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

[mikew]

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.

Our issue for discussion is whether a code of law existed. You are assuming a judgment and punishment occurred in the flood. And now you have used that assumption as your conclusion.

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?

Can we say such people were punished (i.e. incurring harm for their behavior)? Yes. Can we say they were judged guilty? Cain maybe was. We don't find a law violated in the flood. Your question indeed involved symantics if you intended your question to be answered.
Based on your question with an answer from scripture, we can say there was a consequence of evil behavior (which can be described as punishment) but not a judgment (which really requires a law be known and violated).

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.

So are you saying that the main purpose was to hurt people and destroy animals? Or was there a reason that God preserved some people and animals?
If the goal was to totally destroy mankind, God could have done that action without calling Noah into action. I should say, though, that my interpretation of the flood is interpreted also in light of the description of Christ Jesus that wherein a destruction of the "world" was part of the action of God in the first century, yet at the same time Christ came to save the world. This is seen in

It appears that same dual issues arose in Christ's time as in Noah's -- the destruction as well as the saving of the world. We start to see then that God was taking actions to preserve the continuity of creation. God's actions were upon saving the patient named earth.

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."

It is good to see you address Rom 5:13
Who was outside the jurisdiction of the law of Moses? And after Moses gave the law, who was brought into jurisdiction?
What does Paul mean in saying "sin was not imputed?"
There is certainly some change that Paul is talking about. What existed before that change? Apparently there was no law. Again, the Jewish boasting in the first century was in the idea that they had the law of God but other people didn't.

[thrombomodulin]

Our issue for discussion is whether a code of law existed. You are assuming a judgement and punishment occurred in the flood. And now you have used that assumption as your conclusion.

The flood was caused by God. When God acts to kill people for the reason of their wicked, evil behaviour, it is rightly called punishment.

Can we say such people were punished (i.e. incurring harm for their behaviour)? Yes.

So do you affirm or deny that the people in the flood were punished by God? You critique me for assuming this in your first paragraph, then as far as I can see, you accept the idea that they were punished by God in the second.

we can say there was a consequence of evil behaviour (which can be described as punishment) but not a judgment (which really requires a law be known and violated).

Do you affirm or deny that God punishes people without judging them?

So are you saying that the main purpose was to hurt people and destroy animals?

Yes

If the goal was to totally destroy mankind, God could have done that action without calling Noah into action.

Agreed. And if the goal was to "preserve" the world, God could have done that action without calling Noah into action.

I should say, though, that my interpretation of the flood is interpreted also in light of the description of Christ Jesus that wherein a destruction of the "world" was part of the action of God in the first century, yet at the same time Christ came to save the world. This is seen in John 3:16-17. It appears that same dual issues arose in Christ's time as in Noah's -- the destruction as well as the saving of the world.

I am finding myself more continually more confused about what your are affirming or what you are denying. You are saying that God is destroying the world, and in the same sentence that he is saving the world. Would you please explain this apparent contradiction?

We start to see then that God was taking actions to preserve the continuity of creation. God's actions were upon saving the patient named earth.

No. God saves some people, and not others. John 5:28-29.

Who was outside the jurisdiction of the law of Moses?

Gentiles

And after Moses gave the law, who was brought into jurisdiction?

Jews

What does Paul mean in saying "sin was not imputed?"

Gentiles who broke the law of moses, were not guilty of any sin.

There is certainly some change that Paul is talking about. What existed before that change? Apparently there was no law.

No. There remains for all men the unwritten law of nature. Romans 2:15

Again, the Jewish boasting in the first century was in the idea that they had the law of God but other people didn't

Yes, they had the law of Moses, but it in non-sequiter to conclude others had no law at all.

[mikew]

So do you affirm or deny that the people in the flood were punished by God? You critique me for assuming this in your first paragraph, then as far as I can see, you accept the idea that they were punished by God in the second.

The issue in my earlier statement wasn't whether punishment and/or judgment occurred. The issue was about using a premise as the conclusion.
Indeed the people were punished evidenced by the fact that they no longer were alive after the flood. Such was a punishment whether or not they violated laws of God.

we can say there was a consequence of evil behaviour (which can be described as punishment) but not a judgment (which really requires a law be known and violated).

Do you affirm or deny that God punishes people without judging them?

