Origin of Mosaic Law

[pensmama87]

As Christians, we believe that God directly gave the Ten Commandments to Moses (though the numbering is human work.) My understanding has been, however, that not all the items in the Law as listed in the Bible are understood to have that level of authority, and some may have been added later by people. I’m not sure where I picked up this idea, but I know that Catholics do not need to have a literalistic interpretation of all parts of the Bible. I have read those sections multiple times and had insight into how Hebrew society functioned, but have not been bothered by some of the items that bother contemporary readers (e.g. see the Moral Theology thread on slavery) because I never was under the impression that God actually said anything that specific about how one could beat slaves, and such items were likely addendums.

Am I in error here? I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable about Scripture, but I am definitely open to learning more about its development, specifically these sections that confuse a lot of readers.

 

[Joe_5859]

As Christians, we believe that God directly gave the Ten Commandments to Moses (though the numbering is human work.) My understanding has been, however, that not all the items in the Law as listed in the Bible are understood to have that level of authority, and some may have been added later by people. I’m not sure where I picked up this idea, but I know that Catholics do not need to have a literalistic interpretation of all parts of the Bible. I have read those sections multiple times and had insight into how Hebrew society functioned, but have not been bothered by some of the items that bother contemporary readers (e.g. see the Moral Theology thread on slavery) because I never was under the impression that God actually said anything that specific about how one could beat slaves, and such items were likely addendums.

Am I in error here? I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable about Scripture, but I am definitely open to learning more about its development, specifically these sections that confuse a lot of readers.

Mosaic Law can be seen in terms of 3 covenant making events, each which came with a change in the priesthood and more laws. As St. Paul says in Galatians 3:19: “Why the law? The law was added because of transgressions.” And in Hebrews 7:12, “When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well.”

First, there is Sinai. All 12 tribes are holy, and all first-born sons are priests. Here we get the 10 Commandments.

But then comes the golden calf incident. Only the tribe of Levi remains faithful, so then only the Levites are priests. And so a second covenant is made. And we get the book of Leviticus which goes into painstaking details about things like animal sacrifice. It was clear that the Israelites hadn’t yet forgone the Egyptian deities, and so God commands these sacrifices of the animals the Egyptians worshipped to systematically root it out.

40 years later, the second generation of Israelites post-Exodus get caught up in the worship of Baal on the plains of Moab. Phineas is the one who puts a stop to it, and so the priesthood is narrowed again, and now we get the book of Deuteronomy (which literally means “second law.” These laws contain such things as the mosaic concession for divorce. God saw that the people were still weak and still had a long way to go, and so concessions were made to help them along.

So when Jesus comes along and fulfills the law, while also making parts of it no longer necessary, it is mainly the Sinai law (i.e. the Ten Commandments) that remains while the others (levitical and deuteronomic laws) pass away.

This is a really brief, perhaps overly simplistic summary of Old Testament Law, but it’s the framework that helps me make sense of which laws in the Old Testament never pass away and which became obsolete after Jesus.

 

[rabbitdonkey]

The whole Bible is inspired

 

[pensmama87]

Mosaic Law can be seen in terms of 3 covenant making events, each which came with a change in the priesthood and more laws. As St. Paul says in Galatians 3:19: “Why the law? The law was added because of transgressions.” And in Hebrews 7:12, “When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well.”

First, there is Sinai. All 12 tribes are holy, and all first-born sons are priests. Here we get the 10 Commandments.

But then comes the golden calf incident. Only the tribe of Levi remains faithful, so then only the Levites are priests. And so a second covenant is made. And we get the book of Leviticus which goes into painstaking details about things like animal sacrifice. It was clear that the Israelites hadn’t yet forgone the Egyptian deities, and so God commands these sacrifices of the animals the Egyptians worshipped to systematically root it out.

40 years later, the second generation of Israelites post-Exodus get caught up in the worship of Baal on the plains of Moab. Phineas is the one who puts a stop to it, and so the priesthood is narrowed again, and now we get the book of Deuteronomy (which literally means “second law.” These laws contain such things as the mosaic concession for divorce. God saw that the people were still weak and still had a long way to go, and so concessions were made to help them along.

So when Jesus comes along and fulfills the law, while also making parts of it no longer necessary, it is mainly the Sinai law (i.e. the Ten Commandments) that remains while the others (levitical and deuteronomic laws) pass away.

