Here you write "God wrote the law through" Moses so then it becomes a question of how much of Moses is in the law? No one really knows. You appear to have taken the view that God picked up Moses like a pen and wrote word for word exactly what God wanted to write.
Deuteronomy 5:31-33 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you the whole commandment and the statutes and the rules that you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess.’ 32 You shall be careful therefore to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33 You shall walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess.
Moses had the role of a mediator, where God would tell him to say to the children of Israel to do such and such, and then he would go and say that to the children of Israel. In the above verses, God wanted Moses to write down the whole of what He was commanding and did not allow any room for Moses to depart from what to the right or to the left, so though it was written by Moses, we can be fairly confident what what he wrote was in complete accordance with what God instructed Him.
I see at least three problems with this view. One, if Jesus can make a positive change to the law in one or two sentences, then why weren't these sentences in the law to begin with? Two, why did God write up laws that promoted evil for example slavery? Three, why is the law written in the same format as the covenants of surrounding nations?
(1) Jesus did not sin in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, he said that he came only to do the Father's will (John 6:38), and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16), so he likewise did not depart to the right or to the left from what the Father had commanded, which means that he did not make any changes to the Law. (2) There is a difference between promoting slavery and regulating it. If someone couldn't pay their debts in the ANE, then they could either beg, starve, or sell their future labor, and if they were able bodied, then begging wasn't an option, so slavery was an economic necessity. However, the Bible gives strict guidelines for not mistreating slaves, and furthermore contains guidelines for how a slave could choose to become a permanent slave of their master, which meant that the slave thought that they had it better off as a slave than on their own. This sort that the Bible regulates is not comparable to colonial slavery. (3) God has always been is a covenant-making God starting with Adam, so it could easily be that these practices were first taught by God and adopted by other nations.
On the other hand, I have taken the view that at least
some of Moses' own biases and life-experiences are in the law. The problem with this view is,
how much? And I'm not sure what the answer is. This leads to picking and choosing what was from God and what was from Moses.
@jesus316 seems to argue that
all (if not most) of the law was Moses. I'm inclined to move in that direction rather than towards inerrancy. But I'm still figuring this all out.
It is impossible to remove our biases, but Moses often went before God to seek guidance, so I do not see any reason to think that his biases unduly influenced what is written in the Law or to think that God would not have taken corrective action if he had departed to the right to the left. Furthermore, Jesus did not give any hint that he thought that Moses taught his own commands.
Jesus seemed to support the second view, that Moses had a say in what was written in the law, otherwise He wouldn't talk about it as "Moses' Law" but use the language you have been using and call it "God's Law". This is where you and
@Soyeong differ. You argue that Jesus saw the heart of the law and therefore could make the necessary changes to clarify it, whereas
@Soyeong argues the law did not need clarifying at all, rather Jesus worked in harmony with it.
I think that many of God's laws almost beg for clarification. For example, we are commanded not to work on the Sabbath, so we need to clarify what counts as work. Jesus added clarity to the Law whenever he taught how to obey it by word or by example, so I have no objection to him adding clarity, but he did so in a way that revealed how the Law was originally intended to be understood and obeyed, not in a way where he sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding his own commands. For example, his command not to look at a married woman lustfully in our heart is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our heart, so it was nothing brand new.
Then my own view is that Jesus came to remove the yoke of the law and implement a new covenant of forgiveness thereby making the entire old law obsolete.
In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and disciples are people who have the goal of memorizing their rabbi's teachings, of learning how to think and act like their rabbi, and of essentially becoming a copy of them, so I don't see any reason to think that his yoke was anything that that the Mosaic Law that he taught his followers to obey by word and by example. When he said that it was the good way where we will find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Law is the good way where we will find rest for our souls.
I agree that we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but we are nevertheless under the same God with the same ways. There are many verses that speak about the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, so these instructions cannot become obsolete unless God's ways first become obsolete. So to say that the Law is obsolete is to say that that God's attributes, such his holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control have become obsolete. For instance, the Law reveals that it is in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, so the only way for that command to become obsolete would be if God's righteous were to first became obsolete, but God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), there all are all of His righteous laws (Psalms 119:160). In Psalms 119:160, it does not leave any room for God's laws to one day become obsolete. There is much evidence of many of God's laws already been in place prior to when they were given at Sinai. For example, the Sabbath was commanded in Exodus 16, so there is a distinction between a set of instructions for how to walk in God's ways and a covenant agreement to walk according to those instructions, and I see no particular reason why the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete would also cause any of God's laws to become obsolete.
Whatever the inspiration of the Old Law, it only ever applied to Israel, and it ended.
Then it is a good thing that we become fellow citizens of Israel through faith in Messiah (Romans 9:6-8, Ephesians 2:19).
