If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8, James 1:17), why did he change his mind about some stuff? I'm referring to Jesus' famous Sermon on the Mount where Jesus, apparently, makes some corrections to the Jewish scriptures that Moses wrote. For example, Matt. 5:21-22, Jesus cites the 6th commandment, "Do not murder," then says, "but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement." He goes on to make a similar correction regarding adultery (vv 27-28): not only should you not commit adultery, but if you even think about it you're already guilty.
Then he makes what I find the most interesting correction to the law. In vv 31-32 he changes the rule about divorce. The law said a man could divorce his wife if he found something displeasing or indecent about her (Deut 24:1). Jesus said no you can't unless she was cheating on you. Otherwise any subsequent marrying would be considered adultery. So the really interesting aspect of Jesus' position on this happens in Mark 10:2-10 where the Pharisees come to question Jesus about this issue. The discuss in terms of "what did Moses tell you", not "what did God tell you in the law".
This is a can of worms opening in my mind. Now we seem to be talking about scripture, the books of God's law that Moses recorded, as if it is not the unerring word of God, but it is the possibly fallible word of Moses - which clearly needed some later correction. Then you get into trying to figure out which parts were from Moses and which were actually said by God. Who is qualified to make those decisions? I'm not and I wouldn't trust anyone else to do it either. Perhaps not all scripture is "God breathed"?
Or did God change his mind on those matters? "Crap. I really wasn't strict enough when I made those rules. I'll have to fix that when I send my son to earth."
I'll grant that those are not huge flip flops on the issues, but I would expect God would get it perfect the first time, no revision needed. What does this do to the idea that God doesn't change? Perhaps that doesn't mean he doesn't change his mind?
So the ultimate question for me is: Are the books of the Bible really the words of God, written essentially by human mediums? Or are they the words of humans, parts of which may be inspired by God, and perhaps none of which are inspired?
God changing and God changing his mind are apples and oranges. There are instances in the Bible where God changes his mind. I’ve long argued this with others who give me a blank stare and say, “God never changes”. God’s nature and character do not change, but there are examples where God changes his mind after someone prays. For example, God tells Hezekiah to get his house in order cause he’s a gonner. Hezekiah prays and God adds 15 years to his life. In Jeremiah 26 the NASB says, “the Lord changed his mind”. I understand this may not be the exact translation, but the course of action did change. There are also a couple of times where God decides to destroy Israel, but Moses pleads with God and God also changes his mind. Jesus also makes several references God giving to those who ask, which infers if you do not ask God may not give, so asking brings a change. There’s also the parable of the woman and the judge and how her persistence led to the judge changing his mind and granting her request. Besides, what is the point of praying for other people or situations if God is never willing to alter his course of action?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Jesus and divorce vs Moses….this one has bothered me for a while. Jesus says Moses allowed divorce contrary to how marriage was meant to be, so that implies that it was Moses’ law and not God’s law. I’m reading a book called, “Is God a Moral Monster” which deals with OT stuff. I’m only 1/3 of the way through. He says the Mosaic law was meant to be temporary and made allowances for where the culture was at the time, but the ideal was for two to become one flesh as stated in Genesis. He flat out calls the Mosaic law incomplete and inferior to God’s ideal. So are Moses’ laws and God’s laws different? It appears to be that way. If that’s true, what are the implications? I’m not sure what to think about this yet. These types of questions are on my list to research.
I have a difficult time accepting that Solomon’s tribute to a lady’s bosom is anything more than Solomon’s tribute to a lady’s bosom. Which words are directly from God and which are not? We may never know. Is that a requirement or does it all go out the window if Solomon’s lady friend really had bad breath? The core message of reconciliation to God is consistently woven throughout the Bible. Plus there are some amazing things in the Bible that could not have happened without some non-human help.
Mediums? Really???
Karen
You characterized part of Jesus' sermon on the Mount as correcting the law.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Matt. 5:21-22, Jesus cites the 6th commandment, "Do not murder," then says, "but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement."
So is this a correction or a better explanation given by Jesus? I guess it depends on your point of view. Taken in context, there seemed to be a religious class of people who followed the letter of the law and thought themselves to be righteous. Jesus is saying, "Hey, you missed the point. If you run around with hate in your heart, you really aren't any better than a murderer."
To me it seems more like Jesus is saying, follow the spirit of the law not the letter of the law.
Somewhere, in writing it down and studying the exact words for centuries, the meaning that those words were communicating was lost. The point was missed.
Well even if Jesus was just clarifying the intention of the law, he is also undoubtedly adding something to it that wasn't there to begin with. With the anger/murder thing, the original commandment was simply "do not murder" (Ex 20:13). Nothing about anger in there at all. And could God not predict that people would try only to follow the letter of that law and not "the spirit" of it and go ahead and clarify the interpretation while he was at it in the first place?
DeleteAnd I think the divorce thing is even a bit more clear of a change in position. Again, it's not a flip flop, but I guess he didn't get it precise enough in the first place. Or Moses messed it up. Maybe misheard God? Maybe the secretary taking dictation got lazy and decided to only jot down the main points, not filling in the gaps?
I've been giving this some more thought. I think Eric deals well with perceived changes. So my focus here is on why couldn't God give us the perfect law to begin with?
