Why was the old testament law given
Moderator: Moderators
-
dance-above
- Newbie
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:28 pm
Why was the old testament law given
Post #1Why was the old testament law given and was it for all men?
-
dance-above
- Newbie
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:28 pm
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #2[Replying to dance-above]
I personally believe it was given so that God might have mercy on us all. And that it was meant for the whole world not to just one group of people, so that we would all become guilty before God. What do you think? Please only thoughtful and educational answers.thanks
I personally believe it was given so that God might have mercy on us all. And that it was meant for the whole world not to just one group of people, so that we would all become guilty before God. What do you think? Please only thoughtful and educational answers.thanks
-
cnorman18
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #3In Jewish tradition, the Torah was given at Mount Sinai, and not in the Land of Israel, to make it clear that the Torah was for ALL humans. The Covenant, though -- which include the Ten Commandments and the various laws derived from them -- were for the Hebrew, later the Jewish, people only.dance-above wrote: [Replying to dance-above]
I personally believe it was given so that God might have mercy on us all. And that it was meant for the whole world not to just one group of people, so that we would all become guilty before God. What do you think? Please only thoughtful and educational answers.thanks
That said, the idea that the Torah was given "so that we would all become guilty before God" would strike any Jew as very strange indeed. We do not believe in "Original Sin"; every man and woman is responsible for his own sin and no one else's (which is another reason we don't accept the claim that Jesus took the penalty for everyone's sin).
Each person has within him an impulse toward good, and an impulse toward evil, and that will never change. Our job is to follow the impulse to do good -- and not so much to resist the impulse toward evil, but to sanctify it and use it to do good. Do you want to be rich and famous? Get rich and become a philanthropist; become famous for doing good. Do you crave power? Run for public office and use your power for the good of all the people (not your party or yourself). Do you crave sex? Marry someone with the same craving and celebrate it! (Sexuality is a precious gift in Jewish teaching, not a "sin" to be resisted and denied. There are no celibate monks or nuns in the Jewish religion.)
Jews are not focused on -- some might say "obsessed" with -- "SIN," and its guilt, and the desperate need to be forgiven, and so on, as so many Christians seem to be. We don't even talk about "sin" very much. We are focused on doing GOOD things, and not on NOT doing BAD things. Seems an altogether healthier and more positive way to live, from where I sit.
This is precisely where, in Jewish eyes, Paul got it so wrong, and why some think Paul may not even have been Jewish, in spite of his claims; the Law is not a "burden" to us, and it certainly does not "bring death and not life," as Paul taught. Look at any Psalm. It is a lamp to our feet, a light in our lives, God's most precious gift, which He has entrusted to us, and with which He has honored us. Something that makes everyone "guilty before God" is hardly a gift.
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #4[Replying to post 3 by cnorman18]
You insist that Paul misinterpreted the Law. That may be the case from todays understanding of the Law but was it always so?
Am I to believe that God is never portrayed as being unable to carry out his covenant blessings or in fact bringing tragedy on Israel in direct relation to the peoples obedience to the Law?
If that is the case then Paul's interpretation has merit. IMO
Paul does seem to exaggerate, but the premise is sound.
Regardless they paid the penalty in full.
So how can Paul be incorrect in his interpretation when the OT describes a God who exacts punishment for disobedience to the Law?
What can be made of the fact that the Israelites promised to do "everything" the Law required in their blood oath.
You insist that Paul misinterpreted the Law. That may be the case from todays understanding of the Law but was it always so?
Am I to believe that God is never portrayed as being unable to carry out his covenant blessings or in fact bringing tragedy on Israel in direct relation to the peoples obedience to the Law?
If that is the case then Paul's interpretation has merit. IMO
.Galatians 3:10
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.�
14.Deuteronomy 27:26
“Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.� Then all the people shall say, “Amen!�
Paul does seem to exaggerate, but the premise is sound.
The land will enjoy its sabbaths! Imagine that. They were beholden to let the land lie fallow every seventh year to prove that God would take care of them. They never did it. I imagine that their common sense prevailed?.Leviticus 26:43
For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees.
Ezekiel 20:16
because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols.
Ezekiel 20:24
because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols.
Regardless they paid the penalty in full.
4.Leviticus 25:4
But in the seventh year the land is to have a year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards.
Leviticus 25:20-22
New International Version (NIV)
20 You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?� 21 I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. 22 While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in.
