Paul and Moses

[Jiggy37]

Got this thread idea from something Elizabeth_S said today...
I do not remember the exact number [either she meant of OT laws or of the Pharisees' "extra" laws]. But Jesus said that the Pharisees took the rules and changed belief into religion.

That is what I was trying to get to.

And it was Moses who came up with some of the Law, as Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of their hard hearts. Not that God set forth what Moses allowed, but what Moses put forth.
So...
Matthew 19
8He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.


Mark 10
2The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him.
3And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her."
5And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.


1 Corinthians 7
12But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him....if it's Paul's command and not the Lord's, and if it was Moses who permitted divorce rather than God, how is that reconciled with the idea that all scripture is God-breathed?

And isn't it interesting that the only two instances of this (a prophet or apostle speaking something that's apparently not God's Word, while also not going against God's Word)--or at least the only two that I know of--both involve divorce? :confused

[frisian1970]

Got this thread idea from something Elizabeth_S said today...

So...
...if it's Paul's command and not the Lord's, and if it was Moses who permitted divorce rather than God, how is that reconciled with the idea that all scripture is God-breathed?

And isn't it interesting that the only two instances of this (a prophet or apostle speaking something that's apparently not God's Word, while also not going against God's Word)--or at least the only two that I know of--both involve divorce? :confusedIn that Timothy wasn't likely speaking of a NT canon as scripture, that could clear such. :heh Not sure on the Moses reference.

[dman]

Seems to me what paul said was more in the line of logic than makeing a law or a precept.

if one in a marriage believes and the others doesn't yet they are willing to live with and acept it why would they divorce in the first place.

By the way this is not the only place in the bible where paul does this type of things another verse in Corinthians I can't remember where right off the top of my head in regaurds to head cover .

How ever keep in mind That the bible is gods inspired word , Paul as are we was lead by the holy spirit ...

if some Married friend came to you who's wife was a nonbeliever came to you and asked what the bible says about this You would say well let look in Corinthians and see what it says paul as were all chirst apostle given power to act on his behalf in his absents as the spirit lead...

[Big Daddy]

1 Corinthians 7
12But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.

Look at the similarity.

Jer.3
[1] They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
[2] Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.
[3] Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.
[4] Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?
[5] Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest.
[6] The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
[7] And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
[8] And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
[9] And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
[10] And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
[11] And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
[12] Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
[13] Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
[14] Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
[15] And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
[16] And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
[17] At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.
[18] In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.
[19] But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.
[20] Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.
[21] A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God.
[22] Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God.
[23] Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel.
[24] For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters.
[25] We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.

God divorces Israel.
But, there is a reconciliation.

[blitzkreig]

I posted this in an answer to another thread and it is worth repeating here. It is part of an appendix to a book I recently read by CR Stam simply titled “COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS”


Some hold that it was written only by man, but they are wrong. Everywhere this
Book abounds with evidence that God is its divine Author. Its fulfilled
prophecies, its sublime harmony, its power to regenerate and transform lives,
the authority with which it speaks, never deigning to defend its divine authorship,
but rather assuming it - all this stamps it as the Book of God. In addition its
divine authorship is declared in many individual passages (Rom. 3:1,2; Eph.
6:17; II Tim. 3:16; Heb. 4:12; 5:12; II Pet. 1:21 et al).

Others hold that the Bible is only the Word of God, but these too are wrong.
It is significant that God chose Matthew, the publican, to portray Christ as King;
Luke, the physician, to portray Him as Man; Mark, Paul's attendant, to portray
Him as Servant; and John, the disciple who was closest to Him, to present Him
as God. These men, individually, were the very ones to present Him as they did.
Often this human authorship is shown to be important. Our Lord frequently
reminded His hearers of what Moses had said to them in the Scriptures, knowing
their great respect for Moses (Matt. 19:8; et al). Luke says, "I had a complete
understanding of these things from the beginning" (Luke 1:3), implying that he
was qualified to write about our Lord's earthly ministry. Paul says: "Behold, I
Paul say unto you..." (Gal. 5:2), implying that his saying it should bear weight
with his readers. The freedom with which these men wrote is manifest on every
hand, as for example, in the closing paragraphs of Paul's last epistle, where he
sends greetings to individuals, includes small news items, asks for the cloak he
had left at Troas, etc. Surely he had no idea at the time that he was writing the
Word of God. He wrote as one human being to another.

