to us now because we have so thoroughly accepted the ideas that they are passe. For instance, Genesis 1 was a monograph for monotheism and a refutation of the Babylonian gods. Yes, that still "speaks" to us, but it is speaking to the choir. We already completely accept that the Babylonian gods are false and that there is only one god. Similarly, Ezekiel 20 was set in a time where some Israelites were still offering human sacrifice. Yes, it still "speaks" to us not to offer human sacrifice, but really, is anyone seriously going to consider that today?

 

[lucaspa]

However, I will note that the way the NT uses the OT, it does not seem to be the preferred method. Instead, what is emphasized is how Christ can be seen in the text. Most quotations of the OT aren't followed by an analysis of what this meant to the first readers, in there historical context. Rather, what the text means in the new covenant of Christ is emphasized.

That is common, but again you have to put that within its historical context. When that analysis was being done, we have a small group of followers of Jesus still within Judaism. We can call them the "Jesus cult". They are trying very hard to convert their fellow Jews (look at the gymnastics Matthew uses in birth narrative to make Jesus look like Moses) and, of course, are trying to do so within the context of Judaism. So they "reinterpret" the OT.

My personal opinion is that this is not the way that God does things. God does the unexpected and uses "odd" people for His purposes. He picks a man with a speech impediment (Moses) to be His spokesperson to Pharoah! He picks a destitute, servile people to be His Chosen People. He picks one of the most outspoken and abusive persecutors of Jewish Christians to be the preacher to the Gentiles. So the NT writers trying to find Jesus in the OT are, IMHO, missing what God does. Yes, I sympathize with their trying to convince their fellow Jews. I sympathize with Paul trying to find some, any reason for the Gentiles to read the OT, but in the end I think they misinterpretated the OT.

I would humbly suggest that our preferred method of Biblical interpretation should start and end with Christ.

I respectfully disagree. That makes a theory you want to impose upon scripture instead of listening to what God is telling people. I don't think Jesus "needs" to "seen" in the OT. Take Jesus as he is. So he's from Galilee ("nothing good ever comes from Galilee"). Maybe he's not of the House of David. He's God's Son.

Finding out the original meaning might be nice, too, but the real meaning of revelation is how it reveals Christ to us NOW.

But when you do that, I submit you are imposing your own ideas on scripture. You are saying what the "meaning of revelation" is before you read it, instead of trying to find out what the meaning of revelation is. Do you follow me? It is not necessary for Christ to be revealed in each and every part of scripture.

 

[jacks]

There are some verses when I read I feel that I am not convinced by them. Is it wrong as a Christian to question the Holy Bible? Does it affect person’s faith?

I know I often question parts of what I read, sometimes it just takes a more knowledgeable person to explain it to me, but even if I'm not convinced it doesn't affect my faith. I don't need it all to make perfect sense to me, in order to get the important ideas.

For example last night I read 2 Kings. I found passage 13:21 a bit hard to swallow, but it doesn't affect my faith at all. (The passage of the Moabite body touching the bones of Elisha and coming back to life.)

 

[lucaspa]

Jesus was sent to earth in part to update Old Testament teachings so of course we must disregard those verses He has disputed.The most blatant example is "an eye for an eye" which is the basis for the hatred of those who are still unsuccessfully trying to gain revenge for the Sept 11,2001 attack in New York City by supporting the crimes against humanity wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Christians realize that they must stop believing in this barbaric hatred and violence so they can follow Jesus' teaching to "love your enemies"!

This is an example of taking a verse out of its historical and social context. Yes, to us it sounds barbaric. But at the time this was a very liberal penalty system. You need to compare it to the other criminal penalty systems around, particularly the Hammarabi Code. In the Code, if you lost an eye, the perpetrator was executed. If someone knocked out your tooth, he was executed. Limiting the penalty to only what was suffered is thus lenient for the time.