2 Chronicles 36:18-21
New International Version (NIV)
18 He carried to Babylon all the articles from the temple of God, both large and small, and the treasures of the Lord’s temple and the treasures of the king and his officials. 19 They set fire to God’s temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.
20 He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his successors until the kingdom of Persia came to power. 21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah.
2 Kings 18:11-12
New International Version (NIV)
11 The king of Assyria deported Israel to Assyria and settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in towns of the Medes. 12 This happened because they had not obeyed the Lord their God, but had violated his covenant—all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded. They neither listened to the commands nor carried them out.
So how can Paul be incorrect in his interpretation when the OT describes a God who exacts punishment for disobedience to the Law?
What can be made of the fact that the Israelites promised to do "everything" the Law required in their blood oath.
How can this be reconciled to the concept that God would not hold them responsible for every command?Exodus 24:6-8
New International Version (NIV)
6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.�
8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.�
18.Deuteronomy 28:9
The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the Lord your God and walk in obedience to him.
1.Numbers 30:2
When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
-
cnorman18
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #5[Replying to post 4 by postroad]
Once again, I'm not going to debate, just inform.
Christians have held that Paul had it right from the beginning; Jews have held that he had it wrong, also from the beginning. That hasn't changed.
You won't find the actual, practical details of how the Law was to be kept in the Bible, much less the practical application of the Law by Jewish courts, from the Sanhedrin of ancient times to a local Bet Din, or rabbinical court, of the present day. You can quote Scripture all day, but once again, Jews don't read the Bible as Christians do, nor does the text hold the same absolute authority for Jews as it does for Christians. Many Christians find this hard to believe or accept, and want to argue about it; but that's of no concern to any Jew. We go our own way, and others don't get a vote. Everyone is free to hold his or her own opinion, and we are free to ignore them, which we do, and have for two thousand years. (It's worth noting that we ignored those opinions even when others tried to force them upon us with sword, fire exile and the rack. Disapproval on the Internet holds no horrors for us.)
Whatever "proof-texts" you can find in the Bible, Jews have never taught nor believed that any individual Jew, never mind the whole nation, had to keep ALL of the Law perfectly and without error in every detail. If that were the case, why would there be any mechanism for atonement, i.e. forgiveness, which there is and was from the beginning? The Hebrews accepted the Law, but no one did so with the intention of never making a mistake and being totally perfect all his or her life long. That is impossible, and the ancients knew that just as well as we do -- and God does not command impossible things.
Once again; if Christians wish to teach all these things and believe that we Jews are wrong and doomed and Hellbound and all the rest of it, I've no problem with that at all; but when they, or you, or anyone, begin to tell us what OUR religion should be and what WE should believe, we're done.
Like I said; I'm not going to debate this. Just inform.
Once again, I'm not going to debate, just inform.
Christians have held that Paul had it right from the beginning; Jews have held that he had it wrong, also from the beginning. That hasn't changed.
You won't find the actual, practical details of how the Law was to be kept in the Bible, much less the practical application of the Law by Jewish courts, from the Sanhedrin of ancient times to a local Bet Din, or rabbinical court, of the present day. You can quote Scripture all day, but once again, Jews don't read the Bible as Christians do, nor does the text hold the same absolute authority for Jews as it does for Christians. Many Christians find this hard to believe or accept, and want to argue about it; but that's of no concern to any Jew. We go our own way, and others don't get a vote. Everyone is free to hold his or her own opinion, and we are free to ignore them, which we do, and have for two thousand years. (It's worth noting that we ignored those opinions even when others tried to force them upon us with sword, fire exile and the rack. Disapproval on the Internet holds no horrors for us.)
Whatever "proof-texts" you can find in the Bible, Jews have never taught nor believed that any individual Jew, never mind the whole nation, had to keep ALL of the Law perfectly and without error in every detail. If that were the case, why would there be any mechanism for atonement, i.e. forgiveness, which there is and was from the beginning? The Hebrews accepted the Law, but no one did so with the intention of never making a mistake and being totally perfect all his or her life long. That is impossible, and the ancients knew that just as well as we do -- and God does not command impossible things.
Once again; if Christians wish to teach all these things and believe that we Jews are wrong and doomed and Hellbound and all the rest of it, I've no problem with that at all; but when they, or you, or anyone, begin to tell us what OUR religion should be and what WE should believe, we're done.
Like I said; I'm not going to debate this. Just inform.
