6 Times Jesus Contradicted the Old Testament

6 Times Jesus Contradicted the Old Testament February 26, 2018

A friend recently told me that Jesus would never contradict the Old Testament scriptures.


In response to that statement, I’d like to offer this list of specific contradictions that Jesus made against teachings found in the Old Testament:

1) According to Deuteronomy, God commands His people to swear in His name:
Old Testament: “You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.” – Deuteronomy 6:13

But Jesus says that to swear by anything is “from the evil one”:

 
Jesus: “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” – Matthew 5:37

2) The Old Testament says that God’s people should show no mercy and practice an eye for eye form of justice:

Old Testament: “Show no pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” – Deuteronomy 19:21

But Jesus contradicts this directly:

Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” – Matthew 5:38–39

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” – Matthew 5:43-48
3) The Old Testament teaches that adulterers should be put to death without exception:

Old Testament: ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10

Jesus famously ignored this command when they brought the woman caught in adultery to him:
Jesus: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground….”Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.'” – John 8:3-11

4) The Old Testament commands that no one do any work on the Sabbath:

Old Testament: “But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do.” – Deuteronomy 5:14

Truth be told, no one breaks the Sabbath more than Jesus does. There are dozens of examples but here’s just one:

Jesus: “Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath” – John 5:8–9

 
5) Right after healing this man on the Sabbath, Jesus goes one step further and He commands this man to break the Sabbath, too!
In Jeremiah 17:21–22 it says that no one should carry any burden on the Sabbath:
The Old Testament: “This is what the Lord says: Be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem. Do not bring a load out of your houses or do any work on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your ancestors.” – Jeremiah 17:21-22
Truthfully, the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day understood that this was in direct defiance of the specific OT command:

“…and so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.” – John 5:10

 
6) Not only this but when Jesus famously declares that “God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45) this is in direct contradiction to what Moses said in Deuteronomy 28 where he claims:

If you obey the Lord your God and faithfully keep all His commands…then He will send rain in season from his rich storehouse in the sky and bless all your work…But if you disobey the Lord your God and do not faithfully keep all his commands and laws that I am giving you today…No rain will fall, and your ground will become as hard as iron. Instead of rain, the Lord will send down dust storms and sandstorms until you are destroyed.” (Deut. 28:1-24)

So, does Jesus ever contradict the Old Testament Scripture? Yes! He most certainly does.
What does this mean? It means that:
*Jesus is the “Word of God” made flesh
*Jesus as the Living Word of God has the authority to correct the written Word as-needed
*The Old Testament Scriptures are modified by Christ because He is the reality they were always pointing to
*Jesus – His life, His teaching, His example – are the standard which everyone, and everything [including the Bible] must measure up to and align with [not the other way around]
This also means that the Old Testament Scriptures, which were written by men, were sometimes “inspired” and sometimes not so much.
How do we know the difference?
Simple: Whenever those Old Testament Scriptures accurately point us to Christ [as in prophecies about Jesus and His incarnation, ministry, identity, etc.] we know that those are truly inspired.
But, whenever we see verses that conflict with Jesus, or His teachings, or His character, or that don’t align with His revelation of the Father, etc., we can safely say that  Jesus was right and those men who write the Old Testament were wrong [at least in those cases].
Does this mean we can just make the Bible say anything we want?
No. Sorry. That’s not what it means. [Unless what you want the Bible to say is exactly in line with Jesus and His teachings and life, then, yes].
Please note: This is not an arbitrary realignment of truth in the Scriptures. It’s a Christ-centric alignment of truth, which sees Jesus as the standard.
Why? 
Because Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Because Jesus is the exact representation of the Father.
Because no one has ever seen God at any time except for Jesus. [Which means that those other people who wrote the Old Testament did not see God clearly, and certainly not as clearly as Jesus does because He is God in the flesh].
For example: In the Old Testament Scriptures, it was said that God commanded His people to kill innocent women and children and even warned them not to hold back or to show any compassion on the infants or the toddlers.
“[God Almighty says] Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'” – 1 Sam. 15:2-3

“But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction…” – Deut. 20:16-18

Can you imagine Jesus turning to you and commanding you to go next door and kill every man, woman, child, and even the pets of your neighbors? Does that sound like something Jesus would say? Does that sound like something that the “Abba” revealed by Jesus would command His children to do?
Of course not. Therefore, we can conclude that verses like these are projections of God’s character made by men who sometimes heard from God prophetically and at other times [like these] did not.
How can we know this? Because we know that the God revealed to us by Jesus would not command this sort of violence against women or children, nor would He condemn someone for showing mercy and compassion on the weak and the helpless.
Jesus has shown us the Father. He is like the Father and the Father is like Jesus.
The Father that Jesus reveals to us does not command us to kill our enemies or their infants. Instead, He commands us to love our enemies, to bless them, to do good to them, and to pray for them.
He even tells us that when we do those things, we are also doing exactly what the Father does!
We have not yet fully embraced the idea that Jesus was the only one who has ever seen God.
We have not yet fully accepted the idea that Jesus reveals the Father to us better than anyone else does.
We have not yet completely believed Jesus when He tells us that God loves and even blesses His enemies and that’s why we should do it, too.
But, I have very high hopes that we might get it soon. That is my prayer.
Keith Giles is the author of “Jesus Untangled: Crucifying Our Politics To Pledge Allegiance To The Lamb” and the co-host of the Heretic Happy Hour Podcast. He lives in Orange, CA with his wife and two sons.
"I generally earn as much as $16000-$17000 monthly through the net. After doing work so ..."

Why John 3:16 Isn’t About The ..."
"Really scary how successful the devil is in taking the church off track. Is there ..."

The Crowley/Darby Connection
"The word church appears 115 times in the kjv 112 is a bad translation and ..."

Why I Hate Going To Church
"A bit of a long bow attributing blame to Darby for Crowley's outcome. there were ..."

The Crowley/Darby Connection

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Iain Lovejoy

    Jesus openly states he requires higher standards from those who would follow him than those required by OT law. If that counts as “contradicting” it, then fine, but otherwise:
    Deuteronomy 6:13 is about exclusive loyalty to YHWH, and states that when oaths are made they shall be by / to YHWH and not any other God. It is not commanding that people must swear oaths. By the same logic “dogs must be carried on the escalator” means you’re not allowed on the escalator without a dog.
    OT law is not a criminal code in the modern sense but a set of rules for limiting and regulating private revenge. Jewish tradition asserts that the lex talonis was only ever about paying due compensation for injury done, and from Numbers 35:31-32 it seems clear that only for premeditated murder was an accused not permitted to pay compensation in lieu of blood revenge to those seeking it. For Jesus to say that one should not take revenge even to the extent permitted by the Law is not to contradict what the Law says about when such vengeance was permitted. Even in the case of adultery, as can be seen by Jesus being confronted by a mob demanding vengeance, not police and a court, this was the Law regulating “honour killings” by communities of those said to have “shamed” them. (Joseph, for example, is said to be a just man, not a lawbreaker, when he resolves to divorce Mary quietly when he thinks she has cheated on him.)
    Jeremiah in 17:21-22 is referring to merchants bringing in goods for sale into Jerusalem on the Sabbath. The Law just says people shall do no “work”. It is the Pharisees, not Jesus or the OT, that have created rules about what one can and cannot carry that constitutes work. It is not contradicting the Law to reject glosses being added to it which burden and condemn people unnecessarily.
    You are really stretching it to say a general observation about the rain falling on everyone “contradicts” the Bible because it refers to an incident where God sent a drought to Israel.
    I do agree that we have to understand the Bible in the light of Jesus, and passages where we read of massacres in the name of God cannot be taken at face value as being what God wanted, but this isn’t the same as saying Jesus “contradicted” it.

  • Kathleen Hendriks

    I agree completely with Iain Lovejoy’s comments about Jesus and that Jesus calls us to “higher standards from those who would follow him than those required by OT law”. Jesus was also the fulfillment of many of the OT scriptures and prophesies, so he doesn’t contradict them. By Jesus healing the lame man on the Sabbath glorifies God and keeps the Sabbath holy, but the Pharisees had perverted the laws and added hundreds of requirements that were not specifically referenced in the OT. In this situation, Jesus was pointing out that for Him to use God’s power to heal, and for the healed man to walk and carry his mat (on the Sabbath) was in their eyes (the Pharisees) disobeying God’s laws. Jesus was the living truth, but his life and words don’t contradict or discredit any of the old testament. They are the embodiment of God’s divinity in human flesh.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    I strongly disagree with the concept of Jesus “contradicting” the Old Testament Law. It shows, once again, how unfamiliar people are with the Old Law.
    And the response on “What to do with those differences…” really leads to a whole new can of worms…

  • saffiregal

    The question is are you taking verses out of context and missing the entire point? Are you misunderstanding the difference between the Old Law Covenant for God’s people at that time which was replaced with the New Covenant under Christ. It’s not easy to follow the word because not one mortal is perfect, but we try our best (Phil 3:12) Taking an oath before God is not cut and dry the way you understand it.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/vows-God.html

  • Don’t forget this, Matt 19:8 (Pharisees had asked Jesus about divorce):
    “Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.”
    I think Jesus means even more broadly that the OT contains many things that needed to be there (God needed to “tell” Moses) because of the hardness of the tribal culture and primitive needs/beliefs.

