The Misunderstood Mosaic Law

[@devondeswardt6239]

This channel is the living embodiment of the phrase “everything you know is wrong”. Every video I watch I can feel the veil of misconceptions being lifted. Thank you, Micheal! May The Lord bless your ministry

[@SilentlyContinue]

Seriously 🤣

[@stephansotomayor9696]

Highly agree !

[@princeamoakwa4057]

Do you know why I believe you on this? It completely makes sense of why the greatest law is “Love for God and man” and how “Love is the fulfillment of the Law.” The Torah is not a strict and prescriptive set of eternal rules - the point of it is reverence for God and service and honour to fellow men. This is why Jesus seemed to have broken the Law or Torah in many instances but in actual sense, before God, He hadn’t: mercy, love and grace - the spirit of or reason for the Law was on display. This is how Jesus fulfilled the Law: everything He did was because of His love for God and His compassionate love for man even His enemies. In all things He understood the Law was made for man and not man for the Law. Brilliant video! God bless you!!!

[@JJFrostMusic]

there you go. that is a well written argument aganist these anti torah christian. good job mate

[@katieswanson4063]

Christ never broke the law!

[@princeamoakwa4057]

@@katieswanson4063, I didn't say He broke the Law. He appeared to have broken the Law to the Pharisees. In fact, however, He was fulfilling the Law because He first understood the reason for the Law and that's love, mercy, justice and righteousness.

[@JJFrostMusic]

@@katieswanson4063 amen!

[@intedominesperavi6036]

Also keep in mind that shortly before Jesus came, the Romans came into Israel with their very rule-like understanding of what "Law" means. This idea could also have been introduced since the Hellenistic period. But I also think that it's simply a human thing to think of principles as rules after some time.

[@diegovalleperez3360]

The purpose of the Torah was for sanctification until the messiah came, it was never for saving someone. The Torah points to Jesus Christ!

[@nashvillain171]

The entire Old Testament points to Christ.

[@diegovalleperez3360]

@Nashvillain Agreed! His is the fulfillment and consummation of the Old Testament.

[@nashvillain171]

@@diegovalleperez3360 *Amen!*

[@JJFrostMusic]

it still for sanctification. there is still use for it. paul describe it as a guideline

[@SaintFort]

No. Christianity is utterly antithetical to the theology of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (Old Testament).

[@My56David]

This is one of the best of IP’s videos. I have a much better understanding of the Torah.

[@GraceAlone614]

Great video!! As someone who is new to Christianity, it's hard to find those who don't have an agenda to skew information. These videos are super informative! And I have learned a lot so far.

[@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid]

Hallelujah! All the angels are rejoicing because you have chosen to put your total trust in Jesus as your Savior and your God!! Please do continue to keep your heart and mind focused on Jesus Christ who is the Author and the Finisher of your faith, for one day you will see Him face to face!!!

[@batteries671]

sorry, but this guy does have an agenda, much like pretty much anyone on the internet

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Have you looked into catholicism?

[@megamortonx]

@@tafazzi-on-discord Let him decide. If he lets the Holy Spirit guide him, he will join the right church.

[@whctjsdlfqhrlfprl]

One of the law I really like is ‘Jubilee’. Making everyone free against their debts, like resetting the clock. Slaves no longer slaves, etc.

[@oskrvlc]

Not everyone. Only jews. The rest of the slaves werent freed

[@ViguLiviu]

It applied only to israelite slaves. Foreign slaves did not count.

[@unsightedmetal6857]

@@ViguLiviu "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God." Leviticus 19:34 seems to show that any "benefit" of being an Israelite was also applied to foreigners.

[@ViguLiviu]

@@unsightedmetal6857 To quote many rabbies, that applied only for converts.

[@TacoTuesday4]

@@ViguLiviuyet you don’t even mention one?

[@JD-np5xq]

I agree that the punishments of the Torah would likely be considered the maximum punishment rather than necessary punishments, and that they would be applied with discretion considering context and intentions; but I think classifying them as equivalent to wisdom literarure rather than prescription goes too far. Clearly God expected Israel to live in compliance with the covenant; it wasn't merely a good idea, and the punishments were live options. "You shall have no other gods before me" isn't a suggestion.

[@MidEastAmerican]

100% JD. While there are some good points in this video, things which despite his ignorance of Pharisaic teaching were actually taught by Pharisees as well (there were multiple types of Pharisees), yet his ultimate conclusion that the Torah's commandments aren't intended as commandments and aren't intended for all all places and all time is an absurd conclusion to reach. Anyone who has carefully read the Torah would know that. Honestly, even anyone who's carefully read the NT should know this. The Torah explicitly states that it's commandments are intended for all of Israel's generations in all their dwelling places as an EVERLASTING covenant and law. This is explicitly stated multiple times. Sure, if can be debated whether certain specific commands may have been intended as temporary, within reason, but the general theme is to the contrary. Would love to see him make a video explaining how good harmonizes with the abundance of assertions in the Torah that its laws are to be kept by Israel forever. Most Christians, and most commentators here, have clearly never carefully read the Torah, and certainly not multiple times with any knowledge of the Hebrew language.

[@robertdolcetti450]

The NT clearly indicates that the dietary restrictions, at the very least, were particular. The language of perpetuity is just hyperbolic.

[@rafexrafexowski4754]

​@MidEastAmerican I think one of the best solutions to this would be to treat only the civil laws of the Torah (the ones that contain punishments and specific, non-relugious situations) as a suzerain code. It is clear that the moral laws of the Torah are an everlasting law that is binding us to this day. It is also quite clear that the ceremonial laws are used to indicate literal rituals that, though they could be broken within the bounds of reason, were binding for the people of Israel in order to sanctify them compared to other nations for the coming of the Messiah.

[@juancarlosaliba4866]

Hoping this will shed light on what Paul really meant when he said faith in Christ apart from works of the law save.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

It means we are saved through Christ fulfilling the law, not through attempting to keep it as a law code.

[@wilsonw.t.6878]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Agreed! I think your Faith v. Works video is very well done. Furthermore Paul appealing to Abraham before the law was given is evidence that the phrase "works" encompasses all works. Secondly, Love the Lord Your God and Love Your Neighbor As Yourself are Works of the Law yet encompass all works.

[@MSHOOD123]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Yeah but although if you're a Jew, the feasts, Sabbath, and circumcision still applies. Jesus said that expressly in Matthew 5:17. Fulfilling doesn't mean nullifying as everyone seems to be thinking. Though Paul said if you're a Gentile you don't need to convert to Judaism to believe in Christ.

[@hunivan7672]

@@MSHOOD123 Fulfilling means criticizing and correcting the flaws of the OT, or the false interpretations of the OT.

[@MSHOOD123]

@@hunivan7672 yes I agree 👍in Christ’s case, He had a lot to correct when it came to rabbinic adaptations of the Law.

[@stephendianda1543]

These videos are so valuable for those of us who believe in the living God. They remind us that he lives even when we go through the hardest times in our live.

[@HarujiSubayama]

This had sparks flying in my brain the entire time! I won't be able to look at the Torah the same way again! I was also drawing tons of connections to The Unseen Realm and its discussion of imaging and name-bearing. Top-notch video, IP! Will this be a series? I'd love a deeper look at the issue of slavery. I really enjoyed Whaddo You Meme's series on the issue.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, two more videos will be coming out: The imperfect mosaic law The revolutionary mosaic law

[@HarujiSubayama]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Awesome! Looking forward to them!