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #6replying to post 5 by cnorman18[/url]]
I am not telling you how to believe. I am only pointing out what the texts suggest was believed or was reasonable to believe.
I agree with you that it would be unfair for God to command a unkeepable Law.
No problem I do however see the theological mechanism behind the stories.
I do not think it is fair to say that no Jews today or in the past believed exactly as I have presented.
The stories would not make any sense otherwise. The Jews created stories that showed why things had happened to them and why their God did not prevent these tragedies from happening.
Every disappointment and apparent failure of prophecy became an opportunity to reinterpret the concept of the original promise and the failure of the Davidic monarchy in such a way as to maintain their culture and belief in their God.
Much better one might say than simply giving up and stating "this God is simply a delusion. He doesn't keep his word"
Better to blame their own inadequacy than to reject God outright. The problem with this is it gives an opening to "restorationist" type movements.
You must admit that this was common from within Judaism. For it to be common they must certainly have believed in a literal restoration.
I mean they died by the thousands in the most horrible fashion and brought about the destruction of Judea.
In fact Christianity and Islam are "restoration" type movements that find their doctrinal authority in the Hebrew texts themselves.
I simply do not know how you condemn that interpretation when the interpretation was held by Jewish believers who died for it?
I am not telling you how to believe. I am only pointing out what the texts suggest was believed or was reasonable to believe.
I agree with you that it would be unfair for God to command a unkeepable Law.
No problem I do however see the theological mechanism behind the stories.
I do not think it is fair to say that no Jews today or in the past believed exactly as I have presented.
The stories would not make any sense otherwise. The Jews created stories that showed why things had happened to them and why their God did not prevent these tragedies from happening.
Every disappointment and apparent failure of prophecy became an opportunity to reinterpret the concept of the original promise and the failure of the Davidic monarchy in such a way as to maintain their culture and belief in their God.
Much better one might say than simply giving up and stating "this God is simply a delusion. He doesn't keep his word"
Better to blame their own inadequacy than to reject God outright. The problem with this is it gives an opening to "restorationist" type movements.
You must admit that this was common from within Judaism. For it to be common they must certainly have believed in a literal restoration.
I mean they died by the thousands in the most horrible fashion and brought about the destruction of Judea.
In fact Christianity and Islam are "restoration" type movements that find their doctrinal authority in the Hebrew texts themselves.
I simply do not know how you condemn that interpretation when the interpretation was held by Jewish believers who died for it?
-
cnorman18
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #7[Replying to post 6 by postroad]
Here is the clue that seems to have escaped you:
The ancient people that you seem to think believed in these stories in this way -- are characters in these stories themselves.
If you're paying attention, you can see the evolution of Jewish belief in the very text of the Bible as we have it today. Exodus and Leviticus prescribe sacrifices; the Prophets denounce sacrifices as empty hypocrisy if not accompanied by JUSTICE, and in fact say straight out that JUSTICE is more important than any sacrifice.
More to the point; even if the ancients DID believe all these things, exactly as you say -- well, what of it? We don't any more.
Lots of things we don't do or believe any more. We don't stone our disobedient children to death at the gate, and the records seem to indicate that we never did. We never kept the Jubilee at all, never went to the Temple en masse to celebrate the Festivals, never ruled the Mideast from the Nile to the Euphrates, and so on, and so on. One casual look at history and the practicalities of the time would make one wonder why anyone ever thought any of those things would, or COULD, be done at all.
So the Jews of antiquity, you think, believed this and that and the other thing. My response is, without apology -- "So what?"
The early Christians believed that Jesus was coming back within their lifetimes. He said so. So what? They don't any more. So what difference does it make?
The fact that beliefs evolve and change doesn't make anyone a hypocrite, and it doesn't render any beliefs, then or now, false or invalid. From a modern, practical point of view, all these things are human mental constructs, and so humans can change them as they choose. From a traditional Jewish point of view, dating back to the 2nd century CE at the latest, the Torah is not in Heaven. That means -- and this is formally taught in the Talmud, in a story ("The Oven of Akhnai") to which I have referred many, many times -- now that the Torah has been given to US, to humans, it is OUR responsibility to determine its meaning and its laws. That is not a privilege; it is a responsibility -- to use our God-given brains and figure out all this stuff for ourselves, as opposed to depending on a magic Book for all the answers. Or a magic Voice from Heaven; that is expressly forbidden to us, and has been for 1,800 years or so. No more Prophets. That door has long since closed -- if it was ever open in the first place.