So the message we have for us today, IMHO, is that God wants us to be lenient. Jesus preached a very lenient system: one in which there were no penalties exacted. No stonings, no "revenge", no penalties. It's an extension of the "eye for an eye": as liberal and non punishing as humans can accept at the time. It's obviously a system we still have trouble accepting (me too!), because we hear the "eye for an eye".

 

[DanielRB]

Hi lucaspa,

That is common, but again you have to put that within its historical context. When that analysis was being done, we have a small group of followers of Jesus still within Judaism. We can call them the "Jesus cult". They are trying very hard to convert their fellow Jews (look at the gymnastics Matthew uses in birth narrative to make Jesus look like Moses) and, of course, are trying to do so within the context of Judaism. So they "reinterpret" the OT.

My personal opinion is that this is not the way that God does things. God does the unexpected and uses "odd" people for His purposes. He picks a man with a speech impediment (Moses) to be His spokesperson to Pharoah! He picks a destitute, servile people to be His Chosen People. He picks one of the most outspoken and abusive persecutors of Jewish Christians to be the preacher to the Gentiles. So the NT writers trying to find Jesus in the OT are, IMHO, missing what God does. Yes, I sympathize with their trying to convince their fellow Jews. I sympathize with Paul trying to find some, any reason for the Gentiles to read the OT, but in the end I think they misinterpretated the OT.



I respectfully disagree. That makes a theory you want to impose upon scripture instead of listening to what God is telling people. I don't think Jesus "needs" to "seen" in the OT. Take Jesus as he is. So he's from Galilee ("nothing good ever comes from Galilee"). Maybe he's not of the House of David. He's God's Son.



But when you do that, I submit you are imposing your own ideas on scripture. You are saying what the "meaning of revelation" is before you read it, instead of trying to find out what the meaning of revelation is. Do you follow me? It is not necessary for Christ to be revealed in each and every part of scripture.

I understand where you're coming from. I was of the same opinion for many years.

If I tried to look at the Bible "objectively" and find out what it "really" said, the grammatical-historical method would--and did--lead me to realize that from these perspectives, the NT authors terribly misused the Scripture for their own agenda, performing what we would call today eisegesis, and imposed their understanding of the OT onto the text, using proof texts out of context and in general did everything that we accuse "cults" of doing today.

But then I realized that if there is really a God who cares to communicate to us, and there really is a Holy Spirit who inspired those NT writers (and us today), then it wasn't mere ignorance and wishful thinking that led the authors of the NT to use the OT that way.

As you pointed out, God uses surprising means to communicate to us--a stammering prophet, a King guilty of murder and adultery, a prophet's unfaithful wife, a few ignorant fishermen, even a donkey's complaints against a pagan prophet. We aren't telling God anything new when we say "Matthew's not quoting from Hosea in context!". Do we really think He doesn't know that? Do we really think that God was powerless to create and preserve His revelation to us in exactly the way He wanted it?

You can study the Bible as any ancient writing, learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, study the textual history, learn about the historical setting of each book, pile knowledge on knowledge, and come to a pretty good understanding of the "original" meaning of each book of the Bible. You might even get some "spiritual" insight from it.

But it the Bible is truly Revelation--an uncovering of God to us--then we miss the point if we stop there--and really, have probably missed the point by starting there as well. It is a book that, if we read properly, does not merely convey information about God, history, even "sacred history" or even a book about theology. Rather, it is designed as a channel of God's grace to us...a place to come to meet God, and what He wants to say to us now.

I hope I'm making sense. Historical-grammatical exegesis is fine if you want to learn about the Bible. But the Bible was given not so we could learn about itself, but about the God who gave it to us as a channel of His grace.

 

[DanielRB]

Here's a book that describes much better than I on what I'm trying to drive at: Amazon.com: Deep Exegesis:The Mystery of Reading Scripture (9781602580695): Peter Leithart: Books

 

[davidsheart77]

well I Am On The Same Boat With Nyams I Am Having A Doubting Moment I Even Opened A Forum Pertaining To The Old Testament Murders Supposedly Led By God. What Was The Point Of It All And Was It Really Him?

