#Mosaic law how to#
#Mosaic law free#

Having a king did not prevent other people from treating each other badly, and some times the king was the most evil one of all, and he was supposed to be the leader.

ThatвЂ™s the solution- if we put one human to rule over us, rather than God, then we will finally be able to govern ourselves successfully.вЂќ But that did not work either. It seems as though they thought, вЂњThatвЂ™s it. So humans decided they should have a king rule over them.

#Mosaic law how to#

In other words, the Mosaic Law was applied to sinful conditions, such as polygamy, not to condone or endorse such evils, but to limit the damaging effects of those evilsвЂ“all in an attempt to see that if God gave guidelines to help humans carry out their understanding of how to treat and govern each other, could they then govern themselves in a way that would be successful and bring themselves happiness. For instance, there are rules related to polygamy, which does not reflect God's moral stance, but rules are still given as to the rights of the second wife so that she is not abused (Exod. Rather, many of the laws in the Torah were rules God set around the peopleвЂ™s beliefs and practices to curb and contain abuse. This approach of God toward humans is evidenced by the fact that not all the rules given at Mt. Yet to let more evidence accrue without humans totally annihilating themselves, God would have to intervene in human affairs in a way that would still give them the chance to govern themselves. God let humans see that they did need God's intervention, but human arrogance would not allow God to let one instance suffice in establishing the case of his superior ability to govern humans. So much violence was on the earth that God had to destroy it with a flood. Everyone did what was right in his or her own eyes.

And what was the result? HumansвЂ™ way of governing was absolute freedom. So apart from instructions of how to relate to God through religious ceremony for atonement, God appeared to give no instructions for how humans should relate to each other, thus giving the opportunity for humans to demonstrate whether their way of governing themselves would indeed be better than GodвЂ™s way. Since God would later codify into law the action of offering an animal for an atonement of sin, it is not absurd to suggest that God offered a sacrifice for the sin done in the Garden to illustrate the cost of sin, and that thereafter a practice of animal sacrifice arose before the Mosaic Law, as illustrated through Noah (Gen. When Adam sinned, a profound question was raised before an intelligent creation, вЂњIs way of governing better than GodвЂ™s way of governing? Can rule successfully independent of God?вЂќ Outside of the Garden, God gave no other explicitly stated rules, except for instructions for animal sacrifice, inferred from God making garments of skin, which of course would require the death of an animal.

#Mosaic law free#

Free will afforded the possibility of choosing between oneвЂ™s own will and GodвЂ™s will. Initially God gave only one command, one law, in the Garden, where the existence of a law enabled choice to be exercised. To illustrate this, consider the Mosaic Law in a historic rather than a mythic or purely literary context. But are the Bible and gender equality so antithetical that oneвЂ™s only hope to reconcile them is by stripping divine inspiration from the Bible, arguing that it is a book written by humans concerning their perspective of God over time? I believe affirming the divinity of the Bible will prove far more fruitful in incorporating the Mosaic Law within a Christian worldview that embraces equality between men and women. In other words, the apparent inequitable laws relating to women in the Mosaic Law are used to discredit the Bible as a whole. Often times examples from the Bible, especially the Law of Moses, are adduced to support the view that the Bible depicts God as a misogynist, and therefore it cannot be trusted.