The Imperfect Mosaic Law

[@TestifyApologetics]

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...

[@charles4208]

@Iron Collapse Matthew 5: 21-48

[@heathers4961]

Actually he says "You have HEARD

[@heathers4961]

@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

[@hillaryfamily]

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.

[@SimpleAmadeus]

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.

[@xwyl]

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!

[@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid]

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.

[@commonman9782]

God prepared Jesus to come

[@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid]

@@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.

[@rodylermglez]

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 :)

[@rodylermglez]

@@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.

[@HarujiSubayama]

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!

[@yekkub9425]

@@missouritravelers Bruh

[@misterauctor7353]

@@missouritravelers How?

[@jeffphelps1355]

@@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

[@jeffphelps1355]

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

[@jeffphelps1355]

@@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....

[@Sam-ew8kt]

If Moses didn't allow his people to divorce, I can imagine what harm husbands could cause their wives because of their stoneheartedness.

[@Boasvibes777]

Or vice versa

[@panzerofthelake506]

​@@Boasvibes777 men abusing women was a much greater problem because men are more physically stronger

[@jonathandoe1367]

"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.

[@Reignor99]

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.)

[@jonathandoe1367]

@@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.

[@Reignor99]

@@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.

[@jonathandoe1367]

@@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.

[@Reignor99]

@@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.

[@MatthewChenault]

Huh. It’s almost as if human beings are imperfect and God understood this. So, He gave concessions to His people.

[@epicurious6078]

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?

[@christianblack9426]

@@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.

[@epicurious6078]

@@christianblack9426 "so omniscient" is redundant, it either IS or is NOT, just like it either interferes/intervenes or it doesn't.

[@christianblack9426]

@@epicurious6078 Being able to interfere or intervene, one can still NOT do so, if one chooses.

[@epicurious6078]

@@christianblack9426 your god doesn't have free will, only you do.

[@jaxmarsh3412]

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

[@xrpgambler565]

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.

[@montecristo2553]

Do you mean Catholics and some other denominations?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Well, a lot of this is known by scholars, it just hasn’t trickled down to the general population yet.

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Mr. Jones, I am just waiting for Dr. Josh Bowen to come after this video.

[@luka243]

That's why more than earthly knowledge we need to spend time with the holy spirit! and he touches people God bless you all

[@wannabe_scholar82]

@Witchy Wisdom yes

[@steve582]

Same as divorce: for the hardness of their hearts. He let's man discover that owning other humans is wrong.

[@francmittelo6731]

"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.

[@epicurious6078]

@@JesusisKing134 provide evidence that a god exists otherwise you're just making an assertion.

[@francmittelo6731]

@@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.

[@marvalice3455]

@@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.

[@dog_curry]

Nonsense. How do you know owning other humans is wrong? Where does it say that in the Bible. How self righteous of you

[@martinecheverria5968]

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 🇦🇷

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I’ll do one that will cover that issues this December.

[@martinecheverria5968]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Can't wait for it!

[@עמיחיאלימלך-כ8ל]

@@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.

[@ThatSocratesguy]

@@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." ?

[@Faithful_1]

@@InspiringPhilosophyhey ip thank you for this video I thought we hacked to live by every command and I had a pet dog and thought well one I’ll never be clean 2 everything I own will never be clean 2 I would never meant God, it kinda made me back away from the faith Ty so much to you and God for making and showing me this video series, one question does the law just remind us what sin is?😊

[@stevetherush1193]

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

[@thecloudtherapist]

God bless you, IP. May the Lord always give you wisdom and reveal more of His truth to you.

[@TheSpaniard-5337]

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!

[@PiRobot314]

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.

[@PatrickHutton]

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"

[@PatrickHutton]

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."

[@PatrickHutton]

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."

[@PatrickHutton]

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.

[@John-fk2ky]

@@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.

[@Epistemophilos]

@@PatrickHutton "Democracy, the god that failed" by Hoppe explains how monarchy > democracy, though it isn't ideal.

[@eniolaelisery1503]

Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 shows God in fact hates slavery.

[@mikebrigandi_]

Exodus 21:7 and leviticus 20:13 shows your god loves to murder and enslave kids. chrsitianity is terrorism

[@codythedoggo7671]

​@@mikebrigandi_feel free to elaborate

[@AntiFurryJihad]

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.

[@codythedoggo7671]

@@AntiFurryJihad and where are these contradictions?

[@newjerseylion4804]

⁠​⁠​⁠ 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.

[@cyrillarweh4379]

AS MANY AS POSSIBLE CHRISTIANS NEED TO HEAR AND WATCH THIS!... AWESOME ✨🔥

[@TheSmackerman]

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.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I’m going to do a video on Christian ethics in December.

[@hillaryfamily]

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.

[@TheSmackerman]

@@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.

[@hillaryfamily]

@@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.

