The Law

III · Feb 10, 2008

This has been bumping around in my mind for so long that I figured I have to do a long post and just get it out. There’s a lot of discussion around what the Bible teaches about the law. Here’s what I see in scripture regarding “the law”. I certainly don’t know everything, but I hope this can help clarify things a little and spark some good discussion. So let’s start with Moses and the National Basketball Association.

Imagine you’re in charge of running an arena for an NBA game for one night. There are 20,000 people packed in the seats for a few hours. You have to ensure safety, order, food service, sanity conditions, and entertainment for a very diverse group of people. That’s a huge job to orchestrate.

Now imagine you’re overseeing not one, but fifty of these arenas. Over a million people of all ages.

Now imagine you’re not in an air-conditioned facility, but you’re in the middle of the desert with these million people. Also, you don’t have phones or newspapers. Or port-a-johns.

Now imagine it’s not for one night, but it’s for forty years.

Now imagine you’re also their spiritual leader and you’re surrounded by other nations who you consider a threat, but who have comfortable lifestyles your people would kill for. Oh, and these million people aren’t at all happy about the situation and they don’t mind telling you so.

So what do you do? You need to establish laws. Laws concerning, among other things:

- Social behavior
- Sanitary practices concerning food preparation, waste, and disease
- Keeping your community’s religious/cultural identity
- Farming
- Taxation
- Religious practices

Sounds pretty good. And even after you’re out of the wilderness, these laws can mostly stay in effect to keep the community strong and further the purpose of the community, which is to show God’s work through his chosen people.

Now fast-forward to the time of Jesus. The Romans dominate the world and occupy Jerusalem. The Pharisees have added hundreds of laws onto the existing ones and basically say they’re the only ones able to keep them and everyone else is pretty much out of luck.

Then Jesus comes along. You’d think he’d be pushing for a revolt against Rome. Nope. You’d think he’d be leading a crusade against the Jewish tax collectors; traitors who exploit their own people. Nope. He hangs out with prostitutes and tax collectors and fishermen. Who does he lambaste? The Pharisees.

Here’s the point. Many times, when Jesus is preaching, his message is meant to refute the teaching of the Pharisees. The Sermon on the Mount, which is probably the most quoted part of the Bible, was basically a point-by-point argument that, although the Pharisees pretended to be righteous by following all their meticulous laws, in fact their hearts were completely sinful. Jesus gave examples like “if you don’t commit adultery but lust after a woman, you’ve committed adultery with her in your heart” and many more like it.

He wasn’t introducing a new and harder law, he was explaining that the law just makes you aware of the sin in your heart.

There’s so much of the Sermon on the Mount that gets taken out of context. “Judge not lest ye be judged” doesn’t mean we never judge anyone’s actions, it means don’t constantly bolster the illusion of your self-righteousness by pointing to other people’s sin. That’s what really made Jesus rightly mad. That’s also what makes non-Christians rightly mad when Christians do it.

Jesus said “I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” The law was never meant to save – it was only meant 1) to hold Israel together before Jesus, and 2) to show us that we’ve all fallen short of perfection. Jesus was basically saying “I came not to abolish the cake, but to put the frosting on it.” He was saying the law is a matter of the heart and it really comes down to two simple ideas – love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. That’s it. That’s the whole cake.

Throughout the rest of the New Testament, the writers aren’t trying to establish a new set of rules, they’re basically trying to make the point – God is good, so don’t act “bad”. You don’t have to nitpick and parse everything to know what’s generally good and what’s generally bad. Love God and love others and you’ll mature and the good stuff will come naturally and the bad stuff won’t even appeal to you.

Also, remember the early church was scattered and they had lots of legitimate questions about this new religious paradigm. As Christians, did they still have to obey the Roman oppressors, did they still have to be circumcised, did slaves still have to obey their masters, should women play along with their societal roles, how should they worship, what standards should be set for leaders, etc. So much of the Epistles were devoted to clarifying how the early church should act. Some of it still applies and some of it doesn't. Always remember - when you read the epistles, you're reading someone else's mail.

So anyway, hope this didn’t come across as preachy, but I think many people haven’t been exposed to the context of much of Jesus’ teachings and, as always, context is king.

Your thoughts?

james1611 · Feb 10, 2008

Just some brief additions to Jay's post:

Paul makes it clear WHY the law was given in Galations and Romans. "By the law is the knowledge of sin," -- think speed limit -- if it wasn't there how would you know you had broken the law.

Also: The law was not given by God to save anyone -- it proves man's guilt before God and is a Schoolmaster leading us to the savior who came to pay the penalty for sins on the cross. Only when a person realizes their own guilt as a sinner before God will they desire to call upon him to forgive their sins and save them.
Paul said "I do not frustrate the grace (undeserved favor) of God, if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Paul shows us that if man could ever have been good enough to merit God's favor then Christ's sacrifice wouldn't have been necessary. But the fact is that the whole world is guilty--God wants us to know it by giving the law--Why?--Because that will drive us to the savior and Eternal life.
Jesus said, "And this is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

Life eternal is there for all who want it.

