"the precepts of men"

[Amie]

Matthew 15
7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, saying:
8 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and with their lips honor Me; but their heart holds far off from Me.
9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Isa. 29:13

Matthew 19
8 He said to them, In view of your hardheartedness, Moses allowed you to put away your wives. But from the beginning it was not so.

I think these two may be connected. Jesus interpreted the law with the "eyes of the spirit", which is a perspective not had before his time.

What of Matthew 19:8 though? Wasn't that law delivered as if it were from God? Didn't God say to Moses "write these words"?

:confused: Amie

[Bill]

Amie,

When Jesus says, "the precepts of men" I think He is referring to the Law of Moses and it was indeed given by God. This has always puzzled me. It's almost like mankind said to God, "Give me laws to obey and I'll show you how righteous I can be." And so God said, "Okay, try these and show me what you can do." My problem is that it doesn't ever say this. I have to read it into the passages based on the New Testament teaching about the Law. (As I understand it at least)

Hopefully someone wiser than me can help with this.

Bill

[Barry]

"teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
An additional rule of tradition that can be kept. The law could not be kept. Other precepts of men are added so as to have rules that could be kept to give the facade of being able to be justified by rules.
IE. Jesus is angry because following extended and made up rules are taking away from the work of the law. Which was: To condemn and also manifest a hidden spiritual truth (love your neighbor as your self).
The extended rules and made up rules could do neither of these. They were "distractions" from the true work of the law.

While the extensions onto the law and made of rules put into the law were at times quite rigid they nevertheless took away from the work of the law which was to condemn. One could not be legitimately condemned by a made up rule so even condemnation was undermined. Furthermore the made up rule did not contain the hidden truth behind the law (in general).
Also keeping a set of made up rules and artificial extensions on certain laws gave an appearance of righteousness. A facade of righteousness. Whereas the law as it was given simple showed all unjust in the flesh (in human possibility).

"What of Matthew 19:8 though? Wasn't that law delivered as if it were from God? Didn't God say to Moses "write these words"?"
Yes but Moses did this for the times in view. Theoretically divorce was not an option. Moses gave a provision in lue of the fact that it didn't always work out in practical application.
Like marrying the girl you raped. That does not really cover an area that the spirit of the law could express itself, but covered an area that was necessary because in practical application it would arise. IE. in view of this this is what must be done. However purity of the law as an expression of a greater truth is lost.
JMO Barry

[Amie]

When Jesus says, "the precepts of men" I think He is referring to the Law of Moses and it was indeed given by God.

The KJV reads "commandments" rather than "precepts". I think that it's law-linked as well, which is why I thought the two passages might relate.

The "given by God" part is confusing when Jesus says that Moses gave it - and Moses said that God gave it. But hey, I'm only here to confuse you even more with my confusion, lol!


It's almost like mankind said to God, "Give me laws to obey and I'll show you how righteous I can be." And so God said, "Okay, try these and show me what you can do."

Yeah, I see it like mankind said to God "I don't need you, I can do this myself!" and God said "Go ahead and try it, here's how to do it on your own".. and we couldn't do it even with instructions because we are not righteous in how we interpreted the "how". I think we're saying the same thing, haha.


Jesus is angry because following extended and made up rules are taking away from the work of the law.

So how do we 'cipher which rules in the OT are made up, and which are from God. Moses said the divorce thing was from God, didn't he?


Like marrying the girl you raped. That does not really cover an area that the spirit of the law could express itself, but covered an area that was necessary because in practical application it would arise.

I think the spiritual application of that law is the head of covenant takes responsibility for those he took into covenant without consent. Rape is a violent and unloving act for sure. The gentiles were under either covenant without ever having accepted it themselves, weren't they? (All dead and then all living?)


However purity of the law as an expression of a greater truth is lost.

Do you think that it's lost to even us today? (having "spiritual eyes")

Thanks for helping me with this.

Amie

[Barry]

You lost me sis.
In case this help:
Try Mark 7:1-23 and read again my vague comments.
Note that verse 7 "commandments" reflects upon what Jesus is referring to "traditions of men" verse 8. Through traditions "commandments of men" they were taking away from the work of the law.
Correct me if you think you see something off.
Barry

[Amie]

Mark 7
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes questioned Him, Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?

I might be confused as to the OT wording here..

Lev 24
1 ¶ And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying,
2 Command the sons of Israel, and they shall bring to you pure olive oil, beaten, for the light, to cause a light to burn continually.
3 Outside the veil of the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation Aaron shall arrange it from evening until morning before Jehovah continually, a perpetual statute throughout your generations.
4 He shall arrange the lamps on the pure lampstand before Jehovah continually.
5 And you shall take flour, and shall bake twelve cakes with it; two tenths shall be in the one cake.
6 And you shall set them in two rows, six on a row on the pure table before Jehovah.
7 And you shall put pure frankincense on the row, and it shall be the bread of a memorial, a fire offering to Jehovah.
8 On each sabbath day he shall arrange it before Jehovah continually, from the sons of Israel, a never ending covenant.
9 And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons, and they shall eat it in the sanctuary, for it is most holy to him, from the fire offerings of Jehovah, a never ending statute.

Exodus 30
17 ¶ And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying,
18 And you shall make a bronze laver for washing, and its base bronze. And you shall put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar; and you shall put water there.
19 And Aaron and his sons shall wash from it, their hands and their feet;
20 as they go into the tabernacle of the congregation they shall wash with water, and shall not die; or as they draw near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire offering to Jehovah.
21 And they shall wash their hands and their feet, and shall not die. And it shall be a never ending statute to them, to him and to his seed for their generations.

So I'm more than likely confused actually, lol (Don't give up on me!)
It sounds as if it were unlawful to eat the shewbread with unclean hands just the same as it was lawful for a man to divorce a woman for any reason. Jesus then seems to give a righteous interpretation in place of the one limited by the perception of humanity (the "eyes of the flesh").

If God said to Moses "Write this down" and he did, how could the law have been misinterpreted to need a more righteous interpretation as Jesus offered? Either Moses did the best he could by his understanding, OR, the texts themselves are not trustworthy - if that's true.

I have a hard time doubting Moses because God talked directly to him, not appearing in visions and dreams...

Trying to work this out,

Amie

[Barry]

Hi Amie,
I'm reading Mark 7:3 "a special way", 7:11 "is Corban" as artificial extension and made up rule respectively. And so "teaching as doctrines the commands of men". Is that what you see?

The true meaning of the washing would be fulfilled in Christ. The spirit of the law as would touch the heart would not be harmed in Christ's suspending of the washing to make a point. Christ would not suspend an honoring of the parents to produce a neglect to which would undermine one law to claim righteousness through another tradition.
They were then guilty of breaking the law and the spirit of it through precepts of men.
Christ did a similar thing on the subject of the sabbath in his healing which did not undermine the spirit of the law as would be manifest in fulfillment which was making one whole again.

Tell me what ya think?
Barry

[Bill]

Amie,

You said,


Yeah, I see it like mankind said to God "I don't need you, I can do this myself!" and God said "Go ahead and try it, here's how to do it on your own".. and we couldn't do it even with instructions because we are not righteous in how we interpreted the "how". I think we're saying the same thing, haha.

I do think we are pretty much in agreement but I think that when people say, "I don't need you, I can do this myself!" they are saying that in an attempt to please God. Here's a story I wrote that explains this in more detail.

http://home.insightbb.com/~leo724/Introduction.html

I'd love to know what you think!

Bill

[Paige]

I enjoyed the story, Bill. Great insight too about how the gift, whcih was given to please, became burdensome. Isn't that so much like real life?

Paige

[Bill]

Thanks Paige.

I'm glad you liked it. I think it's especially like real life when you think of the gift as God's revelation which is meant to give us freedom but we turn it into a burden.

Bill

[davo]

Yeah Bill I thought it was good too -- I kept reading throught the "next" pages, all good stuff, but then it's like someone pinched the last page :( . Guess you're still working on it :) :clap2: .

[kevinbeck]

Amie,
Have you considered the distinction in Gen 6 b/w the sons of God and the daughters of men? Categories of orientation. Just as the NC is from above and the OC from below. Those sorts of distinctins are found throughout John. So perhaps the commandments/precepts/traditions of men are just another way of referring to the Law--not as not being from God, but being oriented toward the Old Order of things.

[Amie]

Bill,

I really enjoyed that article, and some of the others as well. It is refreshing to consider another way of looking at things.

After Adam and Eve had eaten the apple and hidden and God was walking through the garden saying "Where are you?", I used to hear it in a neutral tone.. Like if I came home from work and called out to my husband to see where he was. I knew/know a lot of people who heard/hear the words in a stern tone, which always brought to my mind the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk. Kevin Beck suggested that the tone might be one of a worried and concerned father - which I think is sweet :).

It is interesting that how we view God affects even how we interpret the bible, isn't it?



Barry,

In what you pointed out, those do sound like "gezeirah" which is "a fence around the Law". If there was a law against eating cookies for example, then the gezeirah would probably say to stay out of the kitchen. That makes perfect sense as per "commandments of men".

What confuses me is like the hand washing which is listed as an actual Law (unless I am misunderstanding it which is also possible, lol). The reason that the Law could be fulfilled in Jesus is that he knew the righteous interpretation thereof. With what Jesus taught us, we can look back at the law and recognize those things most of the time.

If it's an actual law though, why is it included as a "commandment of men"? Are you suggesting that is because it had already been fulfilled (I can accept that).

Also, divorce was something given by Moses (and I may be interpreting wrong, but also from Moses) according to Jesus. According to the OT, Moses included divorce as part of the Law given by God.. so why is it then being attributed wholly to Moses? Or did I read that OT text wrong? (Which again, is very possible)


Have you considered the distinction in Gen 6 b/w the sons of God and the daughters of men? Categories of orientation. Just as the NC is from above and the OC from below. Those sorts of distinctins are found throughout John. So perhaps the commandments/precepts/traditions of men are just another way of referring to the Law--not as not being from God, but being oriented toward the Old Order of things.

You wrote this as I was writing this reply. This I think, is going to clear things up for me. I'm going to sit with it a bit.

Thanks,

Amie

[Barry]

Hi Amie,
I have a few stray thoughts about these things.

Here is a bit of a ground work on my thoughts that work to form my opinions:
I see what we call the "spirit of the law" as what is just and good under the circumstances. It also may reflect coming fulfillment (David eating the show bread).

Concerning divorce then my view is not to say that divorce is immoral or wrong. Moses however allowed for divorce because divorce was inevitable. Because it was inevitable some protection needed to be given to the female so that she would not become so destitute. So a certificate was given to offer some level of protection.
[However, I see the word "fornication" (Jesus' words) as metaphorical to idolatry meaning worship of other gods. A Jewish spouse worshiping a false god would mean divorce (the spouse was no longer of Israel). Since this was common among the Gentile Christians Paul had to give alternative commands. Or else half the church would get divorced LOL]

The focus of Matt. 5:32 IMO is that God had now every right to issue them (apostate Israel) fornicators (idolaters) with a legitimate certificate of divorce. What had been given by moses because of the hardness of Israel's heart would be fulfilled legitimatly by God and role played out in the first fruits. This was to be role played in the lives of the first-fruits as a fleshing out of fulfillment. More easily done among the Jewish first-fruits than the Gentiles (see above comment). This however, IMO being one of the "norms" that the first-fruits were under until they entered their rest. Then they would be free from working fulfillment. What is ethical thereafter becomes a different topic, but not one of fulfillment.



As such then the law can be categorized. But difficultly so even by us in retrospect. In any case what Moses had given was not "grace and truth". Grace and truth had to be interpreted and extrapulated and then fulfilled by Christ and his body.
How this was done with Jews and Gentiles takes on two different applications. Toward the Gentile IMO most of the law was a command of men. Toward the Jew all that was not of a spirit of the law was a command of men still leaving them with a "Jesus version" of every letter and word of the law till all is (was) fulfilled.
That's my best shot so far.
Barry

[Bill]

Sorry, Davo.

I wrote all of this a few years ago and was going through such hard stuff with my "religious" "friends" that I gave up. Since you (and others here) have given me some postitive feedback maybe I'll finish the work I've started. I spend most of my free time now working on Billsbloggins and of course reading all the posts here at Talk-Grace (thanks to Ed) and other places.

Here's a link to the index page so you can see what else was supposed to go with the Marti story.

http://home.insightbb.com/~leo724/Title_Page.html

Thanks for your encouragement!

Bill

[Amie]

I have a few stray thoughts about these things.

I'll watch out for them (the stray thoughts), I know they can get dangerous ;), lol!

I'm betting we could fill another thread with discussion on marriage, divorce, and covenantal perspectives :).


In any case what Moses had given was not "grace and truth".

I think that it was "grace and truth", though "grace and truth" could not be seen in it from the perspective of a human being. I think the Laws were delivered accurately, and interpreted by the "old man" inaccurately. At first, I was confused because of it and wondering what that meant for the reliability of Moses or the OT. Kevin's comment helped me through that, as did your working this out with me. As you said "Grace and truth had to be interpreted and extrapulated and then fulfilled by Christ and his body."

Now I need advice on relief for a sore brain! Shew!

AND THANK YOU!

[Bill]

Amie,

I agree. Our understanding of God shapes our understanding of the Bible. I've often wondered how I would interpret the Scriptures if I came from a different background. My parents were both very loving and accepting when I was a child and so I think that has helped me see God as loving and accepting.

My understanding of God's question in the garden, "Where are you?" is that He is showing them the respectful love that an earthly father has for his own children, or at least should have. Of course He knows where they are and what they have done. Instead of coming down hard on them He engages them in a conversation to help them understand the consequences of what they have done. Then He forgives them and provides for them as before. As you and Kevin have said, we have a very sweet heavenly Father.

Bill

[Amie]

I see that the way that I typed that made it look as if Kevin said it (that it's sweet) as well, but that was my comment on his interpretation... and now your's as well Bill.

Amie