Which law is perfect?

[Guest]

to say that God's laws were unjust is to place oneself in conflict with Paul, and with God Himself, of whom it is declared that there is no injustice in Him.

I'll say this once more and then we can let it go.

Nowhere have I said or implied that God's laws were unjust. What I have done is question whether some of these "laws" were in fact God's laws. I think that Moses may have misunderstood the revelation of God, so that though he believed and wrote that "God said 'X'", it was rather Moses who said 'X' even though he sincerely believed that God said it.

Even in our day there are a lot of people who declare "God told me this" and "God told me that". They believe it with all their hearts, and who am I to say that God didn't? Yet because of what God supposedly told them, I question it.

George MacDonald said that God it total LOVE and that he would not believe anything that is said about God that is contrary to the character of the loving God who exists ---- even if it is found in the Bible.

[Guest]

I think that Moses may have misunderstood the revelation of God, so that though he believed and wrote that "God said 'X'", it was rather Moses who said 'X' even though he sincerely believed that God said it.

Paidion,
I simply cannot believe this of Moses! I've just re-read the account; it's very detailed and specific; it's hard to envisage Moses making this kind of mistake! He'd have to be very imaginative, not to say irresponsible.
And I wouldn't compare Moses with todays' prophets! After all this is the man handpicked by God to speak to the house of Israel, about whom God said:

Num 12:6 And He said, Hear now My words. If there is a prophet among you, I Jehovah will make Myself known to him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream.
Num 12:7 Not so, My servant Moses. He is faithful in all My house.
Num 12:8 I will speak with him mouth to mouth, even clearly, and not in dark speeches. And he shall behold the likeness of Jehovah. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?

Sureley God would have made a poor choice, if Moses was likely to make mistakes like these that you suggest.
Regarding what George MacDonald said - I can relate to the sentiment, but if we don't believe the Bible to be truthful about some things, how do we know it is being truthful about anything, as well as for example God being a God of love?
I would rather take God at His word and assume I am not at this time able to understand all His ways!
- Apart from the fact I believe the law of the jealousy test was as described, and the result was supernaturally enacted by God, I can't see how it would be possible in those times to pick the correct micro-organism to give those exact symptoms each time.
Sorry, I know you wanted to let this go now, and I'm wading in a bit late, but I agree with Steve, you're stretching it a bit on this! 8)

[Guest]

... 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.

[Guest]

Sureley God would have made a poor choice, if Moses was likely to make mistakes like these that you suggest.

All people make mistakes. God wanted to choose somebody to lead his people. There were no infallible people from which to choose. He chose Moses.

Regarding what George MacDonald said - I can relate to the sentiment, but if we don't believe the Bible to be truthful about some things, how do we know it is being truthful about anything, as well as for example God being a God of love?

Do you hold the same standards about other books? If you find one or more false statements in a book do you conclude that the whole book is flawed and unbelievable?

I would rather take God at His word and assume I am not at this time able to understand all His ways!

I want to take God at his word, too! But that is precisely the question at hand. What is his word? Perhaps you assume every statement in the Bible to be his word. My belief is that Jesus is the chief expression of God to man and thus is the Living Word of God. I do accept the primary records concerning Jesus --- the four gospels. Yet, if a mistake is found in any of them, that doesn't upset me in the least. Indeed there definitely are mistakes in those records ---- at least in the sequence of events in Jesus' life, for the gospels do not agree with each other in this aspect. Nevertheless, that doesn't destroy the fact that the teachings of Jesus are basically recorded accurately, even though the eyewitnesses went by memory as they recounted the events many years later.

Indeed, if every aspect of the gospels and other Biblical writings were 100% accurate, then it would be suspect of having been contrived. The fact that there are errors, far from being a reason to find the Bible untrustworthy, is rather one of the reasons for accepting it as genuine.

[Guest]

Do you hold the same standards about other books? If you find one or more false statements in a book do you conclude that the whole book is flawed and unbelievable?

Well, yes. I do. Is that a wrong thing to do?

Maybe saying that I conclude the whole book is "unbelievable" is a little strong, but I wouldn't hold it in high esteem. And if there are one or more false statements, isn't that what "flawed" means?

[Guest]

Nowhere have I said or implied that God's laws were unjust. What I have done is question whether some of these "laws" were in fact God's laws. I think that Moses may have misunderstood the revelation of God, so that though he believed and wrote that "God said 'X'", it was rather Moses who said 'X' even though he sincerely believed that God said it.

Maybe Moses was under the influence?

[Guest]

Michelle, I agree with what you said about the meaning of "flawed". However, human beings make mistakes, and often the major theme of a book which contains mistakes may express essential truths relevant to living.

Apostles, prophets ---- all the men and women of God --- all can misunderstand God's revelation and do at times. But that doesn't imply that we can't trust them in a general sense.

I believe that God inspired the authors of the Bible, and that inspiration is not limited to the Bible. The fact that the authors wrote under divine inspiration does not imply that every thing in the Bible is infallibly true. God didn't dictate the Bible to its authors. Sometimes the authors may not have heard God accurately.

[Guest]

Do you hold the same standards about other books? If you find one or more false statements in a book do you conclude that the whole book is flawed and unbelievable?

It would depend on the book. I do expect a higher standard from writings about which is said:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Indeed, if every aspect of the gospels and other Biblical writings were 100% accurate, then it would be suspect of having been contrived. The fact that there are errors, far from being a reason to find the Bible untrustworthy, is rather one of the reasons for accepting it as genuine.

I agree with this in general. I don't think that every statement in the bible is strictly inspired, and the fact that some gospel accounts vary in some details doesn't upset me either.
But I differentiate in the types of errors which I would find acceptable. Moses was summoned by God who spoke to him face to face...he was entrusted with passing on God's laws to the whole house of Israel. These were very specific and very detailed - I still can't accept that Moses would misunderstand and be in error to this extent. There's mistakes, and then there's mistakes.
Perhaps I should have limited my question to the law of Moses rather than the whole bible - i.e. if we believed Moses misunderstood this particular instruction, what other laws might he have heard wrong?

[Guest]

Maybe Moses was under the influence?

Hi Michelle

I'd say he's clutching at straws here... someone should ask that guy if all the prophets were using these substances also, and if 100% predictive accuracy is a known side-effect of mind-altering drugs!

[Guest]

It would depend on the book. I do expect a higher standard from writings about which is said:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

This translation can be misleading. First of all, it is interpreted on the basis of the belief for centuries that there is something which is called "Scripture" which is vebally inspired, infallible, and outside of which there is no inspiration. So we understand Paul's statement about "graphā" to a statement about our preconceived notion of "Scripture". Actually "graphā" basically means "writing" (hence the English derivative "graphology" (a study of writing).

But it is clear that Paul does not mean just any writing. For he calls these writings "God-breathed writings". (The word "is" does not occur in the Greek text, but must be supplied somewhere.). The word "kai" means "also" almost as often as it means "and". So the following (similar to the ASV translation) is an accurate rendering of the Greek, and may be what Paul meant:

Every God-breathed writing is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

No doubt Paul refers to a particular set of writings as being God-breathed, namely the "sacred writings" to which he referred in verse 15, the ones with which Timothy was acquainted right from his childhood. Interestingly, Paul uses a different word for "writings" in verse 15, namely "grammata". This word literally means "letters"(of the alphabet) and was also used for a written statement of financial accounts (Luke 16:6). However, it is used for writings of any kind as well. I do not know why Paul chose "grammata" for "writings" in verse 15, but "graphā" in verse 16.

It is possible that in both 15 and 16, Paul was referring to that part of the OT known by the Hebrews as "the Writings", namely: Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1st and 2nd Chronicles. But for those who are sure it refers to all of the OT, I do not oppose your belief. You may be right. I have no problem with it either way.

Even if "the sacred writings" include the Torah (Books of Moses), I am sure one could derive something profitable from them (although, I can't seem to find any personal profit from the book of Leviticus).