Are we obliged to follow the law of Moses?

That’s a bit of my own stuff, but the main sources for that bit were D.A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew, and James R. Edwards’ commentaries on Mark and Luke, as well as these:

William F. Luck, Sr., Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View. Here is a link to Chapter 6, The Teachings of Jesus on Divorce
Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey.

If you’re looking for a general overview of the historical context, I recommend Blomberg. Good place to start.

Edit: Deleted the Evans book. Good book, but it wasn’t a source for this part.

“Better not to marry!” would entail lifelong celibacy in that culture. Obviously, that’s not advice many people are capable of following, which Jesus’ answer recognizes. “Eunuch,” in this case, seems to me to refer to a person’s sex drive, not their sexual identity. The third category makes that clear, since the phrase “made themselves eunuchs” refers to a choice, not a physical fact. (I have to assume such people did not castrate themselves.) So, essentially, Jesus is saying that celibacy isn’t appropriate for most people, because we wouldn’t be able to control our physical desires.

Edit: I should add that those who made themselves eunuchs could be a reference to the Essenes, who practiced celibacy and excluded women from joining their ranks.

1 Like

Thanks! Have you read any work by this author:
Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061561037/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_At8lBbCA61E3P

It seems like a book that gets into the ancient context in a thorough way.

Your covenant must be with YHWH, not a picking and a choosing of what you want to do.

Great title! Haven’t read any of her stuff, but I’ll check it out. Thanks for the tip.

Yes, but the Mosaic law was YHWH’s covenant with Israel, not the whole of mankind, like the Noachide law was.

1 Like

I thought Jesus was a He. Sounds interesting though!

Ouch! You’re killin’ me! Lol

That’s not to say that Genesis 9:4 has nothing to do with animal welfare. I think it is very much due to the pain inflicted on the animal which has been severely wounded without being killed. It could be due to respect for life as a whole however, which is still an environmentalist message.

Interesting. Thanks for this. I thought Gen 9:4 had to do with ritual blood drainage at slaughtering. You can’t eat meat with the blood remaining in it. Blood has significance throughout the Scripture. Muslims do the same thing to make something halal (along with reciting prayers, etc). Thanks.

I had not known that some commentaries talk about eating portions of a living animal. Of course, you know more about this than I. 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.