The inadequacy of the law of Moses

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Jesus witnessed the inadequacies of the law of Moses in Matthew 5. You now... the Sermon on the Mount that "supposedly" gives "life" to the doer....

Notice how Jesus addresses "the law of Moses'.....

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Notice how Jesus describes the inadequacy of such a law.

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Those Pharisees that ruled Israel would never dare literally commit adultery with another women. It was "against the law". However, they sure did WANT TO.... They dreamed about it. They desired to do it. They WOULD do it if they thought they could get away with it....

That is the way of men and the inadequacy of the law of Moses. They appeared outward as righteous keepers of the law.... Yet inward they were....

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
 
Jesus witnessed the inadequacies of the law of Moses in Matthew 5. You now... the Sermon on the Mount that "supposedly" gives "life" to the doer....

Notice how Jesus addresses "the law of Moses'.....

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Notice how Jesus describes the inadequacy of such a law.

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Those Pharisees that ruled Israel would never dare literally commit adultery with another women. It was "against the law". However, they sure did WANT TO.... They dreamed about it. They desired to do it. They WOULD do it if they thought they could get away with it....

That is the way of men and the inadequacy of the law of Moses. They appeared outward as righteous keepers of the law.... Yet inward they were....

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
It is contradictory to think that Jesus is one with the Father while also thinking that He thought that what the Father commanded was in adequate. When Jesus directly quoted what was written in Matthew 4, he preceded it by saying "it is written...", but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being said in Matthew 5, he proceeded it by saint "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different from of communication is important. So Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written in disagreement with the Father, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being wrongly taught about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

For example, if we correctly understand what is being commanded by the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our hearts, then we won't look at a woman with lust our hearts. Everything that Jesus taught in Matthew 5 was thoroughly rooted in the OT. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were, and he never criticized them for obeying it, but he did criticize them for n to obeying it (Mark 7:6-9) or for not obeying it correctly (Matthew 23:23).
 
It is contradictory to think that Jesus is one with the Father while also thinking that He thought that what the Father commanded was in adequate. When Jesus directly quoted what was written in Matthew 4, he preceded it by saying "it is written...", but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being said in Matthew 5, he proceeded it by saint "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different from of communication is important. So Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written in disagreement with the Father, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being wrongly taught about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

For example, if we correctly understand what is being commanded by the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our hearts, then we won't look at a woman with lust our hearts. Everything that Jesus taught in Matthew 5 was thoroughly rooted in the OT. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were, and he never criticized them for obeying it, but he did criticize them for n to obeying it (Mark 7:6-9) or for not obeying it correctly (Matthew 23:23).
Geesh. Are you seriously saying that Jesus wasn't directly quoting the law? Can you tell me how what Jesus reference as "you've heard" is different than what the law actually said? They are identical. This is ridiculous contrived nonsense.

Also, of you want to combine the 7th and 10th commandment.... Which Christ did not do, then you're ignoring the virgin these weaselly men desired to violate. Why are you doing this?
 
It is contradictory to think that Jesus is one with the Father while also thinking that He thought that what the Father commanded was in adequate. When Jesus directly quoted what was written in Matthew 4, he preceded it by saying "it is written...", but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being said in Matthew 5, he proceeded it by saint "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different from of communication is important. So Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written in disagreement with the Father, but rather he was fulfilling the law by correcting what the people had heard being wrongly taught about it and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

For example, if we correctly understand what is being commanded by the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our hearts, then we won't look at a woman with lust our hearts. Everything that Jesus taught in Matthew 5 was thoroughly rooted in the OT. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were, and he never criticized them for obeying it, but he did criticize them for n to obeying it (Mark 7:6-9) or for not obeying it correctly (Matthew 23:23).
Also, you are presenting a theology wherein the law is good enough to save man. You are insisting that the law of Moses IS Christ.
 
Geesh. Are you seriously saying that Jesus wasn't directly quoting the law? Can you tell me how what Jesus reference as "you've heard" is different than what the law actually said? They are identical. This is ridiculous contrived nonsense.

Also, of you want to combine the 7th and 10th commandment.... Which Christ did not do, then you're ignoring the virgin these weaselly men desired to violate. Why are you doing this?
Indeed, Jesus made a clear and consistent contrast between saying "it is written" and saying "you have heard that it was said". For example

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While the Mosaic Law does instruct to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct to hate our enemy, but rather loving our enemy is in accordance with verses like Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22. On the other hand, everything that Jesus said after "but I say unto you..." was in accordance with what was taught in the OT.

