The Imperfect Mosaic Law
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2021
- If the Torah is from God why does it contain some pretty bad teachings? Shouldn't God have taught a better system than what we find in the Torah? Thank you to scholars Mark Chavalas and John Walton for helping with this video.
Part 1: • The Misunderstood Mosa...
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
Exploring the Composition of the Pentateuch - Baker Jr., Kenneth Bergland, Felipe A. Masotti, and A. Rahel Wells.
Psalms: Volume 1 - John Goldingay
A Commentary on the Psalms - Allen Ross
Professor John Walton TORAH Conference: • Professor John Walton ...
Daniel J. Hays - Applying the Old Testament Law Today:
faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_h...
Paul and the Faithfulness of God - N. T. Wright
John Walton and Brent Sandy - The Lost World of Scripture
John Walton - Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (2nd Ed.)
Craig Keener - The Gospel of Matthew: A Soci-Rhetorical Commentary
John Walton & J. Harvey Walton - The Lost World of the Torah - บันเทิง
I've been studying the Sermon on the Mount lately and this was super helpful. It is fascinating how many times Jesus says the Law said but now I say...
@Iron Collapse Matthew 5: 21-48
Actually he says "You have HEARD
@Iron Collapse Correct. There is nothing sinful about the law but it cannot make men righteous. The new testament is the better hope brought by Jesus
It's not quite as simple as antitheses, really what he's doing is teaching his 'yoke' or how you bear the burden of the Torah. The Lord’s easy yoke is what he teaches in the Sermon. It is focused on meaning and application, rather than making a new law. For example, the Torah doesn't say hate your enemies, that was some kind of interpretation or application of other Torah teachers. The Lord’s yoke differs from theirs.
The Lord does not reject the divorce law of the Torah, nor does he reject the Torah’s provisions limiting damages to the harm suffered. Nor does he reject the Torah’s take on murder and the death penalty, as the Torah restricts (prohibits) it by the two eye-witnesses rule and other safeguards that place it out of reach. The death penalty is really about political power used to repress angry words against the politically powerful. The Lord’s called those politically powerful fools, and his body was in danger of dishonorable disposal in gehenna, a fate he was saved from by Joseph.
We really need to take care and the trouble to dig into the context and background of the applications of the Torah to understand the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus is not contradicting the law in these passages. He is making the law even stricter for those that follow Him, to the point where the original laws will not even apply anymore.
Mat 5: 21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’
Jesus does not say that murder is okay now. He is making the rule even stricter by forbidding anger and hatred.
Mat 5: 27 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Jesus does not say adultery is okay now. He is making the rule even stricter by forbidding lust.
Mat 5: 31 It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
He is not saying to forego the certificate. He is making the rule even stricter by making divorce forbidden.
Mat 5: 33 Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’
He is not saying that breaking oaths is okay now. He is saying that you should not be swearing on things that do not belong to you in the first place.
Mat 5: 38 You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
He is not saying that judges should now judge unfairly. He is saying that, as the victim, you should not even take these things to the judge at all.
Whoa! This reminds me that if God enforces the perfect law, all humanity would have died instantly at the moment the law was given. Instead, God didn't do that. Unimaginable to man, God has prepared something far better!
God had one law for the representative of humanity: Adam and Eve . And they failed. But He didn’t carry its punishment instantly. This showing both the severity and mercy of God.
God prepared Jesus to come
@@FringeWizard2 - the only law of prohibition was not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The other laws were ‘go and multiply’ and ‘subdue the earth’ which were more of encouragements.
God is the perfect teacher after all!
I think that better prepared thing is for us to walk alongside God, as companions, with dignity and life, on our own feet. Like a baby we crawled, but our Father and Mother helped us to stand up. We fell, we were bruised and cried, but then they consoled us and encouraged us to take the next baby step :)
@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid I have long wondered what does it truly mean to "subdue" the earth (the way God intended, obviously). The word used in Genesis is וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ
What does it mean to "have dominion"? ( וּרְד֞וּ )
I'm wondering this now because we have obviously sinned and we are reaping what we sowed; because we are cruel and tyrannical to the earth and now it's groaning as in the pains of childbirth. The creation has been abused and it's decaying, and only the stubborn and stiff of neck believes we have not done this transgression.
Huh. It’s almost as if human beings are imperfect and God understood this. So, He gave concessions to His people.
You'd think an omniscient deity that understood that it's creation was "imperfect" would want to ensure this imperfect creation wouldn't indulge in something such as slavery and would...I don't know...maybe make laws against it, like it did with murder, bearing false witness, worshipping idols, etc. I guess omniscience has it's limitations?
@@epicurious6078 Or God is so omniscient, that He is literally able to voluntarily forfeit His complete interference in the lives of beings who He created with individuality and self-will, and yet still engineer HIStory and circumstances in the midst of them.
@@christianblack9426 "so omniscient" is redundant, it either IS or is NOT, just like it either interferes/intervenes or it doesn't.
@@epicurious6078 Being able to interfere or intervene, one can still NOT do so, if one chooses.
@@christianblack9426 your god doesn't have free will, only you do.
That was the most reasonable, down-to-earth approach to the issue I've ever seen. Whenever my skeptic friends bring up the Torah, I'm going to kindly point them to this series. I can't wait for part 3 now!
@@missouritravelers Bruh
@@missouritravelers How?
@@missouritravelers Ever hear of prohibition? Made consuming and selling alcohol illegal? People still drank, crime soared. It was better to regulate it not to outlaw it
How can God be responsible for our actions? He commands us to love our neighbors? When we do the polar opposite and mistreat other humans thats on us. Humanity has become narcissistic, we blame our evil on God
@@missouritravelers if you actually loved your neighbor would you do harm to them? it's very simple logic that apparently you can't comprehend, you just want to be argumentative....
"Skeptics use these verse to show that horrible things are permitted in the Bible."
Of course they are. These horrible things are called human beings, and not only does He permit them, but He even saves them time and time again, even laying down His own life to do so. No matter how much wrong they've done, he's always waiting with open arms, ready to forgive them. What a monster.
He created a universe where the majority of all people who ever lived will spend eternity in agonizing torment...
His most beloved creation, yet most will endure unimaginable suffering forever and ever.
(I know some Christians don't subscribe to the mainstream hell doctrine, and don't believe that non-Christians go to hell forever. If that's you, forget what I said.)
@@Reignor99 That's because the majority of people would rather go to Hell than repent of what they've done, and admit that they're the bad guy. It is only right that their free will is respected, even if it pains us. However, should anyone be willing, the Lord will give new life and a new heart to even the most wretched and despicable sinners. I should know, because He saved me, and I was as dead as they come.
@@jonathandoe1367 "Majority of people would rather go to Hell than repent of what they've done" - That's blatantly untrue. I hate the pain I've cause others, and I strive to be better. I do not believe in your god, and I don't believe repenting to him actually does anything. Still, I loathe my maliciousness and strive to be better.
Ted Bundy (serial killer) accepted Jesus into his heart before dying.
According to your doctrine, I will suffer eternal agony while Bundy is frolicking in Heaven with you.
This is why people think your god is a fictional monster. He is unjust, cruel, incompetent, and downright ridiculous.
@@Reignor99 You say that's it's untrue, and then you imply you would rather go to Hell than admit that you're just as bad as Ted Bundy. God is the righteous Judge, and He has the authority to decree that forgiveness is just. God is the One True King, and he the authority to issue pardons to any saint. Nonetheless, you have audacity to declare guilty innocent and the pardoned condemned. Actions have consequences. What do you think the consequences of impersonating a judge and rebelling against a king might be? The wage of sin is death, and you've already damned yourself, much as I once did, much as I do everyday. That's we need all need Jesus, because under the Law, we all would perish.
@@jonathandoe1367 I am NOT implying that I'd rather go to hell instead of admitting that I'm just as bad as Ted Bundy.
I'm implying that your god is a _fictional_ monster, and I don't need to worry about your fictional hell either.
If Moses didn't allow his people to divorce, I can imagine what harm husbands could cause their wives because of their stoneheartedness.
Or vice versa
@@BUENOSDIAS77126 men abusing women was a much greater problem because men are more physically stronger
After learning all of this, my biggest question is, how did modern Christianity get so far removed from the original understanding of the Bible? At this point, almost everything we are taught regarding the overall knowledge of the Bible is corrupt. It's heartbreaking because I genuinely think that if the people of this world knew the real God of the Bible, they would love him the way I know we do. But it just seems like an insurmountable task to wake them up.
Do you mean Catholics and some other denominations?
Well, a lot of this is known by scholars, it just hasn’t trickled down to the general population yet.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Mr. Jones, I am just waiting for Dr. Josh Bowen to come after this video.
That's why more than earthly knowledge we need to spend time with the holy spirit! and he touches people God bless you all
Can the real god of the bible stop pedophiles?
Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 shows God in fact hates slavery.
Exodus 21:7 and leviticus 20:13 shows your god loves to murder and enslave kids. chrsitianity is terrorism
@@mikebrigandi_feel free to elaborate
That means your God is a hypocrite and you just stated a contradiction.
If your God is all knowing than he must make no mistakes as per the bible "God is not the author of confusion".
Yet if God makes a contradictory mistake in bible that means either 2 things
1) Your God is not all knowing and is ignorant
2) bible is not from God.
Pick anyone as you wish too.
@@AntiFurryNatio and where are these contradictions?
If you watch the video. He is using the excuse of biblical slavery wasn’t slavery but bonded servitude. But when you make bonded servitude and extended to life and then subsequently make it heritable it replicates American colonial slavery. Second he assumes that laws for Hebrews and non Hebrews was applied the same. However Leviticus 25:44-46 differentiates Hebrew slaves from non Hebrew slaves so his assumption on equal treatment is incorrect.
Exodus 21:16
Punishing kidnapping of slaves with death was to prevent loss of property (the slave) by the slave master not to protect the slave.
Exodus 21:20-21
The slave master is only punished if the slaves dies within a day or two of slave’s beating. If slaves past two days died after beating then slave master is not punished. Also that rule was to stop slave masters from limiting inheritance to thier children.
Exodus 21:26-27
The slave was let go due to a broken eye or tooth because the slaves were damaged goods at that point and were useless to the slave master. That rule saved slave masters money from maintaining recovery of the slave or be held liable for his death if he died within a day or two.
Deutronomy: in case of the runaway slave. The runaway slave was running from being property from non Hebrew master. This rule let Israelites acquire allies from the already marginalized groups from the neighboring nations. Runaway slaves from non Hebrew masters had the best treatment. Runaway slaves from Hebrew master got their foots chopped of to prevent them from running away again.
Paul view on slavery was kin to that of a parent and child relationship. It was a benign dictatorship. Wish was the most the Bible did for slaves is to treat slavery like how you treat your children. Not much improvement from the Old Testament slavery.
Same as divorce: for the hardness of their hearts. He let's man discover that owning other humans is wrong.
"Same as divorce: for the hardness of their hearts. He let's man discover that owning other humans is wrong." This is PURE nonsense. The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that Holy Trinity god should have just let men discover societal laws on their own, because we (developed Western countries) have much better laws than the 10 commandments and Law of Moses. We thought of better laws than a maximally knowing and wise god.
Thus, the whole 10 commandments and Law Of Moses was completely unnecessary, because men would have discovered better laws on their own anyways.
And this is supposed to be a maximally knowledgeable and wise god? LOL
If Holy Trinity god has a plan for life, then you should reject it and make your own plan. I read the Bible. One thing is clear, when Holy Trinity god has a plan, people die and the plan doesn't work. For example, Holy Trinity god flooded the world, but the world still became evil, and he had to rain sulfur on Sodom & Gomorrah. Jesus died on the cross and nothing changed. Christians believe in a god who doesn't know what he is doing, but loves to destroy. It is your Bible.
@@JesusisKing134 provide evidence that a god exists otherwise you're just making an assertion.
@@JesusisKing134 " All morality comes from God" We can all make a source of morality. The real question is how can we prove it. You can't even show that your god exists outside your imagination.
@@francmittelo6731 i entirely disagree that complex law codes are better.
Our current system is built on a ton of bad assumptions and faulty reasoning which makes it easy as shit to put a poor man in prison for petty larceny, but almost impossible to put a rich man in prison for murder.
See Oj Simpson.
Nonsense. How do you know owning other humans is wrong? Where does it say that in the Bible. How self righteous of you
Dude you are the best channel for these topics, I can’t profess enough just how much you’ve helped my knowledge grow . Thank you so much
Thx IP this was perhaps one of the best commentaries on the subject. Yuo weren't trying to explain slavery in the Bible in a "better light" or dismissive way or smt, but rather framed the full context and the big picture. This was a satisfactory insight. Thx bro!
I agree. Admitting that the Torah is not the perfect infallible moral standard is a huge step for Christianity. One can accept Jesus without necessarily needing to accept the Torah as a perfect authority.
Exellent video, like always IP. You should make a video exclusevely on the Sermon on the Mount and another one about how great was Jesus impact in this world until this day. God bless you, your family and your ministry. Blessings from Argentina 🇦🇷
I’ll do one that will cover that issues this December.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Can't wait for it!
@@InspiringPhilosophy
24 “‘My servant David(AE) will be king(AF) over them, and they will all have one shepherd.(AG) They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.(AH) 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived.(AI) They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever,(AJ) and David my servant will be their prince forever.(AK) 26 I will make a covenant of peace(AL) with them; it will be an everlasting covenant.(AM) I will establish them and increase their numbers,(AN) and I will put my sanctuary among them(AO) forever.(AP) 27 My dwelling place(AQ) will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people.(AR) 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy,(AS) when my sanctuary is among them forever.(AT)’”
This is End of days prophecy,Gods laws and decrees are are relevant for this(End of days)time.
No new laws and decrees,but the same laws and decrees from Sinai.
The laws and decrees are only for Israel.
By the way....the covenant in Ez 37 is the new civenant from Jer 31.
@@InspiringPhilosophy If you're going to go with this narrative that the OT law was not perfect but the NT law was perfect. Then how are you going to deal with passages in the NT like the following:
1 (Ephesians 5:22) “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”
2 (Timothy 2:12) “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
3 (Corinthians 11:4-5) Every man praying or prophesying having anything on his head dishonors his head. But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven."
?
God bless you, IP. May the Lord always give you wisdom and reveal more of His truth to you.
One interesting thing about God is how much faith He puts in us, His children...one could say even too much
He is dealing with imperfect people, and always makes a way no matter how far into the dark we go.
We are the reason for these imperfect laws, after all, we wholeheartedly shy from real perfection...Him
He deals with us at our current level, progressively leading us to betterment, and rather than perfection, He gives us grace
If He dealt with us at His level, we'd be annihilated already
I bet John Walton is pleased with the increased publicity of his ideas 😂😂
AS MANY AS POSSIBLE CHRISTIANS NEED TO HEAR AND WATCH THIS!... AWESOME ✨🔥
Thank you for such stellar videos with thoughtful, thorough, and simply worded explanations. You've really helped me with your videos and I'm glad to now be a subscriber.
That is exactly what I needed. Thank you, man! 💚
A Facebook friend of mine has commented on the video:
"It certainly is a different approach to the Law!
Lots of good, thought provoking ideas from the Bible itself.
