Laws of the Israelites

[Paidion]

As for the writings of Moses, I do believe they are historical. I simply don't believe that ALL of the laws which were ascribed to God, were in fact His laws.

What are you saying here? Is it your belief that Moses knowingly misled the people into thinking he spoke for God when it was his own ideas he gave as laws? Or that Moses mistakenly thought that God told him things that in fact God did not? If the first, Moses is certainly a false prophet, and if the second, where do we draw the line?

I think you know that my position is the latter. I presume the "line" you think needs to be drawn is a line between God's actual laws which He gave to Moses, and those which Moses thought God had given to him, but which arose from his own thoughts. I do not have it all organized into a systematic theology. All I know is that some of the laws which Moses gave as God's laws are not consistent with the Father which the Son of God revealed while here on earth. So maybe it's not such a great marvel that second-century gnostics thought that Yahweh, God of the Israelites was a different God from the Father of Jesus. I don't agree, of course, but I can understand why their thinking would go in that direction.

How many of the laws given by Moses were given to Him in the presence of other witnesses? We repeatedly read "then the Lord said to Moses", and it seems Moses was the only one present when the 10C were given by God:

The skeptic can just as well argue that the 10C were Moses' invention! What proof do we have? How would you refute the skeptic?

I can't refute the skeptic, and I doubt that you can either. What would you say? Would you say, I know God gave the 10C because it's in the Bible? I don't think that would have any impact.

All you have to go on is your opinions and speculations based on what seems good to you.

No, that's not all I have to go on. I go by the revelation of the Father by Christ, by His words about the Father, by His life which exemplified the Father, and by His instruction to love our enemies instead of seeking revenge upon them.

This is no different in kind, only in degree, from the policy of Borg and his wrecking crew. Surely our foundation is firmer than that.

So what firmer foundation do you have? A belief in an infallible Bible? If so, is that infallible Bible our present Bible? Which one, the Catholic or Protestant? And how do you know the writings it contains are the inerrant ones? If that is your "firmer foundation", I see it as much less firm than the revelation of Christ concerning His Father. I am a disciple of Him, and I believe His word and teachings!

[Jepne]

This topic is one that keeps so very many people from being interested in the things of God, so I pray He bless us all as we are provoked to thought, and seek to know Him better.

Steve 7150 said:
“Apparently if the Law of Moses is from God the commands to kill are judgments from God for certain crimes and appropriate for that nation at that time so that Israel might survive and help to bring forth the Messiah.”

Was it through any righteousness found in Israel that the Messiah was 'brought forth'? The nation was under heavy judgment for being stiff-necked and rebellious – they were at an all-time low when Jesus came. I believe scripture bears out that they had the law just to see that they could not keep it and would see that what they really needed was a savior.

If God gave all the laws that seem contrary to His character, He must have given them because He believed they would work. But we see that they did not work.

Did the idea come from God that with all these strong punishments, the Israelites would ‘learn their lesson’ and become good upright people? But, it did not work then, and it doesn’t work now – we don’t see it working in families. Children who are punished rather than corrected, most often turn against their parents in rebellion. “Rules without relationship breed rebellion”.

Yes, the Father and Jesus had high respect for Moses, and that is something to be considered for sure!

Homer said: “All you have to go on is your opinions and speculations based on what seems good to you.”

What I have to go on is God’s revelation to me when I was born-again that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead and lives in me. Paul tells us that we have the mind of Christ. From there, I look at the whole of scripture, the tone of scripture, and what we deduce to be the character of God put forth in the sayings of Jesus in the New Testament.


How well do we know God? If I was away from home and someone told me my husband did such and such while I was gone, I would have a good idea whether they were telling the truth or not. Of course, I can be very wrong at times, but my assurance is in the culmination of all I have learned about him in our years together. If I am wrong about him, I will have to deal with that in my relationship with him, but, if I am terribly off the mark about my knowledge of God, I trust God implicitly to deal with me accordingly, whether in this life or the resurrection.

Steve 7150 said: “Though we may not understand or feel comfortable with some of these laws I just accept the fact that for Israel to survive intact these were necessary during this time frame up to the anointing of Messiah. Then Jesus revealed the heart of God to the whole world.”

Why would God be shown to have one kind of heart in the OT, and then His character be presented as something entirely different by Jesus? They understood God to be different from what Jesus taught; that’s why they killed him.

[steve7150]

Steve 7150 said: “Though we may not understand or feel comfortable with some of these laws I just accept the fact that for Israel to survive intact these were necessary during this time frame up to the anointing of Messiah. Then Jesus revealed the heart of God to the whole world.”



Why would God be shown to have one kind of heart in the OT, and then His character be presented as something entirely different by Jesus? They understood God to be different from what Jesus taught; that’s why they killed him.







Jepne,
You brought up some good points before but in Matt 23.23 Jesus said the weightier parts of the law were justice,mercy and faithfullness and i think in the OT we saw mostly the justice part and through Jesus we saw the mercy of God revealed to a much greater extent. So it wasn't that one contrasted the other but that we got a fuller revelation of God through Jesus.

Also the "Law of Moses" was divided into at least 2 parts , the moral laws and the ritual laws and it was much of the ritual laws that were fulfilled in Jesus. The moral laws he actually magnified so that we may know we can't keep them through our own strength.

[Paidion]

...in Matt 23.23 Jesus said the weightier parts of the law were justice,mercy and faithfullness and i think in the OT we saw mostly the justice part and through Jesus we saw the mercy of God revealed to a much greater extent.

Steve, "the justice part" and "the mercy part" are in perfect harmony. They are not opposites. God is not schizophrenic! There is no contradiction in God's character or in God's law. Many think of "justice" as "punishment" and "mercy" as "no punishment". This is a mistake. "Justice" is "fairness" just as "injustice" is unfairness. What is a just man? A just man is not a man who punishes; a just man is a man who is fair. The word is also used to describe a righteous man. George MacDonald had some good insights on "justice".

Let us endeavour to see plainly what we mean when we use the word justice, and whether we mean what we ought to mean when we use it—especially with reference to God. Let us come nearer to knowing what we ought to understand by justice, that is, the justice of God; for his justice is the live, active justice, giving existence to the idea of justice in our minds and hearts. Because he is just, we are capable of knowing justice; it is because he is just, that we have the idea of justice so deeply imbedded in us.

What do we oftenest mean by justice? Is it not the carrying out of the law, the infliction of penalty assigned to offence? By a just judge we mean a man who administers the law without prejudice, without favour or dislike; and where guilt is manifest, punishes as much as, and no more than, the law has in the case laid down. It may not be that justice has therefore been done. The law itself may be unjust, and the judge may mistake; or, which is more likely, the working of the law may be foiled by the parasites of law for their own gain. But even if the law be good, and thoroughly administered, it does not necessarily follow that justice is done.

Suppose my watch has been taken from my pocket; I lay hold of the thief; he is dragged before the magistrate, proved guilty, and sentenced to a just imprisonment: must I walk home satisfied with the result? Have I had justice done me? The thief may have had justice done him—but where is my watch? That is gone, and I remain a man wronged. Who has done me the wrong? The thief. Who can set right the wrong? The thief, and only the thief; nobody but the man that did the wrong. God may be able to move the man to right the wrong, but God himself cannot right it without the man. Suppose my watch found and restored, is the account settled between me and the thief? I may forgive him, but is the wrong removed? By no means. But suppose the thief to bethink himself, to repent. He has, we shall say, put it out of his power to return the watch, but he comes to me and says he is sorry he stole it and begs me to accept for the present what little he is able to bring, as a beginning of atonement: how should I then regard the matter? Should I not feel that he had gone far to make atonement—done more to make up for the injury he had inflicted upon me, than the mere restoration of the watch, even by himself, could reach to? Would there not lie, in the thief's confession and submission and initial restoration, an appeal to the divinest in me—to the eternal brotherhood? Would it not indeed amount to a sufficing atonement as between man and man? If he offered to bear what I chose to lay upon him, should I feel it necessary, for the sake of justice, to inflict some certain suffering as demanded by righteousness? I should still have a claim upon him for my watch, but should I not be apt to forget it? He who commits the offence can make up for it—and he alone.

One thing must surely be plain—that the punishment of the wrong-doer makes no atonement for the wrong done. How could it make up to me for the stealing of my watch that the man was punished? The wrong would be there all the same. I am not saying the man ought not to be punished—far from it; I am only saying that the punishment nowise makes up to the man wronged. Suppose the man, with the watch in his pocket, were to inflict the severest flagellation on himself: would that lessen my sense of injury? Would it set anything right? Would it anyway atone? Would it give him a right to the watch? Punishment may do good to the man who does the wrong, but that is a thing as different as important.

Another thing plain is, that, even without the material rectification of the wrong where that is impossible, repentance removes the offence which no suffering could. I at least should feel that I had no more quarrel with the man. I should even feel that the gift he had made me, giving into my heart a repentant brother, was infinitely beyond the restitution of what he had taken from me. True, he owed me both himself and the watch, but such a greater does more than include such a less. If it be objected, 'You may forgive, but the man has sinned against God!'—Then it is not a part of the divine to be merciful, I return, and a man may be more merciful than his maker! A man may do that which would be too merciful in God! Then mercy is not a divine attribute, for it may exceed and be too much; it must not be infinite, therefore cannot be God's own.

'Mercy may be against justice.' Never—if you mean by justice what I mean by justice. If anything be against justice, it cannot be called mercy, for it is cruelty. 'To thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy, for thou renderest to every man according to his work.' There is no opposition, no strife whatever, between mercy and justice. Those who say justice means the punishing of sin, and mercy the not punishing of sin, and attribute both to God, would make a schism in the very idea of God.

—— George MacDonald Unspoken Sermons 3, Justice

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

I think you know that my position is the latter. I presume the "line" you think needs to be drawn is a line between God's actual laws which He gave to Moses, and those which Moses thought God had given to him, but which arose from his own thoughts.

It is good to have a clear idea of where you are coming from. Now I have another question. Do you believe the revelations God made to the prophets, particularly all the laws given to Moses as in "then God spoke to Moses", were given in a mistakable manner? That is, were they in the form of mental impressions, as many today claim to have, and that Moses would not know any better than to claim they were from God?

God hasn't spoken to me in a direct way that I am aware of. Often, if I am not doing as I should, His word (scripture) has come to mind as a sharp reminder. Many people say that "God spoke to my heart" this or that, but I doubt there experience is much different than my own. This does not mean that I do not believe God may speak in a clear, unmistakable manner to someone. I believe He does but that it is rare. I believe that God spoke to Moses and the other prophets in an unmistakable manner; if he did not, and they recorded their mistakable impressions, then the scriptures are no sure guide.

As for your quote from George MacDonald it is no more than an opinion; I see no exegesis of scripture in it.

[steve7150]

Steve, "the justice part" and "the mercy part" are in perfect harmony. They are not opposites. God is not schizophrenic! There is no contradiction in God's character or in God's law. Many think of "justice" as "punishment" and "mercy" as "no punishment". This is a mistake. "Justice" is "fairness" just as "injustice" is unfairness. What is a just man? A just man is not a man who punishes; a just man is a man who is fair. The word is also used to describe a righteous man. George MacDonald had some good insights on "justice".






Paidion,
I didn't say justice and mercy were opposites , but justice does include punishment sometimes whereas mercy is not mandatory but a gift from God at his option. Sometimes the "eye for eye" justice in the OT is just , yet Jesus showed us the merciful side of God.
In fact as Jepne mentioned the "law" did not make the Israelites righteous but as Paul said it was a taskmaster to draw us to Christ by teaching us in the way we always learn. By contrast, that's how we learn, by contrasting one with the other so we can appreciate mercy when we receive it.

[steve7150]

Paidion,

When Jesus said "if they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they believe one who rose from the dead" Luke 16.31. If you step back and consider what Jesus is saying, don't you think he is validating everything Moses said?

[Paidion]

When Jesus said "if they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they believe one who rose from the dead" Luke 16.31. If you step back and consider what Jesus is saying, don't you think he is validating everything Moses said?

No, Steve, I don't. First of all, Jesus didn't say this directly. Rather Abraham, a character in His parable, said this. I think that in this parable, Jesus was referring to Moses and the prophets' teaching concerning righteousness. For the two verses immediately preceding read:

But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’

In the parable, Dives says that if someone is brought back from the dead and goes to his Jewish brothers, they will repent. Repent of what? No doubt of their wrongdoing. But Abraham declares that if they will not listen to Moses and the Prophets' teachings about righteousness and repent , neither will they listen to anyone who comes back from the dead and repent.

[steve7150]

No, Steve, I don't. First of all, Jesus didn't say this directly. Rather Abraham, a character in His parable, said this. I think that in this parable, Jesus was referring to Moses and the prophets' teaching concerning righteousness. For the two verses immediately preceding read:

But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’

In the parable, Dives says that if someone is brought back from the dead and goes to his Jewish brothers, they will repent. Repent of what? No doubt of their wrongdoing. But Abraham declares that if they will not listen to Moses and the Prophets' teachings about righteousness and repent , neither will they listen to anyone who comes back from the dead and repent.







Actually Paidion, it was Jesus who said it directly to the Pharisees since this was a parable and he quoted what Abraham might have said in this scenario, which is not real but a story to make some points. Abraham didn't really speak it was Jesus who really spoke and used an imaginary Abraham to make his points.
The message is not just limited to righteousness but could include mercy,compassion,love and many other Godly attributes but the point is that the Pharisees didn't listen to or rather "believe" Moses. Additionally another point was that being physical decendents of Abraham didn't matter to God.
I can't see anything limiting the reference to believing or not believing Moses to only righteousness. Jesus accuses the Pharisees here and in other places of simply not believing Moses which in effect means not believing God, based on how Jesus uses Moses in his interactions with the Pharisees in the NT.

[john6809]

The "parable" of Lazarus and the rich man may or may not be a parable. It may be something that actually happened or it may not be. Regardless, I don't think Jesus would have used a statement, made by Abraham, to teach a lesson, if He believed it to be a from a source that was not fully reliable. In other words, if Jesus believed that Moses was not always inspired when he wrote, why would He use Moses' teachings as though Moses was writing under inspiration? I would have expected Jesus, at the very least, would have informed His listeners that not everything Moses said was inspired, but the part that He was about to tell, was inspired. I just don't see any place where Jesus told His followers that Moses sometimes wrote with authority and sometimes did not. Rather, I see Him endorsing what Moses wrote.

Blessings.