Trouble understanding the Mosaic Law

[Luke_K]

Was the Law of Moses from God, as in God explicitly gave all the laws in the Pentateuch (through Moses), or were the laws constructed by Moses?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Was the Law of Moses from God, as in God explicitly gave all the laws in the Pentateuch (through Moses), or were the laws constructed by Moses?

They were all given by God, though Moses wrote them down.

 

[Luke_K]

OK, but Matthew 19: 7-8 makes it sound like the law came from Moses, not God:

They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

The Pharisees didn’t say that God commanded them to do that. Moses did. Jesus seems to view it like that as well. Plus, this question of the Pharisees came after Jesus said that divorce was bad because God joined together the man and woman, so the Pharisees were wondering why Moses said it was okay.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My understanding though limited is “the law” typically refers to the 10 commandments as given to Moses but “mosaic law” refers to 613(?) laws placed on the Jews by the Pharisees both with and without Moses consent. Many of the mosaic laws were probably installed much later than Moses’ time. For example “Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17” Why? Since Moses never made the trip to the Canaan?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

OK, but Matthew 19: 7-8 makes it sound like the law came from Moses, not God:

The Pharisees didn’t say that God commanded them to do that. Moses did. Jesus seems to view it like that as well. Plus, this question of the Pharisees came after Jesus said that divorce was bad because God joined together the man and woman, so the Pharisees were wondering why Moses said it was okay.

Moses was the authority when it came to the Jews and the Law; he was God’s mouthpiece. What Moses gave as Law was what God told him to write. All through the Torah there are explicit references to God giving all the commands. There were even times when Moses had to ask for clarification on the Law and God had to tell him what to do (e.g. Num 15:32ff).

The ‘scandal’ with Jesus’ remarks is that He was showing Himself above the previous authority, Moses. There was a new Lawgiver in town. Now, the Mosaic Law was not evil or sinful, it was just imperfect. Christ’s words show clearly that this law was temporarily given as a band-aid, because they weren’t ready for the fullness of revelation to come.

My understanding though limited is “the law” typically refers to the 10 commandments as given to Moses but “mosaic law” refers to 613(?) laws placed on the Jews by the Pharisees both with and without Moses consent. Many of the mosaic laws were probably installed much later than Moses’ time. For example “Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17” Why? Since Moses never made the trip to the Canaan?

The Mosaic Law was a ‘package deal’ that contained all the Commands of the Torah, not just the Ten Commandments. The Pharisees didn’t contribute to the 613, those were long written by Moses. The Pharisees did add their own new rules and twists, and some of those were ok, but other ‘rules’ they set up were actually undermining God’s rules and thus were unacceptable. As for Deut 20:17, those were rules and regulations for going to war, battles that God was directly leading them to victory in (20:1-4); they weren’t about whether or not Moses would be alive at that time in the future.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
The Mosaic Law was a ‘package deal’ that contained all the Commands of the Torah, not just the Ten Commandments. The Pharisees didn’t contribute to the 613, those were long written by Moses. The Pharisees did add their own new rules and twists, and some of those were ok, but other ‘rules’ they set up were actually undermining God’s rules and thus were unacceptable. As for Deut 20:17, those were rules and regulations for going to war, battles that God was directly leading them to victory in (20:1-4); they weren’t about whether or not Moses would be alive at that time in the future.

Deuteronomy 20:17 is but one example which makes no sense for Moses to write. If you have had a chance to read any of the “Where we got the Bible” stuff, the one I read was really about the Pentateuch most researchers seem to agree the timing of events requires additions after Moses’ death. Some conclude Deuteronomy is basically the Northern Pharisee’s laws while Leviticus is the southern Pharisee’s Laws with both sets beginning with Moses’ Laws and the difference being later additions.

 

[Robbinson]

OK, but Matthew 19: 7-8 makes it sound like the law came from Moses, not God:

The Pharisees didn’t say that God commanded them to do that. Moses did. Jesus seems to view it like that as well. Plus, this question of the Pharisees came after Jesus said that divorce was bad because God joined together the man and woman, so the Pharisees were wondering why Moses said it was okay.

Excellent point. As all of the Torah (and all of the scriptures Old Testament and new Testament) are the word of God, I would harmonize this as God speaking through moses, permitted divorse in the Old Covenant due to the hardness of their hearts.

As to the subequent posts, all 613 commandments are written within the Torah, so all come from the word of God. The oral Law (as now recorded in the Talmid) expanded upon these 613 commandments dramatically in an attempt to “fence in” the Torah in order to prevent inadvertant violation of the commandments. Jews (at least Orthodox Jews) believe this oral law is equivalent to the written law, and I believe it is this oral law and the related tradtiions which were criticized at times by Jesus as defeating the spirit of the law given to the Jews through Moses.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Deuteronomy 20:17 is but one example which makes no sense for Moses to write. If you have had a chance to read any of the “Where we got the Bible” stuff, the one I read was really about the Pentateuch most researchers seem to agree the timing of events requires additions after Moses’ death. Some conclude Deuteronomy is basically the Northern Pharisee’s laws while Leviticus is the southern Pharisee’s Laws with both sets beginning with Moses’ Laws and the difference being later additions.

Most “researchers” today are liberals who deny the Inspiration of Scripture and thus will do whatever they need to in order to make the Bible look too silly to be from God and rather a collection of stories from men. Modernism (a doctrinal error repeatedly condemned by the Church) basically teaches that if science cannot explain something, then it shouldn’t be trusted; thus miracles and divine revelation and such are untrustworthy and little more than myth and stories from men around the campfire.

I see nothing in Deut 20:17 that “makes no sense for Moses to write.” Further, saying things like Leviticus and Deuteronomy were later additions makes a mockery of many NT passages which explicitly link them to Mosaic authorship (e.g. Mat 8:4 says Moses authored Leviticus; and Mat 19:7 says Moses wrote Deuteronomy).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Most “researchers” today are liberals who deny the Inspiration of Scripture and thus will do whatever they need to in order to make the Bible look too silly to be from God and rather a collection of stories from men. Modernism (a doctrinal error repeatedly condemned by the Church) basically teaches that if science cannot explain something, then it shouldn’t be trusted; thus miracles and divine revelation and such are untrustworthy and little more than myth and stories from men around the campfire.

I see nothing in Deut 20:17 that “makes no sense for Moses to write.” Further, saying things like Leviticus and Deuteronomy were later additions makes a mockery of many NT passages which explicitly link them to Mosaic authorship (e.g. Mat 8:4 says Moses authored Leviticus; and Mat 19:7 says Moses wrote Deuteronomy).

So why did Moses write Leviticus and Deuteronomy ?

Second why command to kill every man, woman, and child in a place you will never be?

 

[juliamajor]

Just because a researcher or scholar comes out of the 20th &21st century doesn’t make him a “modernist”(a term used to extreme toward any scholar not pleasing to some folks) or automatically wrong! Believe it or not the 20th century is probably the most knowledge about the Bible through Archaeology and new insights into the culture and language of the time via libraries like Ebla, Mari or Nag Hammadi.The Dead sea scrolls gave us more insight into biblical scholarship that the 1900 years before it.

 

[juliamajor]

So why did Moses write Leviticus and Deuteronomy ?

Second why command to kill every man, woman, and child in a place you will never be?

And if all are "God spoken " laws why do we not continue them?You can say “well the new covenant says that we don’t- yada, yada, yada” but Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and not one jot or tittle would be changed.The Laws and feast were made into perpetuity! So why don’t we follow everything? or does doctrine evolve? Or do we think some of the laws were not “God spoken” or necessary for salvation? Or were they created by Moses? These are ongoing questions- that maybe answered with ongoing scholarship.Not everything can be cavalierly answered or dismissed by pejoratives tossed around that someone is a “liberal” or “modernist”( I was under the impression it was the church was the decision maker if someone was or is in error-silly me).