 

[lucaspa]

But then I realized that if there is really a God who cares to communicate to us, and there really is a Holy Spirit who inspired those NT writers (and us today), then it wasn't mere ignorance and wishful thinking that led the authors of the NT to use the OT that way. ... Do we really think that God was powerless to create and preserve His revelation to us in exactly the way He wanted it?

I have several concerns with this.

First is that you are defending the Bible. You are making that your primary concern. But we worship God, not the Bible. The Bible is there to help us find God. It is not an end in itself or our primary concern.

Second, for God to "create and preserve His revelation to us in exactly the way He wanted it" means He has to manipulate the writers to a degree that is unacceptable in a loving God. I notice that you are not saying God dictated the Bible. So, in order for the text to turn out "exactly the way He wanted", it means that God had to insinuate Himself into the minds of the various authors and manipulate their thoughts. That level of insidious control is abhorrent. It makes brainwashing look like an innocent suggestion. This is not something a loving God is going to do.

Third, scripture tells us God did not, in fact, manipulate people so that scripture is "exactly" as He wished. Look at Mark 10 and Matthew 14. Jesus tells us 1) a human wrote scripture and 2) that human got Deut. 24:1 wrong. That the human (Moses) wrote that down not because God wanted it that way, but because Moses was appeasing the carnal desires of men -- particularly older men who wanted younger wives.

But it the Bible is truly Revelation--an uncovering of God to us--then we miss the point if we stop there--and really, have probably missed the point by starting there as well.

I respectfully disagree. Looking at the study in context does not, in any way, diminish that we are dealing with revelation. I think we are making the point when we start with a grammatical-historical approach. God as revealed to humans depends on what humans can understand. And our understanding has changed thru history as we have "grown up". So what God revealed of Himself in 1500 BC was not the same as He revealed in 30 AD and is not, indeed, what we can understand about God now. It is only in understanding how the people of the time understood the revelation that we can keep true to God and scripture and not impose our ideas on God.

It's about listening to God. And to do that properly I strongly feel that we must first listen as the people of the time did and hear what they heard. Any new message we get after that must be consistent with that first message.

It is a book that, if we read properly, does not merely convey information about God, history, even "sacred history" or even a book about theology. Rather, it is designed as a channel of God's grace to us...a place to come to meet God, and what He wants to say to us now.

I agree that the Bible is an aid for us to find God. In fact, I disagree with some of your ideas precisely because I feel that people are missing that point when they impose their ideas on the Bible and make the Bible their primary concern.

I hope I'm making sense. Historical-grammatical exegesis is fine if you want to learn about the Bible. But the Bible was given not so we could learn about itself, but about the God who gave it to us as a channel of His grace.

You are making sense. I'm disagreeing with what you say. Historical-grammatical exegesis is not about learning about the Bible, but about learning about God. We need to learn what God was saying to the people of the time. We can't learn what God is saying to us until we know what God was saying to the people of the time.

Most of the things God said to the people of the time are still relevant. Genesis 1's affirmation that there is only one god is very relevant. Genesis 2's message that no matter how much knowledge we get we never will be God is also relevant. So are some of Ezekiel's arguments against human sacrifice. It's just that they are somewhat passe precisely because those messages have been around so long. We have accepted them; they are not new anymore.

Some messages taken out of historical/social context can be downright harmful to our finding God. For instance, I am looking in another thread about "prosperity theology". At the time of the OT gods were viewed as partisan and tied to the fortunes of particular nations. That Israel was prosperous was a sign that 1) Yahweh existed, 2) Yahweh was more powerful than the gods of Israel's neighbors and 3) Yahweh favored Israel. Taking those verses out of the historical-social context to justify the idea that, if you get rich it means that God favors you is, IMO, very wrong and contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the NT. I think people following prosperity theology are going to find getting into the kingdom as difficult as a camel going through the eye of a needle.