This is a really brief, perhaps overly simplistic summary of Old Testament Law, but it’s the framework that helps me make sense of which laws in the Old Testament never pass away and which became obsolete after Jesus.

Thanks, Joe. This is very helpful and I can recall hearing some of this before, so it’s nice to know my idea wasn’t completely out of left field. I guess the essential question I’m asking is, when the book of Deuteronomy says, “God said,” does that hold the same weight as, say, the words of other prophets in the OT? Or is it muddled through the words of the leaders at that time and how they felt was the best way to govern at that time? I believe some of the Pentateuch was put together when the Hebrews were in captivity?

The whole Bible is inspired

I’m not disputing that. But it doesn’t mean that every thing that is contained there is literally true, or meant to be understood as good behavior that every person should emulate today to be a good Christian. There are many different genres in the Bible and they were composed at different times by different authors with different purposes. Yes, they are inspired, but that does not mean one can look at what they literally say and know what we are meant to take from it.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure about directly answering your question, but after the golden calf incident, additional laws were placed on the Israelites to separate them from paganism. And the laws on slavery were not intended to call slavery good in itself, but were intended to legislate how slavery which was widespread throughout society already should be regulated to prevent even more widespread abuses. (And slavery then was not necessarily the same type of slavery as practiced in nineteenth century America. Slaves were considered people, not animals. And in a world with incredibly “small government,” it was the responsibility of the head of a household to govern the household and mete out necessary discipline, similar to how a government has just authority over its citizens). Anyway, I digress. Furthermore, another point is that God met the Israelites at the level they were mature enough for. You find this commentary in some of the early church fathers, that mankind hadn’t matured enough yet for the full law and had to be raised up into it over time, so certain permissions were granted and certain laws set for the “hardness of their hearts” that were not ideal. A child might have lower expectations and more rules set than adult would have, for example, to meet their capabilities but to aid their development.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks, Joe. This is very helpful and I can recall hearing some of this before, so it’s nice to know my idea wasn’t completely out of left field. I guess the essential question I’m asking is, when the book of Deuteronomy says, “God said,” does that hold the same weight as, say, the words of other prophets in the OT? Or is it muddled through the words of the leaders at that time and how they felt was the best way to govern at that time? I believe some of the Pentateuch was put together when the Hebrews were in captivity?

The way I look at it, since Scripture is the Word of God, everything in it is what God said, not just the quotations that come after “God said.” (That’s one of the reasons I’m bemused by “red letter Bibles”—as if only certain parts of the Bible are the words of Jesus.)

I’m sure you agree with that, but I point it out because I don’t think we can necessarily give the greatest weight across the board to only the quotations of God in the Bible.

I don’t necessarily think that means that every single word in the Bible carries exactly the same amount of weight. That’s when we need to look to things like style, audience, purpose, etc. to help us really understand what the original authors (both the human and divine) intended to convey.

Obviously, it’s not always a clear and easy thing to do, particularly with the Old Testament. There are times we will come across parts of the Bible that are generally confusing to us.

I really like this article from Jimmy Akin on Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. He looks at a particular example of God commanding the extermination of various other tribes/nations. He does a good job of explaining how we might look at this from both the perspective that this is literally what God commanded and from the perspective that it is the human author conveying certain truths in a more figurative way. I think it’s important to consider both possibilities and the ramifications of them. Even though, he is looking at a specific example, I think the way he addresses it makes it helpful and applicable to most any difficulty we encounter in reading the Bible.

Does that help? I hope I’m not misunderstanding what you’re getting at with your question.

 

[pensmama87]

Thanks, Joe and Wesrock. It is a variation on “hard sayings,” I think, but also a knee jerk response on my part to a kind of assumption of sola scriptura by non-Christians. “Your Bible says that, eh? Well, that just proves you’re dumb/mean/etc.” Just because the Bible records certain historical events doesn’t mean approval of those events, even when done by the “good guys.” Which you know, I’m just musing.

I’m doing a Bible study this school year that will go into.the history in some more detail, which I think will help me with this question too. I tried bringing it up on that slavery thread but so far I’ve been completely ignored. I really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut but was also hoping for more insight too because I think it’s an important topic for Christians. But maybe not a very sexy one for the Internet.

 

[Lucretius]

Many aspects of the Mosaic law are based more on the prudent discernment of Israel’s past, present, and future circumstances and imperfections by God with Moses, rather than an absolute, timeless truth revealed directly by God.

Think of what Jesus implies about Mosaic law when he speaks about divorce:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Christi pax.