  • Paul

    The standard Jesus ascribed to that was higher than OT law was love. I agree with Martin Luther who said, “Love should be the interpreter of law.” He also said if any law acts contrary to love, it should be done away with, whether that law is of divine or man-made origin.

  • Keith, much of your ideal picture of Jesus you paint comes from John, written 70 years after Jesus died. It’s highly unlikely he ever said any of the things attributed to him in John. You say that the Old Testament scriptures “written by men . . . were sometimes ‘inspired’ and sometimes not so much.” Why do you assume John got Jesus right? Because you agree with it? We’ll never know what the historical Jesus was really like, but it’s best to go with our earliest sources, not John. The historical Jesus was most likely did not preach universal love. He was focused just on the Jews, warning them to repent because the literal kingdom of God was about to erupt in Jerusalem. In Jesus’ mind, the Jews who didn’t repent and start living by the Torah would be sent to hell by God. Jesus believed in a heavenly Father who sent people to hell — a very Old Testament kind of thing to do!

  • Marshall

    within the same vein as other comments posted here… This article illustrates how traditional interpretation of Torah (old testament), and at times, New Testament, passages is more often not worth its weight. at Deuteronomy, mla’kah [#H4399] referring to gainful-work (such typically as “employment” today). from 6:13, shaw-bah’ (to declare something seven times, as to indicate completion) is not quite the same as the Greek ομω (to declare something upon oath). Many of the things Jesus addressed (as with the religious leaders) hung on traditions which had been (at some point) added to the plain meaning of the Torah. Leviticus 20:10 worked upon a standing accusation. Jesus isn’t contradicting just by mercifully eliminating would-be witnesses from the crowd.

  • Danielle

    Actually, Jews didn’t believe in “Hell” like the one painted out of Dante’s inferno of today. Ghenna(Hell) was the an actual place outside the walls of Jerusalem where the Romans dumped the thousands of dead bodies of the Jews who didn’t heed Jesus’ warning to leave the city when they saw the “signs” before the temple and city were burnt to the ground in 70 AD.

  • Danielle

    How come everyone who adamantly disagrees with is is not addressing the part where God orders the killing of men, women, & babies? Did God order the killing of babies? Very difficult question to wrestle with. I believe if we are going to take scripture seriously we need to face it at some point. Or we can close our eyes or explain away this atrocity.

  • Not true. Jesus believed hell was a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth. It was hotter than, well, hell. Look at all of Jesus teaching on hell and you’ll see what he thought clearly

  • Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

  • Mr. James Parson

    If morality means following what God wants, then there is nothing wrong with it. God can order you or I to kill someone and it would be moral because God willed it.

    If morality means the same thing as well being, then God is not a factor and we can say that God can and has ordered immoral things.

    Consider

    And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:14)

    And this is typically where the apologetics kick in. BTW, this stuff is talked about just not in Christian circles. See: https://www.amazon.com/God-Most-Unpleasant-Character-Fiction/dp/1454918322

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    These comments are very good and to the point. Stretching the meaning of “contradiction” beyond the breaking point here seems to be motivated by something other than understanding the teaching of Jesus in context. Besides, the New Testament considers Jesus to be the prophet spoken of in Deut. 18 to whom like to Moses God’s people were to listen; as the anointed and authorized reviser of the commandments of God he had authority to reconfigure what it meant to be faithful under the new covenant established in his blood sacrifice. If you hadn’t noticed this way of thinking about the teaching of Jesus before please re-read the New Testament with these thoughts in mind. All the best to all in Christ.

  • Marshall

    from Matthew 25:41, εις το πυρ το αιωνιον, “on to eonian fire” or to say, “fire of the age”. RCC tradition (widely adopted by Protestants) grafting into some English Bible translations “eternal”. Rotherham, Youngs Literal, Concordant… some translations having already corrected for this “traditional” translation error.

  • Marshall

    …as from Exodus 32:14, naw-kham’ is to sigh; to breathe out deeply. not a “repented” per se.

  • Danielle

    Do a little historical digging and you will find there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth while the thousand of Jews were trapped in the walls of the city with no food, no clean water,….there were dead bodies around, disease was rampent and then to top it all off the Romans burnt them alive along with the Temple that had become a den of theives aka Babylon.

  • Danielle

    Mr James, I’m still missing where you read the OT through the lens of the fullness of the revealed Christ. Isnt that reading OT the same way the Pharisees did…which is why they missed the Prince of Peace in their midst? Your not replying with any NT scripture…where we find out it’s the enemy who comes to kill, steal, and destroy. The OT did not have the full light yet…Christ had not come. “If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father”. Wasn’t it revealed that WE are the ones who desire death and not God??? When the created creatures tourtuted and killed the Creator?

  • Danielle

    The Bible is not the perfect revelation of God; Jesus Christ is. What the Bible does infallibly and inerrantly is point us to Jesus and shows us that Jesus Christ is “the exact imprint of God’s very being.”

  • Very good observations here Keith! There is another time that is so very significant– after preaching the Sermon on the Mount, what did Jesus immediately do? He touched a leper. That is a direct contradiction of the Law. Jesus did not abolish the Law and the Prophets, he fulfilled them both. This means He rendered the Law powerless and freed us from it’s supervision. He nailed the regulations of the Law to the cross in His flesh. The sign of circumcision in our flesh was changed into the Sign of His flesh on the cross. The Old Covenant is obsolete, and will soon fade away. The Old Covenant is the old wineskin. Jesus poured new wine into this old wineskin, and it is bursting all over. http://unexpectedchristianity.org

  • Very good observations here Keith! There is another time that is so very significant– after preaching the Sermon on the Mount, what did Jesus immediately do? He touched a leper. That is a direct contradiction of the Law. Jesus did not abolish the Law and the Prophets, he fulfilled them both. This means He rendered the Law powerless and freed us from it’s supervision. He nailed the regulations of the Law to the cross in His flesh. The sign of circumcision in our flesh was changed into the Sign of His flesh on the cross. The Old Covenant is obsolete, and will soon fade away. The Old Covenant is the old wineskin. Jesus poured new wine into this old wineskin, and it is bursting all over. http://unexpectedchristianity.org

  • “we try our best”? This is a component of the hamster wheel/sin management gospel that plagues American Christianity. Jesus said you must be perfect and you must surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees. How can we meet those two requirements by trying our best? To “press on” as found in Phil 3:12 is vastly different from “try our best”.

  • Why such a problem with contradicting the OT Law? I think I hear your concern: saying “contradict” implies disrespect and disobedience, and seems to conflict with what Jesus said about fulfilling the Law. However, in my mind, “contradict” is within acceptable bounds in order to make Keith’s point. I hear Keith saying just what Hebrews 8 says, esp. Hebrews 8:13.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    Because they are not contradictions… When you look at the Law as given, and you look at the law as practiced by the Scribes and Pharisees, it is obvious that Jesus refers to ACTUAL intent, rather than GROWN tradition.

    Keith’s example on swearing, for instance, is flawed. The object lesson is not about, for or against swearing. If you make a promise, keep it. And finding ways to get out from under the promise/oath (I did not swear by the GOLD of the temple, just the temple) is dishonest.
    The example of the woman caught in adultery – again, simple! When someone is CAUGHT in adultery, obviously there are TWO people present. They only bring the WOMAN to Jesus for judgment. This again is flawed: Where is the man, (I’m convinced that is what he wrote in the sand, by the way ;-))
    So it seems Keith is leaving out half the story to make for a catchy headline: Jesus contradicts the Law.

  • In regard to the oaths example, I think perhaps Keith didn’t quote the full context, which would help clarify. Far be it from me to speak about “actual intent” of God. I will however look at the sacred text.We should read Matthew 5:33-37. The contrast is between Jesus’ words “make no oath at all” and Moses’ words “make your oath to the Lord”. Jesus is saying we should keep our promises, as you rightly point out. Jesus is also contradicting Moses’ command to make oaths, if we make them, in God’s name. This is not surprising because Hebrews tells us Jesus is far superior to Moses, so by necessity Jesus must contradict Moses at some points. Moses is merely the foreshadow, not an accurate, perfectly in-line replica.

