tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/03/91)
Folks,
Lately, I've had Ezekiel 20 niggling at me. I wonder how others
interpret some of the interesting passages in this chapter.
In Ezekiel 20, the Lord is outlining to Ezekiel his charges against
Israel, (and asking him to pass sentence if he's ready). The Lord
explains that time and time again he has reached out to Israel, only to
have them turn their back on him. He also explains that he's been
tempted to destroy them a number of times, but in his mercy has reached
out again, (only to be rejected it seems).
The stuff I find *really* interesting starts around verse 17:
17 "But then I took pity on them. I decided not to kill them there in
the desert. 18 Instead, I warned the young people among them: Do not
keep the laws your ancestors made; do not follow their customs or defile
yourself with their idols. 19 I am the Lord your God. Obey my laws and
my commands. 20 Make the Sabbath a holy day, so that it will be a sign
of the covenant we made, and will remind you that I am the Lord your
God.
21 "But that generation also defiled me. They broke my laws and did
not keep my commands, which bring life to anyone who obeys them. They
profaned the Sabath. I was ready to let them feel the force of my anger
there in the desert and to kill them all. 22 But I did not, since that
would have brought dishonor to my name among the nations which had seen
me bring Israel out of Egypt. 23 So I made another vow in the desert.
I vowed that I would scatter them all over the world. 24 I did this
because they had rejected my commands, broken my laws, profaned the
Sabbath, and worshiped the same idols their ancestors had served.
And here's where the fun really begins...
25 "Then I gave them laws that are not good and commands that do not
bring life. 26 I let them defile themselves with their own offerings,
and I let them sacrifice their first-born sons. This was to punish them
and show them that I am the Lord. (TEV)
So, just like in Isaiah and in the Gospels, God (Jesus in the
Gospels) claims that the people have made their own laws, and turned
from God's Laws and Commands. And, like Jesus' teachings on the laws
governing divorce, it appears that God has given Israel bad laws in
addition to the good ones. How then are we to decide which laws are
laws made by the people, which ones are God's good laws, and which ones
are God's bad laws?
We're fond of snatching laws from the Old Testament, and holding
others to them. Some of them are obviously contradicted by Jesus (I.E.
an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth). Many of them are not so
clear. I tend to lean toward (the two "Geatest Commandments") and see
if they are in accord. I also like Paul's letter to the Romans. And I
believe that Wesley's quadrangle is of assistance, but what do others
say?
How are we to decide which laws/commands are the good laws/commands
of the Lord? What are we to use as a guide? How do we go about
applying it?
Tom Blake
SUNY-Binghamtongilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (05/05/91)
Tom Blake writes:
----------------------------------------
How are we to decide which laws/commands are the good
laws/commands of the Lord? What are we to use as a guide? How do we
go about applying it?
----------------------------------------
I tend to take a more radical view than this, as found in Galatians
5.18: If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. The
quandry over which law to follow is short-circuited; righteousness
becomes the manifestation of the Spirit -- the fruit of the Spirit
against which there is no law.
``But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there
is no law.''
F. F. Bruce said that the idea that we are not under the law for
salvation, but we are under it for living, is NOT found in the
theology of Paul (PAUL -- APOSTLE OF THE HEART SET FREE).