[@hillaryfamily]

You may wish to re-visit a lot of the assumptions behind the Unseen Realm approach to the divine council and related matters. It is basically Greek dualism dressed up as biblical scholarship, and it is not appropriate given the Hebrew context and background of discussions about divinity and the heavens and so on. In summary, the Hebrew and ANE view is that the 'heavens' or 'heaven' is the place of political power as well as the geo-physical sky 'up there.' The gods are 'in heaven' because they are political powers, and the gods in heaven are not in the Unseen Realm as a parallel dualistic spiritual meta-cosmic world. So, for example, when a human king comes to political power, he becomes divine, and he ascends to heaven. When his kingdom is overthrown, he is a star falling from heaven to earth, and down to the underworld, he falls like a prince because he is or was a prince, and he dies like a man, because that is what he is, even though he was also divine. This is what we see in the go to divine council texts of Is. 14, Ez. 28, Ps. 82 etc. The term 'son of God' designates one who has political power from God. Of course, the Torah's message is that we are all sons of God (Deut. 14:1) and the gospel message is the same (Mat. 5:9; Luke 20:36; Rom. 8:14; 9:26; Gal. 3:26; 4:6; Heb. 12:7). We are resurrected and sit on thrones in heaven, even while we too are human beings of flesh on the earth (Eph. 2). The biblical teaching is really about politics and power and social order and the law. Man is made in the image of God (i.e. granted political status as rulers), in the configuration of 'male and female' (i.e. monogynous marriage), in order to rule the 'animals' rather than each other. Political power is thus placed at the level of the individual man, with his wife. The man leaves his father and mother, and holds fast to his wife, and then becomes one flesh, i.e. one family. This one family unit is the social and political and sovereign unit: the man 'leaves' his parental family, so that his father is no longer his patriarch, he is emancipated and becomes the ruler and head of his own political unit, himself, his wife, and their unmarried children. Yet, man reaches out for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve does this, and then she tries to build a dynasty via her 'seed' in the form of Cain, her male, who will rule over her. Cain is a disappointment, so she places her dynastic hopes on Abel. Cain kills Abel, so she has another son, and places her seed-hopes of a dynasty on him, and instead of being in the image of God, Seth is in the image of Adam. The biblical story, and man's historical story, is the conflict between these two impulses: to rule, to exercise the power of the knowledge of good and evil, that we may judge the people, as Solomon does in 1 Kings 3, or to call on the name of YHWH, and like Noah, to build YHWH's legacy by having one wife and having sons, and letting them go and have one wife each. Even 1 Enoch doesn't really teach what Heiser claims: it presents, in parabolic form (as explicitly stated in 1 Enoch 1:2), the 'giants' which are political beasts that tax men, and when they can't pay, it consumes them, and then it goes to war against other such political beasts, and becomes a blood-eating beast. This is rather standard imagery for political powers, not a different class of biological or 'spiritual' beings from the Unseen Realm, that creates biological-spiritual hybrid offspring. The application may be less ancient than Gen. 6, in terms of women's cosmetics and the like, but the basic analysis is tyrannical political power of the 'mighty men' war lords, just like Nimrod, the slaughterer on the land, who arose after the flood.

[@HarujiSubayama]

@@hillaryfamily I'd be more than happy to look into this. Can you give some sources?

[@hillaryfamily]

@@HarujiSubayama I have written a paper called 'Insights from the New Creation into the Creation Stories' that you can Google, KZbin doesn't let me post the link.

[@Liberater4589]

great stuff, in college I had to take several theology classes and everything you said in this video and many of your other videos is identical to what we were taught in both how to understand religious texts (particularly the torah) in their historical and theological contexts, your videos have really expanded on what I learned in those classes and I think your channel should be a must watch for anyone trying to understand and engage with religious study and philosophy regardless if you even are religious or not you have shown an absolutely masterful comprehension and literacy when it comes to these complicated and often misinterpreted topics and I think it is wonderful

[@wayneburchell6346]

I can't tell you how timely this is as I am investigating Torah for an online discussion on slavery in the OT. A lot of this I knew, but you put it all together neatly and and the bits I didn't know really help make sense of things. Thanks

[@reziboy100]

I was skeptical at first until I thought about the fact that David and Bathsheba were not put to death for their adultery, even though God sent Nathan to call David out on his sin. But one question I would pose is if ancient audiences were not asking the same questions that we are, why did the Pharisees interpret the Torah as an unbreakable code of conduct? I know they are several generations removed from the time of Moses, but I can't imagine their interpretation of the Law was that different from the way some of their ancestors interpreted it.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

It seems they did, and Jesus was standing against that interpretation of the Torah.

[@droe2570]

Plenty of people still see the Torah that way, today.

[@AJofBabel]

David was not caught IN adultery or murder... there has to be 2 or 3 witnesses. that's why he was not killed

[@droe2570]

@@AJofBabel He confessed to Nathan, therefore no witnesses were needed.

[@oracleoftroy]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Is it that simple though? Jesus seems to scold them for neglecting the law at points as well, e.g. Lk 11: 42 "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. *These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.* " Jesus isn't saying they should advocate "love" and "justice" apart from the law as if the law is to be tossed out in favor of a modern secular "do what is right in your own eyes" code, but that they should obey it all. After all, Jesus did teach that all of the law comes down to loving God and loving our neighbor (itself an OT law) and that if we love him we obey his commandments. If he was standing against understanding the torah as an unbreakable code, why did he reassert that they shouldn't neglect it?

[@tripperdan]

When you drew the distinction between the Pharisees legalized view and Jesus' Covenant view, that brought this into a clearer view for me. Trying to grasp a little of the Near Eastern mindset is a journey worth taking, it allows more insight into that which guides us today.

[@batteries671]

don't let IP confuse you, he mixes truth with lies. The Pharisees followed the Talmud, and the "traditions of their fathers" which are not biblical, and not from the Torah, Jesus called out this hypocrisy, even pointing out that they broke the Torah by following their traditions. That said, Jesus did take the Torah itself very seriously. IP mischaracterizes Jesus as breaking the Sabbath, but he didn't. Nothing he did broke the Sabbath laws, but he did break the Pharisees traditions, intentionally, as they were holding them above the Word of God. Bottom line, unlike what IP states, the Word of God is timeless and still just as applicable to us today, it is ideal.

[@tripperdan]

@@batteries671 while I appreciate your retort, the "don't let IP confuse you" principle can be applied to all items of consideration on most every subject from every source (Not just IP). The only items that I hold crystal clear are aspects of Salvation, all else is just icing on the cake. The distinction you mention is a consideration that isn't lost in the discussion. Shalom (PS, I will need to go back and rewatch because it's been about a year from that comment).

[@batteries671]

@@tripperdan Thank you for the reply, I apologize if I was disrespectful. I do appreciate some of the points IP makes, but I do fear for people being led astray. Shalom

[@georgechristiansen6785]

That isn't the distinction though....or even a distinction at all. Keeping the Law was part of the Old Covenant. The issue was Pharisees added to the Law and even made rules so that they "allowed" people to break it. Neither of those would be an issue if the video's premise of it being akin to proverbs was true. yet they are rebuked for doing the very thing the video calls for: adjusting for the circumstances of the day. He never rebukes them over prescribing or keeping the actual Law. And He not only tells them they are required to do both He commands the rest of the population to submit to them enforcing it because they sit in the seat of Moses.

[@iceman4660]

This has been a great series. I am inclined to dig deeper. This makes clear the difference in the worldviews of individualistic (mainly the West) and collectivist societies (mainly everybody else).

[@LucasDZurita]

I'm calling it, The Lost World of Torah inspired this

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

John Walton reviewed the video

[@christhatsall8926]

@@InspiringPhilosophy OMG IS THIS SERIOUS? IM HYPED NOW.

[@deathnote4171]

@@InspiringPhilosophy kindly debate this Muslim kzbin.info

[@Archangel657]

@@deathnote4171 David Wood can handle the likes of them.