I think that's all I have time to say for the moment. I have audiobooks to record and edit.
Here is the clue that seems to have escaped you:
The ancient people that you seem to think believed in these stories in this way -- are characters in these stories themselves.
If you're paying attention, you can see the evolution of Jewish belief in the very text of the Bible as we have it today. Exodus and Leviticus prescribe sacrifices; the Prophets denounce sacrifices as empty hypocrisy if not accompanied by JUSTICE, and in fact say straight out that JUSTICE is more important than any sacrifice.
More to the point; even if the ancients DID believe all these things, exactly as you say -- well, what of it? We don't any more.
Lots of things we don't do or believe any more. We don't stone our disobedient children to death at the gate, and the records seem to indicate that we never did. We never kept the Jubilee at all, never went to the Temple en masse to celebrate the Festivals, never ruled the Mideast from the Nile to the Euphrates, and so on, and so on. One casual look at history and the practicalities of the time would make one wonder why anyone ever thought any of those things would, or COULD, be done at all.
So the Jews of antiquity, you think, believed this and that and the other thing. My response is, without apology -- "So what?"
The early Christians believed that Jesus was coming back within their lifetimes. He said so. So what? They don't any more. So what difference does it make?
The fact that beliefs evolve and change doesn't make anyone a hypocrite, and it doesn't render any beliefs, then or now, false or invalid. From a modern, practical point of view, all these things are human mental constructs, and so humans can change them as they choose. From a traditional Jewish point of view, dating back to the 2nd century CE at the latest, the Torah is not in Heaven. That means -- and this is formally taught in the Talmud, in a story ("The Oven of Akhnai") to which I have referred many, many times -- now that the Torah has been given to US, to humans, it is OUR responsibility to determine its meaning and its laws. That is not a privilege; it is a responsibility -- to use our God-given brains and figure out all this stuff for ourselves, as opposed to depending on a magic Book for all the answers. Or a magic Voice from Heaven; that is expressly forbidden to us, and has been for 1,800 years or so. No more Prophets. That door has long since closed -- if it was ever open in the first place.
I think that's all I have time to say for the moment. I have audiobooks to record and edit.
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #8[Replying to post 7 by cnorman18]
Actually I was referencing the Jewish Messianic movements that ultimately ended in the 70 AD destruction of the Temple and the dissolving of the Jewish nation.
Their belief is mirrored in a restoration type theology as described in the NT
Islam is nothing less than an "evangelical" expression of such militant Judaism as existed before the Romans crushed such aspirations.
I do see the evolution that you are indicating. In fact I have no doubt that the first century Sanhedrin and Pharisaical elite viewed the Messianic movements with absolute horror.
This is presented in the Gospels in the concept that it was better for Jesus to die than for the whole nation to perish.
You are indicating that Judaism by necessity has had to adopt a more enlightened view of their texts. I have no problem with that.
The fact remains that the texts can and where viewed differently by perhaps a majority of Jews who made up the bulk of Judaism in the first century.
Outside of the wealthy elite a literal interpretation had much to offer those who were poor and oppressed.
I imagine the same hopes may yet exist in ranks of the Orthodox?
Actually I was referencing the Jewish Messianic movements that ultimately ended in the 70 AD destruction of the Temple and the dissolving of the Jewish nation.
Their belief is mirrored in a restoration type theology as described in the NT
Islam is nothing less than an "evangelical" expression of such militant Judaism as existed before the Romans crushed such aspirations.
I do see the evolution that you are indicating. In fact I have no doubt that the first century Sanhedrin and Pharisaical elite viewed the Messianic movements with absolute horror.
This is presented in the Gospels in the concept that it was better for Jesus to die than for the whole nation to perish.
You are indicating that Judaism by necessity has had to adopt a more enlightened view of their texts. I have no problem with that.
The fact remains that the texts can and where viewed differently by perhaps a majority of Jews who made up the bulk of Judaism in the first century.
Outside of the wealthy elite a literal interpretation had much to offer those who were poor and oppressed.
I imagine the same hopes may yet exist in ranks of the Orthodox?
-
cnorman18
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #9[Replying to post 8 by postroad]
Read my thread in either the Judaism section or the Christianity & Apologetics section on "Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah." That's the best I can tell you right now. It's clear enough that you actually know very little about Jewish history and the history of Messianic movements in our past, and have, I would speculate, studied only material from Christian and "Messianic" sources (which are, of course, one and the same).