[@hillaryfamily]

@@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).

[@carlosbalazs2492]

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.

[@aldenvidal]

Amen! Beautifully said. For me, raising the bar means removing the unnecessary and improving what is important like the Ten Commandments.

[@ronnychristenjoyer6778]

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.

[@qaz-fi1id]

🤡

[@debarghapaul866]

This line of reasoning is dangerous, as many atheists, who understand the historical contributions of Christianity, can extend it to say that even the New Testament ethic is superceded via secular ethics, as equality of souls before gods means just basic human rights, a d also God and bible was just a noble lie to get at the humanistic atheism.

[@richhornie7000]

Ain't that a good thing though

[@JEFFtheMACDONALD]

While I'm not sure I fully agree with your conclusion, I 100% appreciate the effort and presentation of theses ideas. I've never heard it expressed in this way before so I will chew on it. Thanks IP!

[@isaacmarshmallow8751]

I bet John Walton is pleased with the increased publicity of his ideas 😂😂

[@HaraldHadrada87]

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. 😭

[@d4ben]

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.

[@Watchful-Of-MySalvation]

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!

[@ryguy1928]

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.

[@jamievans38]

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.

[@ryguy1928]

@jamievans38 Good idea. I think it could work in tandem with my idea in certain interpretations.

[@josephthomasmusic]

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.

[@Paladin_440]

We Christians need to understand that Christ did more than just modify the Law. He MADE the Law. He is the one who wrote it. Jesus did not abolish the law, He fulfilled it. The Law is now complete in Christ. The Sermon on the Mount is basically an amendment to the Constitution that is the Law of Moses.

[@rickandrygel913]

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.

[@KillerMZE]

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"

[@AnimeOtakuDrew]

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.

[@jesusistheonlygodamen3406]

Your videos are absurdly high quality, God bless.

[@moshimeshowu747]

Well hold on, what about the inherent lack of condemning slavery in the New Testament? There are about half a dozen direct mentions to slavery in the New Testament, and none of them say "slavery is a morally wrong practice, we should stop participating in it at this time." At the time that the New Testament was written, the Jews and early Christians were being persecuted and enslaved by Rome, so you'd think that discourage the practice of slavery would be empowering for early Christians and yet Jesus only uses slaves as an analogy for parables and heals a slave. Paul defends Onesimus and implies that Philemon should let them free, but that is a focus on the individual. Nowhere does it say "and btw, tell everyone that this practice is morally abhorant." If slavery was still moral in the New Testament context as it was in the Old Testament context, how can it be declared moral today? Its morals are based on that of the 2000 or more year old ancient moral codes of barbaric practices, why would we even still listen to it today?

[@spaceresident331]

It’s a good question to ask. And you make a wise point regarding the historical context of the persecution of the Jews and Christians at the hands of the Romans. But it’s also worth noting something else from that historical context: slave revolts in Rome were not a rare occurrence. The third Servile War had ended only 70 years before the times of Jesus Christ. And in 10 AD, the Roman government passed a law that if a man was found killed by one of his slaves, all of the slaves under his roof were to be tortured and executed. Slave mutiny was taken extremely seriously in those days. Paul and the apostles were thus careful about overt condemnations of slavery, which held the potential to start an uprising or gaining the wrath of the Romans. The potential for a slave uprising would not only run contrary to the life of peace they promoted in their writings, but also give the Romans reason to move to far heavier oppression and persecution sooner, since the writings could then be said to be inciting insurrection. Rather, by establishing that there is “neither slave nor free” in the body of Christ and thus bringing about places where slave and master were completely equal (and even where the slave may have greater authority than his master should he become a bishop; some of the early popes were former slaves themselves), Paul was building the foundation for slavery’s weakening and eventual abolition in the long term. And given how long it has taken for the world to generally agree that slavery is wrong (and it still happens today, sadly, between human trafficking and other abominable practices), I wouldn’t consider it a leap to say that humanity simply wasn’t yet ready to give up slavery at the time of the New Testament writers. Similar to how Moses permitted divorce to the Israelites knowing that they weren’t ready for law that forbade divorce. However, the New Testament’s lack of pronounced condemnation of slavery differs from the Law of Moses’s direct commands pertaining to divorce. The former implicitly encourages those who are willing to listen to leave slavery behind, the other completely permits divorce under certain circumstances. But what’s especially worth noting is that the NT does actually condemn slavery. 1 Timothy 1:9-11 illustrates it clearly. Paul lists slavers among those that the law testifies against, right alongside adulterers and murderers. The logical conclusion is that if slavers are condemned based on their willingly being slavers, then their business is condemnable, and those who partake in it partake of that sin. I’m not sure if I addressed your points fully, but this is the stance I’ve read on the issue. Hope this helps answer some of your questions!