[@ancienthamatendiscipline3533]

@@deathnote4171 Why are both you who identify as Christians and those who identify as Muslims so insecure that you feel it necessary to debate one another? Both sects are debating their sectarian dogma, not actually studying Scripture in the Abrahamic language they were sent. Both sects and also those who identify as Jews have taken Moses for the Jews, Jesus for the Christians and Muhammad for the Muslims as illuminated Sun's between you and The Originator Majestic and Magnificently Unique. When in reality we are supposed to have a relationship directly with HIM. The Messengers we were sent, jobs were to convey The Fundamental Reality's Message, each in a different way and purpose. Abraham the father of monotheistic leaning away from dogma and towards The Initial/Fundamental/Paramount devotion, has been forgotten by all you sects, despite the fact his vision and the vision of Joseph foresaw exactly what sectarian dogmatists are doing today. May HE Who is, was and Always guide us to understanding HIS dominion of Scripture, with understanding from above of what we have here on earth.

[@delanchan699]

I've been waiting for someone to do this for a long time, and someone has finally delivered! Thanks man

[@AWSOMEPOSSUM16]

This is the best apologetics channel on KZbin.

[@Hupernike45]

Here's one of the best quotes, and one of the best guidelines when reading and trying to understand old testament scripture in the 21st century. "The bible was written for us, but it wasn't written to us." - Michael Heiser

[@reverendgordontubbs]

Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: Instruction will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations. ~ ISAIAH 51:4 (NIV)

[@newone5198]

Yeah, and?

[@jsb1905]

Slavery in the bible is also different to slavery in the modern context. It is not about subjugating people and oppressing them. It is a form of paying a debt. Slavery in the bible is not an issue for us.

[@jsb1905]

@Omar Savory This is what happens when one don't read the Bible but proceed to make biblical claims. Modern day meaning of slavery is not the slavery of the bible. Outside of the Bible, we can see no slavery system which teaches or authorises that a master's life is equivalent to the slaves life. I'm sure when the Americans invaded African countries, and took black people as slaves, they never considered the black lives to be equal to their own. This is why slaves are mistreated every time, in context outside of the Bible. Bible is simply beyond human comprehension, no human have the humility to come up with this. Clearly inspired by someone who has love for human life. I'll tell you who that it, it is God Almighty. Jesus died for you sins, your life is precious to him so if you believe in him and follow him, you will have eternal life through Jesus. Biblical slavery is actually beneficial in circumstances where someone owes a debt, they can become a slave to pay off the debt. This was the case most of the time. Again, God never authorised anyone in the bible to subjugate people and treat them like animals until they die, we don't see it in Old Testament and New Testament.

[@jsb1905]

@Omar Savory What about Hebrew Slaves Vs Non Hebrew Slaves? None of my concern. It is biblical slavery Vs Non-biblical slavery. Don't drift off.

[@danielsavard5977]

​@@jsb1905how screwed up are you , God also does not punish the slave owner for beating them as long as they recover within a few days , wow , ain't God nice... Bet you wouldn't be good with all this if you happened to be the slave getting a beat down , would you, you clearly have been brainwashed to make excuses for this slavery you find acceptable....

[@travionwaiters4135]

Wow this made me feel dumb I’ve been a saved for a few months now and this channel had truly helped my growth with Gods word and made my faith grow as well thank you Michael please keep doing what you’re doing I appreciate you 🤝

[@HodgePodgeVids1]

This is an underrated channel

[@CoolStoryJo]

Mathew 19 8 suggests that at least some old testament could be due to humans hardness of hearts rather than divine will.

[@hillaryfamily]

Sir, Mat. 19:8 doesn't mean what you suggest. The law of Deut 24:1-4 was given for the situation where a man divorces his wife (during the betrothal period) and instead of patching up their differences and remarrying each other the woman marries another man. The law addresses this specific scenario, and it doesn't address if a man's wife finds no favour in his eyes because he has found something wrong with her in other contexts, i.e. after the wedding and consummation. The Lord only responded to that law by pointing out that it didn't apply to the case that his questioners had in mind. The Torah rule is that, after the wedding or consummation, if God had joined the two together 'she is his woman [therefore] he may not divorce her all of his days'

[@owlobsidian6965]

@@hillaryfamily The specifics of the divorce law aren't important in this instance, as the passage in question is about Christ clearly saying that that particular law was only allowed due to the hardness of heart and not because it was right way.

[@hillaryfamily]

@@owlobsidian6965 not so. The Lord is often taken to be abrogating a permission for divorce granted by the law of Moses, which is used to suggest that the Law of Moses is bad law or that its precepts are unreliable where it seems to tolerate or regulate conduct that is not tolerated by the Lord. The examples include polygyny, the death penalty, slavery and patriarchy. The trouble is that none of these practices are tolerated or regulated by the Law of Moses, other than slavery, which the new testament tolerates as well. The Torah and the gospel seem to be in great agreement on all the big social and legal issues, and Mat. 19:8 is the sole proof text to the contrary. And it doesn't prove what it is resorted to prove, which is my point. Of course there are differences between the law of Moses and the gospel, and the differences are complex and often not what or as interpreters have assumed. Reader beware. The law does exist due to human hardness of heart (I.e. stubbornness) as well as human passion and human sin, but that doesn't mean that it endorses or permits what is wrong or undesirable. The law works often by presenting a case or scenario and a remedy. The scenario is generally a problem or sin, the remedy is wisdom for that scenario, or an example of wisdom applied. The Lord in Mat. 19:3-9 is teaching that post-wedding divorce is not a wise or acceptable or appropriate remedy. Deut. 24:1-4 doesn't teach that post-wedding divorce is a wise, acceptable or appropriate remedy either.

[@memelordmarcus]

"It is not teaching that sinful people are always hungry" *_oh thank goodness._*

[@dangerdelw]

Next question: how does this apply or not apply to the epistles when Paul is telling people how they should live and claims it’s from God? Is it law or wisdom?

[@sofia2moro]

@Karosnikov don't think he was willing to learn much from them .. he had a big Ego

[@zachdavenport8509]

The epistles do not give laws when giving commands. There is no governmental system in place for enforcement. It explains what is morally right and wrong in some cases, but usually, these things are given as though the people already understand right from wrong. In that sense, it is more about wisdom. But, that is not to say that the things prohibited are not genuine sins that are always wrong.

[@ElficGuy]

Both

[@memelordmarcus]

Truly, I think it's wisdom, and that Jesus is the one who tells us how we should live.

[@d4ben]

Another fantastically insightful vid from the I.P. channel. Great work well done, I really appreciate it.

[@ferrywijaya2557]

"Order was the highest good in ancient society." This is an eye-opening quote. Need more references that supports this.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

It is also based on assumption and given without any evidence at all.

[@73tatu]

Another book recommendation to check out is "Reading Moses Seeing Jesus: How the Torah fulfills it's goals in Yeshua"

[@madmanjim795]

I have been waiting for a video on such a topic! Everything included had my heart and mind racing! I had always thought the Torah was something like this, but just couldn't explain it so well. Fantastic job IP :)

[@michaelchaney166]

Oh how I prayed to understand the bible and God continues to send me back to your videos. Praise Jesus

[@DavidRrasi-oz4tq]

You are the only apologist who does justice to the laws of the Torah. Bravo, Inspiringphilosophy!

