Please help with Exodus 21 and 22

[Koopa]

So, in Chapters 21 and 22 of the book of Exodus, it talks about how God told the people the laws that should be imposed. The laws seemed really harsh, including a bunch of crimes that were punishable by death. These punishments really don’t seem acceptable by today’s standards. If God never changes, then why did he tell the Israelites these things? (Or are these laws actually just?) Does it have something to do with the New Covenant established through Jesus?

Thanks.

 

[Clovis]

Do you remember the passage Christ said, that Moses maid certain laws simply because of the hardness of mens hearts. This is the best explanation possible I think.

 

[Evan]

I know in the Roman Empire they had no prisons so sentences were:

1. Fine
2. Sold into slavery
3. Death

The hebrew people (being nomads) probably had a similar very small list of possible punishments

1. Fine (did not use much money, had common herds, etc.) may have been impossible to impose
2. Banishment
3. Sold into slavery
4. Death

Jesus said the FIRST commandment was to Love God.
The second commandment was to Love Neighbour.

So if we use the death sentence (universally until recently) for punishing certain crimes against neighbours, any crime against God would demand a greater punishment, begin an offense against a greater commandment.

Just some perspective.

Remember that God gives life. We did not ask for life and God can determine how long we live. Our life is his. So a death sentence handed down by God is given to all of us at our conception, by natural disaster, by age, by his commandments.

We can interfere and end a life before Gods determined span, but He is the one who determines length of life if we stay out of the way.

 

[jcrichton]

So, in Chapters 21 and 22 of the book of Exodus, it talks about how God told the people the laws that should be imposed. The laws seemed really harsh, including a bunch of crimes that were punishable by death. These punishments really don’t seem acceptable by today’s standards. If God never changes, then why did he tell the Israelites these things? (Or are these laws actually just?) Does it have something to do with the New Covenant established through Jesus?

Thanks.

Hi, Koopa!

It was a differenct economy then–seldom did Yahweh God make reference to Heaven or resurrection into a spiritual realm… Israel experienced Yahweh more directly and as they found themselves removed from Jesus’s Incarnation. Then, when the Word became flesh, He brought a new economy (Covenant); one decidedly different… not at all temporal: Mt 5:17 through 6:18.

But God’s Salvific Plan is complete: when Jesus died for the sins of the world… He truly died for the past (pre-Messianic Israel), present (Messianic Israel), and future (Messianic Church–which includes all Believers till the Final Judgment): 1 Pt 3:18-21; 4:5-6; Rom 14:9.

Do not fret nor despair, Yahweh God has been there and done that!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rocketrob]

So, in Chapters 21 and 22 of the book of Exodus, it talks about how God told the people the laws that should be imposed. The laws seemed really harsh, including a bunch of crimes that were punishable by death. These punishments really don’t seem acceptable by today’s standards. If God never changes, then why did he tell the Israelites these things? (Or are these laws actually just?) Does it have something to do with the New Covenant established through Jesus?

Thanks.

God progressively taught mankind about the consequences of sin…and death is the ultimate consequence. Due to man’s own faults, the laws of the Old Testament were not able to bring salvation. Jesus’ work on the cross was necessary, but in the fullness of time as determined by God. The laws of the Old Testament were an imperfect foreshadow of what was to come in Christ.

Some relevant words from the Catechism:

Article 1962: “The Old Law is the **first stage **of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions …prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it.”

Article 1963: “According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage.”

Article 1964: "The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. ‘The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.’ It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, ‘types,’ and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit.

Article 1965: "The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: ‘I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel…’

God has not, does not, and will not ever change. Rather, he has changed us through His progressive revelation of salvation history.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[utunumsint]

Good post Koopa. Some of the laws in the old testament are, frankly, embarasing. There are many things in the OT that we should not hesistate to condemn, I think. And taken in isolation from the rest of the old and new testaments, create problems. For example, what are we to make to the jealousy offering described in numbers, or the fact that David killed 100 philistines and cut off their foreskins to secure Saul’s daughter as wife? What about the plague that David instigated by calling a sensus? Were the people to blame for his actions? What about Jehu’s slaughter of Ahab and Jezebel’s whole family in the valley of Jezreel? Elisha obviously had not problem with it, but if you read Hosea, he certainly seems to think Jehu went too far.

When we talk about the OT being an imperfect forshadowing of the NT, I think we also have to include the imperfect laws, morality, and rituals described in the OT. We can get around this particular way of phrasing the issue by taking everything we don’t agree with in a symbolic maner, but that doesn’t negate their real historical foundaction. For example, the Amalekites are indeed a symbolic representation of the forces of evil, just like pharaoh’s armies were later seen as a symbolic representation of Satan and his devils. But they were all killed by God. Joshua slaughtered everyone he met in the promised land (except the Gibionites), and impalled their kings on stakes outside of their decimated cities. (Makes you understand where Vlad the Impalor might of gotten his inspiration).