[@DR_Sam_YouTube]

Well, that’s because Jesus wasn’t fighting for social justice. He mostly talked spiritually. Especially with the “there is nether slave nor master in Christ” it shows that while a society, even a Christian one, might have slaves/slavery, it’s not really about that. In the epistles, you actually kinda get the impression of “Even if you’re a slave or a widow, serve Christ as best you can.” Additionally, since the earliest Christians believed that the second coming was within their lifetime, it makes sense that they wouldn’t try to reshape their immediate society, but rather, stay wherever they were in hopes of Christ coming back to set things right. So it’s not about slavery as a practice being wrong, it’s about the actual mistreatment of slaves. As long as a slave remained faithful to God, then it doesn’t really matter the work conditions.

[@DR_Sam_YouTube]

Basically, Jesus left it up to the people to determine that slavery was wrong. He was never focused on stuff like that.

[@jeffphelps1355]

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

[@geoffrobinson]

“By what standard?”

[@jeffphelps1355]

@@geoffrobinson what do you mean

[@aGoyforJesus]

@@jeffphelps1355 all this judgement is taking place without an objective standard

[@jeffphelps1355]

@@aGoyforJesus it is comical to see atheist who have no standards judging God that gave us standards

[@joseisrael6260]

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?

[@lokieleven2694]

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.

[@joseisrael6260]

@@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.

[@richhornie7000]

​@@joseisrael6260making slavery go away overnight is only possible by violating free will. Without violation of free will, you need humanity to realize on its own and that takes a very long time. Think about the people of our world who wants to abolish capitalism? Do you just follow through with their plan? Surely you'd think abolishing capitalism overnight will bring untold amount of chaos and violence. Same goes for slavery at that time. Remember, slavery was normal for thousands of years, people think freeing all slaves overnight will bring about heavy economic and political collapse. And people at that time had very little class consciousness, even lesser than people of today. They didn't even know slaves and slave owners had diametrically opposing interest much like proletariat and borguoise of today.

[@rockingpox2274]

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.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

You haven't even watched it yet. I address that verse.

[@rockingpox2274]

@@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

[@Christfollower123]

@@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?

[@rockingpox2274]

@mysotiras10 There's no evidence that the Psalmist is speaking outside of the spirit. You're just saying that

[@rockingpox2274]

@mysotiras10 The proverb you quote isnt scripture btw. Paul denoted when he was speaking outside the spirit. Psalmists do not

[@patrickbovard2054]

I’ve been wrestling with this topic on and off for years and this video has helped me so much. I feel like it’s clicked and I can be much more at peace on this topic. Thanks so much!

[@thomasecker9405]

Well done, Mr. Jones. This was very soundly put.

[@judeasiedu]

Leviticus 25:44 KJV - 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.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

Yeah, IP is definitely whitewashing this problem to suit his antiOT agenda. God himself said "yeah go and buy slaves from the nations as much as you want, but dont have fellow Israelites for slaves for I am their Lord, you should free them". But I dont think that the Jewish Law allowed some horrible mistreatments of slaves like killing them or abusing them, but still they treated them as a property that could be sold

[@alexwr]

Someone didn't watch the video...

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@alexwr yes the point of the video is God allowed them to do morally abhorrent things like genocides slavery polygamy death penalty by stoning etc. Because they were stupid (morally and intelectually incapable to hear that those things are so abhorrent and disgusting)...

[@41A2E]

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.

[@onethdasanayake3689]

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

[@41A2E]

@@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. :)

[@tytyyea1]

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.

[@41A2E]

@@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.

[@zairogamerxs]

@@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.

[@Spektor211]

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. 🙄

[@flylikeabird_2065]

This is the perfect example of CONFIRMATION BIAS.

[@Spektor211]

@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.

[@karlokulas5677]

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

[@flylikeabird_2065]

@@Spektor211 Sorry not you. the vid lol

[@Spektor211]

@@flylikeabird_2065 oh. Hahahah. Sorry. And yes. I agree. I feel silly. Sorry

[@nateofthesevenhills]

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.

[@Pitchy1010]

Recently I've been agonising over some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and have watched/read so many Christian thinkers try to explain it away based on context and the original Hebrew. It never quite sat right with me. This video is the first time I've seen this approach suggested, and it makes so much sense. Thank you so much IP for this and all the work you're doing, God bless ❤

[@LECityLECLEC]

Thanks for making this video! It’s a wonderful video. God bless your channel and your outreach :D.

[@jeffphelps1355]

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

[@elguan737]

Well now IP has given us another route to apologetic.

[@stephenrice2063]

"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.

[@zairogamerxs]

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.

[@elguan737]

​@@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?

[@stephenrice2063]

@@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.

[@wannabe_scholar82]

Nice the second installment to a series on the TO-RAH thank you ip cant wait for this!!!

[@strawberrylatte8742]

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.