[@SDsc0rch]

oh mannnnnn.... NOW i'm learning this!! i wish someone would have taught me this when i was a child its like we're uncovering this "fresh" in the 21st century its so ancient! yet.. this understanding has been hidden for millenia : ((

[@search4mrmythos707]

Law is always so complicated, and that's what makes it fascinating

[@MatthewChenault]

There’s one verse in particular that I always think about in concerns of reading the intention behind it in respects to the Mosaic Laws: Deuteronomy 22: 28-29. “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." Atheists and skeptics usually cite this specific verse as an example of God “not caring” about women being raped. However, from the cultural context of the time period, 50 shekels would have been the equivalent of a Life Debt for most people. Additionally, the verse stipulates that he shouldn’t be allowed to marry anyone else, meaning that he’s essentially stuck with her, and the consequences of his actions, for the rest of his life. Even if you take it literally, from the cultural context of the time, this would still be a harsh punishment for a harsh crime, since it’d effectively place him in debt to the woman’s father for his entire life and would force him into confronting the situation. If you take it figuratively or as a guideline, then the punishment would be “treat him harshly for the crime he’s committed.”

[@hillaryfamily]

There is no reason to read the passage as punitive. In general, it refers to consensual sexual activity between a virgin woman and a man eligible to marry her. The remedy is for the law to provide the contractual terms that the woman 'forgot' to negotiate. The law must provide the minimum terms for a marriage contract after the betrothal period (which is skipped in this case), and so the law provides what every wife is entitled to: her bride price, her status as his wife, and her security from divorce. This case law proves that every woman is entitled to be protected from divorce (once the marriage is lawfully consummated), and that what God has joined together, no man may tear asunder. The woman's consent to the marriage is presumed, but also protected: she still has the right to withdraw or deny her consent. The betrothal and the wedding ceremony give the woman (through her father, if applicable) the right to consent or not, to the marriage. In fact, a woman may consent to marriage, be betrothed, and then change her mind by divorcing her husband or refusing to attend the wedding or refusing to confirm her consent at the wedding. The remedial law in Deut. 22:28-29 does not make her lose this right to withdraw and repudiate, it is in fact protected in Ex. 22:16-17. The defiled woman may therefore choose not to take the marriage contract the law offers her, and as a defiled woman she is still entitled to marry someone else, as the defiled woman does potentially twice in Deut. 24:1-4. In the final analysis, the virgin seduced has the options and the rights to the normal protections of marriage to the one she had sexual relations with (if he is eligible to marry her), but is not restricted to marry only him. The man's wrong in this case is not so much the sexual relations as the failure to obtain her father's consent and to pay the bride price, and accordingly, he has to make good on those wrongs according to this law. In the case of rape, the analysis does not change much. The woman and her father have the choice of what to do, and the financial entitlements and protections afforded by the law as their remedy. The law can hardly be faulted for providing the woman with compensation and options.

[@Giant_Meteor]

The "seizing her" is not rape! It is referring to the taking of her, though she is yet under the custody of her father. If you read the rest of this chapter, you will see that the penalty for rape is death. It is to be regarded as an equivalent evil as murder.

[@videogamecin]

Inhuman.

[@baruchevenezra7279]

I would have to somewhat disagree with this vid. It’s not just a wisdom text concerning law but a legal directive giving mandates which necessarily apply which is why adding abs taking away was forbidden. The Torah does describe actions and consequences, for example if two men sleep together the death penalty was to be had. God in the prophets constantly quotes his Torah and specific laws at times which were not kept. I like your vids but cannot co-sign on this one but is contradict the plain readings of God himself when describing the Torah, legal instances in the chronicles, Kings and clear consequences written into the Torah for breaking the laws. This is where scholarship goes too far sometimes into secularism in the name of reason. Almost every Jewish scholar wouldn’t share this view of the Torah. Yes it’s a wisdom texts but also a legal directive which were immediately applicable in specific situations. For example: It’s forbidden to put the son to death for the crimes of his father and this instance actually appears into the chronicles.) Wisdom text:”Deuteronomy 4:6 [6] Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’” Legal directive:Deuteronomy 27:26 [26] “‘Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

[@baruchevenezra7279]

I will say this would be an interesting debate I wouldn’t mind having.

[@droe2570]

Within the first 5 minutes of this video, it states clearly that there were laws. Then the rest of the video answers your concerns.

[@alexanderjosephross]

“...when they hear all these statutes...” because God was using the statutes to show He was God, not to give them a legal code to fastidiously obey. That was how the Pharisees interpreted it.

[@hillaryfamily]

The later developments and applications do support the view of a quite specific and serious approach to the Torah as more than merely legal wisdom. Yet, this later material generates it own problems and in some cases goes off in quite symbolic or extended ways to address the situations and concerns they had. The interpretation of the specific rules requires the approach Walton and Jones promotes in this video, and it is a message that modern audiences really do need to hear and grapple with. Once they do so, just how close the applications are to the original ones is a question of judgement as to the reasons for the original applications and the degree of similarly the modern conditions bear to the original ones. My approach is that the degree of similarly is apparently higher than Walton's and I take this approach because when I dig into the details of the laws on slaves, divorce and remarriage, polygyny, patriarchy, dynasties, the death penalty and civil and political power, I find teaching that is more sophisticated and beautiful than most scholars seem to. The death penalty is blocked by the two eye-witnesses rule and other rules. Polygyny is prohibited. Patriarchy, dynasty and monarchy are prohibited. Slavery is long-term labour with a strong emphasis on worker rights and protections. Defiled women are protected in betrothal and marriage and adultery contexts, to allow them to remarry, to be protected from being passed back and forth between 2 men, and, after the wedding, to remain married and be restored to rebuild home life without violence, death or divorce. The unmarried female servant sold by her father is protected to be either properly betrothed or set free if neglected or at the end of six years if not betrothed by then. The sons of a man inherit regardless of the status or legitimacy of the relationship with the mother. Wealth is to be distributed to one's sons and daughters when they marry and the they are set free to live independently thereafter, and the residual wealth is distributed (relatively) evenly on death. When we combine proper analysis of the laws with the looser approach and the historical development and refinement (but also corruption) we have a rich but complex resource into which John the Baptist and the Lord emerge in the First Century. The Lord’s teachings on the death penalty in the Sermon on the Mount, for example, have to be interpreted in this actual historical and legal context. The death penalty was restricted (effectively prohibited) by the Torah, not only for homosexual conduct but also for murder, and the Lord’s rhetoric is based on the fact that neither the Lord nor his hearers were supporting it. This then becomes the point of common ground to make his points: political power drives the death penalty in the real world, as the politically powerful seek to silence and repress the words of those who, like the Lord, called them fools.

[@randomperson2078]

@@hillaryfamily The idea that the Torah restricted the Death Penalty is pretty clearly falsified in Samuel and Kings.

[@OriDomshlak]

Etymology really helps here These guidelines are specific for one culture, the word for "rules" מצוות in this context is etymologically related to the word for "status quo" צוויון They convey a path of life, the word for "sin" חטא means "to miss the target", the word for "abomination" תועבה is related to "straying from the path" לתעות In that sense a death punishment means you completely lost your path so you'll have to be "reborn" back into the path Jews who keep every rule they can also don't expect literal death and Jewish law is purely symbolic in personal matter. Christians should enjoy pork that's basically what I mean lol Edit: the ten commandments are a moral code and should be applied universally

[@Tylerstrodtman]

this is really helpful! My understanding all along of the books of the law was probably right in line with what most people think: these were just the moral and judicial prescriptions that God gave to Israel, possibly to set them apart from the cultures around them, or going as far as to say that they reflect God‘s character in someway that maybe we just don’t understand in our culture today. It also helps to explain why apparently contradictory versus within the law are not actually so contradictory. I guess my big question is whether or not this explanation is rooted in any historical writing or documentation outside of the Bible, and these more modern scholars conjecture about it. Maybe I missed that part. Excellent work though, keep making great videos!