However, I m not totally comfortable with imagining the modern world is morally superior to the ancient world - we are more materialistic, godless, and celebrate violence in games & films more than ever. We abuse women & men and enslave people on a more industrial, brutal scale than ever. We sacrifice infants on a scale that ancient empires would have found morally repulsive. I think the modern world is just clever at selling a few moral idols of, for example, "freedom" whilst remain more immoral than ever before.
The speech by Prof Walton really disturbed me.
I agree that the Law was dealing with (not humanity in general) the multi national Hebrew community and was like a wisdom literature. It was for the ancient Church, and was like a school teacher. The Bible handles the Law like that. Further examples are David eating the shewbread or the priests working on the Sabbath.
However, I am not really happy with the tone of moral superiority from the modern world in the video. I worry that instead of climbing inside the Law to see how every detail gloriously speaks of Jesus and Church, this approach seems to look down on the Law.
On a further detail, the new covenant is older than the old covenant.
Thanks for sharing the video Patrick Hutton .
Really interesting and thought provoking"
He goes on "Other examples of the moral putrefaction of the modern age...
The abandonment of elderly - away from sight and mind - would have horrified the ancients.
Many modern teenagers/adults are literally desensitised to levels of online debauchery that even the Marquis de Sade could hardly of dreamed up in his vilest moments... produced by damaged and broken slaves. Selfishness and individually focussed pleasure surely beyond anything before."
And in response to my querying the New being older than the Old Covenant
"Yes, by which covenant was Abraham saved? In all Paul's examples of salvation by faith and grace, his key example is Abraham - before the Law. According to Jeremiah the new covenant was written into the very fabric of creation - so that only if the sun, moon and stars end would this gospel covenant be forgotten.
That Biblical theme shows us that the new covenant is ... ever new! The old covenant was old because it was merely a temporary school teacher.
Calvin is very helpful on this perspective on the new covenant."
And lastly
"Yes, and Prof Walton seems to take it for granted that democracy is morally superior to monarchy. As an American he might be able to say that without hesitation, but here (UK).... surely he would be arrested and possibly executed for such a treasonous thought?
😆😂
It is hard to put a Biblical case for democracy... isn't it?
Doesn't the Bible, from start to finish, have a basic expectation of something like monarchy... or possibly an anarchic collective in the Law or Judges with no King but Jesus? 🥳" This last post was somewhat tongue in cheek.
@@PatrickHutton
Taking it a bit more seriously, I’d argue that democracy is NOT inherently morally superior. If he had done what his soldiers wanted and become King George I of America, the hypothetical rule of George would likely have been just as if not more moral than that which actually occurred under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Then there’s all examples of voting fraud in democratic societies as well as the voters themselves flat out voting for immoral things. The US government was designed at its conception to do as little as possible as slowly as possible with power cut up between people and organizations in hopes of dealing with the problem with all governments: people.
Thank you so much brother to you and your team for another in-depth video on a subject that can be confusing. I really appreciate this.
Thanks for making this video! It’s a wonderful video. God bless your channel and your outreach :D.
Great video! I agree 100%! I hope you'll do a part three to this Torah series and cover the laws of kashrut or the "dietary laws." I really want to learn what the original purpose was for such laws. Why were certain animals like shellfish or pigs deemed unfit for consumption? Was it something about the food preparation methods of the day that those types of meat had a high chance of causing illness? Were the "unclean" animals named subject to some kind of illness or disease of the time that might pass to humans? Additionally, I feel compelled to ask a related question; if "clean" and "unclean" animals were not defined until the covenant established with Moshe, then why was Noach commanded in Bereshit 7:2, "Of every clean animal you are to take seven couples, and of the animals that are not clean, one couple," and how would Noach even know what that was supposed to mean without the definitions given many generations later? I mean, not to be glib, but if I was told that without knowing of the laws of kashrut, I would literally think it was saying I needed to gather seven pairs of any animals that had been recently bathed or washed and only one pair of any that hadn't been. I really hope you'll address this aspect of Torah in another video soon as it's one I've been asked and never had an answer for, and since I'll be starting my own Messianic channel soon, I'd like to have an answer ready to give.
Can't wait for the next series' video!
Thank you so much for the work that you do. This provides such great insights and thoughts to ponder.
I like to call the law a beautiful mess: a mess in the sense that I think we all know why, and its beautiful in the sense that the Messiah and the new covenant would come to raise the bar higher, and this was the first step.
Amen! Beautifully said. For me, raising the bar means removing the unnecessary and improving what is important like the Ten Commandments.
Well, God had to work with our mess on earth, so the law reflects that. But really the OT sets up the appearance of the Messiah and the age to come, the time of perfection. He came once already and now we know what perfection really looks like. And when he comes again this mess will get thrown into the bin for good. People get hung up on the law as if this was somehow a completed statement, when really, the completed statement is Christ and the promises of what is to come.
🤡
“Bu bu swavery bad so Gawd bad :(“
- about a hundred atheists in these comments
Yes, I think allowing oppressive laws to exist because you don't wanna negotiate with your people to be a bad thing.
god didn't want to tell the poor israelities that it is wrong because he didn't want to force them :( but the slaves who got enslaved are perfectly okay
Oh thank you! This was extremely helpful! In the back of my mind I thought certain things weren't perfectly in line with God's will, but the last time I've spoken to a Jew about it he brought up that exact Psalm. And claimed the law was "perfect". I didn't know how to reply, and my view of the Torah was conflicting with what I thought I knew about the Lord. I really needed to hear this.
This is a great video that explores some of the implications of Jesus' words in Matthew 19:8 alongside those of the other verses that IP raised in the video. I have had similar thoughts about this verse and its implications for a while. However, I think where this video ends opens a number of questions along the lines of: "Well if the Mosaic Law is imperfect, then how can Christians know more specifically what is right and what is wrong?"; "What determines which bits of the Mosaic Law stil stand and which don't?"; "Does this mean that Christian Ethics are therefore always open to be re-written as long as they sit under the general auspices of 'loving God and loving other people'?" and so on. I guess that there might just be a third part coming our way to clear up these questions as they seem to loom too large for someone such as IP to just leave open.
Thank you IP for all your hard work and thoughts on this topic and all your other videos.
I’m going to do a video on Christian ethics in December.
Mat. 19:8 doesn't mean what IP assumes it means. Hard heartedness is not sin and the law doesn't condone sin or set the wrong standard or contradict the Lord’s teaching. The situation that the law addresses is when a man marries (betrothed himself to) a woman and then discovers something wrong with her so, instead of proceeding with the wedding he divorces her, I.e. breaks off the betrothal. Then, he could renegotiate and reconcile and remarry her, but he doesn't, and she marries another man. Hence, the scenario that the law addresses is stubbornness, the man rejects the woman and he doesn't change his mind. Hard heartedness doesn't mean anything more than stubbornness. So, the law addresses that stubborn scenario by restricting the defiled woman from being passed forward and then back to the original husband, after an intervening marriage contract is made with the second husband. She can be passed forward without limits, and she can return to the original husband as long as she doesn't contract a subsequent marriage.
But, once the marriage is confirmed by the wedding or consummation, divorce is prohibited, as 'she is his woman, he may not divorce her all of his days' (Deut. 22) or, as the Lord put it, what God has joined together, let not man separate.
@@hillaryfamily You raise some good points there. Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your comments, but I wanted to go away and make sure that I had fully re-read the passages again. However, I disagree with you. I'm pretty sure that God throughout the Old Testament punishes Israel for their hard-heartedness, stubborness or stiff-necked-ness. We see in Exodus 33 that this stubborness leads God to say that he will abandon Israel, which is only averted by Moses. In 2 Kings 17 Israel's refusal to repent from all of their sins (alongside the sins themselves) leads to the exile of Israel (the northern kingdom). The same is said of Zedekiah and Judah in 2 Chronicles 36:11-14.