DeleteSo here are my thoughts...
I don't think God gets it wrong, or even Moses. I think we do. In the NT passage how many times does Jesus explain the spirit of the law. The "what's inside is what counts." The Love your God with all your heart, mind, strength etc. and how many people today, despite clear texts, are still caught up in legalism? Paul says the law wasn't given to make us righteous but to show us our sins and shortcomings, and this guy was serious about the law.
You pose a good question about Jesus' view of the law of Moses and how He seems to take issue with parts of it. As with any other subject matter in the Bible, you have to start the analytical process with context. I’ll use the divorce issue for this comment.
ReplyDeleteFirst OT divorce law. One thing we cannot do is equate a certificate divorce of Deuteronomy (24:1-5) with our modern divorce process. Our certificate is neutral – it just identifies a man or a woman as being divorced. The OT divorce was very different and served a definite purpose. If a woman was ‘sent away,’ she will be stained as an adulterer simply because the worst is naturally assumed – she can’t remarry, and with a woman’s status as low as it was, would quickly become destitute. Deuteronomy attempts to justify the innocent and cause the stain to fall on the guilty. If you wanted to send your spouse away, you had 2 options under the law; 1) if you had evidence of adultery, Deut 22:13-27 kicked in. No divorce required and the innocent party is free to remarry. 2) If the husband sent the wife away for some INDECENCY, Deut 24:1-4 kicks in. She is given a certificate of divorce and considered innocent enough to remarry. It gives the husband or wife a chance at life if one happened to be stuck with a real monster (or someone with a truly hardened heart). Regardless of how the marriage terminated, there was supposed to be a real reason (legally) for a marriage to end; either adultery or indecency (contextually something significant).
By the time of Christ, the permitted cause for divorce had disappeared into legalistic nonsense. Mt 5:27-32 should be taken as a complete thought. Divorce had sunk from a legitimate article to a simple formality. Mt 5 indicates that men divorced their spouses simply because they found other women more attractive and Jesus addresses the cause (lusting after those other women) and the effects (1) your whole body going to hell (v29), 2) divorce for any reason other than unchastity leads to adultery for both parties (v32)). Yes, Jesus railed at divorce because it had become so easy. He didn’t reinvent divorce law or say divorce was impermissible; He just reminded them that the cause had to be just (as it was in Deut) and that there were consequences for flouting the law (Mosaic).
(continued)
In Mt 19:3-9 Jesus takes the Pharisees to task on the issue of divorce. Historical context is important. Pharisees were keepers of the oral law (Talmud), which was their legalistic interpretation and application of all the laws of the Torah. It was under their approving gaze that the laws of God turned into legalism, and in many cases, a perversion of the laws (ex. Pharisees outraged that Jesus would dare heal a man on the Sabbath – it was considered work). So when the Pharisees ask Jesus “Is it not LAWFUL for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?”, He tees off on them. 1) You guys are really idiots (“Have you not read…”), 2) in marriage the two become ONE flesh, 3) if God made them one flesh, “let no man [Pharisee] separate.” The Pharisees try to justify their laws (and try to trap Jesus) by invoking Deut, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus clarifies but says nothing really new: 1) you are a sinful, hard hearted people, 2) therefore, Moses was permitted to allow divorce, 3) God’s design (Gen 2:24 – pre-fall of man) was for marriage to be permanent, 4) you may divorce for the cause of immorality (oddly enough, it’s the same word used in the Mt 5 passage, but different English word put here by translators), 5) if a man divorces his wife for any other reason and remarries, he commits adultery.
ReplyDeleteI contend that Jesus isn’t changing the law and isn’t even criticizing Moses. What He is doing is reestablishing the law and tearing away at the legalistic interpretation of the law which had been foisted upon God’s people by the Pharisees (there’s frequent debates with the Pharisees and lawyers throughout the gospels). In a real sense, it is bringing people back to the spirit (meaning) of the original laws and discounting the Pharisees letter of the law. Jesus seems to imply as much earlier in Mt 5 (v 17-20), culminating in v 20, “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Eric
John, it occurs to me after reading these arguments from others that they are forgetting some things I regard as significant.
ReplyDelete1) People have changed since Moses. They have evolved. "Moses" was "writing down" decrees for a prelegal, tribal, patriarchal, slave-holding, nomadic people. We've come a long way since then. Naturally, there would have to be some tweaking. After all, we don't apply many laws from the 16th century here anymore. We've moved on.
2) The Mosaic Law was intended, according to the writers of the New Testament, as a precursor to God's more perfect way of relating to us. Paul writes in Galatians 3:24 that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." So, perhaps Jesus was merely recognizing that his audience had developed since Moses and he was tightening the screws to show them that even obeying the Mosaic codes was not enough. The Law was not intended to be the path to earning God's favor but as a reinforcement of how much we need grace.
I have a problem with #1. Since there still are tribal, patriarchal, slave-holding, nomadic people in the world, are they then less evolved than the rest of us?
DeleteThe laws we don't apply from the 16th century that are referenced, are they cultural laws or moral laws? Meaning some laws change because of cultural issues, not because of evolving. Many laws stay the same because they are not cultural issues, they are moral ones. Stealing is a prime example of a moral issue. The number of pets in an apartment would be a cultural issue.