Good post Jay--

James

althrasher · Feb 10, 2008

I'm pretty sure I'm not disagreeing with you, but what is your argument on the law? Do you still think that most of it applies, and if so, which part?

I think I'm kinda close to you on this, though.

JoNightshade · Feb 10, 2008

Right on, III.

Roger J Carlson · Feb 11, 2008

althrasher said:
I'm pretty sure I'm not disagreeing with you, but what is your argument on the law? Do you still think that most of it applies, and if so, which part?

Applies in what sense? As a guide to what God finds good and bad? Or as a way to measure whether we are good enough?

III · Feb 11, 2008

althrasher said:
I'm pretty sure I'm not disagreeing with you, but what is your argument on the law? Do you still think that most of it applies, and if so, which part?

I think I'm kinda close to you on this, though.

I think there are specific laws which definitely don't apply to modern Christians. Laws which are specific to the Jewish cultural identity, instructions on enforcing those laws, laws about food preparation and dealing with blood and disease, etc.

I think now the only real "law" is love and the real objective is "maturity". So really, I think it's like Roger said - we can view the laws on social behavior as instructions on how not to be miserable.

Think of it this way, if I'm a child or if I'm just starting to get a picture of what the God of the Bible is, the law can be helpful. Don't lie, don't steal, don't sleep around. Those guidelines will ultimately lead to a happier life. I wouldn't want a God or a religion that didn't care about my behavior and told me - eh, just lie whenever you feel like it and cheat on your wife when you find another sexy woman. Those are the things that will utlimately leave me miserable inside. Ultimately, I'd like to have a life that's fulfilling and admirable.

So, as a base, it's good to know basic right and wrong. As a child, your parents tell you never to run into the street. Well, it's not that they want to oppress you, it's that they want you not to get hit by a car. As you get older, they say you can cross the street but wait till I tell you it's clear. Eventually, as you mature, you know how to look both ways and cross when it's safe.

I think that's how the law works. When I'm just starting off, I need someone to tell me what's harmful even though those harmful things can feel good at first, but as I mature and grow, I know what's loving and what's not loving. I know cheating on my wife isn't loving and it ultimately hurts both of us. I know gossipping isn't loving and hurts both of us. I know being prideful and selfish isn't loving and ultimately it only hurts me.

As I grow in my understanding of love, I become free to live that fulfilling, purposeful life. And the good thing is, it really becomes easier because I'm so in love with God that I want to serve him and I want to serve others. At that point, the law just kind of falls away, like an old worn-out garment. I don't need it anymore because I'm living in the freedom and fullness of love. That's the real goal. That's maturity. That's what God ultimately wants to do in our lives - to let Christ live in us fully. The law is just an early step on that path.

That's why I think 1 Corinthians 13 is so amazing. Paul is writing the Corinthian church, trying to untangle this theological mess and he pauses in the middle of his letter and says "Okay, let's step back and look at the big picture. You're squabbling over table scraps on the floor, but you should be dining on the banquet at the table. The law is the scraps, the banquet is love. If you get this "love" thing down, everything else automatically falls into place."

Sean D. Schaffer · Feb 11, 2008

Very good thread, III! Nicely done, and well-written.

When I was involved in that legalistic thing I was in about a year ago, I noticed something that the people within that movement continually did.

According to that religion, there were originally 7 commandments given to Noah. They were implied, not verbally spoken as "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not". They were simple, easy to understand, and filled with good common sense.

But then, they started talking about more laws, gleaned from the original seven. At first they said there were more than 30 laws they had gotten, and then they went on to say there were some, 66, as I recall.

This is a good example of what Jesus complained about in the Pharisees' religion, and I think it ties in well with your OP. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, states that we ought not to add to God's Word. Yet we are human and it is said our nature is contrary to what God wants for us and is, ultimately, best for us. Because of this, we like to dissect God's every single solitary word, and find what we think God really means when He says something in particular.

Jesus pointed out, for example, "You have heard that it hath been said, you shall love your neighbor, and hate thine enemy." The Torah, the first five books of the Bible, never says 'And hate thine enemy'. So it is obvious that people had assumed God meant to hate one's enemy, which is the opposite of their neighbors. The problem is, Moses wrote, "Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian". The Egyptians had enslaved the Israelites, and were, for all intents and purposes, their enemies. So God in the same part of the Bible where He says 'Love your neighbors', also says, 'Love your enemies'.

So you're quite right. Jesus was preaching nothing new or harder. It only seemed that way to the religious leaders of the time because they had so altered the Law to meet their own ideas of what it should say.