In Deteronomy 31:27 Moses himself calls Isarel stiff-necked and rebellious towards God. If stubborness, stiff-necked and rebelliousness all refer to similar ways of engaging (or not engaging) with God in the biblical text, then Israel has clearly been punished for being these things.
Coming onto what you say about marriage in Deuteronomy 22, this seems to be in relation to the specific situation of a husband making up charges against his wife to divorce her rather than a carte blanche statement about marriage generally, so I'm not sure it should be used in that way. This situation would be seen as a complete vindication of the wife and not allowing the husband to get what he wanted. Although it does seem to be a raw deal for the wife! I think it is rather telling that Jesus himself did not refer to that verse in this discussion on divorce, as it would fit perfectly with what he is saying here, but instead refered to Genesis 2 and said "what God has joined together let no-one separate."
Finally and probably most relevantly, in Deuteronomy 24, which is seemingly what the discussion in Matthew 19 is referencing, it talks about the wife being already in the husband's house. If they are merely bethrothed rather than married this seems like it violates Israelite marriage customs, at least by the time of Jesus if not earlier. My understanding of Jewish wedding customes would be that as you point out, first comes the betrothal and then comes the wedding where the bridegroom would come and take the bride to the house that he lived in (whether he had built it or it was part of his family home). This was where the marriage would have been legalised. But what we see in Deuteronomy 24 is that the wife is already in the husband's home "...sends her out of his house..."(NRSV) ,you have to be in someone's house to be sent out of it, and therefore she should be considered fully married and not betrothed. Therefore, we should understand that this passage on divorce applies to fully married women not betrothed ones.
@@TheSmackerman thanks for taking the time to study the texts and issues. I think I can follow your line of thinking and understand how you got to where you got to.
Regarding hard heartedness, the term simply means stubbornness. If the stubbornness is to rebel and to sin, it is obviously a bad thing, but to assume that this was what was in view here is to beg the question. David Instone-Brewer does address a wide range of possible explanations in his book, which I disagree with his conclusions greatly. All things considered, we simply cannot determine solely from the term what it refers to, we have to analyze the context and usage and try to pick the option that makes the most sense. I think the right option is based on a proper legal analysis of Deut. 24:1-4, which deals with quite a narrow scenario of two subsequent marriages, the second of which ends by death or divorce, and the woman and the first husband wish to remarry, which the law prohibits.
The marriage and divorce laws in Deut. 22 and 24:1-4 need to be read in harmony and with an adequately comprehensive analysis of the different facets of the marriage process and the resulting status. The marriage process has two different issues in Deut. 22, in one case the woman committed virginity fraud, allegedly. The case has a binary result: either the man can quietly and properly prove his case against the woman, in which case his remedy of divorce is allowed. But the law restricts this remedy to a very limited window of time, facts, evidence and the man's good conduct in the manner he seeks the remedy. Otherwise, the wedding and consummation process has great power and gives the wife a lawful marriage, i.e. binds her to her husband so that she is his woman and he may not divorce her all of his days. This result applies even if she is guilty of virginity fraud, but the man proceeds improperly, or out of time, or without being blameless in his manner of seeking the remedy. The upshot of the law is to establish the power of the wedding to confirm the legal status and security of the marriage, and to close the door to later claims that the woman (or man) have failed to obtained this status. The door is closed, and the window closes quickly and can only be passed through in the most limited of conditions, safeguarding the security of marriage obtained by the wedding or consummation.
The second case is a remedial marriage contract for the woman who 'forgot' to negotiate the contract before she has sexual relations with the man. The law provides the proper minimum terms for a marriage: the woman’s bride price, and her status as wife, and the security of the post-wedding and post-consummation state: 'he may not divorce her all of his days.' Without a betrothal period, there is no possibility of betrothal fraud, and therefore no possibility of divorce at all, to separate those God has joined together.
Deut. 24:1-4 doesn't change this policy. The scenario is parallel to the case in Deut. 22:13-21 with important differences. 1. A man, 2. Takes a woman, 3. And marries her (betrothal period starts) in one case, but in the other case he goes into her, I.e consummated the marriage, 4. Then she doesn't find favour in his eyes. The difference is in stage 3 or scenario fact 3, between the two cases. Since the marriage and wedding customs were to have a betrothal period, permissive of divorce, divorce with apparent approval is presumptive of being in that stage. The post-wedding (or post-consummation) stage is not permissive of divorce, per Deut. 22 and Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:24, so we should not presume that the Deut 24:1-4 divorces are in this stage, and the text doesn't suggest that the wedding had taken place, or that the man had gone into the woman.
@@TheSmackerman Regarding the 'house' language in Deut. 22:21 and 24:1-4. Care is required with the descriptor ‘in her father’s house’ Deut. 22:21 and ‘sends her out of his house’ Deut. 24:1-4 because these are best interpreted not as the physical house, but the ‘house’ of marital status. The point of the description ‘whoring in her father’s house’ is that the whoring happened before the father betrothed his daughter to the man, and that it is only for those conditions that the man could claim relief as a mistaken transaction (see Mishnah Ketubot 1:6). In the same way, the point of the divorces in Deut. 24:1-4 are to send the woman not out of his physical house, but his marital status ‘house.’ In Deut. 20:7 the man who betrothed a woman but hadn’t taken her was sent back to his ‘house’ to take her in the sense of celebrate the wedding and consummate the marriage. However, the term ‘house’ is not used in a consistent way: it all depends on the context, so the above analysis is not based on linguistic consistency concerning the term ‘house’ applied to a betrothed woman, instead it is based on the specific context of these two passages.
The case of YHWH’s ‘house’ and Israel’s coming into that ‘house’ in the consummation of her marriage to YHWH is complicated by the fact that Israel had multiple houses and lands, in the form of the tabernacle in the wilderness, the promised land of Canaan, the Solomonic temple, the Second Temple, and the Messianic temple (the body of Christ) and the New Jerusalem in the ‘heavenly country’ (Heb. 11:6). The most appropriate analysis is that YHWH gave Israel, as his betrothed bride, various betrothal presents, including clothing, washing water, jewelry, food, and even children (Ez. 16), which represent and include the tabernacle, the priesthood, the land of Canaan, and the Solomonic temple, and ‘the children of Israel’ i.e. the population increase, as part payments of the bride-price. Israel then misused these betrothal presents and committed adultery and prostitution, and then YHWH divorced her. Israel’s true rest and her true wedding feast are reserved for the New Covenant, when YHWH would betroth Israel to himself a second time (Hos. 2), and this time it would proceed to a wedding ceremony at the great feast (Is. 25:6-8; 62:4-6), when YHWH would judge Israel again (Is. 65:13-15; Mat. 8:10-12). Then, Israel would be the true and pure bride, enter her true rest in the true heavenly country, and dwell in the true marital house of YHWH at her consummation (Heb. 4).
6:54 - tamim can be translated as "Innocent" or "Complete" (in either respect of "Full" or "Finished"), depending on context. I have never seen it translated as "Perfect"
An amazing explanation. Thank you for making this video.
thank you for educating us IP!
I love how knowledgeable you are with the Scriptures. As I grow closer to God, my desire to learn more grows tremendously. I struggle to find trustworthy commentaries to help me better understand the text. Are there any recommendations you may have for someone who is young ( I am turning 20 this year) and is just trying to dive deep and build a deeper understanding of scripture? Thank you for all that you do. ❤️
Idk I mean I follow what you're saying but don't you think that saying that Mosaic Law was imperfect leads to thinking that God gave imperfect laws. How is that possible if God is perfect?
Did you watch the video? God was working with people who were not ready to be given perfect moral laws, and god was not going to force these people to change overnight. God gave them rules that began to slowly structure society until Jesus came to deliver the new covenant.
