Mark 10:4-5 - Did Jesus Change the Law?

[thrombomodulin]

As I recall Steve has taught that God's opinion of the permissible grounds for divorce never changed between OT and NT. Steve expressed the view that the Jew's simply took too much liberty in interpreting 'uncleanness' whereas God had always intended it to mean adultery. There are two possibilities here:

A - God created the law of Duet 24:1 and revealed it to Moses.
B - Moses introduced his the law on his own initiative and God did not necessarily approve of it.

if 'A' is true, then are Jesus words in Mark 10:5 seem to be meaningless? After all, Moses didn't permit anything in this precept beyond what is already permissible in all places at all times.

if 'B' is true, then one cannot say all of the Law of Moses is from God, and how can we ever discern what parts came from Moses, and what parts from God?

I think the solution is this: The permission to divorce for adultery is and had always been granted - but the adultery exception itself was what was given due to the hardness of men's hearts. This applies for all people who live at all times of history through the present day. This avoids the problems of both 'A' and 'B', and we can conclude that God did not 'tolerate' divorce more in the day of Moses than at any other time in history.

Do I have this right? Thanks,
Pete

[mikew]

We can add at least another option

C. God gave the law to Moses in a manner that gave leeway to Israel due to the hardness of men's hearts.

Jesus then was explaining why God had made a way out of marriage in the law expressed by Moses. God knew from the beginning that people had a hard heart, hence the law given to Moses (and hence the law that this divorce provision could be seen to be according to Moses' permission -- the permission within "his" law) allowed for hardened hearts.

I think one aspect needs clarification in some of your points. The law of Moses was given to the people under that covenant. So the law was only applicable to Israelites (Rom 3:19 -- the law speaks to those under that law, namely speaking of Israel under the law of Moses). So I'm a bit confused when you say

if 'A' is true, then are Jesus words in Mark 10:5 seem to be meaningless? After all, Moses didn't permit anything in this precept beyond what is already permissible in all places at all times.

If you look to other ancient societies, their marriages and divorces could possibly have been of convenience -- do what they want. I think in comparison, the law of Moses included a formal manner of divorce. Jesus' point then would be that the law of Moses wasn't pointing to the best action to take but rather was to prohibit worse actions from occurring (i.e. actions that would be more harmful to society).

There is also an interesting question here. What trick did the Pharisees have in mind? As best as I can figure at the moment, the Pharisees knew the contradiction between the law of Moses and the original design of marriage. These Pharisees may have then speculated that the marriages, as in the design in Adam and Eve, did not really make the two into one.

Thereafter, in Mark 10, Jesus described the "sin" of divorce ( where "sin" is the fleshly nature of an action) rather than the transgression in divorce (where transgressions only resulted for those under the law of Moses --see Rom 5:13,20). Hence, in this light, Jesus wasn't proclaiming a broad law ( i.e. a law applying to people beyond Israel) but was describing how the action of divorce was a non-law-transgressing sin.

(The idea in Rom 5:13,20 was that "sin" means the harmful acts we do that hurt one another. The introduction of the law to God's people then had made those under the covenant of Israel into law breakers upon doing certain actions.)

I think overall then Jesus was showing that those who did the divorce had commited the sin despite the limitations of what law of Moses designated as law (and law breaking).

[thrombomodulin]

To clarify, I am making two assumptions:

• Steve has taught the law of Moses properly understood is not more permissive than the conditions Jesus permitted (only adultery).
• There is a Law of Nature - laws God created which are universal applying to all men at all times (e.g. murder). The adultery exception for divorce is within the Law of Nature. Moses law includes parts of the Law of Nature, and goes beyond them in ways unique to the Israelites (e.g. the detail about whether a certificate must be issued.)

Thus,

• if 'C' is correct, then Steve has, as far as I can see, taught in error - or I misunderstood.
• divorce is a transgression, not merely a "fleshly nature of an action", universally - for all men at all times.

[mikew]

I see that your question was directed mainly to Steve's teaching, but I was interested in adding some additional thoughts.

Continuing on my manner of thinking, the "law of nature" concept may have relevance as to God's design of what is good and correct. It is God's design that makes murder inappropriate. We have this concept verified in the early murders and murderers in Genesis (Lamech -- Gen 4:23-24) -- there was no death penalty applied but there was a fear of retaliation involved. Yet in the concept of "law of nature" there is no concept of "law of God" involving transgressions. The issue of transgressions didn't occur until the law was given -- See Rom 5:12-21 (emphasis on vv. 13 and 20).

sin = action in selfish unloving fashion
transgression = violating a law you are under covenant to obey.

I'm not sure how we can get around the example of Gen 4:23-24 with the teaching of Rom 5:12-21 on this matter.