[@christopherdiaz851]

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.

[@obad.iah.]

Thanks!

[@JD-np5xq]

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.

[@xwyl]

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.

[@Mouthwash019283]

lmao yes, this does call some nutty Protestant doctrines into question

[@tylerf5914]

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.

[@JD-np5xq]

@@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. :)

[@Mouthwash019283]

@@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!

[@1unvbill]

The Bible is full of stories where God says “don’t…..” and people do anyways. Then the people suffer for doing wrong and going against God’s wishes. Then the people come back to God and his wishes and things get better, well normally. The whole Bible is a lesson.

[@mbontoi]

-Exodus 22:28-29 "The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. 30 Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep." casually saying to slaughter to him their firstborn like they slaughter cattle -1 Samuel 15 Jehovah commands to kill men, women and babies -Ezekiel 9:4-6 Jehova: "slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women" -Isaiah 13:16-18 "Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;Their houses will be plundered And their wives raped." no comments here -Jeremiah 19:16-18 "And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters" -Numbers 31:14-16 Moises the chosen one of god killing defenseless hostages and using the girls who have not seen baron as slaves, and you can imagine what kind of slaves. -Exodus 32:27-29 again Moses the murderer

[@juozapasjurksa1400]

That is exactly what I needed. Thank you, man! 💚

[@christophersnedeker]

One question I have is what about the new testament and slavery? Nothing in the new testament seems to condemn slavery either.

[@jesusismyhelp9005]

New Testament slavery is Christian being in slavery not owning them

[@mbontoi]

“Slaves, obey your human masters ” - Jesus (Col 3:22)

[@rayzas4885]

Paul tells a Christian to free his slave. The ethics of christ have no room for slavery

[@rayzas4885]

​@@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

[@jesusismyhelp9005]

@@rayzas4885 where

[@docforest4851]

Wait, God can compromise? That’s news to me.

[@followtheleaderftl1763]

Bro. So good. So proud of your work and research. Jesus loves you so much!

[@blahblahblacksheep6347]

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.

[@lucaskohn5457]

I've read Matthew 19.8 not too long ago and thought to myself 'even Jesus is saying that certain passages exist because of the limitations of people back then, why there are certain christians saying that the Bibble is the complete and unadulterated Word of God?' The words of Jesus refute this interpretation, thank you for this video!

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

And he says the scribes were lyers.😅

[@chubbyclub2502]

This is a very good video. It honestly helped me so much in knowing why that one verse allowed child Marriage.

[@armellebiampamba4257]

Wait, what?! Where?! Please don't say Numbers

[@chubbyclub2502]

@@armellebiampamba4257 lol forgot. I don't think it allowed it but it never prohibits it.

[@armellebiampamba4257]

@@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

[@chubbyclub2502]

@@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.

[@armellebiampamba4257]

@@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

[@makenziehollister8533]

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

[@pjspov647]

We broke our covenant and all the curses followed until this very day. Revelations completes our journey back home and a return to our covenant while describing in detail the inevitable destruction of this man made system where love has grown cold and people only care about themselves as the flesh and their worldly gains without considering eternity.

[@pjspov647]

@@sdhappyprince are you my judge? No? Don’t worry about what I remember. My relationship with the Most High is between he and I. I look to him and am not concerned with man no matter what they profess their faith is and no matter what sin he’s trying to judge me for. You don’t know me. I answered the question as it was posed, that is my understanding. I see no need for further communication because we are total strangers and none of this is personal.

[@pjspov647]

@@sdhappyprince did I misunderstand? What else do I think total stranger?

[@pjspov647]

Tell me more, this is fascinating.

[@lauriemikhael9920]

@@sdhappyprince That quote directly has to do with Cain killing Able who was his brother, not strangers?

[@lauriemikhael9920]

​@@sdhappyprince This quote suggests that the origen believed the Seraphim, "angles” are revealed this knowledge because of their anointed status as Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Sons of God, Bene elohim, are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies, as in seraphim, or cherubim. Jewish angelic hierarchies. It only refers to a few as "Sons of God” The term "son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible as another way of referring to humans with special relationships with God. You’re using that term as a new age “Christian” way speaking as Jesus was said to, which is a mistranslation. I believe we are all parts and parcels of God. It’s a much more intricate way of saying that we are all God's children, or "Sons of God” Although, with logic you must also believe in original sin. Everything written in the scriptures is not cohesive . From Genesis 4: "The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. “… Why do you think God so unappreciative? I personally would rather have a piece of fruit than a piece of murdered dead flesh, but that me. I don’t believe that one needs to kill another spirit soul to remain satisfied with God, but this is the Lords actions which seem to have triggered his grandson for not killing, or giving equally in His eyes? From Genesis 4:1-9 Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.[b] She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering-fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”[d] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”... “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” This whole story revolves around killing. I personally prefer a much philosophical spiritual outlook.