Very good post.

small axe · Feb 11, 2008

While I agree with III's points (though I indeed may NOT be fully understanding them, so it's my lack of understanding that's the problem), I'm not sure exactly how to reconcile certain issues of "LAW" with Jesus Himself simply not repudiating some of the Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

The Old Testament of Christianity, which is the Tanakh of the Jews and as such a common book of religious reference, prescribes death by stoning for a long series of offences, including:

Adultery (including an wedded woman having sex with a man other than her fiancé) (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Having sex with animals ("bestiality")

Engaging in idolatry or seducing others to do so

Homosexual relations

Breaking the Sabbath

Cursing God

If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. (Exodus 21-28)

In addition, Deuteronomy (21,21) specifies that the parents of "a rebellious son" (בן סורר ומורה) may bring him to the market square and ask the townspeople to stone him to death.

For touching Mount Sinai Exodus 19:13

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night Deuteronomy 22:13-21

I think we can all AGREE that Jesus Christ specifically is meant to both "fulfill" and "supersede" the LAW.

Well and good. Thank Goodness!

But how can a modern American suggest that the LAW (in some of its EXTREME rules, as above) could EVER be considered as even pointing towards any ideal of "GOODNESS" ... no matter what the cultural or historical context?

Is anyone suggesting that if the Law commands us to stone a woman to death for making love to the wrong man ... that the Law is merely some IDEAL that God gave us to show us we all fall short of God's IDEALS?

Because that would be an evil LAW, too easily imposed by wicked men ... not an Ideal of Goodness to strive for. (In my confused OPINION)

I understand Jesus' huge and world-shifting point when He stopped the stoning death of the adultress, and reached deep into the mob's hearts by teaching them "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

But ... (and here's where I may be misunderstanding in a BIG way, so correct me, please!) ... In so saying, Jesus leaves the harsh Law standing, subject to the mob's choosing to enforce it next time.

We don't get that choice in following the Ten Commandments, right? Jesus didn't mean to let the mob go home and CHOOSE whether to obey some Law, but not others, obey SOME Commandment but not another.

Why didn't Jesus repudiate that cruel stoning-to-death-for-Adultry once and for all?

"Let him without sin cast the first stone. What, so nobody's throwing a stone? Great: then never throw a freakin' stone at a girl again. Go home and go to your village elders and lawmakers and go to your Temple priests and tell them: we don't do that anymore. That isn't an Ideal of goodness, that's a cruel law that contradicts God's Mercy and Love."

I don't mean to sound flippant.

But one of the harshest and most unfair comments I hear from ANTI-religious folks is how the Christian Conservatives would like to turn America into some Taliban-style religious dictatorship.

We know that's untrue and unfair. But I have to wonder WHY Jesus didn't make a stronger statement about the MORAL ISSUES of the Law? Jesus debated the Pharisees, Jesus took specific positions about how to deal with the Roman occupation and paying taxes ... He wasn't afraid to shake things up with new ideas and new TRUTHS.

I agree that almost every time Jesus was CHALLENGED by some legalistic issue about religious LAW, Jesus answered to reveal some DEEPER spiritual truth.

But ... Why let the LAW go unrepudiated? Why ACCEPT that a hypocritical mob EVER has the right to stone a girl to death? EVER? Regardless of the introspection he calls up from the Mob?

One has to wonder ... what if someone in the mob, pumped up with adrenalin and self-righteousness ("Look at me! I'm righteous! I'm enforcing the Law!") had THROWN a stone?

Would Jesus stand back and allow the Law to be acted out?

Anyway ... I have trouble with the LAW, how harsh and cruel some of the Old Testament events are.

Yes, the ancient Israelites were obeying GOD's specific commands, yes, GOD spares Isaac from sacrifice.

But the harsh cruel LAWS just don't seem like IDEALS we fell short of. The seem like primitive cruelty that GOD should have told them: "Love your enemies, don't wipe out their cities to conquer a piece of land."

Anyway -- maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing about LAW vs GRACE.

The GRACE I can understand as Cosmic Beauty, Divine Salvation, all the BIG GOOD STUFF that's better than us all.

I don't buy into the freakin' TALIBAN.
I don't buy into the freakin' CRUSADES.
I don't buy into anybody's INQUISITIONS.

All those things, I see the hypocrisy of wicked Man, claiming to do bad things in God's name.

I don't see how or why we can reconcile the harshness of the LAW with the wonderfulness of GRACE.

And it seems to me that LAW was God's idea.

Why? Just to prove some point to the dust-people? Just to convince the sinners how deep we're sunken into sin?

The Law seems to want to work that out through our idiot, worse natures. At the expense of a lot of human suffering, dished out for the humans to suffer.

That's not Jesus.

Sean D. Schaffer · Feb 11, 2008

Small Axe,

One thing the quote you gave does not seem to mention, is the Jewish belief that the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy), from one of the middle chapters of Exodus on, is a personalized letter to the Israelites themselves and is not applicable to other peoples.

The basic idea is that Israel is a priest-nation, meant to represent God's Holiness in their everyday lives, so that the surrounding peoples might know that the Lord is really God, and that we might honor Him. As a priest-nation, they naturally would have more laws to follow so as to make them 'special' and 'a light' to other peoples.

