Was the Law Binding on Israel Immediately when Given?

GaoLu

Did Israel, when given the Law of God by Moses in the desert, immediately recognized the writing as canon, as written commands from God which absolutely had to be obeyed?

Or...was the Law of Moses something that evolved over time and solidified culturally as Israel matured as a nation?

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
Did Israel, when given the Law of God by Moses in the desert, immediately recognized the writing as canon, as written commands from God which absolutely had to be obeyed?

"recognize the writing as canon" ??? what is that actually supposed to mean? I would think that Moses was not unclear and in no uncertain terms told Israel what were God's commandments / God's law / the laws regulating their covenant relation to God, etc .. why therefore should Israel not recognize what Moses commanded as God's commands? It seems to me from what is recorded in Scripture that of course God's law was binding for Israel, as God had communicated it clearly and in rather plain language so they could obey and do what they had been commanded.

It should be obvious that God's revelation to Moses was not written down in the exact detail and wording and form as are in OT scriptures ("5 books of Moses") in one moment in time and thus available as a whole immediately. However, there should be no question that the children of Israel could understand what God revealed to them via His prophet Moses ... The fact that they disobeyed God's law does not mean that they did not know or understand God's law, rather the opposite is true, as one can only disobey something one has known and understood.

Or...was the Law of Moses something that evolved over time and solidified culturally as Israel matured as a nation?

Well, when did Israel "mature as a nation"? what does "mature" even mean in such a statement? Did they ever mature as a nation to obey God's commands, or did they rather go the route of apostasy and unbelief for most of the time they existed as a nation from entering the land after coming out of Egypt to the end of that age when God's judgement came upon them with the final destruction of the OT "nation Israel" when they as a nation rejected God's Messiah?

GaoLu

Yiour comments are what I expected from you. And I agree. But many liberal theologians apparently do not. I don’t know their arguments and wondered who here takes that position and if so how they defend it.

I am sort of plagiarizing a bit—borrowing the idea/question largely from James Boice’s new book on Moses (not in Logos yet).

Dave_L

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (1 Timothy 1:9–10)

So, they were like cattle not knowing anything of faith (except for Moses and a few). And the harsh penalties for breaking the Law, as in the golden calf violation taught them up to a point. But they remained dull and rebellious until God did away with them completely when he abolished circumcision on the cross. Leaving only the believers in tact.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (1 Timothy 1:9–10)

So, they were like cattle not knowing anything of faith (except for Moses and a few). And the harsh penalties for breaking the Law, as in the golden calf violation taught them up to a point. But they remained dull and rebellious until God did away with them completely when he abolished circumcision on the cross. Leaving only the believers in tact.

Here we have another demonstration of a NT > OT "backwards interpretation" resulting in scriptural non-sense. Not observing context is detrimental as one can see here once again.

I suppose the "except for Moses and a few" would actually mean that the Law was not given for them to obey and they were not really under the Law?

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (1 Timothy 1:9–10)

So, they were like cattle not knowing anything of faith (except for Moses and a few). And the harsh penalties for breaking the Law, as in the golden calf violation taught them up to a point. But they remained dull and rebellious until God did away with them completely when he abolished circumcision on the cross. Leaving only the believers in tact.

Here we have another demonstration of a NT > OT "backwards interpretation" resulting in scriptural non-sense. Not observing context is detrimental as one can see here once again.

I suppose the "except for Moses and a few" would actually mean that the Law was not given for them to obey and they were not really under the Law?

“Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Romans 11:3–5)

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
“Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Romans 11:3–5)

And more of the same ... verses taken out of context and thrown in as answers to questions which they do not even address ...

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
“Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Romans 11:3–5)

And more of the same ... verses taken out of context and thrown in as answers to questions which they do not even address ...

Face it Wolfgang, Abraham, Job, Abel and the other born again did not need anyone to tell them not to steal or murder. This is why the Ten Commandments HUNG from the Two Great Commandments. At a level even the most wicked could understand. These who were only "good" under threat of death. And obeyed to appease their greed. “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (1 Timothy 1:9–10)

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Face it Wolfgang, Abraham, Job, Abel and the other born again did not need anyone to tell them not to steal or murder.

I am facing more "backwards interpretation" ... but then, how could your interpretation be any different seeing it is based in a kind of Calvinism.

Abraham believed and it (his believing) as counted to him for righteousness .... Dave_L version is that Abraham was born again and made righteous and after that he could believe ...

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Face it Wolfgang, Abraham, Job, Abel and the other born again did not need anyone to tell them not to steal or murder.

I am facing more "backwards interpretation" ... but then, how could your interpretation be any different seeing it is based in a kind of Calvinism.

Abraham believed and it (his believing) as counted to him for righteousness .... Dave_L version is that Abraham was born again and made righteous and after that he could believe ...

Abraham could not believe unless born again. Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

C Mc

@GaoLu said:
Did Israel, when given the Law of God by Moses in the desert, immediately recognized the writing as canon, as written commands from God which absolutely had to be obeyed?

Or...was the Law of Moses something that evolved over time and solidified culturally as Israel matured as a nation?

GaoLu,
Is it possible that the Law of God was "binding on Israel" BEFORE it was given at Sinai? In addition, was the Law of Moses is of God, but for civil-community-health purposes? CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

@GaoLu said:
Did Israel, when given the Law of God by Moses in the desert, immediately recognized the writing as canon, as written commands from God which absolutely had to be obeyed?

Or...was the Law of Moses something that evolved over time and solidified culturally as Israel matured as a nation?

GaoLu,
Is it possible that the Law of God was "binding on Israel" BEFORE it was given at Sinai? In addition, was the Law of Moses is of God, but for civil-community-health purposes? CM

How can a law be binding before it is given?