I affirm this was apunishment. This would be the apparent situation of the flood of Noah, assuming that "judgment" implies a violation of laws under valid jurisdictional considerations -- that if God is judging based on a law He gave, then the people knew they were under that law.
But again we must remember that there was no law given to mankind, in general, and hence the Noah flood could not properly be called a judgment for transgressions.

So are you saying that the main purpose was to hurt people and destroy animals?

Yes

I was hoping this wasn't your answer. I don't sense God as finding amusement in hurting people and destroying animals.

If the goal was to totally destroy mankind, God could have done that action without calling Noah into action.

Agreed. And if the goal was to "preserve" the world, God could have done that action without calling Noah into action.

Hmm. My point was missed. But you have, in some odd manner, affirmed that God did use Noah to preserve the world. It was God's wisdom to do this through Noah. The effect is the same, namely that God has preserved the world.
God faced the same issue regarding Israel as seen when God was going to destroy all the other Israelites while keeping Moses' children as the covenant people.

God would have destroyed most of Israel in order to preserve His promise to Israel.

I should say, though, that my interpretation of the flood is interpreted also in light of the description of Christ Jesus that wherein a destruction of the "world" was part of the action of God in the first century, yet at the same time Christ came to save the world. This is seen in John 3:16-17. It appears that same dual issues arose in Christ's time as in Noah's -- the destruction as well as the saving of the world.

I am finding myself more continually more confused about what your are affirming or what you are denying. You are saying that God is destroying the world, and in the same sentence that he is saving the world. Would you please explain this apparent contradiction?

Certainly. The analogy is similar to removing a leg infected with gangrene in order to keep the patient alive. The wicked people are like those who are dying and causing hazardous infection to spread. So instead of killing the whole patient (all of creation) and creating a new patient, God left Noah alive (where we see the patient as being mankind).

No. There remains for all men the unwritten law of nature. Romans 2:15

Again, the Jewish boasting in the first century was in the idea that they had the law of God but other people didn't

Yes, they had the law of Moses, but it in non-sequiter to conclude others had no law at all.

It could be understood that all people have a conscience. We might dub this as being a "law of nature." But this is not a law in a legal sense, of jurisdictions and judgments. The sense only would be whether people in sin could logically agree that God was right.
So if you want to adhere to a concept of man's conscience and then name that as "law of nature," you have made an argument for that end. But you have not made an argument that this action against this law is then violating God's law.

[Homer]

If I may comment.

Romans 2:12-15 (New King James Version)
12. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13. (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14. for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15. who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Man has from the beginning been under "natural law" in the classic meaning of that term. Natural law is called that because it is naturally known, or understood, by all men everywhere at all times. I believe this is what Paul is referring to in the passage above. This law is not as clearly understood as the Law of Moses. For example, a man may not know naturally that polygamy is wrong, but it is easily understood that a man may not have sex with any woman he may want. It is easy to recognize that theft is wrong. And today we do not have to be taught that it is wrong to push ahead of other people waiting in line. As Paul says, man has been given a conscience for a purpose.

Mikew wrote:

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.

As above, God did not need to speak a law to them.

[mikew]

Yes. Join in, Homer, I don't mind your contribution.

What you call "law of nature" could also be related to design features of mankind. Mankind was designed with concepts of property and property rights: "this is my toy." We realize then the wrong of stealing, especially of our own stuff.

An analogy regarding sin and the law is seen in the example of an automobile. It is a sin to use your car to unclog your toilet (i.e. by crashing the car into the bathroom to break the toilet apart) for this was not in the natural design of the car.
It is not always wrong to travel at 200 mph in your car. Some cars are even designed for high speeds. It is essentially sinful to travel down a neighborhood at 200 mph because the roads weren't designed for safe travel at those speeds and as a result you are likely to hurt someone. Normal logic (based on the design of the neighborhood) that such speeds are inherently unsafe. But that action isn't a transgression of law until a proper authority has said and promulgated the rule "thou shalt not travel faster than 25mph in a neighborhood."

It is true that God did not need to speak a law to the gentiles but also equally true that the gentiles were not guilty (in a legal sense) of breaking a law. Only their conscience was violated -- which among some people could lead to repentance.

[thrombomodulin]

The issue in my earlier statement wasn't whether punishment and/or judgment occurred. The issue was about using a premise as the conclusion.
Indeed the people were punished evidenced by the fact that they no longer were alive after the flood. Such was a punishment whether or not they violated laws of God.