[@Casperian61]

4:30 “God says the law wasn’t enough, it’s effect on people (justice for women) wasn’t enough” 7:30 “God says the law is enough and was enough and restored life”

[@jasonrodgers880]

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.

[@Anonymous-hk2de]

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!

[@user78994]

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.

[@Anonymous-hk2de]

@@user78994 Why should I worry?

[@Spriktor]

@@user78994 freedom is being able to be stubborn..?

[@myjesusisall3192]

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!

[@aandersonsantos4596]

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'.

[@Lehiblack]

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.

[@Pedant_Patrol]

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?

[@Lehiblack]

@@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.

[@Pedant_Patrol]

@@Lehiblack- 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.

[@Lehiblack]

@@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.

[@Pedant_Patrol]

@@Lehiblack- 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.

[@vincent9413]

Can’t believe I almost missed this upload. An absolute bunker buster of a video.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I’m not sure if “bunker buster” is a good thing.

[@vincent9413]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Well it’s effective. Let’s say that then.

[@Ελκίον]

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.

[@epicurious6078]

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.

[@acem82]

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.

[@marvalice3455]

@@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.

[@cscutler]

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.

[@sarahsnipes7915]

I want to thank you so much for this and the previous video. It may just be what I needed to help me heal from the hurt caused by being disfellowshipped from a church for not tithing and the other teachings I questioned as absolute law in the church.

[@sarahsnipes7915]

Sabbath and I clean meats and the feast etc

[@marshapple]

Wow, this is good. I never looked at it like this.

[@jamesellis701]

You are pretty

[@marshapple]

@@jamesellis701 oh. Thank you

[@notdraginegg]

The Complexity of Servitude in Ancient Israel: An Examination of Leviticus The concept of servitude as presented in the Bible, particularly in the book of Leviticus, requires careful consideration of historical and cultural context to avoid the pitfalls of modern interpretations. In Leviticus 25:44-46, the text addresses the acquisition of "slaves," using the Hebrew word "ebed," which can mean both "servant" and "slave." This duality is essential for understanding the nature of servitude in ancient Israel, as it reflects a system that differs significantly from modern conceptions of slavery. One crucial aspect of Leviticus 25:44-46 is the notion of "buying" individuals. This act also extends to Hebrew "servants," as outlined in Exodus 21:2, where Israelites could sell themselves into servitude due to debt or other circumstances. This framework indicates that the system was not solely about ownership and exploitation but included voluntary elements. Individuals might have entered servitude as a means to acquire money, food, shelter, or other necessities, suggesting that the arrangements could be mutually beneficial. Moreover, in Leviticus 25:47, the language implies that individuals sold themselves to foreigners, reinforcing the idea that these transactions were often voluntary and based on necessity. This contrasts sharply with modern slavery, where individuals are forcibly taken and treated as property without rights. In ancient Israel, servitude could be a strategic choice for individuals seeking economic stability rather than a condition imposed upon them without consent. The economic context of ancient Israel further supports this interpretation. Many people entered into servitude not because of a rigid class structure, but as a means of survival in a society without modern welfare systems. The practice can be likened to indentured servitude, where individuals worked for a specified period in exchange for support and sustenance. This dynamic underscores the complex social and economic realities of the time. Thus, while the terms and practices described in Leviticus may use language that resembles modern concepts of slavery, it is crucial to recognize the differences in context. The biblical system of servitude included aspects of choice, mutual benefit, and economic necessity, which are absent in the brutal realities of modern slavery. Applying contemporary definitions without considering the historical context can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of ancient texts. In conclusion, the interpretation of servitude in the Bible, particularly in Leviticus, highlights a complex system that differs significantly from modern understandings of slavery. By examining the language, cultural practices, and economic contexts of ancient Israel, we can gain a clearer perspective on the nature of servitude during that time

[@yekkub9425]

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")

[@jessepost1108]

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.

[@stmp4160]

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.

[@keithdean9149]

Some laws were for people, through all time. Some laws were for the people of that time and could be changed, modified, or even done away with as needed. Some laws were strictly for the Jews of that time.

[@ThatSocratesguy]

@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." ?

[@jeffphelps1355]

God commanded us not to steal, we still steal, God commanded us not to kill, we still kill. God commands us to love our neighbors yet we enslave each other over and over. It's our doing not God's

[@jeffphelps1355]

@Witchy Wisdom my God is love, humanity is filled with hate

[@tylerf5914]

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.

[@anthonyjames4319]

Dodgy indeed.

[@BurnBird1]

@BuddyTheRookie The issue you have there is that then you must be of the opinion that slavery is morally permissible.

[@BurnBird1]

​@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.

[@allolp]

@BuddyTheRookie Are you saying that the Old Testament view of slavery is more moral than the modern view of slavery?