[TK]

pete wrote:

if 'B' is true, then one cannot say all of the Law of Moses is from God, and how can we ever discern what parts came from Moses, and what parts from God?

i wish Paidion could still post- I believe he felt this was at least partially true (he used to use the example of making a woman drink contaminated water as an adultery test- if she swelled she was guilty, if not she was innocent- or something like that). in other words, God gave the law to Moses, but he (moses) added annotations and interpretations, which may or may not have been what God intended.

TK

[thrombomodulin]

there was no death penalty applied but there was a fear of retaliation involved. ...

sin = action in selfish unloving fashion
transgression = violating a law you are under covenant to obey.

Indeed, God did not authorize humans to shed the blood of a murder until Genesis 9:6, but this is beside the point.

Your definitions of 'sin' and 'transgression' are new to me - where does these definitions come from?

Nevertheless, all men die once and face God's judgement (Heb 9:27). God judges men who violate His law, and those men will suffer the consequences of their violation of His law. Matthew 23:35 and Genesis 4:10 show that God has judged the matter of the murder of Abel, and that there are divine consequences for the shedding of his blood. In my mind this establishes that there the law prohibiting murder existed from the beginning.

But you say

Yet in the concept of "law of nature" there is no concept of "law of God" involving transgressions.

A transgression is "the breach of a definite, promulgated, ratified law". There is a law here, as evidenced by judgement and punishment. Does your case for saying otherwise go any further than Rom 5?

[mikew]

My explanation is based essentially on Rom 3 and 5. But in Rom 3:19 Paul brought in a principle of law that is still applicable today, namely that you have to be brought under jurisdiction to a law (be within the borders of a land, be under rule of someone's sovereignty, or under merchant laws of the seas). This jurisidiction is obtained as shown in your definition of transgression, namely that transgression first requires that the law must involve definition, promulgation, and ratification. We don't have this with gentiles though, except for the covenant with Noah -- of minor detail. And the people destroyed in the flood had no law of God read to them -- at least as far as any biblical record.

The cases of Matt 23:35,of course, was a judgment specifically on Jews. Then Heb 9:27 didn't quite describe a law. Nor is there a principle to place people under unspecified laws (in violation of the concepts of transgressions that you provided earlier). And if we examine the perspective of first century Jews, they appeared to confirm that gentiles were essentially lawless -- the boast of Jews was often in their own distinction created by being a people of the law.

So it seems that Paul's explanations in Rom 3 and 5 are about the most explicit explanation we get.

[thrombomodulin]

So are you affirming that there was no law for men prior to Noah and that, without any law God judges and punishes men? Or do you deny God judged and punished men prior to the law?

[mikew]

So are you affirming that there was no law for men prior to Noah and that, without any law God judges and punishes men? Or do you deny God judged and punished men prior to the law?

No one has shown scriptural indication that God implemented and spoke a law (especially a set of codes) to men before the flood, so logically there is none.

Now regarding judgment and punishment, I would have to study further to see if such types of words were used to describe the purpose and effect of the flood. What we do see is that the actions of men were seen as evil contrasted to Noah's status Gen 6
Gen 6:5-9 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (6) And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (7) And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (8) But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah. (9) These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations: Noah walked with God. (ASV)

We see in 2Pet 2:5-6 where Paul mentioned about the flood of Noah without mentioning judgment or even condemnation, but then he spoke of Sodom and Gommorah being judged:
2Pe 2:5 and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (6) and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly; (ASV)

So I am finding few words to support the ideas of judgment and punishment. And my general understanding of the flood of Noah was that the focus wasn't upon punishment of people but rather was on preservation of the world. If we focus on the wrong aspect, we won't particularly come to a balanced viewpoint on scriptures.

[thrombomodulin]

No one has shown scriptural indication that God implemented and spoke a law (especially a set of codes) to men before the flood, so logically there is none.

No. The condition for judgment and punishment is not that a law must spoken - it is rather that the law must be made known, or at least available to be known, to men. See Romans 1-2, especially Rom 2:15. The existence of judgment and punishment prior to Moses is sufficient evidence law existed before Moses.

Now regarding judgment and punishment, I would have to study further to see if such types of words were used...

This is not a issue of semantics, it is one of understanding God's actual actions: Did God actually punish Cain for killing Abel? Did God actually punish Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness? Did God actually send a flood to destroy men because of their wicked actions?

And my general understanding of the flood of Noah was that the focus wasn't upon punishment of people but rather was on preservation of the world.

The flood destroyed the earth; it did not preserve it.


My understanding is represented in this paraphrase "Before the law of Moses sin was in the world. But, violations of the law of Moses (sin), was not imputed because they were outside the jurisdiction of the law of Moses."