@@lokieleven2694 Yeah I understood that and that is a good point, but it seems at times that some laws were meant to be changed overnight while some not so much, especially the ones about slavery, and I've heard the arguments when talking about slavery being "condoned" and it makes me think that something so big should've definitely been something changed overnight. I suppose I'll keep watching more videos on it.
I have a question. If the Torah was not meant to be kept wholly, why would God punish a people for something that he understood they wouldn't be able to obey?
Thank you in advanced for your answer!
Sorry for having to wait 2 years for a reply. About your question, if we are to agree that the Mosaic law was at partially, or even completely, made by the Israelites , then naturally God wouldn't be punishing them for not completely obeying it, given it wasn't his complete command.
Jesus was the plan from the beginning to save us. God knew that the law could not save us and could only be used as a guide for people to keep their faith until Jesus came and saved us all from our sins.
@jamievans38 Good idea. I think it could work in tandem with my idea in certain interpretations.
Because the law was designed not to make the Israelites morally perfect. It was designed to make them aware of the fact that they are sinners and are spiritually dead no matter how close to perfect that they keep the law. Ttherefore we should not rely on the law itself for righteousness. They should depend on God Himself for righteousness. Ravi Zacharias put it this way, "Jesus did not come into this world to make bad people good. He came into this world to make dead people live." The law is designed to show you how much of a sinner you are so that you may rely on God to give you eternal life. This is Christianity is the only worldview that says that you do NOT get into Heaven for being good. You get into Heaven for simply following Christ.
Fantastic. You've helped me so much on my journey!
Thank you for doing this video. It will be a benefit to my goal to help others see. God bless you Michael
Nice the second installment to a series on the TO-RAH thank you ip cant wait for this!!!
Mike, I've always understood "until all is accomplished" To mean when Jesus returns. I prefer your interpretation and find it robustly supported by scripture but am still uncertain.
Bro. So good. So proud of your work and research. Jesus loves you so much!
Can’t wait literally!
Well done, Mr. Jones. This was very soundly put.
I have tried to make this point when in debate / discussion in the past. Unfortunately, my language wasn't quite addressing the attacks in the heat of the moment. Your vid helps to clarify some of those points I couldn't quite flesh out. Thank you once again for your vids.
Brilliant as always. Great video 👍👍👍
The modern understanding of the word perfect is not what the word was made for. It is supposed to mean the best something can be made. By definition perfect is achievable.
Fantastic video.
I’m curious, we live in a world now with a lot of hard hearts, so would God now allow humans to “adjust” laws to get closer to justice? (Not sure if that makes sense)
So god made compromises for his choosen people? And then allowed slavery for his non choosen people? So god has favorites? And those who arent his choosen suffer because god wanted it that way, or had no other choice...for some bizzar reason. 🙄
This is the perfect example of CONFIRMATION BIAS.
@flylikeabird_2065 how are questions confirmation bias? You have demonstrated a perfect example of projection. And I am asking these questions based on what actually happened. God has a chosen people and he didn't choose others... he has favorites. That's in the book, that's a fact. If I have 2 friends and I have chosen 1 as a special one to me, then I have a favorite....just like God.
This is only the case if you believe God never wanted the Torah to spread to the Gentiles, which is infortunately wrong but 99% of Christians believe this
@@Spektor211 Sorry not you. the vid lol
@@flylikeabird_2065 oh. Hahahah. Sorry. And yes. I agree. I feel silly. Sorry
I just noticed that at the 13:27 mark it shows a pointer as if reading along with the text but if that is written in the old language shouldn't it move from right to left?
Not a stickler for details but I had just read something saying this and I tried to picture reading everything that way so the image was fresh...
unless this is not the same language...which I cannot read anyway...:)
You gave me hope!
This seems like a consequentialist understanding of the law (Ex: it is OK to make imperfect law if it leads to the greater good of Israel) which makes sense in other cases too. However, Romans 3:8 does seem to condemn consequentialism. Do you find this to be a contradiction? Or would you say your interpretation of the Torah is not consequentialistic at all? Or maybe Roman's 3:8 doesnt actually condemn consequentialism (it's not perfectly clear exactly what "condemnation" Paul refers to when he says "their condemnation is just")
The context of Romans 3:8 shows that "why not do evil that good may come?" means "why shouldn't I just sin freely if that means that it will show off God's goodness by his forgiveness of that sin". It's not referencing a consequentialist moral framework. So it's a completely different argument than being made in this video.
Now that we indeed can follow these Laws and are not in a time period which we would not even consider the objective morality, we have no excuse. Back then though, it had to be that way for the good of Israel and man kind.
I'm going to be honest here. This feels REALLY dodgy. Like I agree with you at its base, the Torah is more like the US Constitution. It gives peramiters for life and regulations without being morally binding (yet those two aren't divorced from each other explicitly). But I feel like you've taken it too far. Basically you say God couldn't create a vaguely better legal system that makes Israel different from thier neighbors because His hands were tied by thier stupidity even though He is the one in control of the terms. Plus if basically this is just paganism repackaged (by that I mean any ANE culture just with a YHWH skin on top of it) then sure that may work for the first few centuries but after that then it's culturally irrelevant and outdated long before Jesus shows up to fix it. I know you wouldn't go so far as to say that the Torah is so similar, because there is differences, but now God isn't giving them a better way to display Himself to others, just condoning thier worldly mindset because He can't make sufficient attempts to correct it. Siting the Divorce and monarch example isn't indicative of the ENTIRE Torah.
Plus I'm not convinced that your interpretation of John 19 and Mathew 5 passages is correct, which I basically hangs on to make a case from the NT. Your really going to need more evidence/verses to convince people to accept your ideas about the NT here.
Lastly I found it odd that despite the Torah not teaching morality, you then site Wright who sounds like he's saying that revealing of sin was the purpose despite your claim that the Torah wasn't about morality. If morality was never the point then its completely irrelevant what the Torah says because if you can't keep it who cares? God desires mercy not sacrifice so anyone could assume there's no penalty for disobeying it beside things mentioned to Israel in Dueteromy. And then you don't have a standard to expose sin because then sin would be a outdated cultural difference instead of a ethical violation. It feels like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Prehaps I've ranted a bit, but honestly IP this feels like a pendulum swing too far away that either needs more supporting evidence to make or needs to be walked back a bit.
Dodgy indeed.
@BuddyTheRookie The issue you have there is that then you must be of the opinion that slavery is morally permissible.
@BuddyTheRookie Literally not true. Jubilee explicitly only applied to Jewish slaves. Other slaves were kept for life and are inherited by the children of the slave owner up their death. The children of slaves were even born into slavery and would serve for life.
Leviticus 25:46:
"You may even pass these foreign slaves on to your children after you die. You can make them slaves *forever*. But you must not rule cruelly over your own brothers, the Israelites."
Jewish slaves should be treated well and are released after 7 years. Foreign slaves can be bought and sold, even as children, and serve for life and are inherited as property.
The bible also makes it explicitly clear that beating yours slave is fine, as long as they don't die or their vision is damaged
Exodus 21:20-21:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Lastly, it's typical apologetics to try and argue that Middle eastern slavery was different from American slavery, but it really wasn't. You were property of someone else, forced to work against your will and without compensation. Robbed of all human digenites and free will. I'm guessing that you're just misinformed though and not actually this malicious.
@BuddyTheRookie Are you saying that the Old Testament view of slavery is more moral than the modern view of slavery?
@BuddyTheRookie You are coming off as a loon given your referencing a social issue as opposed to slavery.
I'm a fan of your videos, and I appreciate the work you put into them! I want to ask, though, if the Torah was just written for the people of its time, then why is it still kept around in the Bible? I get that you said that the point was to teach us that we needed to be saved from our sins. So is there a way to differentiate between verses/chapters/books meant to be viewed in this historical context (like people should be put to death for working on the Sabbath), and others that are meant to still be obeyed/believed (like the creation story in Genesis)? Councils were put together in the past to figure out which books were canonical. Do you think something like that could be done again today to address this? Sorry, I know this probably sounds pretty naive (and I rewrote this comment like five times), but this video just got me thinking. Thanks again for putting out these videos!