Following the Law was meant to show God's Holiness and be a witness to others, not only of their own sin, but also of the way out of that sinful life every human being lives by nature. Both Testaments, from what I can recall, agree that keeping the Law is nothing, if we don't keep it out of love for the Lord. The Bible says "As a man thinketh, so is he." For this reason, I believe the Law is a light to the world around us, as well as to ourselves, that we cannot live a perfect, righteous life and that we need God's help through what Christ did for us on the Cross.

III · Feb 12, 2008

Excellent post Sean, and it's good to have you back and smiling.

Small Axe, you make an excellent point. There is a distinction between "The Law" and "The Enforcement of The Law". There's also a distinction (I believe) between the moral laws and societal laws, although when Moses was overseeing the nation of Israel in the desert, there was no distinction - their moral laws were also their societal laws (which is what we also see in some Islamic countries today).

God says we're to follow the laws of the society in which we live unless they patently tell us to disobey God. Different societies have different punishments for breaking their laws, as well as different enforcers who are to carry out that punishment. In America, we have the judicial branch. In Roman occupied Jerusalem, Rome had their own laws and enforcers, but they also allowed the Jews to practice some of their own laws and enforcements to a certain extent.

So if we go back to the original laws in Leviticus such as stoning a witch or stoning an adulterous woman, I believe those laws and penalties were in place for the Israelites at that specific time in their society because it was such an extreme situation (the 50 arenas in the desert from the OP). They had to have extreme punishments to keep a semblance of order and purity. Can you imagine if they had the lengthy legal process, jails, and general promiscuity of modern America?

When Jesus taught, I don't think he was looking to establish a new system of enforcement or punishment or even approach it at a corporate level. His message was really about the individual. You forgive your enemy. You pay your taxes and obey your government. You don't repay evil with evil. The government is allowed to make and enforce the societal laws. And even Jesus allowed himself to be tortured and killed by the Roman soldiers, as did many in the early church.

This point is a particularly challenging one to my own faith - the idea that God is much more interested in my personal relationship with him and my relationship with my brothers and sisters than in my society or government. That any change I can make has to come by changing myself first. That God is ultimately in control and even things like personal freedom and life and death are secondary to my indentification with Christ. The early church experienced that, but trying to understand it from my cushy life is a real stretch of faith, albiet a good one.

I dunno. I'm sleepy this morning so I'm probably just rambling at this point...

Roger J Carlson · Feb 12, 2008

Jesus did repudiate the Law, and He replaced it with something else.

Matthew 22: 35-40
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

One thing you'll notice about Jesus is that he rarely gave detailed instructions. Most of the time he gave us principles.

When asked about who would be first in heaven, he said the last shall be first and the first shall be last. When asked whether an adulteress should be stoned, he said if you're sinless, then you have the right to decide. When asked what the greatest commandment was, he said love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. This is the entirely of the law.

He knew that principles were more effective than instructions. Look at what happened to the 10 simple instructions God gave the Jews originally. It's easy to get around laws no matter how skillfully crafted. That's what lawyers are for.

But there's no way around a principle. If you have to compare every action that involves God or another human and decide whether that action shows love, well, it's hard to make a loophole around that.

III · Feb 12, 2008

That was so dead-on, Roger.

Sean D. Schaffer · Feb 12, 2008

III said:
Excellent post Sean, and it's good to have you back and smiling.

Thanks!

This point is a particularly challenging one to my own faith - the idea that God is much more interested in my personal relationship with him and my relationship with my brothers and sisters than in my society or government. That any change I can make has to come by changing myself first. That God is ultimately in control and even things like personal freedom and life and death are secondary to my indentification with Christ. The early church experienced that, but trying to understand it from my cushy life is a real stretch of faith, albiet a good one.

That's something I've noticed lately in my own life. Before I came to Christ this January, I found myself trying to change everybody else. Now that I've accepted Him, and the Holy Spirit dwells within me, I am much more conscious of my own actions and am trying more fervently to change how I act. The beauty of Christ really shines through, when we realize we're not to push the Laws of God so much on others, as we are to keep ourselves pure. My own faith in Christ has increased manifold times since I 1) accepted Him into my heart; 2) starting working to change myself; and 3) stopped trying to force others to change to fit my viewpoints.

I dunno. I'm sleepy this morning so I'm probably just rambling at this point...

Not at all. I thought your post was very well thought-out. It gives me a lot to consider in my own walk with the Lord.

I especially like what you said about the Law being written for the society of the day. That point has helped give me a new perspective on God's Laws and is helping to form my own viewpoints on His Word. Discussions like this are very profitable, I think.

althrasher · Feb 12, 2008

Very good points, you guys.

james1611 · Feb 12, 2008

small axe said:
While I agree with III's points (though I indeed may NOT be fully understanding them, so it's my lack of understanding that's the problem), I'm not sure exactly how to reconcile certain issues of "LAW" with Jesus Himself simply not repudiating some of the Law:
[/list]I think we can all AGREE that Jesus Christ specifically is meant to both "fulfill" and "supersede" the LAW.