[@ngaboyasabyombiemmanuel8504]

This makes so much sense. But what about the guy who is stoned for breaking the sabbath in Numbers 15:32-36? If capital punishment was the most, not the strict only, punishment wouldn’t it require the worst of manners in terms of breaking the sabbath in order to be put to death?

[@peli_candude554]

Excellent! That summarized the OT and how it related to the rest of the world perfectly. Thank you!

[@elweycristiano64]

Hello IP, your video is not so bad and uses good sources to explain the Mosaic Law of the Torah, but I have a question, if these are not universal or literal laws, like when you said that working on Saturday was a death sentence, it was not something literary, why in numbers 15:32-34 there is talk of a man who violated that law and is sentenced to stoning?, I have that question, I would like you to answer it

[@TheGiantSlayer1]

In Matthew 5 Jesus says that anyone that teaches people to NOT follow the Law (Torah) theyre the least. In verse 17 He states that He did not render the Law as to be not followed = abolished. He came to fulfil = give full weight to, just as He fulfilled the Gospel

[@leftstanding]

Jesus is the true bread from heaven, not the written law of Moses. To fulfill is to bring to completion. John 6:32 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did *not* give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the *true* bread from heaven. John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, *“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."* Matthew 5:18 - "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." John 19:28, 30 - After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” [...] So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” Luke 16:16 - "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."

[@TheGiantSlayer1]

@@leftstanding You cited Luke 16:16 but not 16:17 which states 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. We know that hasn't happened yet (2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 21:1) John 15:10 10 If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love. Mark 7:6-9 6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. 7 And in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” 9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. Matthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ The Law was never for Salvation, The Law has always and still is, a breakdown of how we live like Christ, and how we repent from Sin (1 john 3:4)

[@leftstanding]

@@TheGiantSlayer1 The old heavens and earth did pass away, that's why the law and the prophets were until John the Baptist and why Jesus said "It is finished!" at the cross. The 40 year timeframe from the cross to the destruction of the temple were the "time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10), a transitionary period from the old covenant to the new. Hebrews 8:13 - In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. 2 Peter 3:10 and Revelation 21:1 further supports my point, both Peter and John were speaking of the judgment coming to Israel within their generation. Jesus makes this perfectly clear Himself: Matthew 24:34 - "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." Matthew 16:28 - "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

[@TheGiantSlayer1]

@@leftstanding 2 Peter 3:14 -Peter says that the New heaven and the New earth are to come. Read Isaiah 66 and how our unchanging God pours out his wrath on those that eat swines flesh and mice and things HE says are an abomination to Him before the New Heaven and New Earth which Peter says are to come. Revelation 14:12 spells it out clearly, we are to keep to the Commandments of God ( AKA God's Law, God's Ordinances, Statutes, Decrees) with Faith in Jesus. Faith without works is dead, worsk without faith is dead. Following the Commands/ Law of God BECAUSE we are saved by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus is the right way. Revelation 12:17 7 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

[@leftstanding]

@@TheGiantSlayer1 Re-read my previous reply. Peter was warning the people of his time of the day of judgment, so of course at the time of his writing the new heaven and earth hadn't fully come yet. Time from the cross to the destruction of the temple in 70ad marks the 40 year timeframe, and the second coming of Christ was fulfilled.

[@peterjs007]

This has been quite enlightening. The explanation as it relates to the sabbath as reflecting its importance rather than a prescription that all sabbath breakers be put to death was quite helpful.

[@raymundbelleza1279]

Hello, I have a question. Did you study the bible by reading commentaries and reading its historical and cultural background of it? It seems that understanding the bible requires external resources which explain something that the bible does not explicitly explain. Thank you for the video, God bless.

[@khendrycolon5815]

Should we therefore see morality or holiness as following a perfect order as dictated by the Mosaic Law?

[@PlavitPOi90]

That is called Theonomy and I am persuaded that it is true. Some important proponents are James White, Jeff Durbin, James Jordan, Gary DeMar, Greg Bahnsen and so on. If you are interested, you can message me.

[@Vishanti]

The disciples weren't even breaking sabbath! The Torah allows people to eat from their neighbors' field or trees (as long as it was only what they could fit in their hand). They were plucking heads of grain, which was well within the mitzvah.

[@johnrockwell5834]

What was interesting was Jesus using the example of David and his Men eating the shewbread rather than quote this passage.

[@diegovalleperez3360]

@John rockwell Because Jesus (who is God) knew the truth that he or his disciples weren’t breaking the law. He just wanted to call out the pharisees hypocrisy towards him and his disciples. Jesus wanted to show how evil their hearts were.

[@j-bone9472]

What about Exodus 16:25-30?

[@Vishanti]

@@j-bone9472 The tale of gathering manna? The passage is pretty straightforward that the people were to gather for 6 days, and not on shabbat. They were not even supposed to leave their area. Unless one brings in the practice of putting up an Eruv, there's not much wiggle room to say that the "no gathering" part applies but not the "stay in your place" part. And it's specific to manna, not grain. In Numbers, there *is* a passage regarding gathering wood on shabbat, and because the previous commands not to work or labor weren't clicking, the mitzvah of tassels with a blue cord was instituted (tzitzit). But again, the instructions regard laborious work, not simply strolling in a field picking what can fit in your palm.

[@j-bone9472]

@@Vishanti I'd hardly call gathering bread pieces laborious work. It's pretty comparable to plucking heads of grain, and the theme of keeping the Sabbath law was the main point, not what it is you're picking. Obviously manna doesn't regularly land on the ground every morning in nature, so it isn't likely God meant you shouldn't gather the manna, but gathering grain was perfectly acceptable.

[@Pgoliat1]

This was a fantastic video. It really help me to understand the dynamic between a Christian, Jesus and God. I'm definitely subscribed 🙏🏾

[@jedediahmyers7495]

Okay, as someone who has read the code of Hammurabi, the first five minutes are akin to character assassination in the interest of creating a supposed progression. The code of Hammurabi is not obsessed with order but with justice. Sometimes cruel justice but justice nonetheless. The code of Hammurabi is about, explicitly, the protection of the downtrodden and oppressed from the strong and powerful, entirely on ethical grounds. He believed he was called: "To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land so that the strong may not harm the weak." And he describes his mission thus: "When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . and brought about the well-being of the oppressed." The Torah is not innovative vertically but horizontally and it is not really closer to the morality of Jesus than other the middle-eastern codes.

[@francescoaccomando7781]

Galatians 3:23 Children of God Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.

[@geochonker9052]

Yep. I normally like what IP says but this video was lame

[@michaelturnage3395]

I think an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi should definitely do a review video on this.

[@DarrenGedye]

@messianic_apologist I am working my way through rabbi Joshua Berman's book Ani Maamin and this fits very well with his view of Torah representing the older style common law rather than the modern concept of criminal law. He also likens it to suzeranity treaties. See for example www. torahmusings. com/2013/09/kippah-and-gown-i/

[@michaelturnage3395]

@12345shushi Exactly. Which is why I'd love to see the look on a ultra-orthodox rabbi's face when reacting to this.

[@michaelturnage3395]

@12345shushi However, I would argue that the NT actually quotes the Aramaic interpretations of the scriptures and Dead Sea edition of the Hebrew scrolls. But other than that you are almost entirely right, Paul writes God has not given us a spirit of error.

[@michaelturnage3395]

@12345shushi Things get real interesting when you find out that Moses didn't even write in biblical Hebrew but rather Proto-Sinaitic, which uses a pictographic script derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs. So the original Torah would have been somewhat different.