@00lizard Even though the Torah was written for its time, it also served as a type and shadow, of sorts, for the ultimate revelation and fulfilment of God in Jesus Christ. This is why Jesus could say that Moses testified of Him, due to the parallels of Passover and the cleansing from death on the third day in Numbers.
Also, the Torah reveals a lot about the nature and character of God such that certain things about Jesus make more sense when compared to the Torah. Hence, Jesus’ transfiguration as a parallel to Sinai, twelve apostles paralleling to twelve tribes, emphasising that Jesus fulfilled and perfected the law of God that God chose to compromise in the OT to tolerate the hardness of their hearts.
The Church Fathers also talk a lot about this, that the Torah within itself contains shadows towards an ultimate fulfilment in Christ.
Can’t believe I almost missed this upload. An absolute bunker buster of a video.
I’m not sure if “bunker buster” is a good thing.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Well it’s effective. Let’s say that then.
Your videos are absurdly high quality, God bless.
It's easy and irrational to judge people who lived in the past....if we were born and raised in another time and culture we would probably would participate in what was normal at that time
“By what standard?”
@@geoffrobinson what do you mean
Its called EMPATHY.
@@jeffphelps1355 all this judgement is taking place without an objective standard
@@aGoyforJesus it is comical to see atheist who have no standards judging God that gave us standards
I love it! Keep it up!
Amen. Thank you for this lecture Michael. It is imperative that we need Jesus Christ. We cannot check the boxes of the torah by ourselves. We are wretched, deprived and dust. We need Christ and His righteousness to see the Father God. It’s a relief TBH and a compelling reason to even give glory and praise to what our Lord Jesus has done for us. What a revelation. 😭
Psalm 19:7
7 The law of the Lord is *perfect*, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
You haven't even watched it yet. I address that verse.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I didn't know if you were going to address it or where you were going to go with this video. Thought it was relevant scripture nonetheless
@@InspiringPhilosophy my questions about his theory is that basically as culture progresses then we need to change our morals to fit the culture not the bible. so say hypothetically 300 years from now being a pedophile is morally correct in that culture does that mean its Good? I mean I get what he's saying but there becomes this line or something. the bible says were not supposed to be in the world so when the world goes down a path like my example are Christians supposed to sit back and say its our culture now? something about this theory doesn't sound right but maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. the new testament seems to teach us to be more like Christ so I'm going down that road. through sanctification I guess the holy spirit is the difference between the OT and the NT that's the only thing I can see reconciling this theory if its correct. what's your thoughts or has john Walton said anything about that in his books?
@mysotiras10 There's no evidence that the Psalmist is speaking outside of the spirit. You're just saying that
@mysotiras10 The proverb you quote isnt scripture btw. Paul denoted when he was speaking outside the spirit. Psalmists do not
We need a lot more videos on mosaic law, and old testament ethical issues! Thank you for this!
Thank you so much! I was worried when I saw passages about slavery in the OT. It makes so much sense now.
Again, thank you! Keep up the good work!
Keep worrying! Ask yourself why a god should need to make compromises, why he couldn't have granted the Israelites the gift of a freedom from stubbornness instead.
@@user78994 Why should I worry?
My friend GOD bless you,for sure your work will give fruits for Christ,all the knowledge that GOD gave to you,I m thinking in pass to my country,the peace of Christ upon you.
While I agree with certain portions of this video, I'm dubious about both the framing of the issue and the supposed apologetic value. I wouldn't call the law "imperfect," because as you said it was perfect for what it was doing at the time. I agree God allowed states of affairs that were not reflective of his ultimate ideal for humanity to persist, but that was the perfect application of wisdom to the situation. I'm not sure that this has the apologetic value you seem to think unless you're saying this amounts to God sanctioning sin, which would have its own apologetic (and theological) issues. I don't think an Israelite who divorced his wife was sinning, at least not in the act of divorce itself. If it's not sin then it's not immoral even if it's not ideal or God's greatest intention for human flourishing. It's also of limited value with someone who adopts modern "morality" since they would likely view Paul's instructions regarding slavery and sexual morality repugnant and would likely see Jesus' standard for marriage as more repressive than the OT solution.
This brings me to my biggest problem with the video. It seems to set the Bible against some standard of morality over and above the Bible. The reason we know about the insufficiency and transience of the law is because the Bible tells us. A lot of it was discernable to clever OT believers (Hosea 6:6). But the Bible is not subject to our understanding of morality, the Bible (properly understood and interpreted) is the standard of morality. This video, intentionally or unintentionally, seems to give the impression that if someone finds something they don't like in the OT, rather than undertaking careful interpretation and then conforming their own understanding to the wisdom of God they can just write it off as one of those "imperfect" parts, and that to me is extremely troubling and not at all justified by scripture.
So which one is right according to the Bible, allowing divorce or forbidding divorce? Now we have the entire Bible, Jesus' teachings are the standard for the generations from then on. If someone accuses the OT of something, you can refer to this video and comfortably use the NT as the ultimate standard.
lmao yes, this does call some nutty Protestant doctrines into question
I agree JD. it really feels like tossing out the Torah and playing loose with the NT. Honestly though I find it odd that IP just dismisses or discounts the different apologetics used to explain the slave laws +, since as far as I'm aware, those explanations are pretty sufficient to explain those cases.
@@Mouthwash019283 I'm not sure which "Protestant" doctrine you're referring to my disrespectful friend. I'm not aware that I've appealed to any uniquely Protestant doctrine. I think what I've said would hold for anyone who thinks the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative. If you're Catholic, I don't think you want to start comparing the relative nuttiness of our doctrine but you do you. :)
@@JD-np5xq It undermines the perspicuity of scripture demanded by Sola Scriptura (and some ethical doctrines involving the judiciary or rules of war - apparently John MacArthur thinks that the book of Samuel endorses the death penalty for all time).
I'm Jewish, perhaps you want to tell me to abandon our manmade traditions and keep the direct commandments of the Torah. Well, manmade or not, I don't think we're better off cutting off women's hands!
I'm really looking forward to this! I hope he dives deeper into the issue than just the typical "Their kind of slavery was different from Western slavery." I think that is a useful argument, but it's not satisfactory for many people.
Yeah there are even some articles from 'The Bible Project' that shows a deep dive into violence in the Bible. Check that out if you can RadicalOne1912
@@sdhappyprince Not really, the argument is far more nuanced than that, and like I said it is a useful(i.e. good, though I avoided using that term for a reason)argument, but it's been gone over countless times, and so I hope to get more out of this video(still haven't watched, just got home late at night)
I don't really care to spend my time to argue with a stranger on the internet about it though, so we can both just hold our peace. :)
Lets then follow the logical conclusion of "All forms of slavery are immoral and any moral law must ban it". This is not intended to be a straw man argument but rather a serious analysis. What about prison? Prison is a form of slavery. What do we do to convicted rapists and murderers? If prison is banned then we must either let them go or execute them. How about refugee camps? It is a form of slavery as the refugees don't have the freedom to move around as they see fit. We must therefore reject all refugees. What about child support? The state is forcing a person to work for someone else and will throw them in prison if they don't comply adequately. Prisoners of war? Again we must either execute them or release them immediately. Its not that "their slavery was inherently different than ours". Its they call slavery what we call something else.
@@tytyyea1 Haha, I appreciate you doing the work for me!
I would have described it a little differently, starting with the rhetorical question "what makes slavery bad?" and point out the missing criteria, but the conclusion is still the same.
