Why did Jesus stop reading?

[Paidion]

Do you think that Jesus is indicating that both statements of Moses are synonymous with God's commandments and that they were failing to keep God's commandments?

No, I don't. Do you think that Jesus was saying that the Pharisees were failing to keep the commandment to kill the son who curses his parents?

I think that He was indicating that the statement, "Honor your father and mother," was God's commandment. Indeed, it is one of the ten commandments that God gave to Moses. It is found in Exodus 20:12. The second statement seems to have been taken from Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." That set of instructions begins with 20:22, "Then the LORD said to Moses..." Putting such a son to death by no means exhausts the commands that I think came from Moses' own mind. Consider another one from the same set that is supposed to be one of God's commands:

Exodus 21
2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone.

Does this seem like God to you? The master gives his slave a wife, and she bears the slave's children. But if the slave goes free after his 7th year of service, he cannot take his wife with him, but she and his children must be left behind, and belong to his master. However, the next two verses indicate that the slave may keep his wife and children, on one condition, that he serve his master permanently.

5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

Did God really give this instruction? If not, why is it so hard to believe that he did not give the instruction to kill a son who has cursed his parents?

Again, I don't think Moses was trying to deceive his readers by saying that such commands were God's in order to justify his administrative powers and methods. Rather, I think that he actually believed his thoughts as to how to regulate the lives of such a large company were planted there by God. There are many people in our own day that do much the same. I'm sure you have heard numerous people claim, "God told me to ..." or "God told me that ...," whereas many of the things that God supposedly told them are totally contrary to God's character. I go by Jesus' description of God's character, that God is kind to both ungrateful people and to evil people—that God sends sunshine and rain both to the righteous and the unrighteous. Therefore, said Jesus, we should show ourselves truly to be children of God by loving, blessing, praying for, and being kind to those who hate us or persecute us.

[dizerner]

When Jesus talked of Moses or Moses and the Prophets, how are we to know he only meant a small part of what is written?

27 "Then he said,`I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house,
28 `for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'
29 "Abraham said to him,`They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' [Is a Jew listening at this point supposed to know much of Moses is false?]
30 "And he said,`No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 "But he said to him,`If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'" (Luk 16:27-31 NKJ)

Consider that this passage is saying Moses and the prophets are more reliable than a literal miraculous resurrection from the dead.

45 "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you-- Moses, in whom you trust.
46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me [Is a Jew listening at this point supposed to know much of Moses is false?]

47 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (Joh 5:45-47 NKJ) [Is a Jew listening at this point supposed to know much of Moses is false?]

The Jews responded :

28 Then they reviled him and said, "You are His disciple, but we are Moses' disciples.
29 "We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from." (Joh 9:28-29 NKJ) [Good time to correct the Jews that the Law is not of God!]

He did not rather previously said :

18 "He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.
19 "Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? (Joh 7:18-19 NKJ) [Good time to correct the Jews that the Law is not of God!]

And He charged him to tell no one, "But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded." (Luk 5:14 NKJ) [Good time to correct the Jews that the Law is not of God!]

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

After reading things like these (there's more actually) it seems hard to make a case Jesus rejected the majority or even a minority of Moses' teachings.

[Paidion]

The point Jesus was making, Dizerner, is that the Jews CLAIMED that they followed Moses and the prophets, and Jesus showed that they didn't. Their attitude about Moses comes out in this very verse that you quoted:

"We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow [Jesus], we do not know where He is from." (Joh 9:28-29 NKJ)

Their profession of following Moses and the prophets was hypocritical. That's why Jesus frequently called them "hypocrites."

[morbo3000]

Paidon said: I think Moses had quite a task in overseeing that huge number of Israelites, and that his way of doing it was to execute severe punishments for disobedience, often including capital punishment.

"I think" is not a verifiable argument for either history or theology.

Probably he actually thought that God had revealed to him that method of dealing with the people, and so stated what "God had said" to him.

Same with "probably."

You have to choose some form of objectivity. Inspired, or critical. Otherwise, you can make the scriptures say whatever you want. You can wash away any problem with a "probably," or "i think..."

[morbo3000]

Bonus round.

This is really about how a person reconciles religious or scriptural contradictions. It seems we expect a religious/historical text, even if divinely inspired to follow the law of non-contradiction. Then when it seems to contradict, we need to shave off the differences to protect its divinity.

I prefer Steve's way which is to let the Bible say what it does and adapt myself to it, rather than the other way around.

[john6809]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for your answer. I remain unconvinced. Maybe you could answer a few more questions. You asked me, “Do you think that Jesus was saying that the Pharisees were failing to keep the commandment to kill the son who curses his parents?”

This question seems like a smokescreen that avoids the main point of the current discussion and the main point of Jesus’ argument. Their first failure was not honoring father and mother. The second failure would have been to not punish the offence. Jesus would not have glossed over the first offence to focus on the second. Especially in light of the fact that the Pharisees seemed all too eager to enforce the death penalty for sins as illustrated by your own example of the adulteress. They were less eager to honor parents when it cost them something.

If Jesus wanted to point out that Moses was not always inspired, why didn’t He ever say it? If He wanted to show that He was not in agreement with Moses, why not pick a different example, such as the one that you point out about the slave whose master gives them a wife? There would seem to be less opportunity for ambiguity this way since there seems to not be another version of this commandment regarding the treatment of slaves.

Conversely, if His point was truly to show that the Pharisees rendered the word of God of no effect, why include the second portion of the commandment? If He disagreed with Moses, why not simply leave this part out and avoid confusing the people?

The remainder of your questions only serve to muddy the waters. Why go through more examples when we haven’t even reached common ground on this first passage? That is why I have chosen not to respond to your other questions. My questions are sincere, not mere rhetoric. Thanks for taking the time.

Regards,
John

[steve]

john6809 wrote:

Conversely, if His point was truly to show that the Pharisees rendered the word of God of no effect, why include the second portion of the commandment? If He disagreed with Moses, why not simply leave this part out and avoid confusing the people?

This may be the most cogent of them all. Jesus wanted to demonstrate that the Pharisees neglected the word of God in order to keep their traditions. One example would suffice, so He could simply have given "Honor your father and your mother," and said no more. Adding the second commandment really seems superfluous to the making of the point, and may only have been done to intensify the first and show that the matter was no light one with God. In any case, Jesus' point would have been made completely without adding the second example.

If Jesus did not consider the second example as being in the same class with the first (i.e., a commandment of God), His inclusion of it was not only unnecessary and gratuitous, but misleading. The second example has no place in the comment unless it provides an additional, intensifying example of the commandment of God. In placing the "word of God" in juxtaposition with the "traditions of men," the structure of Jesus' argument demands that the two examples provided from the Law stand on one side and the actual behavior of the Pharisees on the other.

There is no rational way to suggest, in the context of this passage, that Jesus regarded one of the examples less inspired by God than the other. There would have been better grounds for taking such a position had Jesus simply omitted the second example. His choice to include it is a checkmate against any position claiming that the capital punishment passages in the Law were not regarded, by Jesus, as God's commands.

[Paidion]

"I think" is not a verifiable argument for either history or theology.

I am not attempting to present a syllogism with premises leading to a conclusion.
I am merely presenting my beliefs concerning God's character, and giving reasons for this belief.

Thanks for your answer. I remain unconvinced. Maybe you could answer a few more questions. You asked me, “Do you think that Jesus was saying that the Pharisees were failing to keep the commandment to kill the son who curses his parents?”

This question seems like a smokescreen that avoids the main point of the current discussion and the main point of Jesus’ argument.

It wasn't a smoke screen. It was an emotional response to your initial question presented in a similar form, a question that I considered inappropriate (possibly because I didn't understand it). I regret now that I responded in this way.

If Jesus wanted to point out that Moses was not always inspired, why didn’t He ever say it?

I don't think Jesus or the people of that day ever considered the concept of inspiration, at least not in the way it is understood in our day by many Christian people.

If He wanted to show that He was not in agreement with Moses, why not pick a different example, such as the one that you point out about the slave whose master gives them a wife? There would seem to be less opportunity for ambiguity this way since there seems to not be another version of this commandment regarding the treatment of slaves.