To solve this problem still others have concluded that the Bible is partly the
Word of God and partly the word of man, but these too are wrong. If they were
right we would still be without an authoritative revelation from God, for none of
us could ascertain what was written by man and what by God.

The truth is that the Bible is wholly the Word of God, yet at the same time,
wholly the word of man, and to hold any of the other three positions one must
ignore plain passages of Scripture, or distort them to make them conform to his
own doctrinal views. It is the miracle of divine inspiration that a man could sit
down and write, in one mood or another, with complete freedom to express
himself and lo, what he writes is also, every word, the Word of God! We cannot
comprehend this - yet! - but the regenerate heart bows in faith to the Book and
says, “I believe."

Do we then place God and man on the same level? By no means, for the
human writers in every case were subordinate to the divine Author, even though
this Book was written wholly by man and at the same time wholly by God.

[Jiggy37]

In that Timothy wasn't likely speaking of a NT canon as scripture, that could clear such. :heh Not sure on the Moses reference.That's an interesting point. What was the process for determining what was and wasn't canonical at the time, if any? :confused Was there a canon to begin with that he could have been referring to?



blitzkrieg: It "sounds" good, but then I'm left with this question:
If the Bible was both fully written by God and fully written by man, then why would it be fully written by God that a part of it was said by Paul rather than Him?

[Elizabeth_S]

Got this thread idea from something Elizabeth_S said today...

So...
...if it's Paul's command and not the Lord's, and if it was Moses who permitted divorce rather than God, how is that reconciled with the idea that all scripture is God-breathed?

And isn't it interesting that the only two instances of this (a prophet or apostle speaking something that's apparently not God's Word, while also not going against God's Word)--or at least the only two that I know of--both involve divorce? :confused
Jiggy,
I was making another point entirely, but ALL Scripture is God breathed.

But what God allows to what God commands is 2 different things.

If we use the rules Moses set forth for divorce in the OT (not for or against divorce, just making a point about content) we see in the NT, that Jesus says something different about divorce.

The point I was making in the spirit of the law verses the law, people can get lost in religion, rather than faith in Christ. And change what God wanted and meant in the 1st place.

The law never saved - it kept watch until Jesus came to fulfill the law, and the cloud of witnesses (from Hebrews) were saved for faith and not keeping any law or anything else.

The could of witnesses, Abraham, Sara, David, et al, we saved because of faith.

Now, have I mudded up the waters completely?

I am no big expert on the OT, so I may not be making my point as I hope, :D: but it all makes sense to me.

[blitzkreig]

blitzkrieg: It "sounds" good, but then I'm left with this question:
If the Bible was both fully written by God and fully written by man, then why would it be fully written by God that a part of it was said by Paul rather than Him?Ah... but you may be reading the margin notes as Scripture.

I think we need to understand that the Bible as we see it today is Man's reflection of Scripture as it was given by God. Not the original.

For example Scripture had no chapter, or verse structure. Man has introduced that to ease reading. It is my understanding that Scripture had no punctuation (the way we see it today)... we have crammed that all into the Text. Is there a chance that we might be missing something because we have added punctuation and broken the cadence of the Scripture? Is there a chance we might misinterpret something because that thought is not carried through to the next Chapeter?

Perhaps...

[frisian1970]

Ah... but you may be reading the margin notes as Scripture.

I think we need to understand that the Bible as we see it today is Man's reflection of Scripture as it was given by God. Not the original.

For example Scripture had no chapter, or verse structure. Man has introduced that to ease reading. It is my understanding that Scripture had no punctuation (the way we see it today)... we have crammed that all into the Text. Is there a chance that we might be missing something because we have added punctuation and broken the cadence of the Scripture? Is there a chance we might misinterpret something because that thought is not carried through to the next Chapeter?