Well and good. Thank Goodness!

But how can a modern American suggest that the LAW (in some of its EXTREME rules, as above) could EVER be considered as even pointing towards any ideal of "GOODNESS" ... no matter what the cultural or historical context?

Is anyone suggesting that if the Law commands us to stone a woman to death for making love to the wrong man ... that the Law is merely some IDEAL that God gave us to show us we all fall short of God's IDEALS?

Because that would be an evil LAW, too easily imposed by wicked men ... not an Ideal of Goodness to strive for. (In my confused OPINION)

First: We are looking at the situation from a sinner's point of view. We judge "Good" on our terms, not God's. The Law gives God's righteous, Holy standard. The bible is clear that it is perfect. And because we are not and found trangressors, the law gives a punishment. The punishment is righteous and Holy because it is against sin.

Now: Why did God give the Law to man?
For one purpose only, to show man that he is guilty...why?
For one purpose only, to show man that he needs mercy and favor he doesn't deserve (grace).
He needs a savior.
Is God unfair? Let me say this and then you judge: God himself came in the form of a man to die as a sacrifice for man's guilt according to the Law. He personally loves man so much that he was willing to take that righteous punishment "the wages of sin is death," upon his own self and pay the penalty for us, so that we could go free if we put our faith in Him.
Is God unfair to man? Sure, he sets a righteous standard that seems rigid and unshakable to us, but when that Law pronounced mankind guilty--he personally came to take our place and receive the punishment himself. An exchange takes place for those willing to believe on Him--our guilt for his righteousness. And so the bible tells us, John 3:18 "He that believeth on Him (Jesus) is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Now the ball is in our court--will we take God's way of pardon through Jesus sacrifice for our sins and believe on Him or will we choose to reject and suffer the consequences?
Is God unfair? You be the judge.

James

Gehanna · Feb 12, 2008

I have nothing I wish to dispute. I have no objections to God's Laws.

There are times I wish I had been created with no gift of free will and there are times I wish I had not been created at all. To say this does not mean I am suicidal or that I wish I were dead. What it means is that I detest my offenses. I realize the heinous sin crimes I've committed. The thought of my sin nature sickens me.

Greater than the painful realities identified above, I have much joy knowing I am loved enough to have been offered the guarantee of salvation. It is that guarantee of nothing being able to take me from His Hand that moves me. Each time I realize this, it takes me to the experience of exceeding reverence.

I have just recently been retrieved from a period of several years in which I delved into a state of profound backsliding. During those years, I was a living example of hypocrisy. When I recall the evil things I did, it makes me shudder.

Jesus is my hero! He saved me even from myself. :heart:

Sincerely,
My pseudonym says it all. - Gehanna

small axe · Feb 13, 2008

Well, I certainly don't wish to bring negative vibes or debate into the thread or forum ...

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and replies on my issue about the Law.

But I guess I still cannot wrap my head around it. My issues still being:

wikipedia said:
The Old Testament of Christianity, which is the Tanakh of the Jews and as such a common book of religious reference, prescribes death by stoning for a long series of offences, including:

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night Deuteronomy 22:13-21

small axe said:
But how can a modern American suggest that the LAW (in some of its EXTREME rules, as above) could EVER be considered as even pointing towards any ideal of "GOODNESS" ... no matter what the cultural or historical context?

when Moses was overseeing the nation of Israel in the desert, there was no distinction - their moral laws were also their societal laws (which is what we also see in some Islamic countries today).

God says we're to follow the laws of the society in which we live unless they patently tell us to disobey God.

It just seems to me (imo) that we shouldn't be faced with the dilemma, whether to "obey" the God revealed in the Old Testament, or the God revealed in the New testament.

The OT God tells people to stone girls to death if they make a mistake in a moment of passion; the NT Jesus tells a crowd of people who are about to enforce a similar law ... don't do that, seek a deeper spiritual truth.

But I have to wonder how many love-mistaken women were stoned to death in the thousand years between those Testament events.

It seems cruel and harsh when a similar Koranic Law is used to stone women to death TODAY; but Muslims would insist it's still the OT God commanding them to kill in the name of "Morality"

The Law gives God's righteous, Holy standard. The bible is clear that it is perfect.

We need not debate the Perfection or Holiness of GOD's standard (I'll agree: it TRANSCENDS human understanding)

But I'm confused by those who say that the Old and New Testaments don't give CONTRADICTORY positions on the stoning of adultresses or non-virgins.

The mob was trying to OBEY the Law by stoning a woman to death; JESUS spoke for the specific purpose of STOPPING THEM from doing so.

Did JESUS's message enlighten them to the hypocrisy of stoning sinners when they themselves ARE sinners? YES.

But would a devout Jew, a thousand years BEFORE Jesus, faithfully dedicated to OBEYING God's Law ... have had the right to tell the mob: "Wait, I thought about this stoning Law, and you know what? I'M DISOBEYING that Law. It's wrong." ???