    The contrast is far more robust than Keith hints at, actually. Moses said “You shall be circumcised!” Paul said, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything!” Yea, the new wine stands in stark contradiction to the old wineskin.

  • I don’t follow this logic. If Jesus is a “higher standard” as you say, how can He not contradict the old standard? By your own definition of being “higher”, you admit there must be contradictions somewhere.

  • Maybe I missed something… where does Jesus “openly state he requires higher standards”?

  • This is correct logic “Deuteronomy 6:13 is about exclusive loyalty to YHWH, and states that when oaths are made they shall be by / to YHWH and not any other God. It is not commanding that people must swear oaths. By the same logic “dogs must be carried on the escalator” means you’re not allowed on the escalator without a dog.”

    But you miss the point. Moses allowed for oaths if the oath was in God’s name; Jesus did not allow oaths. Jesus says “make no oath at all”. That is the contradiction.

  • Marshall

    Jesus expanded on the old. like this, from Matthew 5:27-28… “You have heard that it was said. ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

    something like adding college training to an elementary school education? The “old” couldn’t take us very far.

  • I agree the old could not take us very far. But I’m not convinced of this expansion. Is the new wine merely an expanded set of old laws? Is the new simply an improved old? Is Jesus saying the 613 mitzvah are not enough and we need 1,050 new precepts? In my mind, the new is superior to the old, and the old cannot contain the new. Who sews a new patch onto an old garment?

    But even so, if the new is simply an expansion of the old, even that implies contradictions. For example, in elementary school, I learned it is good to wait in a line before entering the classroom. In college, I learned a contradictory lesson: go into class on your own; no need to wait outside in a line.

  • Mr. James Parson

    If I am understanding you correctly. The OT might have questionable things in it, but the NT clarifies everything because it is more complete. I hope I got that right. If that is what you are saying, then you have opened up a new set of problems.

    – Mormons can come in and claim the Bible is correct in a much as it is translated correctly, but the Book of Mormon gives the “real” and complete story
    – Christian Scientists like Mary Baker Eddy can come in show the “real” to read the Bible

    In other words the holy book is always subject to revision. Canon can never be fully closed. More importantly interpretation of canon can never be fully closed.

  • saffiregal

    Yes, trying our best! Philippians 3:12. is doing our best by pressing on and striving toward the ultimate reward from God.
    First century Christians were not perfected or claimed to be. Everyone falls short of the glory of God. The power of Gods holy spirit strengthened them as long as they were working in harmony with it. Galatians 5:22-26 is a guideline to follow. I struggle daily to do my best as not to displease my maker. It’s an ongoing battle to fulfill the nine fruits of God’s spirit. If I fall short (which I have) he gives assurance he will hear my prayer and help me as long as I am truly repentant. No one is actually saved or reaches perfection in the fullest sense until they reach the goal and receive the reward of immortal life.

  • Danielle

    No…you are not understanding me correctly Mr James.
    I would describe it more like this….The whole Bible is not the perfect revelation of God; Jesus Christ is. What the Bible does infallibly and inerrantly is point us to Jesus and shows us that Jesus Christ is “the exact imprint of God’s very being.”

  • Rudy Schellekens

    The rest of the story… “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it…”
    The second series of communications with the Jewish leaders. Same concept: If you make a promise, keep it. Moses speaks of careless oaths. Joshua makes the nation take an other. Joseph calls for an oath… The making an oath is not the issue (Nazorite vow ring bells?) It’s the intent with which the oath comes into existence. When you make a promise, no length of oath makes a difference if the oath was made without the intent to fulfill.
    Circumcision – was for ISRAELITE MALES only. And for those who wanted to become part of the nation. It was a remembrance to the oath God made to Abraham regarding land, people, and final blessing. GENTILES have nothing to do with that oath. Gentiles did not become Jews, they became Christians. So I am not sure why that would be counted as a ‘contradiction…’
    Jesus was a Jew. Lived and died under Jewish law. Had it not been for the resurrection (the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord…” there would still be the Jewish law to be maintained and lived by the Jews. Jesus lived the Law according to it’s intent, not through the traditions of the elders. His explanation, application and interpretation of the Law was exactly as Moses had written.
    And the idea, btw, that Moses made up law as he was going along (Re. divorce) is as incorrect as the other examples use. Read the context of the divorce statement in Deuteronomy. It is, like the rest of Moses’ speech, introduced as “These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land…”
    The repercussions of Keith’s conclusion is dangerous. If Moses made it up, when do I know when he did NOT make it up?And you can start that line of thought from Midian… Burning bush, really? And that voice you heard, he really assigned you the leader? And your brother, he really was the one God selected to be our religious leader, our high priest? Riiiight
    The idea that, “When Jesus repeats it, we know for sure it was to be kept…” is another one. If I can’t trust Moses, how can I trust Jesus? Why would I trust Jesus?

  • Mr. James Parson

    Thanks for you comment. I think I understand where you are coming from.

  • Ah my friend, I fear you may have missed the gospel. I too once thought the good news was this striving, this struggle to remove sin, this doing my best, pleasing my maker like a servant! The Spirit’s call, in contrast, is to enter into rest (Hebrews 4) as children, trusting Him as the birds of the air trust. I do press on, yes, but only for one goal: to remain in His rest. Doing so bears the fruit you speak of.

    I agree none of us is perfect now. However, I am actually saved–saved from this striving to please and managing my imperfections. Heaven is already within me. My soul is already at eternal rest, for my future is guaranteed. Death has no power, though surely I will pass through it and surely I will be in Heaven.

  • “Gentiles did not become Jews, they became Christians”… The book of Galatians in the Bible speaks otherwise. Peter and John and others really really really believed those Gentiles must submit to certain parts of Judaism, especially circumcision. They wanted Gentiles to become Jewish Christians at first. This idea of becoming Christian and skipping the Jewish OT requirements took a long time to change, and perhaps exists even to this day.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
    Matthew 5:20

  • Iain Lovejoy

    As I happily conceded, if saying that you have to go further than the law requires is “contradicting” it, then Jesus “contradicts” the law. It’s just not what I think most people would regard as “contradicting” it.

  • I respect your concession 🙂 And I agree that most people think that Jesus expanded the Law, making it tougher and that He does not contradict the Law. This common belief, at least among American Christians, is something unhealthy, in my observation. If Jesus is in such agreement with Moses, then what made the Pharisees so very angry, angry enough to kill Jesus? (Thank you all for this lively, civil discussion btw!)

  • saffiregal

    I fear you may have missed the gospel, but I won’t judge you. I am sure we can agree to disagree. Have a good day!

  • Rudy Schellekens

    And the response of Paul, in that same letter? “ark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law…” Paul argues against the very practice of circumcision for Gentiles…
    Judaizers did not want Gentiles to become “Jewish Christians” first, they wanted them to become Jews first…
    Same conversation in Acts 15, btw

  • Perhaps I am slicing too thin here… but I feel compelled to continue. I contend that these words do not point us to an expansion of the Law or a higher set of standards. Nor do they point us to “better prophets” (both the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled).

    These words point us to perfection. Who could possibly exceed the righteousness of Jewish Pharisees? I can never do that, yet Jesus demands it to be done. None of us could ever do that. Even Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees could not do that. He did the opposite. He said his Pharisee training is dung.

    Jesus does not demand simply a higher standard, He demands perfection in this very text we are discussing, the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:48) Jesus’ point is perfection, and the only way to do that is to love and to surrender to the fact that ultimately only His righteousness satisfies this demand for perfection.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    That is not what Matthew 19:8 actually says, or even close. What version (if any) of the Bible are you using? Jesus was actually objecting to the Pharisees misquoting Moses as “commanding” divorce which he said had never been the case. “…but it was not what God had originally intended.” has been invented by whoever wrote your translation.

  • Correct. Thus the way to perfection is not by obeying the Bible, but by striving to remain in His rest, to remain in Him.

  • saffiregal

    Hi John, The scriptures are not always to be taken literally. They also contain allegories and symbolic meanings.

  • Indeed, Paul “got it” clearly. And yes Judaizers did not “get it”. But what of Peter? What of John? and those with them? Peter did not sit with the uncircumcised. In his mind they could be full fledged Christians only if they submitted to circumcision.

    Some Christian believers gained a large enough following to be a party..the circumcision party. They claimed that you must be circumcised to be saved. This is what I am referring to, those among the Pharisees who were believers: “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” Earlier they claimed salvation depended on it.