@@tytyyea1 Well, I would definitely argue that prison is NOT a form of slavery. It is merely punishment and a way of preventing crime. Nobody owns the people in prison and no person in particular can treat the people in prison however they want. The most important difference is that everyone knows beforehand how to stay out of prison and that the same rules apply to everyone.
If you still consider prison a form of slavery then that is not an issue... Because what we call it isn't that important anyway. The thing about the old testament is that the version of slavery presented seems significantly worse than prison.
From the laws of the old testament it is clear that a person can be born into slavery and remain a slave for life. It is furthermore clear that the master is allowed to beat the slave(including severe beatings) and certain passages suggest that it is a common practice.
The slave has a few rights, though. The master can't kill the slave - although one verse seemingly suggests that killing your slave is acceptable if they survive the beating initially, but die after a few days. Furthermore, if the master accidentally blinds the slave through a beating or knocks out teeth, he needs to let the slave go.
Despite the fact that the slaves have rights, this doesn't seem moral. I really really think apologists should take a stance resembling that of IP. When people claim that slavery in the bible isn't "real slavery" it can come off as being disingenuous, because it certainly seems like "real slavery" when you read the laws.
Great job, IP, you're a boon to many Christians. Do you think you could make a video on addiction similar to your one on depression?
Thank you! That would be hard for me as I have never suffered from serious addiction.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I understand, but if you're able to I know it will help many people.
Thank you for this video. This has helped bring clarity to those passages which made me wonder, "Why did God allow slavery and the like?" Continue the work Mr Jones.
This is a very good video. It honestly helped me so much in knowing why that one verse allowed child Marriage.
Wait, what?! Where?! Please don't say Numbers
@@armellebiampamba4257 lol forgot. I don't think it allowed it but it never prohibits it.
@@chubbyclub2502 the Bible if I remember correctly never gives an age for marriage. Probably because there was no need to at the time. But if I remember the only time child marriage is implied is a chapter of numbers but they refer to the girls as children so that probably would more likely mean they were kept as POW servants/slaves and when they grew could marry but I doubt they were given in marriage to grown men especially since even back then it was quite barbaric to sleep with a child
@@armellebiampamba4257 ah you take that route for that verse. My route is to point out Moses not God commanded this.
I saw a Muslim argue against your explanation by saying the word explicitly implies sex.
@@chubbyclub2502 oh. You're right. Upon further reading, it shows Moses commanded that. I don't know how I missed that. That would explain at least why the Torah is not God's perfect law because if it does imply sex and not marriage that means it directly goes against some previously stated commandments against sleeping with women before marriage. Even if it explicitly means sex that wouldn't necessarily make it God's perfect, universal law
7:24 i heard Aron Ra's commentary-i was like whatttt 😂
Other than evolution, I wouldn't take anything he says very seriously. He's getting called out by other atheists for numerous errors in philosophy and history:
greatdebatecommunity.com/2020/11/14/original-and-unchangednope/
historyforatheists.com/2020/07/aron-ra-responds-badly/
Thank you
Can't wait..
It must be a real bother replying to so many negative comments, or to those who didn't pay attention to the video. Must be difficult not to spend hours just battling here instead of doing other more useful things!
One question I have is what about the new testament and slavery? Nothing in the new testament seems to condemn slavery either.
New Testament slavery is Christian being in slavery not owning them
“Slaves, obey your human masters ” - Jesus (Col 3:22)
Paul tells a Christian to free his slave. The ethics of christ have no room for slavery
@@mbontoiThat was Paul that said that. You're taking it out of context as well. Paul wanted slaves to be freed and made it extremely clear during the onesimus situation
@@rayzas4885 where
Great video!
Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster explains this topic very well.
This video is perfect! In the psalm 119 way of course...
How?
In a strange way, this accredits both subjective morality and objective morality. The middle line can be walked only because there is a Christ-like figure who explains the role of the law.
Good stuff, IP!
I find this video very helpful. However I have a question. Understanding that the Torah was not a perfect law and possibly only regulated slavery because of a depraved society. Why do new testament scriptures such as Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-24, Titus 2:9-10 still seem to speak tolerantly of slavey after Christ's return? Honest question
Lev. 44 Starts out "Both my Bondmen and bondmaid..." DOULOS in the original language, translates "One who gives himself up to the will of another" so It's not slavery at all. Your contracted yourself out to another out of your own free will, knowing they have the right to sell you and your family....Its polar opposite of the north American slave trade
Well now IP has given us another route to apologetic.
"Doulos" is Greek; the OT is mostly Hebrew. The usual Hebrew form is is 'ebed. (The "b" is pronounced as a "v." Enjoy!) The Greek refers to being bound; the Hebrew refers to serving. While there are mitigating factors, IP's basic point is sound: the Torah really wasn't meant as the perfect law code; it was mostly intended to make our rebellious nature obvious while providing some restraint. The solution to the moral problem is the transformative power of Jesus' spirit within us, especially once we have been conformed to his nature in the resurrection.
Well, no. It is true that Israelites couldn't keep fellow israelites as slaves, which is what your passage suggests. Other parts of the laws in the old testament make it clear that you can buy slaves from other countries and keep them forever... And that you can be born into slavery.
This part is exactly the same as the north American slave trade.
The slaves are granted som rights, though. While the masters are allowed to beat them up, they aren't allowed to kill them. Furthermore if the master accidentally blinds his slave through a beating or knocks out teeth, he has to let the slave go.
@@zairogamerxs I personally feel that foreign salve had more rights than you describe.
Deuteronomy 23:15: The Isrealites are commanded not to return slaves to the masters whom seek refuge by running away.
Exodus 21:21: The master is punished if the injury is not recoverable in a few day's time
Exodus 23:9: The Isrealites were reminded that they were once foreigners and not to oppress other foreigners.
Also, why cant the foreign slave be in debt that they need to sell themselves to pay for their debt?
@@zairogamerxs Yes: we need a mediating position on the mediating position. The Torah was not intended to be perfect, but it definitely was an improvement on what surrounding civilizations had. So it still points toward a superior Lawgiver.
This video has a lot of good points with merit, however I still have a lingering concern. How would you respond to a sceptic who would try and turn this into a slippery slop and say that other christian morals are also a result of a harden heart. Like teachings on same sex relationships or abortion.
Usually, you just point to where it reaffirms them in the New Testament, which is the covenant we are held to now. Thus, they still apply, and will continue to do so until the Second Coming. Hope that helps. Take care! :)
@@jonathandoe1367 I second that!
GOD said it,so it make all sense what you are saying,'
Ezekiel 20:25 in the ESV reads, “Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life'.
Has IP ever made a video about Numbers 31?
@Inspiring Philosophy, if you're going to go with this narrative that the OT law was not perfect but the NT law was perfect. Then how are you going to deal with passages in the NT like the following:
1 (Ephesians 5:22) “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”
2 (Timothy 2:12) “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
3 (Corinthians 11:4-5) Every man praying or prophesying having anything on his head dishonors his head. But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven."
?
Wow, this is good. I never looked at it like this.
You are pretty
@@jamesellis701 oh. Thank you
The Law points you to your sin & shouts GUILTY!
(Galatians 3:24-26)
But Grace points you to the cross of Christ & shouts back louder, FORGIVEN!
(Romans 3:20-24)
Do we make void the law?
Amazing!
This video's argument is based on the premise that either humanity would evolve morally over time (which does not) or Christians would be morally superior than Jews (which are not).
Of course Jesus' standards are morally superior than anything, but the Torah is His standard, everything He revised was not related to the Torah, but the traditions the Jews had.
I could've sworn Jesus said he came to uphold the law and not to abolish it....you don't revise that which you're trying to uphold.
You forget that Christians (Christ-followers) have the Holy Spirit, while the ancient Jews didn't (with a few notable exceptions). So, indeed, Christians can be held to higher standards as they have the very Spirit of God within them.