The argument here does not use the premise as the conclusion. Rather, I am utilizing the premise that all instances of God acting to harm people is on account of their having violating God's requirements for their actions. In other words, the assumption that God does not harm people unless they have violated God's requirements for their behavior. Granted, you may rightly critique the premise by pointing out that God ordered the killing of Canaanite infants and young children, who has as far as we know had not yet committed wrong actions, and this exception handling is not built into the argument, but nevertheless the argument goes like this:

• Premise: God has acted to harm men.
• Premise: The only reason for God to harm men is His disapproval of their actions.
• Inference: God would not have harmed men if He did not disapprove of their actions.
• Conclusion: Actions must exist which God disapproves of (i.e. there is a Law of Nature).

So are you saying that the main purpose was to hurt people and destroy animals?

Yes

I was hoping this wasn't your answer. I don't sense God as finding amusement in hurting people and destroying animals.

Is this not the crux of the matter? I would affirm that God punishes the actions of men which violate his law. Of course we disagree about whether or not there was law at the time of the flood. I do not affirm God finds amusement in hurting people. Do I sense correctly that you are averse to the idea that God punishes the actions of men which violate his law?

Hmm. My point was missed. But you have, in some odd manner, affirmed that God did use Noah to preserve the world. It was God's wisdom to do this through Noah. The effect is the same, namely that God has preserved the world.

I do not disagree that human beings have continued to exist on this planet, and thus in that sense, were preserved through Noah as evidenced by him being alive after the flood, and as evidenced by Noah in being an ancestor of all living men.

Certainly. The analogy is similar to removing a leg infected with gangrene in order to keep the patient alive. The wicked people are like those who are dying and causing hazardous infection to spread. So instead of killing the whole patient (all of creation) and creating a new patient, God left Noah alive (where we see the patient as being mankind).

I am beginning to understand where you are coming from, thank you for this clarification. This is a very different paradigm than my own, and I am not of the opinion that this way of understanding God's actions is correct. Surely there are a thousand ways for God to "save the patient" without inflicting harm upon wicked people who are innocent, from your perspective, of violating any law. But if men violate no law, or if God is not displeased with men's actions, then what is left for men to be saved from?

It could be understood that all people have a conscience. We might dub this as being a "law of nature." But this is not a law in a legal sense, of jurisdictions and judgments. The sense only would be whether people in sin could logically agree that God was right.
So if you want to adhere to a concept of man's conscience and then name that as "law of nature," you have made an argument for that end. But you have not made an argument that this action against this law is then violating God's law.

I disagree. God is the creator of man, and his mind, and his conscience - being that He is the author of mans conscience, this law of the conscience is indeed His law. As God is the creator of men, they are rightly regarded as His property and subject to His jurisdiction and judgment.

[mikew]

Granted, you may rightly critique the premise by pointing out that God ordered the killing of Canaanite infants and young children, who has as far as we know had not yet committed wrong actions, and this exception handling is not built into the argument, but nevertheless the argument goes like this:

• Premise: God has acted to harm men.
• Premise: The only reason for God to harm men is His disapproval of their actions.
• Inference: God would not have harmed men if He did not disapprove of their actions.
• Conclusion: Actions must exist which God disapproves of (i.e. there is a Law of Nature).

Your logic here is reasonable until you referred to the law, unless your mention of the law is simply about the design of nature. But this isn't likely since your efforts so far have been to use "law" only in the sense of creating jusrisdiction. Such effort to over-emphasize the law is possibly one of those Jewish traditions that Christians still like to follow.
The basis for God's destruction has not apparently been as a jurisdictional issue but as a necessity: the problem has increased too far. The type of the problem has to do with man being "flesh"

This fleshly nature would be about the issues of pride, selfishness and lust that came as a consequence of the fall of mankind.

mike said: So are you saying that the main purpose was to hurt people and destroy animals?

Peter said:Yes

Mike said: I was hoping this wasn't your answer. I don't sense God as finding amusement in hurting people and destroying animals.

Peter said: Is this not the crux of the matter? I would affirm that God punishes the actions of men which violate his law. Of course we disagree about whether or not there was law at the time of the flood. I do not affirm God finds amusement in hurting people. Do I sense correctly that you are averse to the idea that God punishes the actions of men which violate his law?

Again, the idea is that God's interest isn't in punishing or destroying but rather is in preserving the righteous (on whatever basis he finds them as righteous).
If God punished people for violating His law, that would be fully acceptable. But you appear to ascribe God's legal judgment (i.e. based on the Law of God) in more situations that scripture describes.

In the case of Israel, we hardly see God judging according to the Law of Moses. When God judged the Israel people, the judgment wasn't based, for example, on general morality (murder, adultery, theft) but typically was based upon their hearts turning away from following God (usually meaning they were worshiping idols) in a God-specific morality.

Now contrast the judgments of the Israel people with God's actions on other nations. These other nations could not be punished on issues of God-specific morality (priesthood, "God is One") because they had no divinely inspired sources as had been given to Israel.

My current thoughts are that Israel was generally not judged upon the law, as the focus, but rather upon failure to respond to the warnings through the prophets and then solely on the general lack of obedience to follow God. But I have much more to ponder on this issue.

So, we aren't only left to Paul's ideas in Rom 5:13,20 but also to a broader evaluation of scripture on the topic -- so far it just seems that Paul's observations are accurate.

Certainly. The analogy is similar to removing a leg infected with gangrene in order to keep the patient alive. The wicked people are like those who are dying and causing hazardous infection to spread. So instead of killing the whole patient (all of creation) and creating a new patient, God left Noah alive (where we see the patient as being mankind).

I am beginning to understand where you are coming from, thank you for this clarification. This is a very different paradigm than my own, and I am not of the opinion that this way of understanding God's actions is correct. Surely there are a thousand ways for God to "save the patient" without inflicting harm upon wicked people who are innocent, from your perspective, of violating any law. But if men violate no law, or if God is not displeased with men's actions, then what is left for men to be saved from?

If we look back at Rom 5:16 there were two actions: judgment and condemnation. Adam was judged for violating God's command to him. Then Adam was condemned or sentenced. We have lived under that sentence.
This is sort of like a pregnant woman who is sentenced to jail term. The baby within her also is under that same sentence, being also in jail
We are in the outcome or sentence of Adam, namely of sin or flesh nature and of subjection to death. This is an aspect of the verse quoted earlier:

God was displeased indeed. Our repentance then can represent that moment where we realize the wrong path of our lives.

It could be understood that all people have a conscience. We might dub this as being a "law of nature." But this is not a law in a legal sense, of jurisdictions and judgments. The sense only would be whether people in sin could logically agree that God was right.
So if you want to adhere to a concept of man's conscience and then name that as "law of nature," you have made an argument for that end. But you have not made an argument that this action against this law is then violating God's law.

I disagree. God is the creator of man, and his mind, and his conscience - being that He is the author of mans conscience, this law of the conscience is indeed His law. As God is the creator of men, they are rightly regarded as His property and subject to His jurisdiction and judgment.

Maybe you are right in a philosophical sense but God operates in a legal sense. The legal sense requires the Law to be decreed, not just of the conscience. Otherwise there would arguably be no reason for having the law of Moses.

Indeed God has all rights over His creation. The question still remains whether a punishment was for sins or transgressions. If God did not make all fleshly acts into transgressions, that was God's decision. And part of the basis of the new creation in Christ was that the Law could not address all issues of sin nor could the law correct sinful attitudes; Hence Christ made us new creatures with the downpayment of the Spirit in our lives.

[thrombomodulin]

Your logic here is reasonable until you referred to the law, unless your mention of the law is simply about the design of nature.

My posts were not referring to the design of nature. In all cases there remains the facts that: (1) God has criteria which he expects human beings to abide by (2) he determines whether or not humans are abiding by his criteria (3) he executes harm on upon those who violate that criteria. In my opinion, these are rightly understood to be a law in the legal sense, judgment, and punishment.

I am unconvinced through the various examples cited that the propositions you assert are correct - namely, accepting the novel definitions which place 'sin' and 'transgression' into different categories, that a requirement to decree law exists, that the preservation objective is paramount to the total exclusion of judgment, and most importantly that God acts to harm men who have not violated any law (and would have otherwise endured no divine punishment at all had circumstances been slightly different).

Thanks for taking the time to explain your understanding of the scripture, I appreciate the opportunity to consider your views. At this point, I have no further questions.

Kind Regards,
Pete

[mikew]

Thanks Peter. The discussion brought up interesting ideas, some of which I will have to develop independent of this discussion. It indeed is difficult to work through a paradigm shift and not everyone will come to the same conclusion. But I know that people here are interested in digging deeper.

Oh. Someone may still need to answer your original question within the original context -- if anyone has been prepared to answer it.

Blessings,
Mike