    Paul correctly retorted this, yes .But Peter and John did not do so until Paul corrected them.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    We know nothing of John and his connections with Jewish Christians.
    Peter DID sit down with the Gentiles, but moved when those from Jerusalem entered. “For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”
    But we know that Paul set Peter straight – to his face. Peter was also one of those present in Jerusalem when the question came up. Obviously, he did NOT argue in favor of circumcision at that point.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    The two parables in Matthew 9:16-17 have the same point, and have nothing whatsoever to do with abolishing the law.
    They appear as explanations for Jesus eating with sinners and not imposing rigorous fasts on his disciples.
    The second one with the “new wine” is easier to follow. New wine is still fermenting and bubbly until it settles down. Old wineskins are rigid and do not stretch. Put new wine in old wineskins and they burst and the wine escapes.
    The theological interpretation put on this that the “new wine” is Jesus’ teaching is odd, given the fact that new wine is undrinkable and old wine superior, and the point of putting the wine in the wineskins is to see it age and improve so as to be useful. The point is that newly-minted disciples and reformed sinners need a bit if give until they settle down.
    The law is both not enough (in that spirit is required, not just material compliance) and too rigid and burdensome so that it crushes the spirit if read as a set of rules to follow rather than an aid to teaching and understanding God.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    I don’t get your point. Are you saying that because Jesus’s ethical commands can’t be followed perfectly he didn’t mean us to follow them at all?

  • Ok so I feel we’ve gotten off into the weeds here. People reading this may be wondering what we are talking about.

    I am contending for one point that derives from Keith’s article: There is a significant contradiction between the Law and the Prophets of the Old Covenant and Jesus and the Apostles of the New Covenant. So much contradiction that the old may be considered a wineskin, bursting into obsolescence because of the new wine.

    This contradiction is exemplified most strikingly, in my observation, by this: Moses said “You shall be circumcised!” (Leviticus 12:3) Paul said, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything!” (Galatians 5:6).

    The old and the new cannot be reconciled. Attempts to do so have resulted in myriad divisions in the Body and the malaise that plagues our generation.

  • Marshall

    “the old cannot contain the new”, while the new indeed contains (and restrains) the old. The new is not a “patch” or a garment; human beings are the “garment” and vessel/container.

    even at (and after) college, there remains a place & time to “stand in line”.

  • Hi, Saffiregirl. Yes, I know that about the Bible. In what way was Jesus being symbolic or allegorical in when he talked about casting people into hell?

  • Danielle, I’m not following you. So you’re talking about when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD? Your saying that Jesus is referring to that?

  • Marshall

    Paul’s teaching re: circumcision may be examined with consideration for
    how he did have Timothy circumcised. We do still have circumcision…

    Romans 2:28-29 “For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, and true circumcision is not something visible in the flesh. On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart—by the Spirit, not the letter. That man’s praise is not from men, but-rather from God.”

  • That is precisely what I am saying. We are not following ethical commands, we are following Him. The Bible is not our Lord, Jesus is our Lord. The Bible is not our guide or supervisor, the Spirit is our guide and supervisor. We are not made perfect by ethics but by love.

  • Who mentioned abolishing the Law? To abolish is to “formally put an end to”. No one has formally put an end to the Law and the Prophets. Rather, they are both obsolete and fading away naturally, and slowly, as Hebrews 8 declares.

    Why do you think disciples should “settle down”? LOL I am MORE effervescent the longer I follow Him. I think your wine analogy is a bit sour.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    Show me in the Old Testament where Gentiles had to be circumcised. You find that, and the contradiction is set. IF you cannot find the command for Gentiles to be circumcised, there is no contradiction, and that one is laid to rest..
    Paul makes an abundantly clear argument that the Law is no longer in effect for any PRACTICAL purposes. Sure, if as a JEWISH Christian you want to keep following the law, fine – don’t expect anything out of it. But to expect or even demand for Gentile Christians to follow Jewish law, is a non-starter. Useless. Just as useless it was for Jewish Christians. The law is no longer valid because of the cross (Ephesians 2).
    Again, the idea of contradictions is contrived. I spent several months years ago comparing the “you have heard…” statements with the Law as given through Moses. The contradiction is not with the Law. It is with the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees…

  • Iain Lovejoy

    One can’t claim to be in any meaningful sense following Jesus if one doesn’t at least attempt to what he says. There is no meaningful distinction between ethics and love, as love is the fulfilling of the law. How can one claim to love God, or Jesus, or one’s neighbour while doing nothing about it?

  • Iain Lovejoy

    It’s not my analogy, it’s Jesus’s: if you don’t like it, take it up with him.

  • “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.” Exodus 12:48

    These foreigners (aka Gentiles) did not become Jews. But they had to be circumcised even to be temporarily part of the community (aka to sojourn with them).

  • Marshall

    ethics: moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity.

    many have mistaken the old(-er) covenant, and even some the new, as-if of ethics.
    Torah: precept.
    To assume the precept as all about humanity put upon by moral principles… that would seem as-if to be humanism’s approach to God’s precepts?

  • Iain Lovejoy

    “If morality means the same thing as well being, then God is not a factor”
    Only if God does not exist, or is not the source of existence, and thus not God. If God is the source of all existence, then ultimately all wellbeing not only derives from God, but is the signature presence of God, in the same way that the sensation of heat is the signature of a heat source.
    Saying God is love is not just a figure of speech. If morality is to have any objective meaning at all, the things we identify as “good”: love, life, renewal, creativity, beauty, joy etc all must share a (difficult to define but real and identifiable) property of “goodness” which things we identify as”bad”: hate, death, decay, destruction, ugliness, sorrow etc do not. If God exists then that property is to be identified with the manifestation of the creative, positive source of existence.
    If we correctly identify something as bad or immoral we are asserting that it does not contain this property of “goodness” or directly obstructs it. God therefore cannot produce evil because evil is the absence of goodness, which is itself the presence and action God. God cannot produce the absence of himself, and any purported manifestation of God which is not good, isn’t God.
    Bits in the Bible which apparently describe as bring the actions of God evil things must therefore either be wrong, or we are misunderstanding the point being made. Hence apologetics.

  • Mr. James Parson

    Thank you for your comment.

  • saffiregal

    The concept of suffering for eternity is not a Bible teaching. It certainly is not what our Creator the God of love would want anyone to endure. When one dies they have the hope of resurrection to life.

    Hell is the English word for the Greek word Hades. In Hebrew the equivalency is Sheol. It simply means the Grave. There is no consciousness when someone dies and goes to their grave or burial place.

    In the Hebrew scriptures suffering Job said, “Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!” …. it is appointed for man to go into it, and the time when, as appears from Job 14:5; or his coming out of the grave, for his resurrection.

    Many Bible translations misinterpreted the word Hell as a place of eternal torment.

    Jesus spoke of the word Gehenna as a symbol of eternal death, not eternal punishment or torment.

    Two good links that explains this in more detail.

    https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/is-hell-real

    https://creationconcept.info/OP/About_Gehenna.html

  • Rudy Schellekens

    I’m a believer in closed communion

  • Danielle

    Among other things

  • My point is with the word “follow”. We are invited to follow Jesus, the person. We are directed to hear His words and put them into practice. We are not following the words, but the person. What about what Jesus did? He is the way, also. We are to be followers of the way which is not about His words, but his actions. I encounter so many Christians who are trying to follow the word, instead of the person. Thus they are entangled in a mess and lose compassion for human beings.

  • I like the parable Jesus gave; I’m just not convinced of your interpretation of that parable.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Jesus also makes false claims about what the old testament says.

    Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

    No such passage appears in the old testament.

    Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way.

    No such passage is in Isaiah.

    John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

    No such statement appears in the old testament.

  • Deist1737

    The author of Matthew (Jesus, IF he really did exist, never wrote anything himself and all there is to go on is hearsay) wrote in chapter 5, verses 17-19 that Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Since heaven and Earth have not passed, based on this teaching attributed to Jesus, the ungodly and brutal teachings of the Hebrew Bible/OT are still in place.

    Maybe we should place a higher value on what God gave us, our innate reason, than on what ancient men wrote, the Bible. As the American founder and Deist Thomas Paine pointed out in The Age of Reason ( http://deism.com/theageofreason.htm ), the only possible Word of God is the Universe and Creation itself, that only God could have designed and made.

  • james warren

    Near the end of the first century, Jesus’ followers [who were Jews] were being kicked out of many synagogues in ancient Palestine.

    This is part of the reason John’s gospel puts vitriolic anti-Semitic speech in Jesus’ mouth.

    Just as many evangelicals today insist Jesus was against abortion, homosexuality and welfare, the community of believers who valued John’s gospel as definitive wanted a Jesus who was on their side and spoke for them.

    Unfortunately, Jesus’ phony speech gave community members that Jesus was on their side and spoke for them only.

  • Alonzo

    It does not appear that Kieth Giles is a student of the Bible, ignores context, and is a superficial reader at best. First, Giles does not even bother to consider context. Second, he fails to do any research to determine what scholars have concluded about his cited passages. Third, he begins with the default assumption that there are contradictions like most liberal Bible readers. Let’s take a few of his so-called contradictions.