@@acem82 being held to a higher standard is not the same as actual achieving that standard.
Though i agree that Christians should be held to a higher standard. We hope to enter the presence of the almighty after all.
Because of progressive revelation it is true that we receive more information by God over time.
therefore the ethical code Jesus delivers is much higher than Moses.
It is much higher because we have a heart that desires that desires obedience.
When there is a change in priesthood there is a change in law.
There is good and bad in their video, IMO.
Does it represent an ideal system? No, because humans live in a world that is sinful so there is no sense in trying to establish a perfect society where sin exists. Such a system would have no methods for dealing with consequences of sin exist. Some of those consequences are ; what to do with criminals and how should criminals be dealt with, how to respond and take care of those who can't take care of themselves, what kind of systems need to be in place to allow a society to function when many people in that society won't voluntarily contribute or may even act in detriment.
By virtue of the fact that sin exists, an "ideal" law code would be worthless.
The bad. This video seems to concede that modern ethics are just "better". When actually this is not so.
I dee the better here to mean Christ.
Very informative
I've been waiting for this! You've laid out my muddled argument so well. Moses brought the 10 Commandments & The Law. Jesus brought a new covenant & his followers wrote the New Testament. Then @2000 years later, during the Enlightenment, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin & others created our next moral code - All Men Are Created Equal. And over the next 2 centuries we've struggled to follow that moral code and pull Women, POC, LGBTQ+ into that equality. Why are Fundamentalist Christians so deaf & blind? We have a moral code for our time & place, yet they still live in cherry-picked aspects of both of the old codes that are no longer relevant to us. Thank you for this message!
Haven’t watched yet since it hasn’t premiered but I’m interested to see how he handles Leviticus 25:44-46 specifically referring to the legalization of the foreign slave trade. Not kidnapping, but purchasing of foreign slaves.
I think it helps to understand the context of slavery as a starting point. Most people were selling themselves as a way to pay off debt. The fact that they would end up in the hands of God-fearing men who were to be put to death for abuse or kidnapping says alot as compared to where they could have ended up instead.
@@theconservativechristian7308 the fact.... the facts about God fearing men is so scary in itself
@@theconservativechristian7308 Well they could’ve ended up in the hands of pious Hindus who were loving. So going into the Jews land as slaves isn’t necessarily the best.
Hi Sir I'm from india willing to donate my sum part of salary to your initiative every month going 4ward kindly guide me on the procedures to donate .Your channel is a needed one for this time we have a lot of people here watching all your videos thanks for your initiative sir .Lord Jesus Bless you sir.
If God allowed for modification, what happens with scripture that states that nobody is to change the word of the Lord?
I sort of agree with your main point, but I do think that, for apologetics, it is necessary to still be able to explain why the laws were a positive thing within their context.
Suppose there were a law in the torah that said "if you see a child, you must murder it immediately". That would still be a nonsensical wicked law even within the imperfect context.
A law that speaks about giving the death penalty to someone who kills their slave, but not be punished if the slave survives (Ex 21: 20-21), can be misunderstood to condone violence against slaves, when really it is merely about the death penalty for the slave owner. It is still necessary to be able to explain this nuance, even under the assumption that the torah is not perfect.
Some interesting good points were made here. I think though that some distinctions need to be made. The Torah was made up of three different law categories: the moral law, the ritual law, and the cultural geographical law (can't think of the word for it). The local cultural law and the ritual law were things that were changed with the new covenant. But the moral law can never be undone since morality does not change. The 10 commandments are part of that moral law, and is binding on all people and all times.
Also, the bible does not condone slavery in the sense of treating people sub-human (chattel slavery). It allowed for voluntary slavery (similar to serfdom) - usually someone contracting themselves for a certain amount of time as a way to pay off a debt. And it allowed for slavery of prisoners of war. Neither of those forms of slavery are inherently evil. Especially considering that the alternative for prisoners of war would be execution. With that in mind, I think the commentary that the Torah never discussed if slavery should exist or not is not really true.
I think they are still bad, but bad things are not always the same as evil things
@@marvalice3455 Thanks for sharing. I'm honestly not sure what I think of it. If society offers the poor good alternatives to voluntary slavery than most people would not sell themselves into servitude. With that in mind I'm not sure if the ban on such a practice is a good thing, since it could prevent greater evils. As for slavery with prisoners of war, although it may be bad, it was done to prevent acts of vengeance and terrorism. And if the alternative would be the execution of all prisoners of war, I could see why some conquered people would prefer slavery to that. Life is complex. I'm not saying that we should do these things now. But I also think that judging our ancestors from the comfort of our modern lives is a potentially dangerous thing to do. Only God knows for sure I suppose.
It is really weird how he didn't at all look into distinction of ritual/ceremonial law and moral law in the old testament and then seems to just throws it all out the window as obsolite, which I think is wrong. Paul even says that the law and commandments are good and that it was made to identify sin.
@@padmad3832 Yes I agree. Apologetics should be done in a way that offers respect to the opponent, while at the same time being careful not to pander to them. It seems too common in contemporary apologetics to pander to the accuser and be dismissive of our ancestors wisdom. There is no need for it.
Very useful presentation
Righteousness is a choice that we need to practice to make perfect.
Thanks!
God surpasses culture and stands against it while calling us out of it. Come out from among them. God is pulling us out of sinful behavior. God is not in support of chauvinism, racism, or slavery…at any time. Man is sinfull and man worked within these systems. God said that Moses would be a God to them. Later Jesus called Moses the accuser while pointing out that many things deemed “law” came from men and not from God.
Leviticus 25: 44-46 KJV - 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
What do you say about this then? Did Moses make this up? Was this not from God? Was it a temporary command? And why do we see slavery being OKd in the New Testament by the Apostles, men who encountered the risen Messiah?
@@Pedant_Patrol Jesus did say “you have Moses as your accuser” and it was said to Moses “You will be a God to this people” so Moses is the accuser of the brethren and being allowed to speak as a God he gave them a law beyond the Ten Commandments God wrote out with his own finger on tablets of stone.
@@Blemiz- Are you saying that the rest of the Torah, beyond the Ten Commandments, was not given by Yahweh? Cause that's what it sounds like to me.
@@Pedant_Patrol inspiration is quite different than dictation so in a sense yes. Also God is a mirror and becomes relatable to us where we are and comes through the filter of where we are in our own personal growth. God have man permission in the garden to rule and reign, and he gave Moses permission to be God to the people. Every time Moses smote God would threaten to smite with his strength and Moses would beg him not to. God was showing Moses that smiting was not appropriate by doing the same or threatening to do the same. This helped get through to Moses and soften his heart progressively…however just like Egypt didn’t leave the people’s heart, smiting was not completely rooted out of Moses heart and his final test was failed when he smote the rock. God seems to change even though he is unchangeable because he is a mirror and relating to us where we are met by him.
@@Blemiz- Thanks for your response. This is a good example of my fundamental problem with this slippery-slope reasoning. I earlier shared with you a passage from Leviticus 25, and at the beginning of this passage we find the words, "And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying," - but yet you say to me this was mere inspiration. That is clearly not the case. These laws about slavery were dictated to Moses by Yahweh, they are not something that he (Moses) made up or added. Moses himself teaches that we are not to add to the Torah one bit (Deuteronomy 4: 2 and Deuteronomy 12: 32). I don't think there is any way around it - Yahweh condones slavery, and Scripture furthermore tells us that His counsel does not change (Psalm 33: 11), and that the Torrah is righteous (Deuteronomt 4: 8). The question for us is whether we will accept what the word says, or condemn Yahweh because of our modern sensibilities.
Hey, this is pretty good! :-) Thank you.
Can you do a video on the food laws? I don't see how the food becomes unclean
Epic as always.