--
-Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) (05/07/91)
In article <May.3.03.27.10.1991.24502@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > 25 "Then I gave them laws that are not good and commands that do not > bring life. 26 I let them defile themselves with their own offerings, > and I let them sacrifice their first-born sons. This was to punish them > and show them that I am the Lord. (TEV) > .... it appears that God has given Israel bad laws in > addition to the good ones. How then are we to decide which laws are > laws made by the people, which ones are God's good laws, and which ones > are God's bad laws? Hmm.... interesting passage. My bible footnotes say of the sacrifice of the first-borns: i.e. as burnt sacrifices to Moloch. This was a cult fertility practice or something like that. As for your question, how about John 7:17 as a guide? -- Jason Hunsaker slhw4@cc.usu.edu
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/07/91)
In article <May.3.03.27.10.1991.24502@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > And here's where the fun really begins... > > 25 "Then I gave them laws that are not good and commands that do not > bring life. 26 I let them defile themselves with their own offerings, > and I let them sacrifice their first-born sons. This was to punish them > and show them that I am the Lord. (TEV) > > So, just like in Isaiah and in the Gospels, God (Jesus in the > Gospels) claims that the people have made their own laws, and turned > from God's Laws and Commands. And, like Jesus' teachings on the laws > governing divorce, it appears that God has given Israel bad laws in > addition to the good ones. How then are we to decide which laws are > laws made by the people, which ones are God's good laws, and which ones > are God's bad laws? I think the proper interpretation of this passage is that the 'bad laws' are not 'God's laws' as recorded in scripture, but laws that God led or permitted the sinful leaders of Israel to enact. Hence they sacrificed their first-born sons, which God clearly condemned in several places. (Do not give your children to Molech, etc.) Here is how the passage reads in the NIV, and I think you will see quite a difference: "25) I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26) I let them become defiled through their gifts --the sacrifice of every firstborn--that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord." This is a theme restated by Paul: "Did that which is good [the Law], then become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good [the Law], so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." -- Romans 7:13. Of course here Paul is speaking of the true Law of God, which is not bad, and which is able to give life to anyone who obeys it -- but due to our fallen, sinful nature, we cannot obey it. But the Law serves the larger purpose of showing us that we need Christ's redemption. In both cases (God's law and the 'bad laws') God is being gracious, trying to call people back to him, people who continue to turn away from him. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "The Law commands and makes us know What duties to our God we owe; But 'tis the Gospel must reveal Where lies our strength to do His will. The Law discovers guilt an sin And shows how vile our hearts have been; The Gospel only can express Forgiving love and cleansing grace. What curses doth the Law denounce Against the man that fails but once! But in the Gospel Christ appears, Pard'ning the guilt of num'rous years. My soul, no more attempt to draw The life and comfort from the Law. Fly to the hope tha Gospel gives; The man that trusts the promise lives." --"The Law Commands and Makes Us Know" --by Issaac Watts --from "The Lutheran Hymnal" #289. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/08/91)
In article <May.7.00.32.53.1991.14737@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >> 25 "Then I gave them laws that are not good and commands that do not >> bring life. 26 I let them defile themselves with their own offerings, >> and I let them sacrifice their first-born sons. This was to punish them >> and show them that I am the Lord. (TEV) >Here is how the passage reads in the NIV, and I think you will see quite >a difference: > >"25) I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could >not live by; 26) I let them become defiled through their gifts --the sacrifice >of every firstborn--that I might fill them with horror so they would know that >I am the Lord." This is indeed a different sounding reading. It sounds as if God has "given Israel enough rope to let them hang themselves". That is, he's let them investigate the evil ways so that they might better understand his ways. Indeed, in the Gospels, Jesus' reaction to the Pharisees' question about the laws governing divorce makes it appear that this is Moses' law, and not the Law of God. Matthew 19:7,8 See also Mark 10:4,5 7 The Pharisees asked him, "Why then, did Moses give the law for a man to hand his wive a divorce notice and send her away?" 8 Jesus answered, "Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives because you are so hard to teach... (TEV) For those who are interested, check out Deuteronomy 24:1-4 It appears to me that Jesus makes a distinction between the laws of Moses and the laws of God. (A distinction we as modern day Christians often fail to make.) Interestingly enough, also check out Luke 16:16-18 16 "The Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets were in effect up to the time of John the Baptist; since then the Good News about the Kingdom of God is being told, and everyone forces his way in. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest detail of the Law to be done away with. 18 "Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery; and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Correct my interpretation if you will. Verse 16 implies that since the coming of John the Baptist announcing the new age The Law of Moses, and the teachings of the prophets are no longer in effect. Verse 17 implies that the Law of God *unlike* the Law of Moses is not so easily done away with. Verse 18 stresses the distinction between the law of Moses and the Law of God. This would also help to explain the apparant contradictions between Jesus' teachings. On the one hand saying that not a jot or a tiddle of the law would be changed. On the other hand apparantly changing or at least reinterpretting the laws of Moses. What do you say folks? It seems to me that this understanding even helps us to understand Paul's teachings. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton [That would be an unusual reading of Luke 16:17. Not to say that it's necessarily wrong... Another possibility is something like Paul implies at time: the Law has not ceased to exist, and it's still holy. We are just no longer until it's control. --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/10/91)
[Thomas Blake reads Lk 16:16-18 as implying a distinction between the laws of Moses and God. > 16 "The Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets were in effect >up to the time of John the Baptist; since then the Good News about the >Kingdom of God is being told, and everyone forces his way in. 17 But it >is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest detail >of the Law to be done away with. He reads 16 as saying the the law of Moses is not in effect, but the Law of God still is. I commented that this is an "unusual" interpretation of this passage. --clh] Boy, I'll say it's unusual! But let's look at it the other way. First Jesus says that the law was in effect until John, then after John everybody's getting in. Then Jesus says it's incredibly hard to change the law, and then he goes ahead and changes it! (But since it apparantly isn't in effect anymore what's the point in changing it?) These three verses seem to me to represent in microcosm the seeming underlying contradiction in Jesus' teachings on the law. I'm not trying to present my interpretation (now almost a day old) as the only valid interpretation, I am trying (as with my original Ezekiel post), to stimulate conversation on this matter. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/11/91)
In article <May.8.04.13.41.1991.11222@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > > Indeed, in the Gospels, Jesus' reaction to the Pharisees' question about > the laws governing divorce makes it appear that this is Moses' law, and > not the Law of God. That is an interesting point that I will have to think about. > Matthew 19:7,8 See also Mark 10:4,5 > 7 The Pharisees asked him, "Why then, did Moses give the law for a man > to hand his wive a divorce notice and send her away?" > 8 Jesus answered, "Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives > because you are so hard to teach... (TEV) > > For those who are interested, check out Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something *indecent* about her..." A footnote in the Concordia Self-Study Bible regarding Matthew 19:3 notes that there was "a dispute between the schools of Shammai and Hillel over the interpretation of Dt 24:1-4. Shammai held that "something indecent" meant 'marital unfaithfulness' --the only allowable cause for divorce. Hillel (c. 60 B.C. - A.D. 20) emphasized the preceding clause, "who becomes displeasing to him." He would allow a man to divorce his wife if she did anything he disliked--even if she burned his food while cooking it. Jesus clearly took the side of Shammai (see v. 9) but only after first pointing back to God's original ideal for marriage in Gen 1:27; 2:24." > It appears to me that Jesus makes a distinction between the laws of > Moses and the laws of God. (A distinction we as modern day Christians > often fail to make.) > > Interestingly enough, also check out Luke 16:16-18 > 16 "The Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets were in effect > up to the time of John the Baptist; since then the Good News about the > Kingdom of God is being told, and everyone forces his way in. 17 But it > is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest detail > of the Law to be done away with. > 18 "Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits > adultery; and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. > > Correct my interpretation if you will. Verse 16 implies that since > the coming of John the Baptist announcing the new age The Law of Moses, > and the teachings of the prophets are no longer in effect. Verse 17 > implies that the Law of God *unlike* the Law of Moses is not so easily > done away with. Verse 18 stresses the distinction between the law of > Moses and the Law of God. NIV: " 16)The Law and the Prophets were proclaimied until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it." Jesus does not make a distinction between God's Law and Moses. He is making a distinction between the Old Covenant and the New. See Matthew 5: 17-20. Jesus discusses the same thing with a little more context. " 17) Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18) I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19) Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20) For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Comments: 1. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets by living a life of perfect obedience, and by fulfilling the prophecies made concerning his death and resurrection, his atonement for the sins of the people. 