I did not combine the 7th and 10th Commandments, but spoke about correctly understanding what they instruct. Lusting after a virgin could also be considered to be fornication by the same logic.
 
Also, you are presenting a theology wherein the law is good enough to save man. You are insisting that the law of Moses IS Christ.

I did not say tat the law is good enough to save man or that the Law of Moses is Christ, though the Law of Moses is God's word (Deuteronomy 5:31-33) Christ is the embodiment of God's word (John 1:14).
 
Indeed, Jesus made a clear and consistent contrast between saying "it is written" and saying "you have heard that it was said". For example

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While the Mosaic Law does instruct to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct to hate our enemy, but rather loving our enemy is in accordance with verses like Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22. On the other hand, everything that Jesus said after "but I say unto you..." was in accordance with what was taught in the OT.

I did not combine the 7th and 10th Commandments, but spoke about correctly understanding what they instruct. Lusting after a virgin could also be considered to be fornication by the same logic.
They heard because it was written. There is no difference.
Yes. You combined the 7th amd 10th commandment. I don't know how to take liars. You specifically referenced the same sentence in relationship to adultery. Anyone can read your words.
 
They heard because it was written. There is no difference.
Yes. You combined the 7th amd 10th commandment. I don't know how to take liars. You specifically referenced the same sentence in relationship to adultery. Anyone can read your words.
What what written and what they had heart being taught what was written were not the same things and I demonstrated this by showing an instance of what they had heard being said that was not part of what was written. Indeed, I spoke about two separate commands in the same post, but I did not say that they were the combined into the same command. Looking at a woman with lust in our hearts violates two different commands and the commands against doing that shows a correct understanding of both of those different commands.
 
What what written and what they had heart being taught what was written were not the same things and I demonstrated this by showing an instance of what they had heard being said that was not part of what was written. Indeed, I spoke about two separate commands in the same post, but I did not say that they were the combined into the same command. Looking at a woman with lust in our hearts violates two different commands and the commands against doing that shows a correct understanding of both of those different commands.
Yes. You combined the two commandments because you could not get the words of Christ from the 10 commandments. You know you can't. Jesus expressed His Divinity and authority Mat 5:28 But I say unto you,

Tell me. Give me on single instance from the Scriptures where this was ever SPOKEN.

That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

You are disparaging the revelation of the Jesus Christ and belittling His authority by insisting this was already expressed in the Scriptures. If it were, then Christ would have quoted it the Scriptures. He did so many times. Many many times.

I'm tired of arguing with you and receiving repetitive statements as you've made above. Claim victory and enjoy your life.
 
Yes. You combined the two commandments because you could not get the words of Christ from the 10 commandments. You know you can't. Jesus expressed His Divinity and authority Mat 5:28 But I say unto you,

Tell me. Give me on single instance from the Scriptures where this was ever SPOKEN.

That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

You are disparaging the revelation of the Jesus Christ and belittling His authority by insisting this was already expressed in the Scriptures. If it were, then Christ would have quoted it the Scriptures. He did so many times. Many many times.

I'm tired of arguing with you and receiving repetitive statements as you've made above. Claim victory and enjoy your life.
Saying that one action is violating two commands is not combining those commands. For example, if someone steals money from their parents, then they are breaking the command to honor their parents and the command against theft, but this is not combining those commands. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Jesus did not do that. It is by no means belittling his authority for him to teach from Scripture. Jesus is one with the Father, so he was not in disagreement with what He commanded, but rather Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy to defeat the temptations of Satan, so he recognized its authority. I'm sorry you feel that way, my goal is clarity of understand the Bible, not claiming victory.
 
Saying that one action is violating two commands is not combining those commands. For example, if someone steals money from their parents, then they are breaking the command to honor their parents and the command against theft, but this is not combining those commands.

You're moving the goal post..... One doesn't need the other. Both require the same judgement.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Jesus did not do that.

Jesus took away the penalty of the law. Are you denying this? Trying to apply Deut 4:2 to the Lawgiver is utterly preposterous.

It is by no means belittling his authority for him to teach from Scripture. Jesus is one with the Father, so he was not in disagreement with what He commanded, but rather Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy to defeat the temptations of Satan, so he recognized its authority. I'm sorry you feel that way, my goal is clarity of understand the Bible, not claiming victory.

You're making egregious mistakes here. I'm not going to keep watching you do it.....