He didn't want to show that He was in disagreement with Moses. Rather He wanted to show that the Pharisees were hypocritical in pretending to obey the commands of God and of Moses. As far as I know, Jesus didn't verbally express disagreement with Moses' statements about God being violent and killing people. He simply expressed in a positive way his own knowledge about the character of God.

Conversely, if His point was truly to show that the Pharisees rendered the word of God of no effect, why include the second portion of the commandment? If He disagreed with Moses, why not simply leave this part out and avoid confusing the people?

At last the question I was anticipating has been asked! I have been waiting for someone to ask it.

The second part was not "the second portion of the commandment." As I mentioned previously, the first part was one of the ten commandments that God gave to Moses. The second belonged to a different set of commandments that Moses ascribed to God. That set included the one about a slave having to leave his wife and children for his master to have, when he had fulfilled his time as a slave, if the master had given him the wife. I mentioned that as an additional example to show how unlikely it is that our God who hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) would give such a command. Just an additional plug to support my belief that the other command about killing a son who curses his parents is not consistent with God's character either.

Okay, let's examine the passage again:

10 "For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’
11 "But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban" —‘(that is, a gift to God),
12 "then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,
13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."

Jesus' purpose is to show the Pharisees, who profess to obey God and Moses, that they are acting hypocritically in not really obeying God and Moses.
They pretend to obey the word of God as expressed in the commandment "Honor your father and your mother" (in this case monetarily), by saying that the money that would have been given to honor them, was given to God. Jesus also quoted the command of Moses in order to emphasize the importance of honoring parents in the minds of the Pharisees. For Moses said that a person who dishonors one of his parents was to be killed. This should have had some impact on the Pharisees since they professed to follow the law of Moses.

[john6809]

I apologize if my questions are not clear enough or otherwise come across wrong Paidion. That is not my intention.

I don't think Jesus or the people of that day ever considered the concept of inspiration, at least not in the way it is understood in our day by many Christian people.

No matter their understanding or the word they would have used to describe it, Jesus was clearly endorsing Moses' word as being God's word. That you can't or won't see this, baffles me.

As far as I know, Jesus didn't verbally express disagreement with Moses' statements about God being violent and killing people. He simply expressed in a positive way his own knowledge about the character of God.

This is a real mouthful. That would give me reason to pause and consider what evidence I could actually muster in defense of my hypothesis.

You said, The second part was not "the second portion of the commandment."

I apologize if I used the wrong words. It's clearly not a second part of the first command. This should have been clear from my statements in my last post.

I said, Their first failure was not honoring father and mother. The second failure would have been to not punish the offence.

The second part of Jesus' statement was an observation of what should be done with those who dishonor their parents. The fact that Moses later expanded upon the original law with more details doesn't change the origin of the commandment. God clearly has the right to give further details at a later time. And Jesus certainly has the right to offer up multiple statements about the same subject.

You said, Jesus also quoted the command of Moses in order to emphasize the importance of honoring parents in the minds of the Pharisees. For Moses said that a person who dishonors one of his parents was to be killed. This should have had some impact on the Pharisees since they professed to follow the law of Moses.

So you say that Jesus didn't agree with Moses about the second statement but was willing to use it as a hammer anyway? If He was saying that His Father wouldn't want the Pharisees to kill children for failing to honor their parents, why would He use it to prove His point?

Regards,
John

[steve]

Jesus' purpose is to show the Pharisees, who profess to obey God and Moses, that they are acting hypocritically in not really obeying God and Moses.

I don't think Jesus was making this generic point on this occasion, though He made it on other occasions. This conversation is more specific. He was not simply trying to show their inconsistency in the keeping of the Law of Moses. He was contrasting the Word of God with the traditions of men, and saying that they were more loyal to the latter than to the former. While this may have proved them inconsistent in their law-keeping, it was more concerned to show that they are consistently keeping human traditions at the expense of the word of God.

Since Jesus was teaching against equating the status of traditions with that of God's commands, it would seem, if Paidion is correct in identifying the death penalty for rebel sons with a mere human tradition, that Jesus would not have referenced that command in the manner that He did. He obviously put it in the same category (as a second example of the same thing) with the fifth commandment of the decalogue. These were both given as examples of "the commandment of God" which the Pharisees were violating. When He wanted to give an example of a human tradition (on the other side of the ledger), He gave an entirely different example.