Hi there is something in the Bible where Jesus says that a rule was only brought in because the people were hard hearted.... but then he changed things .... and in another place Peter, in the time of the early church, had a vision that suggested that gentiles should not be excluded and showing that no foods were unacceptable.
Because of that, Christians no longer eat Kosher food.
Paul also had visions and for new teachings from Jesus and the Holy Spirit...
So ...
Is it reasonable to regard the wishes of God and the message of God, and the rules God wants us to follow as something potentially flexible, and it is a mistake to make the Bible the highest authority, but rather Jesus and the Holy Spirit is the highest authority... and we should be open to fresh revelation and fresh insight??
The concept here is something that is sometimes called "progressive revelation". That is, in the unfolding of history and God's dealings with humanity in history, rather than there being what we might call a "information dump", God worked from within the structures and views of people. And it is through the building of the relationship between people and God that God made Himself better known and understood. When you first meet someone you don't know everything about them, but as you grow with them with time, you learn more about them. In a similar way, we see an evolving understanding of God, that ultimately reaches climax with Jesus, who is not merely another prophet in a long line of prophets, but is the very and only-begotten Son of the Father. We don't merely get people talking about God, but we get God Himself.
So, in the case of divorce as Jesus talks about, divorce was permitted as a kind of compromise; but the ideal of marriage means there shouldn't be any divorce.
Of course what Jesus Himself says needs to be understood in an historic and also rabbinical context.
In the time of Jesus there were two major rabbinical schools, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. And these two schools provided rabbinical commentary and interpretations to a number of matters of Torah application or
halakhah. Bet Hillel maintained that a husband could deliver to his wife a certificate of divorce for nearly any reason, famously including even something as trivial as the wife burning a meal. And thus took a rather liberal view of divorce. Bet Shammai, on the other hand, took a far more conservative view, arguing that a husband may only give his wife a certificate of divorce for serious matters, for example infidelity. Jesus' position is remarkably close to the position held by Bet Shammai. That divorce should be viewed as an exception, not the rule.
Note that Jesus does not straight out forbid divorce, but rather calls His followers to a deeper understanding, and that marriage and divorce are things that should be taken with a great deal of seriousness. Divorce was permitted, because humans are stubborn and fallible; but the ideal is that when a man takes a woman as his wife, he has made a serious commitment that he can't simply revoke on some whim. It's important, to note that I have spoken about a husband delivering his wife a certificate of divorce. Because, generally speaking, the husband could divorce his wife, but a wife divorcing her husband was a much more difficult thing. A husband nearly had to request a certificate, and then present it to his wife, and that was that, handing the wife the certificate of divorce was all that that was required. So when Jesus takes the more hard-line position that a husband shouldn't deliver a certificate of divorce except for something serious, Jesus is placing a greater degree of responsibility on the husband--his marital commitment is serious, and cannot be frivolously tossed away.
In the broader context of progressive revelation, there is also the understanding that under the Torah God was curbing evil, and thus boundaries were being established to provide a "this far, no further" approach. That's the point of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", a concept that didn't first show up in the Torah which God gave Israel, but is first recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. And so, in a sense, part of what is going on is a working from within the culture of the Israelites, and establishing legal boundaries so that they have a codified legal code, placing limits without necessarily outright forbidding certain things. "Eye for an eye" is a limit on retaliation, a person cannot simply go out and take revenge and, in anger, cause more harm; but rather the matter must be brought before the court, and the extant that the court is permitted to allow is "an eye for an eye", that is an equal measure. If I steal your ox, slaughter it, and eat its meat, the court can award you compensation for that ox; but it cannot go further. If I steal your ox, you can have one of my oxen, or a monetary compensation, but you can't kill me, or go and kill all my livestock, or something like that.
But Jesus goes further, arguing that for those who follow Him, it's not even about just compensation. Instead, if we are injured, we should respond with compassion and mercy. If you steal my ox, you may have my ox; if you strike me, rather than striking you in return, I offer the other cheek instead. Thus Jesus presents a deeper moral command; though it may be justifiable to demand compensation, the good way is to not give in to retaliatory justice, but healing justice. Which not only establishes what kind of way or rule which His followers ought to abide by, but which establishes what kind of kingdom His is, and His Way. Jesus not only teaches healing justice, but lives it--by embracing the suffering He would receive upon the cross. He does not exploit His "rights", as it were, but rather endures, and embraces, the pain and the suffering He will receive in order to reconcile, and to heal.
God reveals Himself to be better than fair, but rather that He is mercy.
In the case of St. Peter's vision, this is more-or-less God's way to rattle Peter awake, and to really hammer the point that this whole Gospel thing is for everybody. Jesus had commanded His apostles to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations, but hitherto the Apostles seem to have not grasped just what was meant. So Peter's vision is to get him to, "Oh yeah, duh, that is what He said to do isn't it?" The Gentiles were always to be included, it's just up until this point the early Church didn't seem to have gotten it quite yet through their heads that the Gospel really is as universal as Jesus said it was, and that it's exactly what God had always been saying through the Prophets anyway. Centuries before God had spoken through His prophets, speaking of the day when the Gentiles would come in, He speaks of the day where even Israel's most infamous enemies: Egypt and Assyria, would be included among God's people.
"
In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, 'Blessed be Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.'" - Isaiah 19:24-25
-CryptoLutheran
