Book study next week... was the Mosaic Law perfect?

StarTrekAngel

Before I get the "no it was not, because God does not exist and this is a writing of man", I am directing this discussion to those that either still believe, or need as many tools as possible to talk to a family member still in.

The purpose of my posting is to discuss what I believe to be a mistake on this book or, in the other hand, be corrected if I am not getting the entire picture.

In the book, Chapter 19 "God's Wisdon in a Sacred Secret", Paragraph 10, it reads...

10 Second, the Law thoroughly demonstrated mankind’s need for a ransom. A perfect Law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully

Compare this with Hebrews 7:11-12

Jesus a Priest Like Melchizedek
11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.…

Hebrews 7:18-19

18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.…

Hebrews 8:7

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

Need to remark that the word "faultless", while fits my point as compared to "perfect", is actually translated literally as "perfect" in the spanish version of the NWT

Your thoughts, comments or corrections are appreciated.

Thanks

3rdgen

When I was still a believer my answer would have been the Law was perfect in itself but could not provide everlasting life to its followers. Jesus ransom "bought out" that covenant/contract with his perfect life and in addition added the bonus of eternal life.

leaving_quietly

There is a MASSIVE mis-treatement of the word "perfect" by WT. The word used in the Biblical sense does not mean what WT implies it means. The Greek word eteleiōsen at Heb 7:19 literally means "I complete, accomplish, make perfect". Thus, "perfect" means "complete". This makes sense. The Law could not make ANYTHING complete. That's why they had to sacrifice over and over and over again. But the one sacrifice of Christ could make things complete.

You may also note Hebrews 5:9. Speaking of the Christ, it says: "And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him," I can almost hear you gasping. WHAT? Christ was NOT PERFECT?????!?!??!?! In the definition of the Greek word for perfect, no. While he was in the flesh, he was NOT complete. This does not mean he sinned, for we are told at Hebrews 4:15 that he was "without sin".

As an interesting aside, the old NWT Reference Bible has a footnote on Hebrews 5:9 on the word "perfect". It reads:

Or, “after he had been inaugurated (installed; empowered; consecrated to office).” Gr., te·lei·o·theisʹ. See Le 21:10 ftn. Compare Le 8:33 ftn.

This is one of the proofs that Christ became King long, long, long before 1914, and in their own Bible.

leaving_quietly

Let me add that Heb 8:7 found the COVENANT to be faulty, not the Law. The covenant proved faulty because the Israelites breached it, and because it was taught by humans. The NEW covenant would be different. God himself would write it on their hearts, instead of man attempting to instill it in others.

Hebrews 8 continues to cite Jeremiah 31, and it's one the things that I'm continually baffled at regarding the huge amounts of printed literature from WT. The new covenant, in part, says: "‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them." And yet, here we are studying a book called, "Draw Close to Jehovah". How's that for irony?

Jonathan Drake

The problem the watchtower has, and the error being made here, is that they don't see the difference between the mosaic law and the Ten Commandments. They are two different things.

The law from God, the ten commamdments, was perfect. It was something no man could adhere to as one of the commamdments was to not covet - something everyone does at one time or another. It was a law from God.

The Mosaic law on the other hand was MOSES covenant as the Christ (anointed one) with the Israelites. This was the covenant which Jesus undid. Being the messiah he was a Christ (anointed one) with much more authority than Moses. So he replaced Moses covenant with his own, but did not undue the Ten Commandments. He did however fulfill the Ten Commandments, which only he could do - perfect man fulfilled perfect law and replaced the faulty covenant (mosaic law) referenced in Heb 8:7.

EDIT: actually I should amend something. I guess there is technically no error here - scripturally yes, the mosaic law/covenant was imperfect and faulty.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

"Um, you're telling me that a guy in a dress has to slaughter me and burn me in a fire to make a happifying odor for an invisible, omnipotent master in the sky? Do I have the option of respectfully declining this offer?"

Island Man

The Law was not perfect. In fact, there is even a passage of scripture where the Law had to be amended because the original manner in which it was written debarred women from getting family property if they had no male relatives. (Numbers 27:1-11)

Also, the Law condoned slavery and treated women like second-class citizens, denying them many of the rights that were granted to men. For example, a man could bring his wife before the priest if he suspected her of adultery. But there is no provision in the Law for a women to do likewise if she suspected her husband of adultery.

Jonathan Drake

The Law was not perfect. In fact, there is even a passage of scripture where the Law had to be amended because the original manner in which it was written debarred women from getting family property if they had no male relatives. (Numbers 27:1-11)

Omg I had forgotten that scripture thank you for posting it. I can use that in the future to demonstrate the difference between the mosaic law and the ten commandments. I'm about to have to talk to someone about this so its perfect.

opusdei1972

It was perfect for those men who wanted to have legal sex with more than one woman, but not necessary loving all of them:

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other....(Deuteronomy 21:15)

Book study next week... was the Mosaic Law perfect?

Share this