I honestly can’t see any other way to look at it. But does that make the OT any less the word of God? Are there laws in the OT that are closer to perfection than others (e.g. the ten commandments)? I think so. I see the OT as the progressive revelation of the will of God, becoming clearer and clearer through the ages until its full revelation in Jesus. Then Jesus and his teachings must be further explained and developed by the New Testament church, expounding such doctrines as the Trinity, the nature of baptisms, salvation, works, faith, etc…

You can see this kind of progression even in the old testament. In Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy God commanded through Moses a certain division of labour amongst the Levites between the houses of Merrari, the Koathites, and Arron’s decendants. It was all based around the tent of meeting. Obviously when the ark of the covenant left Shilo, and moved to Jerusalem (after being captured by the Phillistines and brought to the temple of Dagon) many of these ordinances were abrogated, and this is made explicit in 1st Chronicles. So these rules and regulations were not set in stone (unlike the 10 commandements . There was a clear development from tent of meeting worship to temple worship. I think we can also assume that there was a develpment in the laws, reflecting the different situations of peoples in different time, even though they appear in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Does this mean these old laws and regulations were not from God? I don’t think so. But they were not fully representative of the true will of God. They only forshadowed it.

I should stop. I’m rambling. Its a question I’ve been grappling with for a while since I’ve started rereading the OT again.

God bless,
Ut

 

[jcrichton]

Good post Koopa. Some of the laws in the old testament are, frankly, embarasing. There are many things in the OT that we should not hesistate to condemn, I think. And taken in isolation from the rest of the old and new testaments, create problems. For example, what are we to make to the jealousy offering described in numbers, or the fact that David killed 100 philistines and cut off their foreskins to secure Saul’s daughter as wife? What about the plague that David instigated by calling a sensus? Were the people to blame for his actions? What about Jehu’s slaughter of Ahab and Jezebel’s whole family in the valley of Jezreel? Elisha obviously had not problem with it, but if you read Hosea, he certainly seems to think Jehu went too far.

When we talk about the OT being an imperfect forshadowing of the NT, I think we also have to include the imperfect laws, morality, and rituals described in the OT. We can get around this particular way of phrasing the issue by taking everything we don’t agree with in a symbolic maner, but that doesn’t negate their real historical foundaction. For example, the Amalekites are indeed a symbolic representation of the forces of evil, just like pharaoh’s armies were later seen as a symbolic representation of Satan and his devils. But they were all killed by God. Joshua slaughtered everyone he met in the promised land (except the Gibionites), and impalled their kings on stakes outside of their decimated cities. (Makes you understand where Vlad the Impalor might of gotten his inspiration).

I honestly can’t see any other way to look at it. But does that make the OT any less the word of God? Are there laws in the OT that are closer to perfection than others (e.g. the ten commandments)? I think so. I see the OT as the progressive revelation of the will of God, becoming clearer and clearer through the ages until its full revelation in Jesus. Then Jesus and his teachings must be further explained and developed by the New Testament church, expounding such doctrines as the Trinity, the nature of baptisms, salvation, works, faith, etc…

You can see this kind of progression even in the old testament. In Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy God commanded through Moses a certain division of labour amongst the Levites between the houses of Merrari, the Koathites, and Arron’s decendants. It was all based around the tent of meeting. Obviously when the ark of the covenant left Shilo, and moved to Jerusalem (after being captured by the Phillistines and brought to the temple of Dagon) many of these ordinances were abrogated, and this is made explicit in 1st Chronicles. So these rules and regulations were not set in stone (unlike the 10 commandements . There was a clear development from tent of meeting worship to temple worship. I think we can also assume that there was a develpment in the laws, reflecting the different situations of peoples in different time, even though they appear in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Does this mean these old laws and regulations were not from God? I don’t think so. But they were not fully representative of the true will of God. They only forshadowed it.

I should stop. I’m rambling. Its a question I’ve been grappling with for a while since I’ve started rereading the OT again.

God bless,
Ut

Hi, Ut!

…I think that you just threw out the baby with the bath water…

We must be able to separate the Commandment of Yahweh God from the behavior of Yahweh’s people.

…as far as Vlad–I do not recall where in history is it stated that he was a Christian (knowledge of the Holy Scriptures); regarless of the source, Vlad used that practice to create terror not among his many enemies but to satiate his blood thirst as he employed that mechanism of terror even against his own subjects.

…there is one point that you’ve touched on which seems exceedingly vindictive of Yahweh God–from a foreing perspective, David’s decision to conduct a census of Israel should not be a sin suffered onto the nation… yet, if we look back just one king before (Saul) what did Israel demand of Yahweh? What did Yahweh warned them about? (1 Samuel 8:1-22)

Isarel accepted not only all of the impositions of the king but also that Yahweh God would no longer intervine on their behalf–the king and the nation are one: when the king fails the nation also fails; conversely, when the king sins the nation also sins. (I know that that is something forgotten in our modern world–in the US our leaders are failing… what do we all see reflected in society?