If that Law was given to illustrate GOD's standards of Goodness ... to a Jew 1000 BC ... Jesus just said: You're holier to break God's standards (the Law) than to blindly obey them.

That's ... confusing to me.

... and 3) stopped trying to force others to change to fit my viewpoints.

But, respectfully, some here seem (imo) to be suggesting it was okay for a mob to stone women to death ACCORDING TO THEIR VIEWPOINT concerning God's Laws.

Some say "Obey the societal laws and throw a stone" and others say "No, Jesus said don't cast the first stone" ... and THOSE are human 'viewpoints' of HOW TO ENACT God's or Society's laws.

We needn't debate WHETHER to obey God's laws ... but we can debate HOW to obey God's laws!

He knew that principles were more effective than instructions. Look at what happened to the 10 simple instructions God gave the Jews originally. It's easy to get around laws no matter how skillfully crafted. That's what lawyers are for.

I totally agree: good people can argue HOW to obey God, even when they are devoutly TRYING to obey God.

That's why it gets so TRICKY!

So if we go back to the original laws in Leviticus such as stoning a witch or stoning an adulterous woman, I believe those laws and penalties were in place for the Israelites at that specific time in their society because it was such an extreme situation (the 50 arenas in the desert from the OP). They had to have extreme punishments to keep a semblance of order and purity.

And, again, I do not want to argue or debate needlessly, but am confused by that.

Because I would suggest that often God calls us to make a stand AGAINST merely keeping a semblance of SOCIAL order!

Abolitionists who helped slaves escape to Freedom (to use an extreme example) were BREAKING USA laws -- both North and south laws!

The end of Slavery in fact ripped our nation's "order" apart and killed half a million citizens in the Civil War.

Many slave-holding Christians pointed to Scripture's seeming ACCEPTANCE of slavery, to justify owning slaves ...

And yet, I think everyone here would agree: the End of Slavery was NECESSARY and RIGHTEOUS ... the "Godly" thing and the "Christian" thing to do!

:Hug2:

As I said originally, I don't wish to needlessly dispute. But I believe there's no wrong in expressing our areas of Uncertainty and Confusion, in our pursuit of better Understanding of the true Christian life!

So ... if anyone can help me on those issues, thank you. And I at least feel better expressing them!

Sean D. Schaffer · Feb 13, 2008

I think there's also an issue, Small Axe, of the mentality of the society, to which the Law was given, versus the society in which Jesus lived. People in Moses' day had God Himself give the commandments on Mount Sinai, so they had the Almighty Himself present with them to not only give the Commandments, but also to explain them.

Fast forward some 2,000 years to Jesus' day, and you have not God Himself explaining His Word; you have the Pharisees, AND the Sadducees, AND the scribes (teachers of the Law), and the list goes on, trying in their own vain human methods to explain what God meant through His perfect Laws. Humans have a tendency to read into things what we want those things to say. We misquote, we mis-read, we quote out of context and make doctrines with those quotes. We take a verse from one book of the Bible, mate it with a verse from a totally different book of the Bible, and make a doctrine from that.

If the people in Moses' time were to have seen what the people in Jesus' time had done to the Laws of their beloved God, they would have been appalled. They knew better than the Pharisees why God instituted the death penalty for seemingly minor things, because they had God to explain His Laws to them.

The problem, obviously, is not with God or His Laws; it's with the human implementation of them.

The same thing can be said for Christians quoting the Bible to justify the sin of owning slaves. When God gave the commandments on how to treat one's slaves, He did so for a society in which slave ownership was commonplace and many people saw nothing wrong with it. Slavery was so normal in Moses' day, that for God to forbid people from owning slaves would have seemed beyond ludicrous to them.

This does not justify, at least in my mind, the practice of owning human beings as property; on the contrary, it shows me that God was just as concerned with the attitudes people held the day He gave the Law, as He is with complete, perfect, righteousness.

Jesus talked about men putting heavier burdens on the people than they were able to handle. That's what men do when they think they have a better view of God's Law than its stated purpose. But the Bible teaches that we ought not to add to God's Words, "Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

There is no shame in simply believing God for what He said. The NT states, though maybe not in so many words, "Go not beyond what is written" (not sure which translation that is; I think NIV). When people go beyond what is written, that's when the problems begin. The best way to find out the context of the Bible's Commandments, is to see what society was like during the time in which it was written. That knowledge can explain a lot.

III · Feb 13, 2008

SmallAxe, I think your question is excellent. Since the story we're discussing is kind of a unique one within scripture with many aspects beyond just the law, I dug into it a little and found some great commentary on it, particularly verse 7. I'm interested to see if this answers or raises more questions based on your original one. Sorry for the long paste post.

From Coffman Commentaries on John 8:

Verses 3, 4
And the scribes and Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act.

Overshadowing the moral lapse of the woman was the brutal, unfeeling, sadistic behavior of the hypocrites who thus broke up a religious discussion by such an intrusion. Their partiality in not bringing her partner makes it possible to suppose that one of them was the guilty man. "Adultery ..." indicates the woman was married.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verses 5, 6
Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her? And this they said trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote with his finger on the ground.