Perhaps...Or ignore the significance of every jot and tittle?

[Jiggy37]

Jiggy,
I was making another point entirely, but ALL Scripture is God breathed.Okay. :):

For example Scripture had no chapter, or verse structure. Man has introduced that to ease reading. It is my understanding that Scripture had no punctuation (the way we see it today)... we have crammed that all into the Text. Is there a chance that we might be missing something because we have added punctuation and broken the cadence of the Scripture? Is there a chance we might misinterpret something because that thought is not carried through to the next Chapeter?

Perhaps...Mmm... revelatory.
I almost feel like starting another thread now. :wacko

[Hootmon]

Is there a chance we might misinterpret something because that thought is not carried through to the next Chapeter?That is certainly the case, at least occasionally.

[blitzkreig]

I will give you an example Hootmon. I think we have sufficiently derailed the thread I hope this small tangent is OK.

In the KJV the tail end of Romans 7 and the first 5 verses of Romans 8 are all one thought. It was written in one sitting. The power of the argument is weakend because they are seperated by a Chapter break.

But here is where it gets "interesting.

Romans 8:1 in the KJV first:There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Now from the NASB: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Quite a difference.

The following is a quote from "A Study on The Book of Romans" by C.R.Stam ... I know you will find it very interesting HootmonA CONSIDERATION OF ROMANS 8:1b
AS FOUND IN THE AUTHORIZED VERSION

We believe that the English Authorized, or King James Version of the Bible
stands head and shoulders above the Revised Version and all the modern
translations that have followed in RV's train.

We do not, however, subscribe to the merely philosophical argument that
"surely God would have" preserved His revelation word-for-word for all the
generations that followed the disappearance of the original writings, and that
today this "perfectly preserved" Bible is the English Authorized Version. We
believe this argument virtually answers itself, for:

(1) To preserve the Scriptures word-for-word, the original documents would
have had to be kept safe for us intact up to the present time, and it is evident
that God has not seen fit to do this. Actually God has preserved the Scriptures
intact, but not in one translation into one language (Psa. 119:89). (2) It is
impossible to translate any extended passage from one language into another
word-for-word, for the simple reason that each language contains words and
expressions which others do not. (3) Probably no extensive copies of any early
manuscript, text or translation of the Bible have ever been perfectly identical.
We believe that God in His wisdom has been pleased to withhold the original
manuscripts from the succeeding generations, perhaps because man is so prone
to idolatry (consider the brazen serpent and Elijah's altar, both of which were
destroyed).

We believe, however, that God has graciously overruled human infirmity and
sin so that we have in our hands, in the Authorized Version, a Bible so
remarkably free from error that we can say of even this translation, "This is the
Bible," with greater confidence than we could say of an English translation of,
say, Luther's Galatians, "This is Luther's Galatians."

We believe that theological integrity as well as linguistic ability has ever been
important in the translation of the Bible from the original tongues (I Cor. 2:11,14).
While Textus Receptus (the Received Text of the Reformation, mainly followed
by AV) is aptly called the majority text, it does not follow from this that every
single rendering in AV is necessarily correct or best. The translators of AV,
though great and godly men, were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, as were the
original writers (though they were signally aided by the Holy Spirit in their work),
and must often have had to weigh the validity of one set of evidence against
another. All this bears witness that the Bible is more than paper and ink; it is the
living Word of God.

Textual evidence as to which MSS, etc., include the latter part of Rom. 8:1 and
which omit it, can hardly be wholly conclusive, for if indeed this clause is a gloss
added by some copyist, this was probably done to an earlier MS than any we
possess.

Let us turn, then, to some of the theological considerations involved.
1. Rom. 8:lb can hardly be a statement of fact, for many, indeed most believers
do not consistently walk "after the Spirit" but rather walk all too consistently
"after the flesh." Even Paul, in Rom. 7, acknowledges this problem with respect
to himself, though he walked "after the Spirit" to a remarkable degree. Also, if
8:lb is a statement of fact, i.e., that all those "in Christ Jesus" do "walk after the
Spirit" and not "after the flesh," then why all of Paul's exhortations to believers to
walk after the Spirit rather than after the flesh? This is not to deny, of course,
that in exercising faith in Christ in the first place, one does in fact follow the
dictates of the Spirit rather than those of the flesh.

