Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Hender Williamshot]

Mosaic Law represented God's wishes, not a watered-down version to gradually civilize Israel.

A common Christian excuse for the uncivilized or savage Mosaic Laws is that God was utilizing progressive revelation in an attempt to gradually civilize the Israelites. This would mean that God initially delivered a watered-down version of His Law to make it easier for them to comply and then gradually civilize them with progressive alterations to the Law.

This is a false claim for the following reasons:

Scripture says God's Law is perfect. A watered-down version would not be perfect.

God did not expect (anticipate) obedience to the Law. There would be no reason to offer a watered-down version in order to make the Law easier to follow if obedience was never expected. If the Law was meant to demonstrate that humans are imperfect and need a savior, the Law needs to be perfect for this demonstration.

Progressive revelation does not work this way. In order to gradually build upon the basic principles, the basic principles must remain true throughout.

If my goal is to teach my child calculus, I will begin with the basic principle that 1+1=2. I will build upon this basic principle with subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, percentages, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and ultimately calculus. All throughout this process, 1 plus 1 will always equal 2 and this basic principle will never change. More complex concepts will be added, but the basic principle remains in effect.

If my goal, as God, is to teach my children to love their neighbors as they love themselves, and I start with the basic principles of "slaughter every living creature in the towns of your enemies, and kill your own neighbor if he works on the sabbath", how do I progressively build upon these basic principles in a way that I reach my goal and the basic principles remain in effect?

ADDITION: The argument for progressive revelation is often utilized by Christians defending Objective Morality.

If Mosaic Law is perfect and was intended to serve as a demonstration of perfection which mankind was unable to achieve (thereby needing a savior), then Mosaic Law must also be in perfect harmony with MORALITY.

Since it would not be possible for God to judge a person as being perfect according to the Law while simultaneously judging the person to be immoral, the Law must equally represent MORALITY.

If OBJECTIVE MORALITY exists, it does not vary according to who you are, where you live, and it doesn’t change over time.

If OBJECTIVE MORALITY exists, it must be embodied in Mosaic Law and it cannot have changed.

[jimwalton]

> A common Christian excuse for the uncivilized or savage Mosaic Laws is that God was utilizing progressive revelation in an attempt to gradually civilize the Israelites.

This is incorrect. I don't know where you got this, so possibly your whole case is resting on a faulty foundation.

The Torah is contingent on the tabernacle and was designed to prevent a repeat of the fall, which was when access to God's presence was lost. It is also to provide a means for Israel to survive in such close proximity to the intrinsically dangerous presence of YHWH.

In Israel, the Torah contained in both ritual and societal responsibilities, all of which were designed to define cosmic order and to give shape to holiness. As such, the Torah gave direction concerning how to maintain access to God's presence and to the relationship that God's presence facilitates, in addition too how to preserve his favor so that God's identity will be well reflected by the people. Torah can therefore be seen as the foundation for YHWH's presence because it gave Israelites guidelines for living in the presence of a holy God.

As I said, the Torah was contingent on the temple and not the other way around. It was designed for the temple venue and cannot be extrapolated to a universal context outside the temple. The Torah was incumbent on each Israelite because, in theory, an individual's neglect or violation of the Torah could potentially result in the removal of God's presence from his people. In this sense, each person had a role in maintaining God's presence, and God's presence brought order to the cosmos and to Israel. Blood rituals such as those that were part of the sin and guilt offerings were designed to cleanse sacred space from impurity that, if left to build up, could result in YHWH's departure or danger to the community.

Therefore the ancient law codes are generally not legislation, but rather they are circumscribing the nature of cosmic order, particularly with regard to justice in society. These legal lists are not provided so that people will conform their behavior to them, but so that scholars, elders, judges, and magistrates might become informed in the wisdom/knowledge they are called to exercise. When justice is maintained in society, the resulting order brings legitimation to the kinds and order in the cosmos (including society as well as nature), which God desired. The result of all this is that society will conform to the decrees of God that are used to maintain order. This creates an ordered society that conforms to their perceptions of morality. The texts do not construct morality, however, they operate according to the moral sense the society already has.

The Torah was to show people how to live in God's presence. It was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Jesus, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish.

The Torah loses its primary significance if there is no abiding presence of God, which is the main reason the NT views the law as having lost its role after Pentecost. After all, once the HS descended, God's presence dwelled in his people, who became the temple, rather than in a geographical location (1 Cor. 3.16; 6.19; 2 Cor. 6.16).

[Hender Williamshot]

Do you believe God would order His people to commit immoral acts?

Would you agree that any of Mosaic Law that touched of moral issues would be consistent with God’s concept of moral behavior?

[jimwalton]

> Do you believe God would order His people to commit immoral acts?

No, of course not. It would be contrary to God's righteous nature to order people to commit immoral acts.

> Would you agree that any of Mosaic Law that touched of moral issues would be consistent with God’s concept of moral behavior?

This is a bit of a trick question since I specified that the texts do not construct morality. God's holiness and his presence were the issue of the texts, and we have to be careful not to reduce the concepts of covenant relationships and holiness to mere morality. Morality isn't the issue being discussed. Their lives were to reflect God's holiness and be such that God's presence would remain with them. To use our (or your particular) catchword "morality" is to skew their worldview.

The Mosaic law is not to be interpreted as a legal code or a moral guide, but a statement of covenantal policy. The Decalogue, for instance, is more like a bill of rights than commands to follow.

1\. The Supreme Command: YHWH has the right to exclusive allegiance
2\. YHWH has the right to proper representation (Israel bears his name)
3\. The members of the household have the right to humane treatment from the head
4\. Parents have the right to respect
5\. The next person has the right to life
6\. The next person has the right to sexual purity
7\. The next person has the right to property
8\. The next person has the right to honest and truthful testimony in court
9\. The next person has the right to a secure marriage
10\. The next person has the right to enjoy property without fear that a neighbor may want it for himself.

The Bible never even calls them the "Ten Commandments," but the "Ten Words." They're not a summary of the law, they are not a moral code, nor are they any more important than any other part of the Torah. They focus on directing Israel to construct an identity as the people of God, the covenant community. They provide information about how the people were to interact with YHWH as well as with each other.

The Torah itself is not intended to establish or reflect an ideal society, but rather how Israel ought to conduct itself *given the structure of society* so as to live in the presence of God. It is the people who are expected to be transformed, not the shape or structure of society. The OT Torah doesn't give God's opinion of democracy vs. monarchy, arranged marriages vs. marriage for love, polygamy vs. monogamy, patriarchalism vs. gender equality, slavery vs. no slavery, market economy vs. agrarian economy, etc. The law is not intended to give a universal moral/ethical system. It was designed to help Israel know that divine favor is extended as it maintains this sort of order as his covenant people in the presence of a holy God.

[Hender Williamshot]

I never intended to insinuate that Mosaic Law was a moral code or was intended to represent a moral code.

I said that IF an objective morality does in fact exist, Mosaic Law must be in harmony with this objective morality.

You agreed that God would not order His people to commit an immoral act. This is what I mean by Mosaic Law being in harmony with morality.

If God did in fact order His people to do a specific act that involves a moral issue, we can assume that this act is consistent with God’s concept of human morality.

[jimwalton]

OK, sorry for misunderstanding. I obviously inaccurately inferred that from statements like that the Law must be in harmony with morality, must represent morality ("the Law must equally represent MORALITY"), and that morality was embodied in the law. Sorry for misunderstanding.

[Hender Williamshot]

>The Torah is contingent on the tabernacle and was designed to prevent a repeat of the fall,

Could you clarify this? How could the fall possibly be repeated unless everyone was first put back in the garden of eden with the tree?

[jimwalton]

The tabernacle was the mechanism for God's presence to dwell with His people. What we call "laws" are the stipulations of the covenant that reveal to Israel how they are to conduct themselves appropriately in the presence of a holy God. They are partners with God in his enterprise to bring the world into relationship with God. As such they were to adopt the identity conducive to the calling. The Torah shows them how to maintain God's presence with them. But the Torah is not the end (a moral people, being "good") but rather the means. The tabernacle was what was important. If they didn't follow the Torah, they would become unholy (suitable for God to live among them) and lose access to God's presence, just as Adam and Eve had done in the Garden. They would choose to become their own arbitrators of order and wisdom in God's place, as Adam and Eve had done. The Torah was given so the people could conform their identity to that of God, reversing what Adam and Eve had done, and God would once again come to "rest" in their presence (to live among them and engage them as his people). It is that abiding presence that provides the opportunity for relationship that both God and humans seek. This is why God initiated a formal relationship with Abraham, so that He could begin movement toward the reestablished dwelling that is accomplished in the tabernacle. The Torah is the means to that end.