    1. He puts himself in a corner with a false dilemma by assuming that what Deuteronomy and Jesus state are contradictions. He does not consider that there can be a both/and rather than an either/or. That is Giles’ first failure. Second, he fails to engage the original language to determine equivalence of meaning. Rather, Giles quotes from an unidentified version and assume an equivalence in meaning translated into English from the original language for the word in his translation of “oaths.” Giles reads into what Jesus says for forcing equivalence of meaning to the Hebrew word in Deut. 6:13. Jesus never states that one should swear or take an oath., yet Giles assumes in his interpretation of Jesus’ words that He meant “swear.” Therefore, not only does Giles create the fallacy of false dilemma, but he also creates a false equivalence by reading into Matt. 5:37 what Jesus never said. Giles is a poor reader and interpreter.
    2. Again, Giles totally ignores context and shows that he is ignorant of what Jesus’ was attacking. The context of the Old Testament and New Testament are starkly different as are the audiences. Deuteronomy was addressed to the Jews in a particular place and time. Jesus addressed His remarks concerning the Pharisees’ abuse of the Law in their oral traditions. Any time one reads Jesus as saying, “You have heard it said,” that is a key that Jesus points to the oral traditions of Jews and not to the Scriptures. When Jesus cites the Scriptures, He normally uses phrases like, “It is written.” Giles does not understand this, because he is not a student of the Bible and has not read biblical scholars. The two statements are not contradictions, because there is no equivalence. Again, Giles is a poor reader and interpreter.
    3. Again, Giles does not understand the difference between Law and grace. He does not understand the purpose of the Law as a tutor, as that which pointed to Him, and because the Jews were hard-hearted. Therefore, Giles draws a fallacious conclusion called hasty generalization by not doing his homework but rather staying on surface and not delving into the Scriptures.

    In #4 & 5, Jesus again addressed the oral traditions and not the Scriptures. The Jews created oral traditions that totally suppressed mercy. One such tradition was that no one could walk more than 1/4 of a mile on the Sabbath. There is not such commandment in the Law of Moses that requires this. Giles is ignorant of the oral traditions of the Jews and how they made stuff up apart from it. Jesus did not command the lame man to break the Sabbath. Rather, Jesus rebuked the Jews for excluding mercy in their oral traditions. Ignorance shows up in everything Giles writes.

    Giles expresses his ignorance and draws conclusions without regard for context, culture, original languages, and simply not reading well. Giles would do well to do his homework prior to making another embarrassing post. He may want to read the Bible is context and learn what those contexts are.

  • Alonzo

    James, you are ignorant and show it by your moniker, also.

  • james warren

    That’s my photo, all right. But you should have seen me before the plastic surgery.

    Of course, I am ignorant. I am not so arrogant to claim I know everything. I used to think I knew a lot when I was younger. Now I know I know next to nothing about everything. And I am totally comfortable with that.

    You are absolutely right. I do not know everything.

  • Marshall

    for some odd reason, Jerome added-in “Isaiah” with his Latin translation of Mark 1:2. Guess he didn’t realize that the quote is taken from the prophet Malachi. Jerome’s translation of the Greek does present a lot of problems… many of which yet have not widely been corrected.

    Levitical priests did do their “work” as-also on Sabbath, as required within their duties (as the law details for them). It’s one of those things so obvious, and yet so easily missed.

    a better translation of John 7:38 may read as, “He that believes on me, out of his belly, as the scripture says, flow rivers of living water.” [ref: Zechariah 14:8] Trouble is, John 7:38 sounds more poetic the other way. This issue is symptomatic to approaching Bible translation as-if the text ought to become literature.

  • Ivlia Vespasia

    Hurrah, at last someone is stating the obvious. Either God wrote the OT himself or it was written by humans. If the latter then of course it has been influenced by their thoughts, perceptions and personal biases – however unintentional – plus those of any or all of the translators. Add in the differences in spellings over the centuries (how many of those mentioned could read and write proficiently), bad handwriting plus the changes in the definition of words – eg; gay, cool, hot etc. – and the odds of inaccuracies increase a hundredfold. Jesus corrected these and reminded people of the original message(s) from God.

  • bill wald

    No one including Moses knew/knows what is god’s name, “I am what I am” was simply a way of refusing to answer the question. YHWH is not an OT name.

  • Kyllein MacKellerann “

    Simple, really: The God that Jesus referred to as “Father” was not the God of the Old Testament. What other explanation works better or is less complex?

  • Ken Allen

    Perhaps “Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament” can shed some light:

    The command “to swear by His Name” is not inconsistent with the Lord’s injunction (Matthew 5:34), “Swear not at all.” Moses refers to legal swearing, our Lord to swearing in common conversation. It is not the purpose of Moses to encourage the practice of taking oaths, but to forbid that, when taken, they should be taken in any other name than that of Israel’s God. The oath involves an invocation of Deity, and so a solemn recognition of Him whose Name is made use of in it. Hence, it comes especially within the scope of the commandment Moses is enforcing.
    Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament.

  • Linguagroover

    Contradictions in Bible shock http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html The author seems to think some of it may be reliable. Oh dear.

  • Linguagroover

    So Jesus (if he existed) did not think the god (if he existed) of the Noah (if he existed) genocide (if it happened) was his dad. Whatever.

  • Serene Erby

    Jesus came to renew the Jewish Faith, saying “if you had known Moses you would know me” KJV, coming in fulfillment of Jewish Prophecy, Daniel specifically. But the Jewish clergy rejected him, as always happens with every Messenger of God, and so His followers started a new religion. And Jesus changed the laws of the Sabbath and Divorce that those are major passages in the Gospel. For a Christian not to know this……wow..

  • David Parker

    God does not contradict himself. Scripture is inerrant-without error- and infallible – incapable of leading into error.
    You need to learn what God said in his word the Bible. Systematic theologies are written to help erring mortals such as yourself understand what God has revealed of himself to his creation in his image and likeness, mankind.

  • Contradictions? Maybe not. Let’s examine the man Jesus healed on the Sabbath.
    4/5. Burden actually refers to goods for sale that were brought into the city markets, i.e. business = work. The man was picking up his own mat and leaving after being healed not going to work. It all hinges on the definition of the word “Work.” Yes the Pharisees complained about the mat. This does not mean they were correct in interpreting their own Sabbath restrictions.

    Note the Pharisees even complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath further showing their ignorance of the Law.
    There are no contradictions.

  • Glad2BGodless

    What do we know about Jesus, beyond what appears in the New Testament?

    And if the Bible is not a perfect revelation, why should we believe it is infallibly or inerrantly pointing to anything at all?

  • Realist1234

    Indeed. He shows a complete lack of understanding. The examples he has produced are similar to those cited by atheists, who then conclude the Bible contradicts itself and none of it can be trusted. Even a basic understanding that clearly some laws were given to the Israelites at a particular time, and were never meant for all eternity for all people, would have explained some. But it seems Giles now concludes that the OT is partially made up by its writers. Shame.

  • Alonzo

    Very true.

  • Triggerman1976

    Jesus did not contradict the Old Testament in anything that he said or did, because God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19).

    For example, the woman caught in adultery could not legally be executed because the law explicitly states that BOTH adulterers were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Only the woman was brought. Jesus was upholding the law.

    Jesus saying that God causes the rain to fall on the righteous and unrighteous has nothing to do with the covenant promises of God to Israel in regards to God’s common grace to all humanity, even those who hate him.

    The man having to carry his mat was not a violation of the Sabbath law because the one who is Lord of the Sabbath told him to as a testimony of the good thing that happened to him. (Going to Jeremiah to try to make this point is a blatant violation of all principles of sound hermeneutics.)

    Each one of these is similarly provable to not be a contradiction because they either ignore the context of either one or they have to stretch logic.

  • John

    Where did the premise that Jesus could not have contradicted the OT come from? Is that some holy postulation that is above questioning? I see no such biblical requirement in any part of the text. Probably some faulty hermeneutic. And why the word contradict? How about re-interpret, fulfill, redefine, clarify, complete? Perhaps you set up a false argument only to tear it down and come out on top.

  • Raymond

    Rather, they are both obsolete and fading away naturally, and slowly, as Hebrews 8 declares
    Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

  • Raymond

    In Paul the Convert https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Convert-Apostolate-Apostasy-Pharisee/dp/0300052278 Alan F. Segal suggests that Judaism and Christianity were in competition in Rome as Romans moved away from the mythological Gods. Since uncircumcised adults were reluctant to be circumcised, to say the least, Christianity gained a distinct advantage by removing the requirement. So it was marketing, not doctrine, that drove the change.

  • Raymond, you misunderstand the word “abolish”, which means to formally put and end to something. Jesus did not abolish the Law or the Prophets (aka The Old Covenant), and yet they both are obsolete and will soon disappear, as in this verse:

    “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” –Hebrews 8:13

    Jesus did not formally end the Law and the Prophets, and yet by His actions, they both would end eventually. Jesus is the beginning of the end for the Law and the Prophets, not simply the end.

  • Raymond

    What is the difference between “to formally put an end to something” and to cause the law to become obsolete and soon disappear? Particularly for a Person the exists outside of time and space?

  • Raymond, the differences I see between “abolish” and “cause to become obsolete” are significant. To formally end something means you make a declaration that the old is gone, and immediately release people from the old way. To cause to become obsolete means you let something die off naturally, and people are released as they discover the new way. The Law had to be in full force when Jesus died, so he could not formally end it immediately. He could however initiate its demise. In this way, the purpose of Jesus’ death as the Messiah was fulfilled, and the future purpose of transitioning to the New Covenant could be fulfilled.

    The same is true of the Prophets. God had a purpose for the old way, for many centuries in fact. The 3 big reformations fermenting the change from the Old to the New (found in Galatians 3:28) could transform people and cultures over time. 2,000+ years later, we’ve nearly reached the end of that Old way and the New way is so abundantly clear now. The Law and the Prophets remained a stumbling block for centuries but lose their teeth over time.

    In short, I see the difference is smashing something quickly vs. transitioning over time.

  • Also this all ties nicely to the wine and wineskin analogy. Jesus did not abolish the old wineskin by immediately pouring in the new wine. If so, it would have burst. And Jesus did not sew the new way onto the old garment, for the old would have ripped–causing too much disruption.

  • Alonzo, I think you are missing some points here, and have fallen into what I call hyper-analysis of Keith’s post.

    Still, I can see you make a valid and relevant point we should consider: sometimes Jesus is addressing “what was said” vs “what is written”.

    For the oaths example, your point is valid–Jesus was contradicting the the oral traditions. Was he not also contradicting Moses? Both verses originally mean “take an oath; swear a vow”. Should we make vows or not?

    Moses wrote: ““You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.” – Deuteronomy 6:13 (i.e. if the Jews took an oath, it must be in His name)

    Jesus: “But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.” — Matthew 5:34-25 (i.e. make NO oaths at all).

    We are talking about omosai (ὀμόσαι to swear) correct?
    http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/5-34.htm

  • Perhaps the best lesson from Keith’s piece is this: contradiction is a great teacher. We humans seek purity and the elimination of contradictions, real or imagined. Yet it is these very contradictions that make us human.

    Enjoy!

    “Throughout their long and convoluted history, religions have wrestled with two opposing tendencies. A powerful concern for improving the quality of our everyday lives. And a desire to withdraw from the world and its day-to-day struggles in order to live on a more spiritual, contemplative plane. In religious terms I suppose that means the person who embraces contradictions is one part lover of the world, worldliness, and sensuality– and one part monk. Embracing contradictions means attempting to live, as the New Testament says, in the world, but not really of the world. It consists of attempting to cultivate a deep interior life while remaining fully engaged in the joys and troubles of this physical existence.”

    http://www.nysec.org/fritz_williams

  • ravitchn

    There were plenty of Pharisees who in the days before Jesus and after Jesus (the Talmudic rabbis) who modified the more barbaric features of the Old Testament. Jesus was really a Pharisee of sorts in his dealing with the Old Testament.

  • ravitchn

    God didn’t write the Old Testament! Or the New Testament! Or any book. Or the Koran.

  • ravitchn

    You’ve drunk the kool-aide; congratulations.

  • ravitchn

    Your view is the view of the Marcionites and the gnostics.

  • ravitchn

    Don’t let Christian nonsense get you down. Just burn your bibles and drink some good Bourbon.

  • ravitchn

    If God wrote the bible I wrote the Odyssey!

  • Triggerman1976

    Slow your roll, moron. I didn’t say anything about who authored the text. I simply demonstrated that there wasn’t a contradiction. Now, go take your foot out of your mouth.

  • Alonzo

    Brian, I see no contradiction in oath taking. You must read the texts carefully and then consider the contexts, both textual, cultural, and historical of the passage you cite. Furthermore, you use a different passage than the article for oaths. The article uses Matthew 6:37. Kieth Giles is just trying to find contradictions just to dismiss the Bible as the word of God. I easily refuted all his contradictions, including the one you cite with a different passage, showing he is not a careful reader. You do Scripture hopping from one context to another. By the way, I use Biblehub, Greek, and Hebrew, as well as other resources. There are no contradictions, and Giles has not shown there is.

  • Sundialer

    Is 1/6 really a contradiction? The Biblical understanding of the author doesn’t seem to go any deeper than the apparent surface of the texts and the 21st century veneer that overlays his interpretation. In the time of Moses, the surrounding cultures had their tribal gods and idols by which they swore legal contracts. Deut. 6:13 is an injunction from God that his people are not to swear by any of these false gods or idols, but to honor their formal contracts and legal agreements by God’s name only and to recognize his divine character in honoring them. Jesus is likewise saying that these kinds of oaths are not to be made lightly as if in casual conversation. In such casual discourse, it is better not to make them at all. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. If not, say so plainly. In Matt. 21:28-32 Jesus teaches that equivocation and false piety will not redeem such lies.

    Errors mar his understanding of the other apparent contradictions too.

    In 6/6, he references the the Amalekites and refers to them as innocent. This smacks of chronological snobbery because he assumes the standards of later revelation and Jewish cultural developments in the time of Jesus are contextually applicable in the formative years of Israelite history 1200 years earlier. How is it that he possesses the omniscience of God to know the Amalekites are innocent? He hasn’t been reading Scripture closely. The surrounding tribal cultures in the time of Joshua were utterly evil in the eyes of God, practicing vile abominations with brutality and cruelty in open defiance against God. The Israelites were to be a people called out by God from such people and practices. The Amalekites were not neighbors as if they kept their lawns mowed and picked up after their dogs…No. The Amalekites had been trying to annihilate the Israelites for hundreds of years before God’s command to kill them. (Numbers, Judges) They did detestable things to them on their flight out of Egypt, (Deut. 25:17-19) and were an implacable foe of Israel without any fear of God.

    As an act of war, Saul was commanded to kill all the Amalekites, but he spared Agag, the Amalekite king, and quite plausibly, the whole Amalekite royal house. It is clear that not all the Amalekites were killed. It is also clear that Saul gave a clear warning about what he was about to do. (1 Sam 15:6) Deut. 20:10-13 stipulated such warnings. The Kenites were obviously living among the Amalekites. Saul told them to come out from among the Amalekites. For Saul’s disobedience, he was stripped of his kingship and the descendants of Agag were free to carry out tribal traditions of blood retribution. 500 years later, this appears to be what happened when Haman, an Amalekite descendant related to Agag and a chief high official in the Persian court of Ahasuerus had the opportunity to devise a plan to exterminate all the Jews throughout the Persian kingdom. (Esther 3:1-6)

    As descendants of Esau, it isn’t like the Amalekites did not know about God. They chose to reject him and wage perpetual warfare generation after generation against God’s people. In Jewish thought, “Amalek” and “Israel” represent two opposing philosophical worldviews. Amalek: No God or divine providence. Everything is random undirected chance and fate to be controlled by sheer ambition and power. Morality is subjective. Israel: God is sovereign and the ground of all morality. The world has purpose and meaning and life has intrinsic value and worth…Amalek has been trying to destroy everything Israel represents from the beginning. It continues to this day.

  • David Parker

    And you know nothing of Christianity. Jim Jones was a fraud also.

  • Chari McCauley

    The Father hand-wrote ten (10) instructions. Those are the “laws” Father’s Son follows, and fulfills. He removed the additions and subtractions from those ten rules.

    And, The Son simplified them by adding empathy. Imagine it is YOU these things happen to; if someone steals from you, it will hurt; if someone lies to, or about you, it will hurt; if someone enters your home and steals your family, land, home, whatever is valuable to you, it will hurt. Treat the people on this planet with you the way you want them to treat you; whether you ever get to meet them, or not. I mean, do YOU like when someone from another country drops a bomb on you? They don’t even know you, why are they bombing you, killing you, raping you, stealing your home, family?

    Come on! We were made with the equipment to be smarter than this, right? When are we going to stop fighting over the same toys? Playing “King of the Hill”; and grow up?

  • The Wild Monk

    “There is truth in every contradiction.” – Gary John

  • Chari McCauley

    The Lord said to treat other people the way we want them to treat us. He also told many parables that said it would be worse for “unhealthy” believers, than it would be for “healthy” unbelievers. He did not come to SAVE the HEALTHY, but the unhealthy. The healthy are already free to come and go to His Father.

    The Good Samaritan tells of TWO of The Lord’s supposed servants leaving the man to die; while an “abomination” was WILLING to help a man who hated him, and wouldn’t hesitate to call his savior an abomination, had he not been a victim left to die.

  • Dennis Lurvey

    But an eye for an eye was taken from mesopotamian law and the laws of Urr 2000 years before the bible, as most of the ten commandments were. It really meant if a person knocks out your tooth than take one of there’s, same with the eyeball.

    But the teachings of Jesus have been out the window for centuries. Not they want a takeover of our govt and biblical law. They want to be the prefered religion of america to the point they can break laws the rest of us have to obey in the name of ‘religious freedom’. That doesn’t sound like kindness and inclusion to me.

  • Danielle

    Replying to “Glad2BGodless”…Hello!
    This is how I can explain it…the Bible can be a vessel to point to Christ and/or open the door of our heart for Him but I don’t believe the only vessel to do so, but in my experience I had to have an experience with the alive risen Christ to know Him, to know (True)Love for the Word to come alive in a way to understand the Bible. I personally don’t believe any one can fully explain that with words fully. He must be experienced…and once that happens revelation of the Bible’s purpose can be seen/experienced revealing the Word…in a transforming way. Sorry if I’m not much help explaining that. Ironicly He must be known before we understand the Bible…it being the Word made flesh and no one will understand it until they meet Him in the now. Which is why so many abuse the Bible and never experience the Word the way it is meant to. ❤️

  • Raymond

    Thank you Brian. I don’t really agree with your premise, but I appreciate your substantive argument.

  • Paul Tyler

    I don’t get what the big deal is. The Old Testament contradicts itself again and again. The New Testament does also. I just think this is barking up the wrong tree.

  • JesusIsFakeNews

    Actually going against the law and teaching against the law is specifically described as the sign of a false prophet making one worthy of death in Deuteronomy 13. So Jesus was actually rightfully killed as a false messiah heretic according the the law of Moses. Maybe next time he’ll get it right.

  • Glad2BGodless

    If your personal experience is contradicted by the personal experience of someone else, how is this contradiction resolved?

  • Glad2BGodless

    How do you know whether you are “remaining in Him”? If you were doing it wrong, what would tip you off?

  • “remaining in Him” is God-speak for “be truthful to the way Jesus lived and what he taught”. The tip off for doing it wrong would be a contradiction between Jesus’ way or truth or life, and my way or truth or life. Contradiction is a signal that something is wrong, somewhere. Example: In America we see Christians claiming to “be in Him” and kicking their sons and daughters out of their house. The contradiction here between Jesus’ love and these parents love is vast, and indicates something is wrong. Others claim to “be in Him” and yet want to form a theocracy, which contradicts the way Jesus lived.

  • Great comment. Yes, Jesus was an outlaw. He often taught from the position of heresy. The sure sign of someone you can trust is the label of heresy. It is no surprise that I am labeled a heretic by certain types of Christians.

  • Christian nationalism is a sad trait of American Christianity. Theocracy is not the way of Jesus.

  • ” Jesus is likewise saying that these kinds of oaths are not to be made lightly..”

    No, Jesus said in the full quote “Take NO oaths!” Keith’s original article probably should have expanded the quote.

  • Good point Triggerman “For example, the woman caught in adultery could not legally be executed because the law explicitly states that BOTH adulterers were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Only the woman was brought.”

    But was Jesus upholding the law by doing this? I would so no, He was not. If Jesus was upholding the law, He would have called for the man, and had them both executed.

    Rather, more likely, Jesus was teaching mercy, knowing that His heretical actions would eventually cause the Law and the Prophets to become obsolete. Jesus was showing a way out of the Law’s supervision, a way to escape the Law’s condemnation.

  • The fact that you (and others) have to explain things tells me there is a contradiction, i.e. something is wrong. Why fear contradiction? I say embrace the contradictions and learn.

  • DavidP – your words above sound more like Jim Jones than Jesus.

  • ravitchn, now that’s a good suggestion!

  • Glad2BGodless

    A flame can be a heat source, but so can an electrical hot plate, or an exothermic chemical reaction. You can know you have a heat source and still have ahead of you the work of identifying and describing the source. And none of them can be assumed to provide a source or morality, or to be moral.

  • Glad2BGodless

    Suppose the Christians kicking their children out of the house believe that they are the ones being “true to Him,” and you are the one living in contradiction to the truth and life of Jesus? How would a disinterested observer determine if you are right, they are right, both of you are right, or neither of you are right?

    Edit: to correct typo

  • Exactly the conundrum we face in America these days… two people with opposing views both claim “Jesus”. How do you tell? From what I read, the litmus test is mercy and the constraint is compassion. Does the outside observer see the act as merciful? If yes, then the act is most likely “of Jesus”, but not necessarily. If the act is not merciful, it is certainly not from Jesus. Does the outside observer see compassion? If yes, and there is mercy, then the act is indeed in line with Jesus’ way and His teaching.

    In the case of kicking out one’s children, it might be claimed to be merciful, as sort of a tough love. But if the act of kicking them out lacks compassion as well, and actually harms the children, then the act has nothing to do with Jesus.

    There is a reason Jesus based His teachings on the golden rule (as do a lot of religions/philosophies). Basic goodness is at the heart of love. Mercy and compassion are nearby.

  • Glad2BGodless

    As far as I can tell, your comment here restates the points you have already made.

    In your follow-up, I don’t see a way of resolving disagreements between two or more parties when they differ on what actions reflect a correct reading of the Bible or a correct interpretation of what Jesus would do.

    Is it your position that there is no way to reach a final and correct answer when parties disagree about what Jesus wants?

  • Iain Lovejoy

    That wasn’t intended as an argument for the existence of God, only an argument that James Parsons’ dichotomy in the post I was replying to was a false one. He said that belief in God means you either have to believe there is no morality other than obeying God’s arbitrary commands, or that morality, if objective, was some higher standard over and above that of God. My post sets out a third option which is neither of these.

  • Glad2BGodless

    I don’t disagree with you about that!

  • Sundialer

    Not all oaths as a rigid rule, but because by Jesus’ time the Jewish rabbis had developed a whole body of teaching on how to take oaths and vows that allowed them the appearance of honesty while covering their dishonesty. The taking of these oaths had become synonymous with lying. Jesus insisted on a quality of character for his disciples that it was enough for them to just say “yes” or “no” and it meant just that.

    Yet in Matt. 26:63,64, Jesus responded in court to the High Priest when he “put him on oath,” and there are other oaths in the NT e.g. 1 Cor. 1:23, Gal. 1:20, 1 Thess. 5:27. In Heb. 6:13-17 God himself uses an oath.

    Jesus is rejecting all oaths which avoid the name of God and were therefore not binding because swearing by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or even your head you were, in fact, invoking a link to his character, but these types of oaths we’re meaningless and pointless. God’s name is his character and is the vouchsafe for his truth. The word of a Christian should be the same and it needs no propping up. Yes and no are enough.

    In both the OT and the NT, the idea was for the people of God to separate themselves from the false and vain practices of those who practice duplicity and corruption, and in this sense it is NOT a contradiction.

  • Glad2BGodless

    So… David Koresh and Charles Manson — heretics and hence trustworthy?

  • Glad2BGodless

    It’s not a big deal to everyone, but it is to a sizable minority.

  • David Parker

    How would you know? The Bible is the only direct source of information about Jesus yet you deny the authenticity, accuracy, and inerrancy of the Bible.
    You shot yourself in the foot (or brain in your case).
    Jesus never questioned the authenticity or accuracy of the Old Testament, the Torah. Jesus never denied his own deity.
    Like to know more about Jesus? Read the Bible and I have to add these days, read a literal translation, Satan’s disciples have been busy.
    Then read the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, and the Belgic Confession. Better men than you lost were murdered by the Pope’s minions for these summaries of what the Bible says.

  • David Parker

    As if you had a clue.
    Christians do not drink cult “Kool-Aide”.

  • Danielle

    I’m not sure what you mean. How can a persons experience be considered a “contradictiction” just because it differs from someone else’s? and what would need to be resolved?

  • Glad2BGodless

    Two experiences can differ and not entail a contradiction, but if they entail a contradiction, then they are bound to differ.

    You say that “many never experience the Word the way it is meant to.” But, of course, they may feel that you are the one who does not experience the Word properly.

    That’s a contradiction. How should we decide which one of you has it right, or if either of you has it right?

  • Brett

    On your first claim, the priests violate the Sabbath and are blameless. If you read Numbers 28: 9-10, you will see that the priests were able to work while remaining innocent. Any sort of working on the Sabbath was a violation. Yet, it was permitted here for them to perform sacrifices.

    On your second claim.. In the gospel of Mark, the writer is using the prophecy of Malachi 3:1 to establish who John the Baptist was, and then he continues on with how John will prepare the way, as is prophesied in Isaiah 40: 3-5.

    *I cannot see how this would be labeled a false claim. Also note, this verse is not a spoken word of Jesus. It is the words of the writer to show, prior to his sharing of Jesus’s ministry in this letter, the validity to who Jesus was.

    And, for your third claim.. You can find very similar wording in many prophecies. As for a word-for-word OT scripture I cannot find one, but He is using symbolic wording here. If you read in Jeremiah 17: 13 you will find that God is attributed as the Spring of Living Water. The new covenant is that God will abide in the hearts of men. I hope you catch the connection.

    God bless you, friend! Keep seeking and asking the questions that come to mind. But, first and foremost seek the relationship you can have with the Creator. He will make Himself known to you if you genuinely want to know Him.

  • Danielle

    I don’t believe an encounter with Christ, Love, God or whatever you want to call Him/Her can be a “contradiction” to Himself/Herself. Love does not need to prove Himself/Herself …it just is. Will a revelation of Him/Love “contradict” religious zealotry, the world’s ways, the ego, the unenlightened man, hate, self centeredness(what ever you want to call it), yes. The light of love reveals all things weather we are conscious of it or not.

    It’s not necessary to prove yourself “right” and/or another person “wrong”. Who’s taking score, who’s fact checking our beliefs about God? Only the ego of the one wanting to prove.

    You can speak truth without having to “prove” anything.

    Many things are both/and not either/or anyway.

    Anyone is free to think me “wrong”. Anyone is free to think I am not experiencing the Word properly. That is a freedom given by God.

  • Glad2BGodless

    So, you don’t think anyone is ever genuinely wrong about anything? Or you don’t think it matters? I’m not exactly sure of your position.

  • “Is it your position that there is no way to reach a final and correct answer when parties disagree about what Jesus wants?”

    Indeed, this is my position. The Catholic Church attempts to arrive at this “correct answer” via the Councils and the resulting dogma. I actually appreciate this approach these days. However, doctrine does not unify. Neither do Councils (but they go a long way to a certain kind of unity). Why can’t we let people have their own doctrine? Why must American Christians insist on finding “the one true doctrine”?

    We all die with flawed doctrine. The question from Jesus is not “did you get all the answers?” but “did you visit Me?”

    The essence of my point is more robust however: Doctrine and “correct answers” are not unifying. Trying to find the answers is a sad part of Americanized/Westernized Christianity. We have focused solely on “the truth”, and have forgotten “the way”, and almost entirely missed out on “the life”.

  • “take it up with him” Ugh! I am SO sick of people using this cop-out! “Go argue with God” is such a pathetic excuse for not dealing with hard truths.

  • *sigh* Koresh and Manson were heretics, yes, but I’m not saying ALL heretics are trustworthy. Speaking from heresy is merely one sign or mark or label of someone you can trust. As I pointed out, I think it is “the” sign, as in the “the most important sign”. But certainly not the “only” sign. Koresh and Manson had so many other marks that make them not trustworthy. They were marked by abuse, murders, and authoritarian manipulation.

  • “How would you know?” Well, having been a leader in an authoritarian Bible cult, I recognize cultic speech.

    “Read the Bible”… I’ve spent well over 15,000 hours reading the Bible–all kinds of translations.

  • Marshall

    faith upon the [true/actual] Foundation reliably outputs sound doctrine from within the faithful saint/man. Consequently, “Doctrine and ‘correct answers’ are not unifying”, but-rather becomes among incidental indicators within unity… that-is, “…that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment… that you all speak the same things”.
    [I Corinthians 1:10]

  • That is a nice appeal from Paul, indeed. This is one of the traps Bible cults use: “be united in the same mind and the same judgment” is taught to mean “never think critically; don’t question church leaders” and “conform to church dogma”.

    When doctrine becomes the indicator of unity, I contend what you have is uniformity that is wrought with evil.

    Later on in that passage, Paul tells us what he thinks will be unifying: the gospel. “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” v17 We are free to figure out our doctrines, and have no compelling reason to unify around a “one true systematic theology”. We are compelled, however, to unify around essentials.

    Eloquent answers and conformity to a single doctrine is nothing but a dance with the “devil”. One time the disciples saw people preaching Jesus differently than they were–they had different doctrine and practices. They wanted to stop them, and even to destroy those who were against them. Jesus told them “Do not hinder him.” (Luke 9)

  • Iain Lovejoy

    I already explained my understanding of the parable and why I considered that it is what it meant. You are the one that just asserted the analogy was “a bit sour” purely because you didn’t like it.

  • FYI, I’m referring to this… different doctrine driving different practices, and different fellowship…

    “John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.” Luke 9:49-50 NASB

    and this, where the differences resulted in outright rejection (different views of Jesus?)

    “But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” And they went on to another village.” Luke 9:53-56 NASB

  • Marshall

    the 2nd incident here [9:53-56], where the messengers of Jesus discovered Him to be unwelcome, describes an outright rejection of Jesus by a Samaritan group.

    ακολουθηει: “accompany” [NASB: “follow along”], and-so does not speak to doctrine or its practice. This man mentioned from Luke 9:49 had not physically accompanied Jesus and-with His disciples.

  • David Parker

    And with all your “reading” you still do not have understanding. Your belief that there are contradictions in the Bible is merely proof that you do not understand what is written there.
    The state of the unregenerate.
    May the Lord have mercy and regenerate you.

  • David Parker

    I was never a leader in any cult. There is one correct interpretation of the Bible: What was meant by what was said to whom it was said when it was said. This is hermeneutics, the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.
    Only literal translations are valid. “Dynamic equivalent” translations are merely commentaries – written by people like you with no understanding of what God communicates in his special revelation.
    Too bad you wasted so much time in the cults.

  • So which hermeneutical approach do we accept as “one correct interpretation”? Is it lexical-syntactical analysis or contextual analysis? What about historical/cultural analysis? What do we make of tragectory hermeneutics? I personally kind of like the redemptive movement hermeneutic proposed by Webb. Furthermore, do we follow the Catholic set of hermeneutical principles or the Eastern Orthodox set? Regardless of your understanding of exegesis and hermeutics, I would say it is your homelitic that needs attention, David.

  • Oh Lordy… I’ve been baptised as an infant, baptised by sprinkling, baptized by full immersion; been saved 7 ways; lived as a missionary in Russia, a pastor of my own house church, and attended a 2,000 member Baptist church. I’ve completed the Catholic sacraments, studied with a man who worked with John Stott and J.I. Packer, and lived, for all practical purposes, as a monk.

    In the end, you know what matters? Love. Love matters. All this other stuff is but dogshit (Apostle Paul’s words, not mine).

  • Marshall

    cannot be done via hermeneutics. the text is inherently emphatic, and as-like simile (parable) cannot generate “one correct interpretation” in/for any man absent a living witness.

  • David Parker

    Every hermenutic that claims contradictions in the Holy Writ is the wrong one.
    God elects, the Holy Spirit regenerates, the regenerate is made aware of sin – disobedience to God – repents of his sin, is grateful for salvation from the eternal wrath of God, and works the good which he has been enabled to do until sanctification is completed at the first death.
    Also, that word is :”trajectory”.

  • Chari McCauley

    So, Moses,…not The Father…,allowed oaths. The Son was siding with His Father, Who taught Him.
    The Father wrote ten instructions; His Son removed the additions and subtractions made to those ten (10) rules.
    And, added empathy.

  • kartashok

    That makes no sense. Deuteronomy 22:22 doesn’t say both should be executed together. It says that both should be executed. Which means the woman should have been stoned first, and if and when the dude was found, he should’ve been stoned too. Jesus was a leftist libtard compared to his red pilled Jewish nationalist folks.

  • Triggerman1976

    I point you to the text, “If a man is caught”—the perpetrator is the MAN—“ having sexual relations with a married woman”—the WOMAN is the violator—“ both the man who had relations with the woman and the woman herself must die;”—TOGETHER—“in this way you will purge evil from Israel.”
    Adultery is a two-party offense, and both parties AND the complainant (ie the husband) must be present for judgment. This is merely a mob action against a woman and Jesus recognizes it as such.

  • David Parker

    Paul did not say “dogshit”:

    He said “shit”.

  • Ah my bad. My Greek is a bit rusty.

  • Heather Marie

    Those people had to be destroyed, they were Nephillim. That’s why they could not spare even the infants. Think about it!

  • Steven Waling

    now that is the finest example of missing the point as I’ve come across for some time…

  • Ken Allen

    My post is in response to the author’s first example. I didn’t miss the point. Jesus is participating in the art of mishnah just as the rabbi of his time did. Mishnah, as a literary term is what we call, commentary. Jesus was clarifying the OT, not contradicting it.