2. If, on the other hand, 8:lb is a qualifying clause, our security in Christ is made
to depend upon our walk. This clause is also found in Ver. 4, where it fits in
naturally with the context, but the moral state of those not condemned does not
fit in with the truth of 8:la. Furthermore, 8:la does fit in perfectly with 8:2,3, which
follow immediately if 8:lb is omitted.

3. Considering the fact that the exact same phrase is found in Rom. 8:4 (within
a different context, where it fits perfectly), would it be strange if a copyist added
these words to 8:la, fearing that this unqualified declaration might produce
harmful effects? Many in our day fear that the proclamation of pure grace might
produce lax conduct among believers, and this has been a common problem
through the centuries. Indeed, it was a problem even in Paul's day,
as is evident from the fact that he deals with it so fully in Rom. 6 and 7.
4. The bold declaration of 8:la, following immediately after the climactic cry,
"Who shall deliver me"! of 7:24,25, does not appear to justify the addition of the
clause "who walk not," etc., after 8:la, for the believer is set free from
condemnation simply because he is "in Christ Jesus," not because he succeeds
in walking after the Spirit (See Rom. 6 and 7).

5. It has been suggested that self-condemnation is in view here as in Rom.
14:22,23, but this is not consistent with the words of 8: la, for there is selfcondemnation
to "them that are in Christ Jesus" (See 7:15-25). Furthermore this
would militate against the whole sweep of this part of Romans and most
especially against the immediate context of 7:24,25 and 8:2-4.

If Rom. 8:lb is to be considered in any sense a statement of fact, as in the last
sentence of No. I above, then surely it belongs in parentheses so that the force
of Rom. 8:la with 8:2,3 is not destroyed and may rather be fully appreciated.
Read Rom. 8:1-4 without the latter part of Ver. 1, and rejoice in the power of the
Apostle's declaration.

[Hootmon]

I will give you an example Hootmon. I think we have sufficiently derailed the thread I hope this small tangent is OK.

In the KJV the tail end of Romans 7 and the first 5 verses of Romans 8 are all one thought. It was written in one sitting. The power of the argument is weakend because they are seperated by a Chapter break. Yes. That would be a good example of a place where the Chapter break was inserted incorrectly.


But here is where it gets "interesting.

Romans 8:1 in the KJV first: Now from the NASB: Quite a difference.

The following is a quote from "A Study on The Book of Romans" by C.R.Stam ... I know you will find it very interesting Hootmon
Interesting. There seems to be a 50/50 split on who has that fragment and who doesnt. Rom 8:1

(ALT) Consequently, [there is] now no condemnation to the [ones] in Christ Jesus, [who] do not walk about [fig., conduct themselves] according to flesh, _but_ according to [the] Spirit [or, to spirit, and possibly elsewhere in 8:2-15].

(ASV) There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.

(CEV) If you belong to Christ Jesus, you won't be punished.

(GNB) There is no condemnation now for those who live in union with Christ Jesus.

(GW) So those who are believers in Christ Jesus can no longer be condemned.

(ISV) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in union with Christ Jesus.

(KJV) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

(LITV) There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to flesh, but according to Spirit.

(MKJV) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

(MSG) With the arrival of Jesus, the Messiah, that fateful dilemma is resolved. Those who enter into Christ's being-here-for-us no longer have to live under a continuous, low-lying black cloud.

(NASB) Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

(YLT) There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit; I agree that it probably belongs there, and was omitted in some of the surviving manuscripts.

[blitzkreig]

I agree that it probably belongs there, and was omitted in some of the surviving manuscripts.Personally I would think it the other way round ... to make it consistent with other Scripture. But of course nobody can be dogmatic about it.

Interesting though isn't it ...?