The Pharisees were misapplying Moses' law here, since "stoning" was commanded for a betrothed girl before her marriage (Deuteronomy 22:23f), and the woman before them was married. They cared nothing for the law and were only interested in cooking up some charge against Jesus. Incidentally, if they had really believed their own earlier indictment of him as a sabbath-breaker, they would not still have been searching at this later date for another basis of accusation.

Trying him ...
has the force of "tempting him." What did they hope to gain? (1) If Jesus had concurred in asking a death penalty for the woman, they would have hailed him before the Romans who had made it illegal for the Jews to assess such a penalty. (2) If the Lord had recommended mercy, they would have placed him at variance with Moses and made a lawbreaker out of him!

Stooped ... and wrote ... on the ground ...
The Saviour reacted to such a grotesque and embarrassing situation with silence and by stooping and writing on the ground. This is the only instance of Jesus writing; and the fact of his writing being quickly trampled under foot strongly suggests the only other instance of deity's writing, namely, that of God's inscribing the tables of stone. The decalogue too was quickly trampled under foot (spiritually), and Moses smashed the tables of stone (Exodus 32:19). If this passage is really spurious, it is difficult to explain such overtones as this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 7
But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Jesus, as ever, found the answer in the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 17:7 says, "The hand of the witness shall be the first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people." Thus Jesus demanded that the witness, nowhere visible in this interview - that the witness should reveal himself and cast the first stone; but the Lord demanded something else - such a witness would himself have to be without sin. Again the Pharisees' trap had closed without taking Jesus. The Lord had neither condoned any kind of sin nor contradicted Moses. He just turned the tables by an appeal to conscience, there being no coward like a guilty conscience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 8
And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.

Another period of silence ensued, as the Lord kept writing. The older heads in the Pharisees' company saw instantly that their scheme had failed. Not in a million years were they prepared to produce a witness, much less a sinless witness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 9
And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.

The Saviour's silence, the total absence (or silence) of any witness against the woman, and the watchfulness of the mighty throng surrounding the little circle of Pharisees with Jesus and the woman at the center - all of that became suddenly a situation of profound embarrassment to the Pharisees. The oldest, being the more perceptive, led the way, and they all left. Once more the Galilean had conquered.

Gehanna · Feb 14, 2008

But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Click to expand...

I am grateful that Jesus was once a carpenter as opposed to a stone thrower.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

Sean D. Schaffer · Feb 14, 2008

Gehanna said:
I am grateful that Jesus was once a carpenter as opposed to a stone thrower.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

Me too, Gehanna. Me too. Christ would have had every right, being Who He was, to reject my request for Salvation. The very fact He did not, tells me He's even more worthy of my love and service than I ever thought before.

I am humbled, and happy, because of that wondrous attitude my Savior had toward a wicked man such as myself. If anyone had the right to cast the first stone, He did. But he allowed me to live so that I could find faith and peace and life ... and most importantly, LOVE ... in Him.

To quote Max Lucado, "No wonder they call Him the Savior."

--Sean

M_Gary · Feb 17, 2008

I've read most of the posts here, and I'd like to interject my thoughts if you don't mind.

God's chosen were called to be set apart; they were to be different in every way. To accomplish this, God set the laws into place to teach them to rely on Him first. Have you ever noticed how ridiculous the mold laws or the clothing material laws are? This is because God wanted us to come to him for even the most mundane task of getting dressed. He wanted to permeate our every thought and He wanted us to go to Him with our every need. This ingrained God in their minds and their hearts.

The fact that the law was (and is) unattainable is simply because we, as humans, continue to believe we know better.

There's a lot more to this question, I just wanted to interject this point.

HeronW · Feb 17, 2008

Certain laws are simply false in todays modern world: pork and shellfish were 'unclean' because they went bad so quickly people got sick eating them. Yet, under the squash plant, post-whale, Jonah is offered food that is 'according to dietary law' unclean. Who made those laws? Man, not the Diety. The Diety however did make all things and none are unclean.

Sodom and Gomorrah were leveled not for sin, but for their treatment of strangers, yet who offered these complete strangers the carnal use of his virgin daughters? Lot. The crowd wants to speak with these strangers: a reasonable request since strangers may carry news, or disease, or be spies for an antagonistic city. Good old Lot then offers his daughters to the crowd. Gee, Daddy Dearest, way to go. And Lot was a 'good' man. Yeah, right.

Everything comes down to the 'do unto others' which predates Christianity by a good 5000 years. The real message doesn't change no matter what faith you have. Even, 'An it harm none, do as thou wilt' in pagan belief reemphasizes the personal responsibility.

Don't say 'the devil made me do it', or even 'God made me do it' that's BS.

The first gift humanity has been given is free will, the right to choose.

Sean D. Schaffer · Feb 17, 2008

Hi HeronW.