Aren't the prosperity theology people, however, doing what you advocate? Looking at scripture as speaking to us today and ignoring the grammatical-historical context?

Or let me take another example. Ezekiel 20:25:
"Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; "

On the surface that seems to say that God tricked people in the past. But in the historical/social context of Ezekiel's fight against human sacrifice still practiced in his time and it's justification in some of the Torah statements, this is explained as Ezekiel trying to undermine that argument.

 

[DanielRB]

Hi lucaspa,

I have several concerns with this.

First is that you are defending the Bible. You are making that your primary concern. But we worship God, not the Bible. The Bible is there to help us find God. It is not an end in itself or our primary concern.

Since this thread is specifically about the Bible, is it so odd that I chose to defend it here?

If I posted about trout fishing in a fishing forum, would that mean that I consider fishing to be my primary concern?

I agree the Bible is not the end, but God Himself is the end. Furthermore, I believe any interpretation of the Bible that does not ultimately lead to God's perfect self-revelation--Jesus Christ--is an interpretation that fails to see that very principle.

Second, for God to "create and preserve His revelation to us in exactly the way He wanted it" means He has to manipulate the writers to a degree that is unacceptable in a loving God. I notice that you are not saying God dictated the Bible. So, in order for the text to turn out "exactly the way He wanted", it means that God had to insinuate Himself into the minds of the various authors and manipulate their thoughts. That level of insidious control is abhorrent. It makes brainwashing look like an innocent suggestion. This is not something a loving God is going to do.

This is an unwarreted assumption...sorry for not making myself clearer.

I don't believe an all-knowing and all-powerful God ever has to resort to manipulation of human beings in such a way that is contrary to their predispositions. A being who has to manipulate others is one who is either powerless to accomplish something in another way, or unsure of the outcome. An all-knowing and all-powerful God would not be in this position. Before ever creating a single thing, He knew exactly what person would be like, and exactly how they would act in their lives. Providentially, He used as His Messengers to comminicate exactly what He wanted to. I can't picture God saying "Jeeze, is this all I have to work with? I hope they don't screw up my message too much, but I can't know for sure since only God knows the future...(wait a minute, I'M God...)" or saying "this little twerp is gonna write THAT about me?! Well, I'll show him!!"

I don't want this to become a free will/determinism thread, but I'll point out that a compatabilisitic view of predestination requires absolutely no manipulation. As it's been said before, although we're free to do what we want, we're not free to WANT what we want.

Third, scripture tells us God did not, in fact, manipulate people so that scripture is "exactly" as He wished. Look at Mark 10 and Matthew 14. Jesus tells us 1) a human wrote scripture and 2) that human got Deut. 24:1 wrong. That the human (Moses) wrote that down not because God wanted it that way, but because Moses was appeasing the carnal desires of men -- particularly older men who wanted younger wives.

I see nothing in the passage suggesting that the reason for the law on divorce being because "older men wanting younger wives". It talks about "hardness of heart" and does not elaborate in the way you're suggesting. I see today "hardness of heart" when someone like Prince Charles to do the very opposite, and prefer an older, less attractive woman to the beautiful wife he pledged his life to.

By saying Moses wrote Scripture, He's not denying that it came from God. No person who supports inspiration, even verbal and plenary, will suggest that Moses cannot be properly called an author of Scripture. It's a both/and, not an either/or...the human and divine working together.

It also does not have Jesus saying Moses was wrong, but rather that a certain aspect of the OT law was given for a specific reason (the hardness of hearts). Giving that law was a concession to human weakness, yes...and indeed, the whole salvaic history is a concession to human weakness, as only weak humans need grace, not Ubermench.

I respectfully disagree. Looking at the study in context does not, in any way, diminish that we are dealing with revelation. I think we are making the point when we start with a grammatical-historical approach. God as revealed to humans depends on what humans can understand. And our understanding has changed thru history as we have "grown up". So what God revealed of Himself in 1500 BC was not the same as He revealed in 30 AD and is not, indeed, what we can understand about God now.