2. We might say that 'everything was accomplished' when Jesus spoke the words 'It is finished' on the cross. Matthew wrote that at the moment Jesus gave up his spirit, 'the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.' This signified the end of the Old covenant; its purpose was fulfilled, and it was no longer needed. 3. On the other hand, since Jesus referred to 'until heaven and earth disappear,' it may be that he means that the Law will stand until Judgement day: "Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." --Rev. 20:11-15 From this I conclude that the Law still stands for use in judging those whose names are not written in the book of life through faith in Jesus. Further comment on Matthew 5: 4. How does our righteousness exceed 'that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law?' Our righteousness comes from God (Romans 3:21) It is Christ's perfect righteousness, imputed to us by God's grace through faith. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/17/91)
In article <May.10.23.15.21.1991.27219@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >See Matthew 5: 17-20. Jesus discusses the same thing with a little more >context. > >" 17) Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have >not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18) I tell you the truth, until >heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke >of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is >accomplished. 19) Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments >and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of >heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called >great in the kingdom of heaven. 20) For I tell you that unless your >righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, >you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." But if we read the rest of the chapter, he then proceeds (apparantly) to change the law. In verses 21-26, Jesus' teaching extends the law. "Do not commit murder" gets extended to don't even get angry unjustly at your brother. (Don't just avoid murder, avoid the thoughts/attitudes that lead to murder.) In verses 27-30, Jesus extends the law again. "Do not commit adultery." gets extended to don't even lust after a woman and desire to possess her. (Don't just avoid adultery, avoid the thoughts/attitudes that lead to adultery.) In verses 31-32, Jesus extends or perhaps clarifies the law. "Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce." get's extended to don't divorce your wife unless she is unfaithful. (The first instance requires that a man have the decency to give the woman notice, the second requires that a man have the decency not to divorce the woman without just cause. (Unless she has committed adultery, then by divorcing her, the man *makes* her commit adultery, so the sin is *his*.)) In verses 33-37 Jesus extends the Law once again. "Don't take the Lord's name in vain." get's extended to don't swear by anything, just say "Yes" or "No". Rather than making up rules about what oaths you were allowed to break or not, Jesus says, don't make oaths, just be honest. (Don't just avoid being dishonest when you swear by the Lord's name, avoid being dishonest at all.) In verses 38-42, Jesus I believe is not reversing the law, but extending it again. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." I believe originally was intended to mean, "keep things in proportion, don't kill another just because you have been injured." This get's extended to turning the other cheek. (Don't just avoid disproportionate revenge, avoid the thoughts/attitudes that lead to revenge.) Verses 43-48 apparantly come from the book of Sirach. Once again, Jesus is extending the law. "Love your friends, hate your enemies" becomes love everyone, don't stop at just your friends. (Don't just avoid hating your friends, avoid hating anyone.) In chapter 6, Jesus shows that even acts which the Law calls for can be made wrong if done with the wrong attitude. The people must seek not only to satisfy the law, but to be in accord with the attitudes behind the law. These attitudes are the Laws of God. > 1. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets by living a life of perfect > obedience, and by fulfilling the prophecies made concerning his death > and resurrection, his atonement for the sins of the people. I would say that the above examples show that Jesus was working to complete the law. That the rules and regulations about behaviour was not the law, but the underlying motivations behind the behaviour was what the law of God was meant to govern. > 2. We might say that 'everything was accomplished' when Jesus spoke the > words 'It is finished' on the cross. Matthew wrote that at the moment > Jesus gave up his spirit, 'the curtain of the temple was torn in two > from top to bottom.' This signified the end of the Old covenant; its > purpose was fulfilled, and it was no longer needed. But what is the old covenant? The Law of Moses, and the teachings of the prophets? If the Law was ending so soon, why did Jesus work so hard to adjust the Jew's understandings of The Law? >From this I conclude that the Law still stands for use in judging those whose >names are not written in the book of life through faith in Jesus. So, you would agree that God will still honor his covenant with those Jews who did not choose to follow Jesus. (Yes?) >Further comment on Matthew 5: > 4. How does our righteousness exceed 'that of the Pharisees and the > teachers of the Law?' Our righteousness comes from God (Romans 3:21) > It is Christ's perfect righteousness, imputed to us by God's grace > through faith. I believe that our righteousness can exceed theirs through honoring the law as Jesus revealed it. We must seek not to just be in accord with the letter of the laws, but with the spirit behind them. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton