Sunday, March 29, 2009
Jesus and the Law
One of the trickiest issues for a Christian is the Mosaic Law. Jesus claimed that He was the fulfillment of the Law, and yet in many respects He clearly overturned it.
One of the most fascinating passages in all of Scripture occurs in Mt 19: 3-9:
More generally, we have to deal with one of the biggest problems, namely the fact that God ordered the Israelites to kill babies. That's...kind of a big deal.
As a former college professor, I grapple with these things with an analogy to testing students at different levels. With the freshman Business majors who are taking Intro to Micro, sometimes the multiple choice questions or even the short essays were a little off. That is, I had to dumb the issues down in order to test the students, and thus what they were forced to parrot back on the test (if they wanted a good grade) wasn't quite right.
But if a student majored in economics and took my seminar as a senior, or even better did an independent study and wrote a paper with me as the guide, then obviously we got a lot more nuanced and could see why the kiddie stuff they learned in Intro wasn't actually correct.
(Note that this isn't just about Economics. I've even had math professors tell me the same thing, that they literally teach "bad math" to freshmen in Calc I or whatever because it's not worth going into the real subtleties of certain things.)
It's just an analogy, of course, but I think it serves a purpose in illustrating why God may have ordered the Israelites to do things that modern Christians would consider immoral. In a nutshell, look at what He had to work with!
And just as with my freshmen students, it's still true that an incomplete instruction is better than none at all. In other words, even though I knew that some of the concepts and techniques were a little off, it was still better to show the students that than to show them nothing, and it was also better than trying to dive into Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk on Day One.
So by the same token, even though Jesus seems to be conceding that the Mosaic Law was flawed, He presumably also knew that God was right to promulgate it.
========
And while we're here, a Big Picture thought: In the very beginning, Adam and Eve had total freedom. They abused it.
Then God allowed the humans to run rampant with no intervention on His part. They messed things up so bad, that He destroyed the world and started over with Noah's family.
Then things got bad again and God intervened and guided the Israelites by the hand, like the little children they were.
Now the atheist says, "Ha ha, if God is so smart why did He have to reboot?! What a dumb story."
But I think part of the Christian answer may be, "God wanted it to be perfectly clear that we needed Divine Intervention. So He let things run their natural course right off the bat, before finally He had to stop it. We can't even imagine how awful people must have been back then. In fact, there were probably many non-believers the week before it started raining who said, 'If there were a God, He would surely destroy the earth because there is so much wickedness.' Yup."
One of the most fascinating passages in all of Scripture occurs in Mt 19: 3-9:
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
More generally, we have to deal with one of the biggest problems, namely the fact that God ordered the Israelites to kill babies. That's...kind of a big deal.
As a former college professor, I grapple with these things with an analogy to testing students at different levels. With the freshman Business majors who are taking Intro to Micro, sometimes the multiple choice questions or even the short essays were a little off. That is, I had to dumb the issues down in order to test the students, and thus what they were forced to parrot back on the test (if they wanted a good grade) wasn't quite right.
But if a student majored in economics and took my seminar as a senior, or even better did an independent study and wrote a paper with me as the guide, then obviously we got a lot more nuanced and could see why the kiddie stuff they learned in Intro wasn't actually correct.
(Note that this isn't just about Economics. I've even had math professors tell me the same thing, that they literally teach "bad math" to freshmen in Calc I or whatever because it's not worth going into the real subtleties of certain things.)
It's just an analogy, of course, but I think it serves a purpose in illustrating why God may have ordered the Israelites to do things that modern Christians would consider immoral. In a nutshell, look at what He had to work with!
And just as with my freshmen students, it's still true that an incomplete instruction is better than none at all. In other words, even though I knew that some of the concepts and techniques were a little off, it was still better to show the students that than to show them nothing, and it was also better than trying to dive into Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk on Day One.
So by the same token, even though Jesus seems to be conceding that the Mosaic Law was flawed, He presumably also knew that God was right to promulgate it.
========
And while we're here, a Big Picture thought: In the very beginning, Adam and Eve had total freedom. They abused it.
Then God allowed the humans to run rampant with no intervention on His part. They messed things up so bad, that He destroyed the world and started over with Noah's family.
Then things got bad again and God intervened and guided the Israelites by the hand, like the little children they were.
Now the atheist says, "Ha ha, if God is so smart why did He have to reboot?! What a dumb story."
But I think part of the Christian answer may be, "God wanted it to be perfectly clear that we needed Divine Intervention. So He let things run their natural course right off the bat, before finally He had to stop it. We can't even imagine how awful people must have been back then. In fact, there were probably many non-believers the week before it started raining who said, 'If there were a God, He would surely destroy the earth because there is so much wickedness.' Yup."
Comments:
Bob,
what do you make of von Mises discussion on almighty beings in Human Action, Chapter II, section 11?
what do you make of von Mises discussion on almighty beings in Human Action, Chapter II, section 11?
Bob,
THe difference betweek killing babies and not killing them is not just some subtlety. If God commands infanticide and if infanticide is evil, then God commanded people to do evil.
The commonest way that Christians deal with the violence in the Old Testament is to say that God doesn't act that way anymore. It's heartening to see that you don't go down that road.
But your explanation is not much better.
Maybe the skeptic is begging the question by assuming from the start that some secular ethical theory should be presumed correct and that God should be subject to judgement. Only after the skeptic proves that God is subordinate to some secular model of ethics may the skeptic condemn God for violating that model.
Maybe there is nothing to defend because God didn't actually command infanticide. People just wanted to get violent and attributed it to God. We have plenty of evidence that people do this in the contexts of other wars, so it's not a leap to suppose that the Israelites did the same thing a few thousand years ago.
But "Kill babies" is not a simplification of some more complex principle. "Thou shalt do no murder" is plenty simple enough.
THe difference betweek killing babies and not killing them is not just some subtlety. If God commands infanticide and if infanticide is evil, then God commanded people to do evil.
The commonest way that Christians deal with the violence in the Old Testament is to say that God doesn't act that way anymore. It's heartening to see that you don't go down that road.
But your explanation is not much better.
Maybe the skeptic is begging the question by assuming from the start that some secular ethical theory should be presumed correct and that God should be subject to judgement. Only after the skeptic proves that God is subordinate to some secular model of ethics may the skeptic condemn God for violating that model.
Maybe there is nothing to defend because God didn't actually command infanticide. People just wanted to get violent and attributed it to God. We have plenty of evidence that people do this in the contexts of other wars, so it's not a leap to suppose that the Israelites did the same thing a few thousand years ago.
But "Kill babies" is not a simplification of some more complex principle. "Thou shalt do no murder" is plenty simple enough.
# posted by 
: March 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
: March 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Good and Evil are strictly human categories. Since God does not fall within human categories, it is impossible to judge God by human standards. Hence, applying the judgement good and evil to God is not defensible. However, all Christians apply human standards to God, and claim that God is Good, because of a, b, and c (all of which are good by human standards, regardless of philosophy). At that moment, it is legitimate to claim that God is Evil, beacuse of d, e, and f (all of which are evil by human standards).
Of course, one can always argue that whatever God does is Good - but then the utility of the qualifier Good is zero, since it is used simply as a synonym for "God does it".
That is, of cours, true - but it is also meaningless.
Of course, one can always argue that whatever God does is Good - but then the utility of the qualifier Good is zero, since it is used simply as a synonym for "God does it".
That is, of cours, true - but it is also meaningless.
Bob,
Great argument.
Ironically, we regularly kill babies in foreign lands in the name of democracy. And we've been doing this for decades. When in the name of democracy, we call this moral and justified.
Also, we must not forget the millions of unborn killed for a host of utilitarian ideals.
Great argument.
Ironically, we regularly kill babies in foreign lands in the name of democracy. And we've been doing this for decades. When in the name of democracy, we call this moral and justified.
Also, we must not forget the millions of unborn killed for a host of utilitarian ideals.
Jim said:
But "Kill babies" is not a simplification of some more complex principle. "Thou shalt do no murder" is plenty simple enough.
I understand what you are saying, and it seems that way to me as well.
But by the same token, my students in college may have thought I contradicted myself from one course to the next. And a strict reading of some of my test questions--along with what I said was the "right answer"--may have confirmed this.
But I could explain why what I was doing was really the only way to get them to understand economics, as opposed to getting them to memorize answers.
So I think it's true that the Israelites were bloodthirsty, they had been slaves for a long time, and maybe they needed to break out of that by conquering a bunch of people. I don't know exactly why, but for whatever reason--if we are going to take the Bible as the inspired word of God--God ordered them to do it.
But "Kill babies" is not a simplification of some more complex principle. "Thou shalt do no murder" is plenty simple enough.
I understand what you are saying, and it seems that way to me as well.
But by the same token, my students in college may have thought I contradicted myself from one course to the next. And a strict reading of some of my test questions--along with what I said was the "right answer"--may have confirmed this.
But I could explain why what I was doing was really the only way to get them to understand economics, as opposed to getting them to memorize answers.
So I think it's true that the Israelites were bloodthirsty, they had been slaves for a long time, and maybe they needed to break out of that by conquering a bunch of people. I don't know exactly why, but for whatever reason--if we are going to take the Bible as the inspired word of God--God ordered them to do it.
Bob,
How do you draw the distinction between a simplification and a denial?
For example, you know that firms don't maximize profits. People in firms act to satisfy their own desires. You can simplify and say the firm maximizes profits because most of the time, they have implications for economic analysis that are very similar in nearly every scenario.
By way of contrast "Do murder" has diametrically different implications from "Do not murder" in every scenario.
You seem to start from the premise that everything in the Bible is the word of God, no exceptions. If so, then there is nothing to justify. You should just come out and say that from time to time, the ruler of the universe wants people to commit infanticide and that's that. Anyone objecting is just confused as to who makes the rules.
On the other hand, we know from scripture that your premise is suspect. In 1 Cor 7:12, Paul inserts his own view into God's word. But he at least had the integrity to admit as much. The OT authors could have done the same and failed to mention that they were inserting their own views. You might find this unlikely, but it's not logically impossible.
Which seems more plausible to you: that "Do kill" really is a simplification of the more complex "Do not kill", that the ruler of the universe wants people to commit infanticide from time to time, or that the OT authors in their unregenerate state occasionally attributed their own murderous desires to their God?
How do you draw the distinction between a simplification and a denial?
For example, you know that firms don't maximize profits. People in firms act to satisfy their own desires. You can simplify and say the firm maximizes profits because most of the time, they have implications for economic analysis that are very similar in nearly every scenario.
By way of contrast "Do murder" has diametrically different implications from "Do not murder" in every scenario.
You seem to start from the premise that everything in the Bible is the word of God, no exceptions. If so, then there is nothing to justify. You should just come out and say that from time to time, the ruler of the universe wants people to commit infanticide and that's that. Anyone objecting is just confused as to who makes the rules.
On the other hand, we know from scripture that your premise is suspect. In 1 Cor 7:12, Paul inserts his own view into God's word. But he at least had the integrity to admit as much. The OT authors could have done the same and failed to mention that they were inserting their own views. You might find this unlikely, but it's not logically impossible.
Which seems more plausible to you: that "Do kill" really is a simplification of the more complex "Do not kill", that the ruler of the universe wants people to commit infanticide from time to time, or that the OT authors in their unregenerate state occasionally attributed their own murderous desires to their God?
# posted by : March 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM
: March 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM
God never promulgated the Law of Moses as it has been passed down to us. Humans did that, just as Jesus and Paul stated (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; Colossians 2:22).
God cannot change what is right or wrong, any more than He can change 2+2 and make it equal 5.
As well, Christian theology has long ago realized that God can never change His mind, since if He could that would (1) mean that He is imperfect; and (2) that we could then have no assurance of the Resurrection, since then God could simply change His mind.
The Torah is quite evil in many places (such as requiring any Israelite picking up twigs on a Sabbath to be stoned to death: see Numbers 15:32-36; Exodus 31:12-17; 35:1-3). This has to do with mankind's evolution from fallacious ignorance into knowledge: early Judaism is a derivation from prior paganism. Indeed, some forms of human sacrifice for purely religious purposes were retained within Pentateuch Judaism, i.e., Judaic human-sacrifice rituals can actually be found in the Torah and early Nevi'im books, supposedly sanctified by God (viz., Judges 11:29-40; Leviticus 27:28,29; Exodus 13:1,2; 13:11-16; 22:29,30), though most of it was, thankfully, eventually set aside. But then, the actual prophets (principally from Isaiah on) and Yeshua Ha'Mashiach spoke out against much of the supposed Law of Moses, and a number of them were murdered by the Israeli priestcraft for doing so. (For examples of this rejection just regarding the Torah laws on animal sacrifice, see Psalms 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-14; Jeremiah 7:21,22; 8:8; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21,22; Hebrews 10:4-7.)
Jesus said the He came to fulfill the Law of Moses and the principles of the Prophets (Matthew 5:17,18). But the Old Testament itself states that the Torah and all knowledge of its contents was lost to the Israelites, even the ritual of Passover (see 2 Kings 22:3-23:3; 23:21-23; 2 Chronicles 34:14,15,30; 35:18). The Torah as we know it was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah.
Now as libertarians, given what we know about the operations of government, it seems more than a bit naïve to think that they wouldn't take this golden opportunity to rewrite these five books to suite themselves. As well, the New Testament teaches that it is Satan which has power over all the governments of the world (see Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:8-11; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; 15:23,24; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Ephesians 6:11,12; Revelation 13:2; 16:12-14; 17:1,2; 17:18; 19:19-21). Thus, Satan's minions on Earth had all the opportunity in the world to corrupt the Law of Moses.
The only genuine knowledge that humanity has of the actual Law of Moses is the definition of it that Jesus gave: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
This ultimate social ethic which Jesus commanded everyone to follow is commonly known as the Golden Rule. An equivalent formulation of this is love your neighbor as yourself (see Matthew 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28). Another equivalent formulation of this is Jesus’s Commandment that we love one another as He has loved us (see John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21). Everything that Jesus ever commanded people to do can be logically reduced back to this one principle.
Quite unlike the extemely irrational and diabolical commands that are very often found in the Torah, the one commandment of Jesus Christ is completely logical and rational: quite simply put, do onto others as you would have others do on to you, for that is the *totality* of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus never heaped so much scorn as He did upon those teaching and practicing the supposed "Law of Moses" (which, appart from Jesus, we have no true knowledge of as it has been corrupted). All of Jesus's rebukes of "lawyers" were rebukes upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which in Israel at the time was part of the actual positive law, in addition to the Roman law).
For more on the above as it concerns legal ethics, see my below article:
James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), March 19, 2009 (originally published at Anti-State.com on December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.pdf
http://geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Below is the abstract to the above article:
""
ABSTRACT: The teachings and actions of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'Mashiach) and the apostles recorded in the New Testament are analyzed in regard to their ethical and political philosophy, with analysis of context vis-á-vis the Old Testament (Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible) being given. From this analysis, it is shown that Jesus is a libertarian anarchist, i.e., a consistent voluntaryist. The implications this has for the world are profound, and the ramifications of Jesus's anarchism to Christians' attitudes toward government (the state) and its actions are explicated.
""
Post a Comment
God cannot change what is right or wrong, any more than He can change 2+2 and make it equal 5.
As well, Christian theology has long ago realized that God can never change His mind, since if He could that would (1) mean that He is imperfect; and (2) that we could then have no assurance of the Resurrection, since then God could simply change His mind.
The Torah is quite evil in many places (such as requiring any Israelite picking up twigs on a Sabbath to be stoned to death: see Numbers 15:32-36; Exodus 31:12-17; 35:1-3). This has to do with mankind's evolution from fallacious ignorance into knowledge: early Judaism is a derivation from prior paganism. Indeed, some forms of human sacrifice for purely religious purposes were retained within Pentateuch Judaism, i.e., Judaic human-sacrifice rituals can actually be found in the Torah and early Nevi'im books, supposedly sanctified by God (viz., Judges 11:29-40; Leviticus 27:28,29; Exodus 13:1,2; 13:11-16; 22:29,30), though most of it was, thankfully, eventually set aside. But then, the actual prophets (principally from Isaiah on) and Yeshua Ha'Mashiach spoke out against much of the supposed Law of Moses, and a number of them were murdered by the Israeli priestcraft for doing so. (For examples of this rejection just regarding the Torah laws on animal sacrifice, see Psalms 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-14; Jeremiah 7:21,22; 8:8; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21,22; Hebrews 10:4-7.)
Jesus said the He came to fulfill the Law of Moses and the principles of the Prophets (Matthew 5:17,18). But the Old Testament itself states that the Torah and all knowledge of its contents was lost to the Israelites, even the ritual of Passover (see 2 Kings 22:3-23:3; 23:21-23; 2 Chronicles 34:14,15,30; 35:18). The Torah as we know it was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah.
Now as libertarians, given what we know about the operations of government, it seems more than a bit naïve to think that they wouldn't take this golden opportunity to rewrite these five books to suite themselves. As well, the New Testament teaches that it is Satan which has power over all the governments of the world (see Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:8-11; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; 15:23,24; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Ephesians 6:11,12; Revelation 13:2; 16:12-14; 17:1,2; 17:18; 19:19-21). Thus, Satan's minions on Earth had all the opportunity in the world to corrupt the Law of Moses.
The only genuine knowledge that humanity has of the actual Law of Moses is the definition of it that Jesus gave: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
This ultimate social ethic which Jesus commanded everyone to follow is commonly known as the Golden Rule. An equivalent formulation of this is love your neighbor as yourself (see Matthew 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28). Another equivalent formulation of this is Jesus’s Commandment that we love one another as He has loved us (see John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21). Everything that Jesus ever commanded people to do can be logically reduced back to this one principle.
Quite unlike the extemely irrational and diabolical commands that are very often found in the Torah, the one commandment of Jesus Christ is completely logical and rational: quite simply put, do onto others as you would have others do on to you, for that is the *totality* of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus never heaped so much scorn as He did upon those teaching and practicing the supposed "Law of Moses" (which, appart from Jesus, we have no true knowledge of as it has been corrupted). All of Jesus's rebukes of "lawyers" were rebukes upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which in Israel at the time was part of the actual positive law, in addition to the Roman law).
For more on the above as it concerns legal ethics, see my below article:
James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), March 19, 2009 (originally published at Anti-State.com on December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.pdf
http://geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Below is the abstract to the above article:
""
ABSTRACT: The teachings and actions of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'Mashiach) and the apostles recorded in the New Testament are analyzed in regard to their ethical and political philosophy, with analysis of context vis-á-vis the Old Testament (Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible) being given. From this analysis, it is shown that Jesus is a libertarian anarchist, i.e., a consistent voluntaryist. The implications this has for the world are profound, and the ramifications of Jesus's anarchism to Christians' attitudes toward government (the state) and its actions are explicated.
""
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]