I mostly agree, and that last sentence kinna is my point: since I view the Bible as a revelation from God, it tells us something important about Him that it is relevant for today--but not for the same reasons it was relevant when first given. The meaning of the OT practices on atonement (for example) takes on an entirely different meaning in light of the cross of Christ. Knowing how the OT tabernacle (and later temple) are related to Canaanite temples might be interesting, but that's hardly the value this Scripture can have for us today. I believe that the writer of Hebrews relating Christ's work to the OT temple service was inspired, showing us how to re-interpret the OT in light of the new conditions under Christ.

It is only in understanding how the people of the time understood the revelation that we can keep true to God and scripture and not impose our ideas on God.

And I disagree. I believe that we can be true to God only by following what He is trying to tell us today, in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Indeed, since I think we both agree that serving God is more important than serving Scripture (of course, this is often a false dichotomy), I'm puzzled why you seem so devoted to the grammatical-historical method. Since Jesus and the NT writers seemed to think that the OT Scripture was somehow relevant for their day, I take my cue from them on both the value they place on it and the way they understood it.

It's about listening to God. And to do that properly I strongly feel that we must first listen as the people of the time did and hear what they heard. Any new message we get after that must be consistent with that first message.

I'm not sure what you mean about "listening to God" if you believe (as I think you indicated above with the discussion about divorce) that Scripture contains things that God didn't intend to say in the first place.

As to a message being consistent, I believe it can be consistent, but given a fuller meaning.

I agree that the Bible is an aid for us to find God. In fact, I disagree with some of your ideas precisely because I feel that people are missing that point when they impose their ideas on the Bible and make the Bible their primary concern.

I don't thing one can simultaneously make the Bible their primary concern AND impose their ideas on it. To impose one's ideas on the text shows that it really isn't their primary concern.

I also think it's important to distinguish between "imposing one's view" on the text and seeing a new interpretation based on God's further work in history. Indeed, calling some of Scripture as not reflecting God's will (as your view on how you understand Jesus' comments on the Mosaic law on divorce seem to indicate) would indicate to me that your presuppositions on what God's will could color your acceptance or rejection of what God's word is. Don't get me wrong; all of us have presuppositions, and we can't avoid them. Presuppositions are necessary, especially in matters of faith (or you can chose agnosticism). The presupposition I primarily bring to the text is that God knows what He's doing, is never surprised, and intends for Scripture to be the way it is. I furthermore presuppose that all of God's revelation is culminated in the person of Christ, and any "prior dispensation" or revelation cannot be properly understood without reference to God's ultimate plan found in the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

You are making sense. I'm disagreeing with what you say. Historical-grammatical exegesis is not about learning about the Bible, but about learning about God. We need to learn what God was saying to the people of the time. We can't learn what God is saying to us until we know what God was saying to the people of the time.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Most of the things God said to the people of the time are still relevant. Genesis 1's affirmation that there is only one god is very relevant. Genesis 2's message that no matter how much knowledge we get we never will be God is also relevant. So are some of Ezekiel's arguments against human sacrifice. It's just that they are somewhat passe precisely because those messages have been around so long. We have accepted them; they are not new anymore.

Some messages taken out of historical/social context can be downright harmful to our finding God. For instance, I am looking in another thread about "prosperity theology". At the time of the OT gods were viewed as partisan and tied to the fortunes of particular nations. That Israel was prosperous was a sign that 1) Yahweh existed, 2) Yahweh was more powerful than the gods of Israel's neighbors and 3) Yahweh favored Israel. Taking those verses out of the historical-social context to justify the idea that, if you get rich it means that God favors you is, IMO, very wrong and contrary to the teachings of Jesus in the NT. I think people following prosperity theology are going to find getting into the kingdom as difficult as a camel going through the eye of a needle.

Aren't the prosperity theology people, however, doing what you advocate? Looking at scripture as speaking to us today and ignoring the grammatical-historical context?

But I don't advocate just taking a text and making it say what you want it to say. Rather, I advocate understanding what Scripture tells us about Christ. It's not about willy-nilly making up whatever you want Scripture to say to you. It means making God's final revelation--Jesus Christ, His Person and His work--as the measuring stick (the "canon", if you will) of all Scripture. Jesus is who is relevant today, and Jesus' commands to us.

Or let me take another example. Ezekiel 20:25:
"Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; "

On the surface that seems to say that God tricked people in the past. But in the historical/social context of Ezekiel's fight against human sacrifice still practiced in his time and it's justification in some of the Torah statements, this is explained as Ezekiel trying to undermine that argument.

I see this passage in line with Romans 1:21-32, where God gives an amazing amount of freedom to us to rebel against Him...and yet, He still choses to forgive us. I really don't see a conflict between Ezekiel 20:25 and that theme of freedom, rebellion and restoration.

 

[jonathonbyrd]

There are some verses when I read I feel that I am not convinced by them. Is it wrong as a Christian to question the Holy Bible? Does it affect person’s faith?

I'm not surprised that you would question the Bible. It's the complete opposite of the world and the world has been your teacher, you mother, your father, your assurance and your lust from the time that you were born.

The bible goes completely against the natural thinkings of man. It's hard for us to accept a perfect, non-created, justice serving God that loves and hates. It's hard for us to grasp infinity.

What you need to understand FIRST THING, is that the Bible is God's Word and God's word is the Truth of this reality that you are living. You need to participate in the bible study called "The Truth Project", it will open your eyes to God's reality.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Which Bible are we talking about?

There are different Christian denominations TODAY that have different books in their Bibles.

 

[jonathonbyrd]

Different denominations may choose to accept the many different books of the bible for their own uses. God tells us that all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and rebuking.

I would be using a bible that provides me with all scripture. However, not any scripture that has been added in the last 1500 years. Anything written before Jesus and by Jesus' Apostles.

As a veteran you should know this Steve.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Different denominations may choose to accept the many different books of the bible for their own uses. God tells us that all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and rebuking.

I would be using a bible that provides me with all scripture. However, not any scripture that has been added in the last 1500 years. Anything written before Jesus and by Jesus' Apostles.

As a veteran you should know this Steve.

Who wrote what is the question isn't it?

 

[Look Up]

Jesus was sent to earth in part to update Old Testament teachings so of course we must disregard those verses He has disputed.The most blatant example is "an eye for an eye" which is the basis for the hatred ...

"Update the Old Testament" may be a readily comprehensible metaphor for a culture that values an idealized progress over tradition, but I think the contrast in the six "antitheses" of Matthew 5 ("you have heard it said, but I say ... ") had more to do with Christ the fulfillment of sacred tradition than with progress per se.

Lex talionis ("an eye for an eye") was a worthy law in that it brought a certain egalitarian limitation to judicial decision. Its weakness was that it could also be used to satiate vengeful motive, thus foreshadowing a need for the greater righteousness Jesus taught of loving enemies.

But Jesus did not dispute (or abolish) the Mosaic law, just and egalitarian and God-given as it was, nor should we disregard such law, but rather uphold and keep both it and Jesus' new law, a law that both recognizes the fairness of the old and also transcends it in mimicry of Jesus' own merciful cross-work.

And the impossibly high ethical demands of Jesus here as elsewhere, given human propensities to evil, points to the need for divine deliverance through Jesus' sacrifice. The focus then is on Christ Jesus, the apex of revelation, rather than on moral progress in some secular or socially evolutionary sense.

Arguably also, Jesus fulfilled some laws of Moses, such as the sacrificial system, in such a way that our regard for such laws merges with something like disregard, for when the sun comes up, the stars seem to disappear even though they are still there.