Steve wrote: ... jealousy test ... rape laws ... description of law as holy ...
I think i agree with all of that Steve. Thanks for your clarification.
Can I come at my first question from a different angle? The essence of my initial objection was that there were laws in the OT that Christ did away with (eg Mat 19 where Jesus seemed to do that re divorce).
I would like to suggest that the what Christ did away with was not a moral law which, if it be moral must be timeless, but rather Jesus did away with amoral legislation governing moral laws.
For example, the 7th commandment is a moral, univeral and timeless law. It can never be done away with. But legislation based on that command that says women must wear clothes from ankles to nose can be done away with depending on the time and the culture.
So i am suggesting that we could put the legislation regarding rape, jealousy, divorce et al into one category called 'legislation governing moral laws'. They key point - they are not themselves the moral law but rather amoral legislation supporting the law.
My second comment is regarding the specific law itself in De 22 and De 24. The structure of both is very, very similar.
Deu 22:28 NKJV "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her...
Deu 24:1 NKJV "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,...
Both these verses describe something that has happened. It does not comment on whether it is right or wrong (of course we assume in the rape case it was wrong). Nor does it state how it
should be done. It simply states that if such and such happens this is what you must do. It doesn't say that you
can divorce (or rape) if you find uncleanness. It simply says that if someone
does divorce (or rape) because of uncleaness.
Maybe this is why there has always been such confusion over what 'uncleanness' is. It was never defined by Moses because there was nothing to define. Moses was just saying if a man divorces his wife because he doesn't like her then this is what you should do.
And that brings us to the real legislation. De 24 is not giving us the grounds for divorce (ie uncleanness). Nor is it telling us how a divorce should be performed (ie a bill of divorcement). That's just setting the scenario (like 'if a man rapes a girl in a field').
Rather it is legislating what to do about a second divorce and possible remarriage to the first person.
My final point (this is getting too long) is something i just heard you say tonight. I paraphrase 'God never says something is permissible that is not permissible'. I agree with that mostly. He does tell men to do things that He then tries to kill them for (like Balaam) but that is probably not what you meant. The verse that came to mind is:
Act 17:30 KJVA And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Although the context is idolatry, perhaps the principle applies to De 24.1-4. That is, God once 'winked' or 'overlooked' (NKJV) men divorcing their wives but now Jesus has come and 'commands all men to repent'.
Hence, we are back at where i started - that Jesus can dismiss legislation appparently set down by Moses because it is in some way imperfect.