I would like to quickly comment on your post. It seems you've reached some conclusions that are erroneous according to the Bible. This is fine, as you are only human. I no more expect you to be perfect than God does.

I am neither judging you, nor am I condemning you. I am simply correcting the mistakes you've made so that you can better understand God's Word, and so that you can see that what Tradition teaches us as human beings, is rarely what God actually says in His Word.

HeronW said:
Certain laws are simply false in todays modern world: pork and shellfish were 'unclean' because they went bad so quickly people got sick eating them. Yet, under the squash plant, post-whale, Jonah is offered food that is 'according to dietary law' unclean. Who made those laws? Man, not the Diety. The Diety however did make all things and none are unclean.

First and foremost, the Book of Jonah does not ever mention Jonah, while under the gourd, being offered unclean food ... by anyone. The gourd was there to shelter Jonah from the heat, and Jonah is never once mentioned eating the gourd or being offered unclean food while sitting under the gourd. (Jonah Chapter 4).

Sodom and Gomorrah were leveled not for sin,...

My bold.

Yes, actually, they were. Genesis Chapter 18 verses 20 and 21 explain:

20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin is so grievous
21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not I will know.

The Bible then goes on to say that Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, citing that if there were a certain amount of righteous people in the cities, would God "Sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" -- Verse 23. God agreed that He would "Not destroy the cities for the sake of" that amount of people. -- Verses 26-32.

...but for their treatment of strangers, yet who offered these complete strangers the carnal use of his virgin daughters? Lot. The crowd wants to speak with these strangers: a reasonable request since strangers may carry news, or disease, or be spies for an antagonistic city.

If you're quoting the KJV, the archaic language saying, "Bring them out, that we may know them" does not just mean to have a talk. Sometimes, that word 'Know' refers to sexuality. Some commentators have pointed out that the men of Sodom (from which we get the word 'Sodomy') were likely referring to raping the men, not just talking to them. Some versions of the Bible actually translate that verse "Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (Genesis 19:5).

So there's a lot more to this story than reading the King James Version would insinuate, simply because the KJV's language is almost four hundred years old, in its original form.

Good old Lot then offers his daughters to the crowd. Gee, Daddy Dearest, way to go. And Lot was a 'good' man. Yeah, right.

Lot was a righteous man, but not because of being perfect. On the contrary, he was righteous because he believed the Lord, and because he was more righteous, works-wise, than the people he lived around.

Everything comes down to the 'do unto others' which predates Christianity by a good 5000 years. The real message doesn't change no matter what faith you have. Even, 'An it harm none, do as thou wilt' in pagan belief reemphasizes the personal responsibility.

Indeed, the message is the same, and it does predate Christ. But the thing you have to remember is, that message goes against human nature. People know there's a God by nature; it's ingrained into every person, and every society. We know, deep, deep down, that there's something more to our existence than simply what we see. But God's Laws go against our sinful desires. They tell us, "Don't murder" and "Don't commit adultery" because God does not want us to get hurt or to hurt other people. Hurting other people is bad, and hurting God is also bad, is the basic point of the Law. God's Laws are also meant to show us that His Way is too hard for us to keep, and that we don't need to keep rules, but to believe in Him and in His Son.

The Bible says "The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness..." (KJV) This is true because people don't want to believe that mere faith in Christ can save them in the first place, from their sins. Nevertheless, God knows better than we do, what is right, and what is wrong. To believe that He is somehow not going to come through is a natural human tendency. That doesn't make us right when we fail or refuse to believe in Him.

Don't say 'the devil made me do it', or even 'God made me do it' that's BS.

Excellent point. God can make us do things, but on the average He doesn't. The devil can't make us do things, unless we invite him to do so. Nicely said.

The first gift humanity has been given is free will, the right to choose.

Again, true. The thing you have to remember is, God gives us a limited choice when it comes to Eternity. Heaven or Hell, it's the only choice we have. We can either do things God's way and end up in Heaven, or we can do things our way and end up in the other place. The real issue of Christianity is not so much doing good works to get to Heaven, as it is believing God through His Son as our only means to get there.

I must say, your post gave me some things to think about, and the quick Bible study your post afforded me has been fruitful. Even though we may disagree in the future about this and other topics, I want you to know I, for one, appreciate your having posted in this thread.

All Scriptures taken from the New International Version of the Bible, unless otherwise noted.
--Sean

The Law

III

rockin the suburbs

james1611

althrasher

Prodigal Muser

JoNightshade

has finally arrived

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only

III

rockin the suburbs

Sean D. Schaffer

small axe

memento mori

Sean D. Schaffer

III

rockin the suburbs

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only

III

rockin the suburbs

Sean D. Schaffer

althrasher

Prodigal Muser

james1611

Gehanna

Introvert

small axe

memento mori

Sean D. Schaffer

III

rockin the suburbs

Gehanna

Introvert

Sean D. Schaffer

M_Gary

HeronW

Down Under Fan

Sean D. Schaffer