[@MyContext]

@BuddyTheRookie You are coming off as a loon given your referencing a social issue as opposed to slavery.

[@ceuson3]

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!

[@alistairdarby]

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)

[@brickcreation7074]

@14:48 That's true, I became worse since I tried to legally follow Torah, but much nicer and kind when I stopped.

[@tripperdan]

Thank you so much for the work that you do. This provides such great insights and thoughts to ponder.

[@jameswoodard4304]

Telling Christians that we should feel bad or have doubts because moral imperfections existed within the Mosaic Law is like denying the divinity of Christ because we can point to Moses having made errors. "Yes, and? Did the Bible ever portray Moses as an infallible and eternal moral exemplar on whom we should place our hope? Christ is the "better than" fulfillment of Moses' role. God did not err in not going as far as He could have in restraining the wickedness of the people. People arguing this essentially are arguing that the very grace by which God allows us to exist makes Him morally corrupt. If they had their way, the Bible would have ended in Eden with God instantaneously blinking Adam and Eve out of existence. God "put up with" a regulated form of slavery. Just like He put up with literally every single individual or social failing since Eden. His plan is for Him to progressively reveal Himself more and more to us over time, rather than laying the full weight of His divine standard on us all at once. There's no point in reinacting the Deluge on a regular basis. Even saving Noah and his family was an act of grace!

[@user78994]

Why would a god need to compromise? In order to make this argument, you needed to transform him into a powerless statesman. Here's a better solution, simply provide the gift of open-mindedness to the Israelites?

[@khankorpofficial]

He explained that

[@DavidBills-36963]

Righteousness is a choice that we need to practice to make perfect.

[@anthonyburrell1043]

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.

[@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid]

I dee the better here to mean Christ.

[@izzykhach]

The Jewish approach to the question is different. Laws regarding slavery and the status of women contain existential truths about mankind, the roles of the sexes, and different economic systems, even if those truths go against our modern notions of fairness. The Mosaic law is meant to apply to all times and places, not simply our post Enlightenment world. That having been said, societies are allowed to develop and be stricter than what the Torah allows, and serve as a secondary source of morality. If in 2023, for instance, western countries do not allow slavery. Therefore, we should not allow slavery. But that doesn't mean that the Mosaic law is inherently flawed or is simply catering to a human weakness.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

All right but why then would God make an imperfect moral code for people to follow? that just seems kind of stupid

[@richhornie7000]

Imagine in modern day that a rambling prophet gives this law that calls for the total abolishment of capitalism and replace it with a whole new economic system that is beyond capitalism. How would you react? Most people will say this guy is dumb, naive, or even an extremist. Nobody will listen to what he has to say because everyone thinks this is a lunatic speaking. Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years and now this lunatic thinks him and his God can just abolish it? So in order for this rambling prophet to even be listened and get some followers, he needs to tone down his challenge to the status quo. Instead of calling for abolishment of capitalism, he instead calls for the better treatment of workers by capitalist class, but by still maintaining the necessity of the status quo of gross wealth inequality. Now he sounds less naive, stupid, and extreme and have a better chance getting following. Now replace capitalism with slavery. Does this not make sense? Remember that slavery in the antiquity has been around for thousands of years, possibly longer, compared to capitalism's few hundred. Institution of slavery was significantly more entrenched into society than institution of capitalism of our time. So that's why there's practically zero reason for God to give perfect mosaic law because most people are too used to the status quo and were incapable of imagining its abolishment, exactly like in our own era.

[@yee2631]

​@@richhornie7000I'm not really so convinced by this analogy for the reason that God would theoretically be much more capable (being omnipotent and all) of instigating radical changes within a society compared to the prophet in your analogy who's still an ordinary human. The idea of an omnibenevolent entity being an incrementalist is a bit strange to me personally.

[@richhornie7000]

@@yee2631 I am not too sure what you suggest God does in this case though. Should God just violate free will of slave owners by changing their hearts directly? Maybe just give them the perfect moral code which we can be sure slave owners at that time, completely devoid of consciousness that modern humans have, will never follow through. The incrementalist change kinda has nothing to do with God's omnipotence and everything to do with how slowly human moral consciousness develops. Took thousands of years for humanity to realize slavery was bad, even though it should be so goddamn obvious. Same goes for today's morality. Vast majority of humans still believe that eating meat for example is moral. Vast majority of humans still defend capitalism with all the extreme exploitation and the extreme wealth inequality it entails alongside catastrophic environmental destruction that comes with it. In a lot of ways, we humans are nowhere near as moral as we would like to believe ourselves to be.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

@@richhornie7000 @richhornie7000 the difference between slavery and the other things you mentioned is the fact that we can easily end slavery with God simply saying slavery is forbidden. If slave masters still had slaves the pious followers of God would simply revolt and demand an end to slavery. The issue with the other things is that if we end capitalism tomorrow the whole world will end because all the trade will be destroyed countries that relied on food imports will go hungry and millions of people will die. The reason why we still eat meat is because if we stop we don't have the infrastructure to supplier sells with enough protein to survive sure we have nots and other types of vegan foods like tofu but there's not enough Supply that would stop the demand it has to stop slowly. Another scenario would be like if slave masters refused to get their slaves they have it in secret or hide them like how thieves hide from the authorities and hide their Treasures that they steal from people. It wouldn't stop all slave masters I'm not saying that but it would have signified to the rest of the world that slavery was not okay by the god of abraham and that slave masters would have to fear going to hell and fear the Wrath of the one true God we're not suggesting that old slavery would go away or suggesting that most slavery would go away because God demanded it.

[@Michael-zi3kk]

@@yee2631 what's the main issue I have with this channel is the fact that they try to morally grandstand on Christianity and try to change the meaning of stuff and trying to get Christianity in the basket light instead of taking for it for what it actually is. Christianity from the day of Jesus has changed so much that these people can't even keep track of what's going on and will try to save the most dumb stuff possible and speak for as long as possible so that it bores its audience away from watching the whole video and those who actually do watch the video realize that he basically said nothing and went in circles for like 20 minutes. And look I'm saying this as somebody who truly does love God and the Mosaic law but you cannot justify some of the stuff that is in the Old Testament and it does not make sense for the great creator of the universe who is the most loving and generous the embodiment of good itself God to ever sign off on any of the stuff that's in this Old Testament. Regardless of time God should always have a stainless record

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Owning another person is immoral no matter who approves it either man or god.

[@holycrusader7804]

“Bu bu swavery bad so Gawd bad :(“ - about a hundred atheists in these comments

[@TheArkman360]

Yes, I think allowing oppressive laws to exist because you don't wanna negotiate with your people to be a bad thing.

[@MohamedAli-nf1rp]

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

[@Goyfestival]

Slavery isn't immoral

[@EricDillingham]

@@Goyfestival 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮 somebody STINKS 0/10 rage bait

[@Goyfestival]

@@EricDillingham How is it immoral(this is not rage bait, learn to accept that other opinions exist)?

[@Vincenzo-wn1or]

In ancient Israel slavery was basically an advance method of handling unpaid debt. Nobody was permitted to keep a fellow Israelite as "slave" for more than seven years (Leviticus 25:35-55) At that point debt was annulled. If one beat or harmed a slave, he had to be set free (Exodus 21:26) If one came across an escaped slave, one was not supposed to return him (Deuteronomy 22:28).

[@storba3860]

Doesn't this basically present God as an arsonist who wants credit for putting out fires? If we say the Old Law caused people to sin, and we say God gave it to people, that leaves us with the conclusion that God is the author of sin. Of course we could go with the premise the Law wasn't given by God but presented to God by the people but then we're left with the conclusion that God is willing to compromise to fit with the current culture which means we don't actually have to follow what God says. That seems like a pretty dangerous dichotomy.

[@Muhluri]

I agree with you. If god is all-knowing then it means he intentionally allowed misinformation to spread. That contradicts his “loving” nature

[@emmanueljiju3838]

I think the bible is pretty clear about the Torah The largest chapter in the bible psalm 119 is about how beautiful the torah is? As long as christians downplay the law of God, the torah loving jews would never accept your Messiah.

[@sharpreflectionsdetailing7265]

An amazing explanation. Thank you for making this video.

[@juanisanchez1180]

My question now is why doesnt the New Testament say anything about slavery being abolished but rather seem to endorse it a LOT of times (discussing regulations of slavery like in the Old Testament) why is this? Can anyone help me with this bc I am really struggling with this issue

[@Musathekafir]

One guy called Islam Critiqued talked about this on his channel he even quoted what scholars and historians say it was a good video that explains this

[@juanisanchez1180]

@@Musathekafir thank you so much for your answer, do you happen to have the link to the video or know the title by any chance? It would help a lot🤲

[@Ghidorah00]

This logic could be applied to any religious scripture.

[@j.gstudios4576]

And your point is?

[@ceasedesist9676]

Not really, do they also state that their scriptures are inherently imperfect and that their gods planned and did the same way?

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@j.gstudios4576 his point is, we could justify any religion using this method.

[@alexwr]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 Only if this idea is supported in said religious scriptures.

[@alexwr]

It can be applied to other religious texts if they also show that the God of that text compromised with the people. However that's on a text by text basis, it's not a logic that can just be applied to every single religious text. The text itself has to show us that the laws it mentions were never meant to be considered perfect, but rather contextual. IP provides passages that clearly show that to be the case with the Torah, but you need examples.

[@drac7478]

Has IP ever made a video about Numbers 31?

[@chrisbrower9532]

IP, I love you brother, but if feel like you are slipping lately. I’m just 5 mins in and there are a handful of simple errors in understanding the reasons for the Law, that go on to prove a faulty foundation for the rest of the video. (At 5:23, this is just not right; objectively.) Love you man, keep up your work, I watch all of it… just tighten up is my only encouragement.

[@jameswoodard4304]

I find Hebrews really helpful on this topic. It reminds the 1st century Jews that God had long ago prophecied the coming of a new and better covenant, which implied that the Mosaic Covenant was neither eternal, final, nor perfect, by God's own declaration in the OT. Jesus, the New Covenant of grace, and our current state before God are "better than" replacements which "fulfill" the old place-holders.

[@CatholicK5357]

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.

[@marvalice3455]

I think they are still bad, but bad things are not always the same as evil things

[@CatholicK5357]

@@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.

[@padmad3832]

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.

[@CatholicK5357]

@@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.

[@kdidmsksh7677]

Psalm 19:7 The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple.

[@Jolomon]

IP addresses that verse. Didn’t you watch the video?

[@TruthInScripture7]

6:31

[@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578]

We need a lot more videos on mosaic law, and old testament ethical issues! Thank you for this!

[@feline2322]

So the Torah was like a training method. Like how Thai fighters condition their shins to take heavy blows from other fighters. Their training looks towards the stronger collisions to their shins that will come.

[@thetrintarianmessianicyahw589]

Once I realized how how stubborn Humans are We are lucky to have a God who Compromised when he didn't have to.

[@shankz8854]

Surely you must believe he created everything about us. How can “luck” have anything to do with it? Surely it couldn’t have been any other way.

[@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid]

@@shankz8854 - we’re all human in our limited expressions.

[@jacobharman2010]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[@simonthorneycroft1339]

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.” 26 He also said, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. 27 May God extend Japheth’s[b] territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” Can the treatment of Canaan be explained and justified?

[@stmp4160]

What? That is Noah showing his anger against Canaan, not God saying that.

[@simonthorneycroft1339]

@@stmp4160 It is indeed Noah who acts, although his anger perhaps was with Ham, Canaan was not the one who saw him naked, although quite why Ham should be the cause of anger is not clear to me as it was Noah who got intoxicated, and Ham's misfortune to stumble across him drunk and naked. However, it should be noted that God chose Noah to survive the flood, and presumably God had some respect and admiration for Noah to so chose him. So God did not sentence Canaan to be made a slave, but there is no suggestion that God made any attempt to dissuade or prevent this injustice. At a time when there were eight humans alive, when God could make His will clear, his hostility to slavery as a punishment clear, there is no evidence he took that opportunity. Do you think that "God should have taught a better system than that?"

[@stmp4160]

@@simonthorneycroft1339 Noah was the best man alive at a time when everyone was Horrible, that does not imply that he was great and righteous, he was just the most righteous of the time. Also we do not see the enslavement of Ham, the closest we see to the enslavement of Canaan(the Land) is later on in Exodus and Deuteronomy where that isn't even exactly slavery either and it also wasn't caused by Noah's curse, rather from the fact that they were doing literal child sacrifice. We do not know what God said to Noah about such words or if he spoke at all but God not correcting One sentence from a man whom is hang over, whom never acted on it and nobody heard, isn't bad ethics really. Noah never displays such hatred again and doesn't enslave Ham, it is safe to assume that it was a spur of the moment thing which occurred because he was in a state of confusion and anger after the hang over. Like you said, the reason for him being mad is nonsensical, it is evident he was not thinking straight.

[@simonthorneycroft1339]

@@stmp4160 You said Noah was not a good and righteous man, but Genesis 6:9 disagrees with that description of yours as it describes Noah as a "a righteous man, the only blameless person living on earth at the time, and he walked in close fellowship with God." 9 This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless person living on earth at the time, and he walked in close fellowship with God. 10 Noah was the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Is there a reason why you form an opinion which is contrast to the Biblical description?

[@stmp4160]

@@simonthorneycroft1339 indeed, verse 9 says "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.". The verse says that he was "blameless in his generation". You quoted the verse a bit weirdly claiming he was blameless entirely and not compared to his generation which is impossible, only the Christ is truly blameless. Nevertheless the same language is used for many, one example is David, he is called blameless, yet God did not allow him to make the temple but gave it as a job to his son due to how much blood he had shed. Just because one is blameless compared to his generation and is righteous amongst his people does not imply he is prefect. My denying of him being righteous was not to say he had no such quality but more so about how "Non are good except God". People are called "blameless" all over in the Old Testament when they are close with God, that does not mean they have no flaws nor any hate. Again, David's example first comes to mind, he took pleasure in his victories and was proud for his bloodshed. Only Jesus the Christ is the true blameless one, he who didn't know sin.