As far as Jews are concerned, the "restoration" of Israel began in 1948 and has continued since. You may be interested to know that the Orthodox, almost universally, did NOT support the foundation of the Jewish state in the 1940s, and for long afterward; they believed that the Messiah must come first, and only then would Israel be reborn as a free and independent nation. All but a very few have come around since, and Israel now has the largest Orthodox community in the world next to the United States. The last legitimate "messianic" movement among actual Jews was that which heralded Rabbi Schneerson of the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidim as the Messiah, though he never claimed that title for himself. Since he's been dead for 20 years now, that didn't work out so well either.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but I ask again; So first-century Jews believed differently from the Jews of today. So did the first-century Christians.
So what?
Read my thread in either the Judaism section or the Christianity & Apologetics section on "Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah." That's the best I can tell you right now. It's clear enough that you actually know very little about Jewish history and the history of Messianic movements in our past, and have, I would speculate, studied only material from Christian and "Messianic" sources (which are, of course, one and the same).
As far as Jews are concerned, the "restoration" of Israel began in 1948 and has continued since. You may be interested to know that the Orthodox, almost universally, did NOT support the foundation of the Jewish state in the 1940s, and for long afterward; they believed that the Messiah must come first, and only then would Israel be reborn as a free and independent nation. All but a very few have come around since, and Israel now has the largest Orthodox community in the world next to the United States. The last legitimate "messianic" movement among actual Jews was that which heralded Rabbi Schneerson of the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidim as the Messiah, though he never claimed that title for himself. Since he's been dead for 20 years now, that didn't work out so well either.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but I ask again; So first-century Jews believed differently from the Jews of today. So did the first-century Christians.
So what?
Re: Why was the old testament law given
Post #10But you are the one who jumps on every post which dares suggest that people ever understood differently than YOU understand NOW. In fact YOUR position TODAY has no influence on what people believed in the PAST. So exactly what is your point Are you embarrassed that people thought that way in the PASTcnorman18 wrote: [Replying to post 8 by postroad]
Read my thread in either the Judaism section or the Christianity & Apologetics section on "Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah." That's the best I can tell you right now. It's clear enough that you actually know very little about Jewish history and the history of Messianic movements in our past, and have, I would speculate, studied only material from Christian and "Messianic" sources (which are, of course, one and the same).
As far as Jews are concerned, the "restoration" of Israel began in 1948 and has continued since. You may be interested to know that the Orthodox, almost universally, did NOT support the foundation of the Jewish state in the 1940s, and for long afterward; they believed that the Messiah must come first, and only then would Israel be reborn as a free and independent nation. All but a very few have come around since, and Israel now has the largest Orthodox community in the world next to the United States. The last legitimate "messianic" movement among actual Jews was that which heralded Rabbi Schneerson of the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidim as the Messiah, though he never claimed that title for himself. Since he's been dead for 20 years now, that didn't work out so well either.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but I ask again; So first-century Jews believed differently from the Jews of today. So did the first-century Christians.
So what?
Are you indicating that in the PAST they all understand as you do TODAY.
I don't see what you believe TODAY contributes in understanding what they believed in the PAST. Not unless you can miraculously prove that what you believe TODAY caused them to believe the things they believed in the PAST.
What you believe TODAY may be a result of what was believed or happened in the PAST but what you believe TODAY does not even represent what all Jews believe TODAY.
The account of the Law and the Messianic tradition was given in the PAST so I imagine that the fact that Jews believed it literally until the recent PAST and may indeed believe it yet TODAY has something to do with why the Law was given in the PAST.
So in fact the very best refutation of Christianity that I can think of from what you indicate is the truth is that Christ is a false Messiah because there never was a real prophecy regarding a Messiah.
There never was a real God that made promises to real people like Abraham and David. No promised land. Just a bunch of stories invented to motivate the unenlightened and perhaps to enrich an elite ruling class.
You know I do not have a problem with that concept either. And if you want to "spiritualise" the texts and pretend that their exists some divine underlying message of, I don't know what? Go ahead! Does not make your interpretation any more the truth than what anybody believed all along.
So I ask what exactly has your belief TODAY contributed to the discussion about why the Law was given. Unless we are to accept that the Law is such an absurdity that it was designed to lead to unbelief?