Were all the people of God obedient to the Law? Were all of the tenets adhered to, with no deviation? …just look at the test with which the religious elite thought that they would confound Jesus: (paraphrased) “Master, we caught this woman in the act of adultery…” If we were to search the Law, as it was originally instituted, it speaks of the adulterous (inclusive of both male and female participants) but, through biased judgment, eventually that was a Law applied only to the female.

Did Yahweh God sought to kill sinners? No, the Law was established to prevent sin! But once in the hands of the weak and the greedy the Law was circumvented for material gains. No wonder Jesus kept calling the Pharisees and Sadducees “hypocrites.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[utunumsint]

Hi, Ut!

…I think that you just threw out the baby with the bath water…

We must be able to separate the Commandment of Yahweh God from the behavior of Yahweh’s people.

OK. I’m open to correction.

…as far as Vlad–I do not recall where in history is it stated that he was a Christian (knowledge of the Holy Scriptures); regarless of the source, Vlad used that practice to create terror not among his many enemies but to satiate his blood thirst as he employed that mechanism of terror even against his own subjects.

This is in accord with a Christian view of the Olt Covenant. I agree with it. I think what the OP is trying to figure out is how to read the strange laws he finds in the OT, and how to interpret them.

My point is to underline the idea of the progresive revelation of the word of God, and this includes a progression from the more imperfect laws and sometimes morally obscure passages of the OT to the more perfect revelation of the word of God.

Thanks for responding.
God bless,
Ut

 

[jcrichton]

OK. Does that make Joshua’s use of impalings any more justified, and in accord with the word of God he had received via Moses before entering the promised land?

Hi, ut!

I do not recall the Scriptures, do they actually state that God commanded Joshua to use those extreme measures? If not, aren’t we looking at Scriptures from a removed time frame? …while Joshua had been given the task to lead the Israelites onto the Promised Land, I doubt that Yahweh God was commanding the day to day engagements of Joshua’s war machine. I believe that he acted according to the practices of his times: ruthless and fearsome; remember that battles were fought, mainly, face to face: demoralize an enemy’s army and the battle is half-won!

Quote:
…there is one point that you’ve touched on which seems exceedingly vindictive of Yahweh God–from a foreing perspective,

Vindictive is something I hope I’m not…especially with God. But the text cocerning the plague does not make referrence to any sins of the people. David himself takes full responsibility for the plague.

I was referring to God’s position seeming vindictive not yours… the fact that David did clamored to God to forgive Israel David’s transgression seems to me as evident that both parties understood that in the eyes of God they were but one–remember Jesus prayer? “…that they all be one as we are One…” Israel was one with Yahweh God hence His attitude when they rejected His Kingship for man’s.

OK. But this illustrates my point of progression in the laws (or degredation, depending on how you believe the laws were formed).

Yet, there is a distinction between God’s governnance and man’s manipulation of the Law: Yahweh God never stopped asking Israel to be holy as He is Holy; to be perfect as He is Perfect. It has always been Israel’s (the Believers’) determination to humbly obey God or reject Him.

So we can’t just read Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus with an uncritical eye. There are some laws that are clearly not applicable to our day. Wouldn’t you agree?

Agreed. But the criticism should not suggest that the Law’s function was imperfect or incomplete; rather, the criticism should be of the circumvention of the Law and the practices the arose from the constant manipulations. As Paul attests, the Law cannot save; it’s function was to promote a behavior that would keep God’s people from sin.

Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law (St. Matthew 5:17 - 7:27) we find that He redifines the Mosianic Law raising it from a temporal existence (eye for an eye) to a spiritual existence (if your eye causes you to sin); we, of course, must comply accordingly–this in no manner diminishes the value of the existing Law for the Pre-Messianic era.

This is in accord with a Christian view of the Olt Covenant. I agree with it. I think what the OP is trying to figure out is how to read the strange laws he finds in the OT, and how to interpret them.

My point is to underline the idea of the progresive revelation of the word of God, and this includes a progression from the more imperfect laws and sometimes morally obscure passages of the OT to the more perfect revelation of the word of God.

I think that we are merging on the same thought but from different perspectives… while the Old Testament Laws may seem morally obscure or imperfect it is only so when viewed through post Messianic understanding.

i.e.: While on a different forum the issue of Exodus 35:7 seemed to be incomprehensible to some–why would Yahweh God punish sin to the fourth generation? It was interesting that they did not object to His blessings of thousands (some versions agree with Deuteronomy 7:9–a thousand generations).

Should we welcome Yahweh’s love without measure while setting bounderies to His Wrath/Justice?

Though Jesus has brought us into a new economy, can we fault the Mosianic Law as flawed or antiquated for the epoch for which it had been established?

Maran atha!

Angel