[@diegovalleperez3360]

12345shushi I agreed with you that the talmud distorts the scriptures but I disagree with your statement about the Lxx being in par with the New Testament. That’s because it’s corrupted. The septuagint was made after Jesus ascension, not before Jesus birth like everyone says. The septuagint copies from the New Testament and inserted into the Old Testament like in Psalms 14 when they erased David’s word and added Paul’s word in there. Even the corrupted Origen admit that. The LXX is not trustworthy! The masoretic text is pure.

[@vincent9413]

A crucial piece of content. Bravo.

[@andrewrakisits9270]

The law was there to show you couldn’t keep perfectly you would fail, the law always pointed to you to the savior Jesus Christ through further revelation that happened later in the Bible.

[@javindhillon6294]

I wish Thomas Jefferson saw this

[@nathanboyer2372]

This is a good, thought-provoking video. There’s lots of good points that highlight the problems many people have with how to understand and use the Bible.

[@eswn1816]

I find no fault with the main premise of this video. A wise man once said to me: "God's ordinance (law) flows from God's order." Thus man and woman, firstborn, Sabbath, etc. The Kingdom of God shall shall surely be ordered, but lead by the Spirit, of those circumcised in their hearts; it will be an internal and not external order. Righteousness can never fully come from following a set of rules, the error of the Pharisees. It is (the Kingdom) within us and relational. As scripture implores, "If you love me, you will follow me... do what I would have you to do..." That is, in summary and essence, love God and your fellows.

[@andrear4954]

Great video ❤

[@jonahwaisman3204]

I would love to see you do a series on Joshua or address 1 Samuel 15:3! That would be so interesting and helpful

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

He can't as that would destroy his narrative that God didn't approve of the stuff in the old testament, when Samuel 15 3 God is literally demanding samuel kill everyone

[@MinstrelEmpire]

@@MohamedAli-nf1rp IP's not stupid, he could easily debunk the misconceptions about badly interpreted verses like this

[@royaltyillia1356]

@@MohamedAli-nf1rpplease read exodus 17

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

@royaltyillia1356 what about exodus 17. What's special about it

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

@MinstrelEmpire no he couldn't, bro read for yourself. Read samuel 15 3 and ask yourself if a real god would command killing babies

[@christopherreinhardt9787]

This makes a lot of sense to me... as a hopefully saved by belief and repentance follower of Christ, I wonder why God seems more merciful in the prophets, than He is, or at least seems to be to Israel and Gentile nations during the Exodus and initial establishment of Israel. For example, in the prophets, He calls out Israel for awful transgressions of the law ranging from breaking the Sabbath, mistreating the poor, hypocrisy by loving religious ceremony but not actual fairness and love, idolatry, violence, child sacrifice, and threatens (and of course eventually carries out) serious punishment, but also seems eager that they would repent. In other words, this helps me resolve the tension a bit between God's holiness and His love/mercy. Any sin of course creates some kind of literal or metaphorical death, or put another way lack of life, and capital punishment could be carried out, but yet God of course desires that we live. Still capital punishment is a tough sell for me, I desire justice truly, want love earnestly, yet want mercy for myself and others at the same time. Oh the tension! But nevertheless this video helps me understand more. I want to say love beats justice, and justice beats sin, and yet love creates justice, and sin does create death and deserve death. Oh so difficult gahhhh!

[@FacePunch0]

Great video. Thank you for producing and sharing this content.

[@calledoutboughtout5717]

Ah. We will all discover our errors too soon, when that day of discovery arises. May we all be friendly with those in which we disagree... it may just be with the one we profess to serve.

[@memelordmarcus]

Here's what I'm getting from this: when the Torah supposedly instructed for the death penalty, it wasn't calling for someone's death, but rather, something that is more along the lines of the phrase "Curiosity killed the cat." The meaning of that phrase is that it is dangerous or counterproductive to butt into things that aren't your business. It's not saying that you should die if you do so, or that doing so will literally get you killed.

[@Tom-sd9jb]

What do you think about the dietary laws? They seem pretty clear cut?

[@Silvercrypto-xk4zy]

As do the moral ones (don’t kill steal man lay with man etc). The mark was missed on this video sadly

[@tempomi760]

Hey, IP. I enjoyed this video very much! Quick question, what will parts 2 and 3 be about? Thanks in advance.

[@trenthorton9532]

Purpose of Torah according to God in Exodus 19:5-6 “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Israel continues the representation of the imago Dei - originally given to Adam - into the Iron Age. Faith in Christ is the continuation of, and our fulfillment of, the imago Dei. Matthew 5:17; Hebrews 8:13

[@SP-ct2rj]

This was really well presented! Thank you for explaining it so well.

[@baberoot1998]

Your analysis of scripture...is quite remarkable. It is logical. It is quite surprising as well...at how young you sound. I am impressed with your insight. Few...have the inside wisdom you portray.

[@ElficGuy]

17:00 a posible proof of this is that Moses went and ask God what to do with the Shabbat breaker even after the law was given.

[@j-bone9472]

Yet God told him to stone the man to death for gathering sticks. What was that about this commandment just being descriptive?

[@ElficGuy]

@@j-bone9472 The fact that he asked, if it was an all encompassing rule, asking would have been blasphemous. God judged that specific situation and have ultimate permission.

[@j-bone9472]

@@ElficGuy If Moses interpreted the Torah as a guideline, he would have made a decision rather than asking God. This may have been before Moses received the law hence why he asks. Where was the mercy in this situation?

[@ElficGuy]

@@j-bone9472 It wasn't though. It was after. And God only knows exactly what happened. And the mercy? Jesus. There is the mercy.

[@j-bone9472]

@@ElficGuy the guy was pelted with stones until he died. Moses did not say, "who among us is without sin first cast a stone at him." Christ's mercy runs contrary to the sabbath breaker's fate.

[@TaraandSky]

I have always had trouble with this subject, and you shed great light on it, thank you. I had a question about the Law. I used to read Tarot cards. When I converted to Christianity, I was told I would go to hell or attract demons into my life through it and Deuteronomy 18 was quoted, saying that these practices are an abomination to the Lord. Is that still true? Is it wrong to read Tarot cards? I guess I get confused on what sin is or isn't because Christ fulfilled the Law. I am Christian and point all my life to Christ, but liked to get visions for people with Tarot.

[@zahrinthia1403]

It is true Christ said that he came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. And in some ways Jesus called us to an even higher standard of morality than was written in the Law for example he said that the Law said not to commit adultery but "I [Jesus] say whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his own heart". Jesus constantly points to a heart change and a passion for pleasing God by following God's commands not only as an outward act but also with the right heart as well. So, in regards to the use of Tarot cards I would first ask what your purpose for using them would be? Does your use of Tarot cards point people to Jesus and the Gospel which is the only way any person may be saved? Or does it point people away from Christ and to seek answers to their lives' problems through the mystical arts and fortune telling? If you truly love God and claim to be his follower you should seek knowledge, wisdom, and guidance from God alone and not other sources like Tarot cards which have always had their ties to witchcraft and demonic influence. The Bible said no person can serve two masters, meaning you can't follow God and dabble in things that are not of God. "Choose this day who you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." And as for what sin is, it is disobeying God and acting in opposition to the heart of God. Sin is what separates us from God and sin in your life will always draw you away from God. Through Christ's atonement we are made right with God and are saved by Jesus who paid the price for our sin so we are not bound to the punishment of sin (hell and eternal separation from God) but as the New Testament says that does not give us a free license to keep on sinning. When we accept Jesus as our Savior we commit to follow him as our Lord, keeping his commandments. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. So, if you are uncertain what is sin and what isn't a quick test can be to ask if what you are doing or thinking is drawing you closer to God or drawing you away from God. While I don't know if continuing to use Tarot cards would necessarily condemn you to hell, it doesn't point you to seek wisdom, guidance, and strength from God alone so it will always be a hindrance to your relationship with God, not a help. So, I would discourage you from continuing to do that and instead seek God for your wisdom and guidance and pray with other people who are also seeking the same for their own lives. Does what I said make sense to you? If any part of that was confusing or unclear, let me know and I will clarify. May God bless you as you seek to know him more and follow him with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

[@TaraandSky]

@@zahrinthia1403 Sara, thank you so much for your thoughtful answer. It made so much sense, thank you. I understood everything you said and it makes so much sense. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to answer, I truly appreciate it.