By the way..... In Christ's response to Satan, He was reminding Satan of all his failures. Failures that Christ was never tempted to do Himself.

Jesus expressed the Truth because He IS Truth.
 
Last edited:
You're moving the goal post..... One doesn't need the other. Both require the same judgement.
Not moving goal posts, just giving an example of what I said.

Jesus took away the penalty of the law. Are you denying this? Trying to apply Deut 4:2 to the Lawgiver is utterly preposterous.
I do not deny that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Jesus was born under the law and he was sinless, so it is not preposterous to say that he obeyed Deuteronomy 4:2.

Jesus expressed the Truth because He IS Truth.
And the Torah is that truth that he expressed (Psalms 119:142).
 
I do not deny that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Jesus was born under the law and he was sinless, so it is not preposterous to say that he obeyed Deuteronomy 4:2.

Jesus wasn't offered in accordance to the requirements of the law. Jesus wasn't offered according to the requirements of the order of Aaron. You've been lied to so long that you haven't even recognized that your arguments are self defeating.

And the Torah is that truth that he expressed (Psalms 119:142).

The word "Torah" comes from Greek. Not Hebrew. It is a witness the to first 5 books of the Bible canonized by the work of the seventy and Josephus. Don't pretend otherwise. The fact you use it the way you do proves you know the difference and the complexity of the term and you don't care to deal with it adequately.

You're not presenting scholarly work. Like I've said before. I makes me think you're very young in your Messianic views. You're still holding on to your ancestor. Just let it go. Christ is better.
 
The word "Torah" comes from Greek. Not Hebrew. It is a witness the to first 5 books of the Bible canonized by the work of the seventy and Josephus. Don't pretend otherwise. The fact you use it the way you do proves you know the difference and the complexity of the term and you don't care to deal with it adequately.

You're not presenting scholarly work. Like I've said before. I makes me think you're very young in your Messianic views. You're still holding on to your ancestor. Just let it go. Christ is better.
No, Torah is definitely Hebrew and refers to the the Books of Moses or to the instructions that they contain:


Christ is God's word made flesh, so following him is not better than following God's word, but rather obeying God's word is the way to follow Christ. You are opposing following what the Bible says is truth.
 
No, Torah is definitely Hebrew and refers to the the Books of Moses or to the instructions that they contain:


Christ is God's word made flesh, so following him is not better than following God's word, but rather obeying God's word is the way to follow Christ. You are opposing following what the Bible says is truth.

Maybe you don't know. Look a little harder and don't rely upon Dr. Strong to know everything. He was good man. He did a great service to all of us by cataloging various words as correlating them in a searchable manner. However, he didn't deal with variant renderings or usages. He also did not deal with the ancient Greek OT. You should add that to your list. The ABP+ electronic edition will help you with word associations with ancient Greek.

I'm going to make a enemy of you if I keep responding to you. I don't to do that. Consider what I say and I'll see you around.
 
Maybe you don't know. Look a little harder and don't rely upon Dr. Strong to know everything. He was good man. He did a great service to all of us by cataloging various words as correlating them in a searchable manner. However, he didn't deal with variant renderings or usages. He also did not deal with the ancient Greek OT. You should add that to your list. The ABP+ electronic edition will help you with word associations with ancient Greek.

I'm going to make a enemy of you if I keep responding to you. I don't to do that. Consider what I say and I'll see you around.
I haven't suggested anything like that I know everything or that I am a doctor, so please stop burning straw men. You are free to consider yourself to be an enemy your straw man arguments.
 
Jesus witnessed the inadequacies of the law of Moses in Matthew 5. You now... the Sermon on the Mount that "supposedly" gives "life" to the doer....

Notice how Jesus addresses "the law of Moses'.....

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Notice how Jesus describes the inadequacy of such a law.

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This Post is making several popular but untrue assumptions here, in my view. First, it is assuming the "Them of Old Time" is talking about God and Moses. This same Christ "of the Bible" just got through telling us that not one part of the Law or the Prophets shall pass till all is fulfilled. Obviously, all has not yet been fulfilled, as the Christ "of the Bible" has not yet returned, and at the time of this teaching, HE had not yet even been killed. And Jesus also just spoke about disobeying even the least of God's commandments and being more righteous than the mainstream preachers of His day. What if Jesus wasn't rebuking His Father, or demeaning His Father's Laws at all? What if HE was rebuking the Shepherds spoken of in the Prophets?

Jer. 50: 6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their resting place.