[@grandmasterlucien]

You should watch some of Steven Bancarz videos, you might find him helpful.

[@TaraandSky]

@@grandmasterlucien Thank you

[@jenex5608]

Tarot card reading is a form of divination please refrain from it

[@rickbailey1069]

I imagine this isn’t a definitive video but one that leads to others and sets some type of basic, almost vague foundation to then work from, or at least I hope so. If not then this is a beautiful example of when dry intellectualism fails when compared to scriptural understanding. Minimizing the Torah, broadly, in this way really diminishes the value of it and it’s true purpose. I think this video simplifies yet also complicates Torah to a really carnal and rudimentary place, which it is not. In the Sermon on the Mount Yeshua basically takes the Torah and furnishes / magnifies it (pleroo/fulfill) in direct contextual objection to the Pharisees and other sects that taught an oral law but missed Torah’s meaning, which aptly is defined “to strike a bullseye,” and sin defined as “to miss it.” When you see the spirit of the Torah in its moral and spiritual principles, instruction and place in every believers life you understand it; for example to build a parapet around your roof is understood as a general idea to never allow someone to come to harm within your control. Yeshua used many examples to show this. Paul does not say we have this battle of sin and this vague, cultural idealism within us (what this video kind of waters it down to)- he means we have a battle between this perfect spiritual Torah and this thing called sin, transgression of said Torah. Unless Paul was misunderstanding Torah yet this video finally figured it out, I’ll have to go with the original understanding towards Torah. I understand the premise and idea of this video however it can really cause many to err if not followed up with in a more appropriate analyzation of what Torah is on a deeper level. This ministry is brilliant but sometimes intellectual brilliance blinds us from the deeper and weightier matters. If this video is concrete and definitive it, frankly, contradicts not only Scripture literally but also spiritually. I hope this topic is addressed in the future in a better and more concise approach.

[@Chudsmash777]

It’s sad some Christians try to twist scripture so it better fits modern day society😔 If you know any sources of information that more or less debunk this video I will really appreciate it.

[@GRXMotorsPNW]

This was a excellent video! In my run-ins with atheists this wooden literalism would alway comeup. Then I say the Bible is trying to convey a truths, make points, and objectives and principles and understanding truth about things or situations etc etc. Some get that and some don't. I'm sorry but this video nailed it👍 The Bible is def the true path to enlightenment!

[@amsterdamG2G]

John 17:17 Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[@crazyitalianguy000]

John 1:1 is basically the proof that Weak Panentheism is canon.

[@shilatozier4254]

Not quite, it proves that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, God made flesh.

[@Brian_L_A]

Most excellent! And encapsulates Jesus's teaching of the "LAW" to the Jews of the time.

[@Robwolf28]

I have doubts about what you are saying seeing Deuteronomy 5 and 6 does say to do the commandments when they enter the land.

[@JuliexSteadman]

I agree - this video makes no sense... ...yes as christians in the new covenant we are not under law (although we are still under Christs law) but thats what the whole OT was about. Deut 28 - if you obey my commandments it will go well with you and if you dont it wont...

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

I have a question; regarding the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Sanhedrin, would they stone blasphemers and maybe flog them too, along with maybe burning and strangulation which I read somewhere? I’m looking for evidence outside of the Bible that these three sects did or would do these things to the Christians, contributing to the fact that they wouldn’t have made it up knowing the ordeals they’d face like floggings and stoning. Can someone answer my question please? I’d really appreciate it. I haven’t watched the video yet in case these questions are answered.

[@joshuadunford3171]

IP usually doesn’t respond to old videos but if very active on facebook and Twitter, so I’d recommend asking him there. I myself think your answer would be yes, because even though most passages from the Old Testament are mythology (for example parting the seas usually meant changing old ways San was a trope) there was a previous so called messiah who lead his followers into the sea thinking he could literally part it, it sadly didn’t work and he drowned with his followers.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

I’ve found these in the Torah, they would do these things to Christians because of what they were like.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

Hey IP. Been watching you for about 5 years now. You make great content. If can suggest a video topic, i think something on biblical slavery would be very helpful for Christians. It’s something that atheists very readily attack. I’ve been looking into this topic for a while, and from what I understand, indentured servitude only applied to Israelites. Captured enemies of Israel were put into slavery. Did I get this wrong?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thanks, parts 2 & 3 of this series will address that issue.

[@mywinterapocalypse]

Check out 'Is God a Moral Monster' by Paul Copan. He talk about slavery and all that in the old testament.

[@mentalwarfare2038]

@@mywinterapocalypse am definitely aware of that book. Gonna pick it up soon

[@mentalwarfare2038]

@12345shushi thanks homie

[@bakkudeku]

If only more people understood the Torah as you do in this video. Most seem to have completely detached themselves to any deeper meaning and understanding of even basic things, never mind the Ancient Israelites' holy scripture. This makes me lose faith not in YHWH, never in YHWH, but in Man: the capacity for holiness in Man, for mercy, for kindness towards one another, for deeper moral conscience, instead of very harsh, very brutal, raw and crude, legalistic and superficial sense of ethics. So many are fools and fill others with their own folly, their own hatred and prejudice, their own stupidity. So many are so lost and to such an extent that what can we do? What can we do? YHWH have mercy on us, we know not, we understand not, and so many are evil and do evil deeds.

[@rosemariecastro8708]

Why can't a model that inspires--i.e. descriptive, be at the same time a prescriptive law of conduct? Do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Are not there different parts of the Pentateuch [or the whole OT] for that matter that exemplifies one or the other--like the literature of Proverbs obviously differs from those in Leviticus, etc.

[@JuliexSteadman]

I have only listened to 10:45 but i am struggling with this. My understanding in the OT was that they had to keep the Torah, thats why the laws were there... ...thats why the apostle Paul in the New Covenant has such a struggle with them as he says they are not, now under law because it is fullfilled through our union with Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit who causes us to fullfil the righteous requirement of the law (to love God and people Matt 22:40). But the Jews still wanted to be under the whole law...

[@juancarlosaliba4866]

You know IP if virtual hug is legal in your channel, I'd give you one hahahaha Your channel really changed the way I approach Scripture! Thank God! And thank you as well!

[@Magnulus76]

Much of the Levitical laws were never about morality, but priestly codes meant to sanctify the priesthood and protect them. Ancient Israelite religion depicted in these codes was done by priests on behalf of the people, but the people themselves did not necessarily practice the religion in this manner. This is how priesthoods worked in many ancient cultures- the priests served the people in a sanctified status, performing sacrifices and religious rituals on behalf of the masses. The Ten Words or Ten Commandments, on the other hand, were the basis of morality in ancient Israelite culture that everyone was expected to follow, regardless of whether they were a priest or not. The notion that all Jews should follow Levitical laws was a later development, after the destruction of the Second Temple. It came from the Pharisees movement, that later became Rabbinic Judaism, and forms the milieu in which the New Testament was written. Christianity is not dependent on a priesthood in the ancient Israelite sense: even Catholics or Eastern Orthodox do not believe this (the Mass or Liturgy is more like a transhistorical memorial, not a continuous series of new sacrifices, as in the ancient Israelite understanding). Nor do Catholics and Orthodox believe that the holiness of the priest or minister has any bearing on it's efficacy. So, the Levitical codes aren't necessarily relevant to modern Christians.

[@VincenzoRutiglianoDiaz]

Pharisees: Well, it´s not perfect but it´s the best system we have. PROCEEDS TO STONE ADULTERESS

[@michaelturnage3395]

Literally when their own Messiah is right there.

[@Si_Mondo]

I can even imagine one saying this......granted, my imagination had him speaking English but....🤷🏻‍♂️😂

[@jesusistheonlygodamen3406]

And also hadn't even brought the man who had committed the offence with her...

[@Chudsmash777]

The adulteress scripture, is not in the oldest New Testament manuscripts. It has no place in scripture it was added later, if you remove the passages everything makes more sense.

[@VincenzoRutiglianoDiaz]

@@Chudsmash777 It is not in the oldest manuscripts THAT WE HAVE TODAY. The story is missing because the Donatists were taking the story out of their bibles. St Augustine talks about this.

[@isaacmarshmallow8751]

The Short term purpose of the Torah was for the nation's around Israel to see how they were and how awesome Yehovah was (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). If God reformed Israelite society to perfect standards then they would have been incompatible with the surrounding nation's and become an isolationist state like the fictional Wakanda. This would have defeated the purpose. Other nations were built on sacrifice systems, so he used a sacrifice systems. Other nations had an indentured servitude slave system, so he used one as well. Other nations had a weighted currency system, so he used one so they could do business with the surrounding nation's. Other nations used the bride price joining of two families model, so he also used this system. Just as western societies today view a nation without democracy as backwards, so too, ancient societies would view a nation without these systems as backwards. For the laws short term goals it was necessary that it be compatible with the other nations. God essentially built a system where he was playing by our rules (Matthew 19:8). Israel could have blessings and be top dog for obedience, or fall victim to the natural order (Survival of the fittest), be "cursed" and be on the bottom for disobedience, because they shouldn't have been on top anyway (Deuteronomy 7:1,7). Then the nation's would see that when Israel did things Gods way, God was blessing them. Slaves would see Israel's slave laws and think "well I would rather work off my debts in that land then my own which doesn't have as good a slave healthcare system". When they obeyed him, it worked. When they didn't, it didn't, just as said. But if that's what could be achieved when God was playing by our rules, what will things be like when finally playing by his?

[@fothgt]

All in the light of the Glory of God whether the law of Moses or Redemption in Christ Jesus.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Just go ahead and say it. People didn’t have that many problems until the doctors and lawyers arrived into town. Lol

[@jakedaniel3763]

Essentially, "contradictions" reveal a common principle.

[@ponypublications]

This concept makes Jesus' behavior in the NT make so much more sense. :0

[@grahck4391]

So when God says "Thou shalt not ..." in the 10 Commandments, he wasn't prescribing law, but giving 10 samples of wisdom?

[@Tomas-is-taken]

The Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law are different. The ten commandments were God’s perfect moral law. Not all of the Mosaic law was for that purpose. Moral law, judicial law, and ceremonial law were all different and used for different purposes.

[@Terabapu3156]

How do you interpret that a man was killed in torah for collecting wood on Sabbath?

[@faded.7161]

@@Terabapu3156 was legit thinking of the same thing

[@Tomas-is-taken]

He said himself that it described the maximum punishment. depending on the intention and what the judges ruled you would get different degrees of punishment

[@JJFrostMusic]

It's not there for saving, it is here to show us the example of walking the right way, Jesus live by it himself. Now I say that I'm a Christian now it's time to me to walk like one. Torah is a guideline. Jesus simplified it.

[@JJFrostMusic]

@Karosnikov amen

[@docsspellingcontest592]

Exodus 22:18 NIPV Thou shalt not metaphorically suffer a witch to live.

[@thehistorybuff1883]

Great video! Would you be able to make a video covering the debate around ‘Darius the Mede’ mentioned in Daniel?

[@Jazalena]

Thank you so much for this channel it has taught me so much and I look forward to more content from you grace and peace ✌🏾

[@imikewillrockyou]

So it's kind of like the Pirate's code, "More like guidelines rather than actual rules", Hence we don't have to leave captain Jack behind, that would be wrong.

[@dwighthaas1771]

The Torah or Law of Moses does give consequences for certain actions, not hypothetical actions, but specific actions. Proverbs or psalms was never applied as law, like the Law of Moses was. But the Law was to teach people what was wrong so they could live right.

[@lampfe6359]

Can anyone explain exodus 21:20-21

[@marisakennedy777]

sure, here is the first part of a multiple part series on the subject, hope it helps kzbin.info/www/bejne/pna1pH-qmM6Bnrs

[@JuliexSteadman]

Ex 21:20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Well the mosaic law still held back evil in a barbaric society. There were absolutely no rights for slaves in the surrounding cultures. However in this context it was considered that the master would have lost a lot while the slave was recovering.... >...not helpful to our western ears, but it was still better than the surrounding nations... ...the reason it sounds bad to you though is because the west is steeped in christian ethics and we dont even realise it... Jesus teaching was a new covenant and he raises the bar exceedingly (Matt 5 ff). Without realising it you are steeped in Jesus way of thinking... because that is the water the west swims in... If you were a muslim you wouldnt have a problem, as far as they are concerned, if you are not a muslim you are not following god and you get what you deserve... Jesus said we are to love our neighbour regardless of race or creed. He does this in the parable of the good samaritan (Luke 10:25). The samaritans were hated by the Jews and seen as idolators... Jesus here says that anyone in need is our neighbour regardless of their religion or creed...

[@rickhanson3293]

I make it a point not to compare the Code of Hammurabi with the Mosaic Laws as the Mosaic Laws (as written) are far more comprehensive. Next, I shy away from saying that as we are removed in time that it is a mistake to compare it with our time. Why is that? What is there in this day and age that is truly different? Not much. I also would point out that its application was with the formation of a national legal code in mind because that was what was occurring when allegedly written. Freeing people from Aegyptian slavery and forming a national identity as promised to Abraham. So while it had not occurred as yet, Mosaic Law was meant to get to that point and stay there. All the way to the NT, the Mosaic Law was to be followed as Yeshua Himself stated that not one iota shall pass from the Law until all be fulfilled. I'm pretty certain that He meant it. Next, I would add that the "court system" in the bible was the "congregation of judgment" and while local courts did perform that function they were supposed to follow the same Laws even among different judges or districts. Just because they did not always do so does not negate that proscription. Just because people cannot at all times does not mean that we should seek ways to interpret that proscription differently in order to add appeal. For instance, one of the commandments was not to commit murder. This is actually way more specific than many present it as and includes most forms of killing and all forms of killing from lying in wait. A person in no way has to agree to an opinion. However, it is not an opinion of mine or a different interpretation. It is written in the bible.

[@adrianvarela8890]

This is one aspect overlooked of "The Instructions of God". The other aspect is found and revelaed in Luke 24.

[@JusNoBS420]

New subscriber to your channel. Is the speaker related to or in fact Mike Cameron? Sounds like Mike. 😉 But seriously I appreciate your open mindedness to these issues that old school Christianity just stone walls or doesn’t want to talk about. Then they complain that Evangelism is will be extinct in 50 years.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I’m Michael Jones

[@rossm2102]

Comparing the proverbs as instructions/suggestions versus the laws set forth in the books of Moses is a stretch - the Proverbs didn't come with punishments attached, such as stoning to death a sinner.

[@felicityh.1947]

They are different genres, but they are both aspective genres.

[@janpost8598]

Love the Pirates of the Carribean reference at 9:40. 😆