What if "Those of Old Time" wasn't God and Moses at all. What if they were these shepherds spoken of over and over in the Prophets?

It is written in the Prophets,

Prov. 6: 23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: 24 To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. 25 Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.

God's Law, including His Law about Adultery, has a purpose defined in the Law and Prophets. Even Abimelech was careful to understand this.

God's Word teaches the truth about God's Law, the Shepherds who taught a vision of their own mind and led people astray, (Them of Old Time) didn't. This is undeniable Biblical Truth.

In every case, Jesus is showing that those preachers who led Israel astray taught part of God's Law, but "Omitted" the Weightier matters.

Matt. 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Matt. 5: 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Duet. 24: 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Matt. 5: 33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Duet 23: 21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. 22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

In every case, Jesus points out that unlike the Pharisees and their fathers, Jesus was not "Partial" in the Law. Mal. 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. Jesus was the Righteous Priest of God.

But of "Them of Old Time" who Jesus was rebuking, Malachi says;

Mal. 2: 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Jesus confirms this understanding when HE replied to a religious voice who uses "Some" of God's Word to deceive others;

Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

So the Jesus of the Bible didn't rebuke His Father, nor did HE disrespect those Prophets His Father Sent before Him. He simply pointed out again, that the religious philosophies the Jews were living by, were from Shepherds of old time, who didn't believe Moses, who "omitted" very important parts of the Word of God and were teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. They had become "Partial" in the Law, as it is written.
 
This Post is making several popular but untrue assumptions here, in my view. First, it is assuming the "Them of Old Time" is talking about God and Moses. This same Christ "of the Bible" just got through telling us that not one part of the Law or the Prophets shall pass till all is fulfilled. Obviously, all has not yet been fulfilled, as the Christ "of the Bible" has not yet returned, and at the time of this teaching, HE had not yet even been killed. And Jesus also just spoke about disobeying even the least of God's commandments and being more righteous than the mainstream preachers of His day. What if Jesus wasn't rebuking His Father, or demeaning His Father's Laws at all? What if HE was rebuking the Shepherds spoken of in the Prophets?

Fatal flaw......

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Notice the decay. Not the decrepit state. Notice.... DISAPPEARING.
 
Fatal flaw......

Yes, the fatal flaw in the religious philosophy you were promoting, is the belief that the "Them of Old Time" was God and Moses, when the Biblical Truth is that the "Them of Old Time" were the Corrupt Priests who had become "Partial in the Law" and "omitted" some of the most important parts of God's Righteousness in the religion they created. I posted the Scriptures which clearly show this. Did you not believe them?

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Notice the decay. Not the decrepit state. Notice.... DISAPPEARING.

The Hebrews author quoted Jeremiah 31. Lets go and hear what God told us straight from the Word.

33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make" with the house of Israel;

OK, so here it is, this is the God of the Bible telling both you and I, what Covenant He will make "After those days". Here it comes.

"After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Well something became old and was ready to vanish. But it certainly wasn't God's Law, at least according to HIM. In fact, HE is going to quite the extreme measure to guarantee that His Law is never forgotten by His People by writing them, not on paper, but on the human heart.

Can I ask what religion convinced you that God's LAW disappeared "After those days"?

Please Consider Hebrews 8 again.

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

What Covenant did God make with Israel "Because" they Broke the Covenant HE gave them in Ex. 19: 5&6?

The Hebrews author knew the answer to this question. Shouldn't you?
 
The Hebrews author quoted Jeremiah 31. Lets go and hear what God told us straight from the Word.

As typical of those who hold your position. You refuse to actually deal with the words of the writer of Hebrews. The writer is not appealing solely to the words found in Jeremiah 31. He is extending the revelation of Jeremiah to include the work of Christ in fulfillment.


Funny.... It is so difficult to get people to recognize that the very words they quote are the very words that condemn them.

You don't keep the law now. You can't. Your priestly order is gone. Your temple was destroyed. You've intermixed and played the whore among Gentiles to the point that you have no rights to claim a bloodline to Abraham. You're just a gentiles like the rest of the world. There is only One single heir to Abraham. That is Jesus Christ.

I mean seriously... You appeal to a law written on your heart as if you're actually keeping that law. You even detail what you believe is the reason for the disannually of the covenant as breaking the law..... and don't even realize if what you believe is true....

Then you're doing the exact same thing. Your circumcision has become uncircumcision. You don't understand the words your quoting.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom