Objections to Torah Observance: "The Torah is for Israel" Part 1

Photo by Oaxoax

Many Christians believe that Torah Observance is for "Israel" or Jews alone.

Why? Because they believe that through Jesus, Christians are saved by grace and not through their actions. Grace is God's unmerited favour and it is through God's grace that "he gave his only son to die so that any one who believes in Jesus would have everlasting life" (John 3.16). Thus it is reasoned that if Jews don't believe in Christ then the only path to salvation for them is slavish obedience to all 613 commandments.

Clearly, no one has ever perfectly observed all 613 commandments so this was why the system of sacrifices was conceived to atone for all the sins of Israel and it was under this same system that Christ gave His life for all. But if you read the commandments carefully, would it surprise you to learn that none of the sacrifices can atone for intentional sin? Yes, its true (see Leviticus 4.2). Jews recognise this too. The Artscroll Stone Edition Chumash comments on Leviticus 4 says:

"The Torah now lists offerings that are required in order to atone for sins, in contrast to the offerings of the previous three chapters that one brings voluntarily in order to elevate oneself spiritually.

These offerings cannot atone for sins that were committed intentionally. No offering is sufficient to remove the stain of sin committed intentionally. No offering is sufficient to remove the stain of such sinfulness; that can be done only through repentance and a change of the attitudes that made it possible for the transgressor to flout God's will."

You may have thought that repentance is a Christian message. Actually the theme of repentance is there in the Old Testament and its not a New Testament invention.

Thus the sacrificial system atones for unintentional sin. Therefore Christ died for our unintentional sins. And for His sacrifice to have any validity for the Christian the Torah must also remain in effect. The only remedy for our intentional sins is repentance.

The Hebrew word for Repentance means to turn around; i.e. that is to change direction by 180 degrees. The concept of Repentance is intimately connected to one's actions and not just to one's attitudes and beliefs.

Repentance from what? Our sins. But how can we know what is sin? The Hebrew word for Sin means to "miss the mark" in English. But what sets the Mark or Standard of Behaviour? The Bible or Torah defines it. Therefore when our actions fall below its standards, we sin. Thus Torah Observance is the way we should live under God.

Next time, I will argue that Christians are also subject to the Torah because they are also a part of Israel.

Objections to Torah Observance: The New Covenant: What is it? Part 1

Photo by Billy Reed

The idea of the New Covenant comes from Jeremiah 31 (NKJV):

• A covenant unlike the covenant made when God led them out of Egypt, the covenant that Israel broke (vv31-2); and
  
• He will put His Law in their minds and write it upon Israel’s hearts (v33); and
  
• He will be their God (v33); and
  
• They will be His people (v33); and
  
• His people will no longer need to be teach each other about God (v34); and
  
• He will forgive them their sins (v34); and
  
• God will no longer remember their sins (v34); and
  
• God will not reject Israel: If the laws of God cease to exist, so will the nation of Israel (v36); and if one can fathom creation then God would also reject Israel (v37); and
  
• Jerusalem will be restored and the perimeter of the restored city is set out (v38-40).

This passage leads to further questions:

1. Clearly, Israel is the focus of the covenant; who is Israel?
2. Has the New Covenant been fulfilled? Is it yet to come? Has it started coming about?
3. Has Jerusalem been rebuilt?

Something else to note: the Hebrew word usually translated as "new" can be translated as "renewed" (see Strongs H2319 from H2318).

Is there such a thing as a "new covenant"; could God have only intended a "renewed" one?

Objections to Torah Observance: "Jesus fulfilled the Law"

Matthew 5.17 says:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. [1]

Often this is used as a rationale for no longer observing the biblical laws.

However the Word Biblical Commentary has the following to say about this verse:

The precise meaning of πληρῶσαι, "to fulfill," is a difficult question that has produced much debate. The verb means literally "to fill to the full" (from Aramaic מלא, mĕlā˒ , "fulfill," rather than קוּם, qûm , "establish," which is never translated by πληροῦν in the LXX). From this basic meaning comes such derivative meanings as "accomplish," "complete," "bring to its end," "finish." "Fulfill" here hardly means "to do," although Jesus in his conduct is faithful to the true meaning of the Torah. "Complete" is congruent with the stress on fulfillment in and through Jesus but wrongly connotes that Jesus has come simply to add something to the law. The meaning in this instance cannot be determined by word study alone but must be established from the context and in particular must be consonant with the statement of v 18.

The options may be simplified into the following: (1) to do or obey the commandments of the OT (Luz, Bruner, Zahn, Schlatter, Schniewind); (2) a reference to Jesus' life and/or the accomplishment of the salvific acts of Jesus' death and resurrection ("fulfillment of prophecy"; Meier, 46; idem, Law, 76; Ljungman, 60; Guelich, Sermon, 142; Gundry; Carson); (3) teaching the law in such a way as to (a) "establish" or "uphold" the law (Wenham, Themelios 4 [1979] 93; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 56-66; Daube, Rabbinic, 60), (b) add to and thus "complete" the law (Jeremias, Theology, 83-4), or (c) bring out the intended meaning of the law through definitive interpretation (with some differences: Davies-Allison; Broer, Freiheit, 34; Moo, JSNT 20 [1984] 3-49; T. W. Manson, Sayings, 153; Allen; McNeile; Green). A major decision is thus whether the verb refers to the deeds of Jesus or to the teaching of Jesus, although some scholars want to find both (e.g., Banks, JBL 93 [1974] 231; Sand, Gesetz, 186; cf. Moo, JSNT 20 [1984] 25; Carson). The first option is unsatisfactory because the word πληροῦν , "to fulfill," is never used in Matthew to describe obedience to the law, it misses the nuance of fulfillment that is associated with the word in Matthew, and it is not at all appropriate to the context, vv 21-48, which refer to Jesus' teaching. The second option is again unrelated to the context, where the deeds of Jesus are not in view, and in some forms presupposes a questionable exegesis of v 18 (see below). The third option is the most appropriate, not in the sense of simply establishing the law as is, nor of supplementing it, but in the sense of bringing it to its intended meaning in connection with the messianic fulfillment (together with πληροῦν, note "the law and the prophets") brought by Jesus. This interpretation has the advantage of fitting the context well, of maintaining the commitment to the law reflected in v 18, and at the same time of affirming the new definition that comes with fulfillment. In Matthew's view, the teaching of Jesus by definition amounts to the true meaning of the Torah and is hence paradoxically an affirmation of Jesus' loyalty to the OT.

Since in 5:21-48 Jesus defines righteousness by expounding the true meaning of the law as opposed to wrong or shallow understandings, it is best to understand πληρῶσαι here as "fulfill" in the sense of "bring to its intended meaning"-that is, to present a definitive interpretation of the law, something now possible because of the presence of the Messiah and his kingdom. Far from destroying the law, Jesus' teachings-despite their occasionally strange sound-penetrate to the divinely intended (i.e., the teleological) meaning of the law. Because the law and the prophets pointed to him and he is their goal, he is able now to reveal their true meaning and so to bring them to "fulfillment." This view is consonant with the expectation that the Messiah would not only preserve the Torah but also bring out its meaning in a definitive manner (see Davies, Setting, 161-72; idem, Torah). [2]

This opinion on Matthew 5.17, is followed by:

* "The Nelson Study Bible";
* "The Jewish New Testament Commentary"; and
* "IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament"; and
* "Believer's Study Bible"; and
* "Bible Knowledge Commentary"; and
* "A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments"; and
* "King James Version Study Bible"; and
* "King James Version Commentary"; and
* "Spirit Filled Life Study Bible"; and
* "Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary"; and

But these commentaries go on to justify why Christians should no longer observing the Torah's commandments in their comments on Matthew 5.17:

* "Believer's Bible Commentary";
* "The New Bible Commentary (IVP)"; and
* "The Bible Exposition Commentary"; and
* "Word in Life Study Bible".

The comments on Matthew 5.17 from the "The Jewish New Testament Commentary" are worth quoting in full here as it illustrates my point that there are many Hebraic understandings that greatly assist in interpreting Jesus; Stern also makes some interesting comments regarding the logic behind no longer observing the Torah or Biblical Commandments:

The Hebrew word "Torah," literally "teaching, doctrine," is rendered in both the Septuagint and the New Testament by the Greek word "nomos," which means "law." Greek has had a more direct and pervasive influence on English and other modern languages than Hebrew has, and this is why in most languages one speaks of the "Law" of Moses rather than the "Teaching" of Moses. It is also part of the reason why the Torah has mistakenly come to be thought of by Christians as legalistic in character (see Ro 3:20bN, Ga 3:23bN).

In Judaism the word "Torah" may mean:

(1) Chumash (the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses); or

(2) That plus the Prophets and the Writings, i.e., the Tanakh (known by Christians as the Old Testament; see 4:4-10N); or

(3) That plus the Oral Torah, which includes the Talmud and other legal materials; or

(4) That plus all religious instruction from the rabbis, including ethical and aggadic (homiletical) materials.

Here it means the first of these, since "the Prophets" are mentioned separately.

The Prophets. The word "Prophets," capitalized (as here, 7:12, 22:40; Lk 16:16, 28, 31; 24:44; Yn 1:45, 6:45; Ac 13:15, 27, 40; 15:15; 24:14; 28:23; Ro 3:21), refers to the second of the three main parts of the Tanakh. When the Tanakh prophets as persons are referred to, the word is not capitalized; "prophet" in the singular is never capitalized. By mentioning both the Torah and the Prophets Yeshua is saying that he has not come to modify or replace God's Word, the Tanakh. Compare Lk 24:44-45.

To complete. The Greek word for "to complete" is "plêrôsai," literally, "to fill"; the usual rendering here, however, is "to fulfill." Replacement theology, which wrongly teaches that the Church has replaced the Jews as God's people (v. 5N), understands this verse wrongly in two ways.

First, Yeshua's "fulfilling" the Torah is thought to mean that it is unnecessary for people to fulfill it now. But there is no logic to the proposition that Yeshua's obeying the Torah does away with our need to obey it. In fact, Sha'ul (Paul), whose object in his letter to the Romans is to foster "the obedience that comes from trusting" in Yeshua, teaches that such trusting does not abolish Torah but confirms it (Ro 1:5, 3:31).

Second, with identical lack of logic, Yeshua's "fulfilling" the Prophets is thought to imply that no prophecies from the Tanakh remain for the Jews. But the Hebrew Bible's promises to the Jews are not abolished in the name of being "fulfilled in Yeshua." Rather, fulfillment in Yeshua is an added assurance that everything God has promised the Jews will yet come to pass (see 2C 1:20&N).

It is true that Yeshua kept the Torah perfectly and fulfilled predictions of the Prophets, but that is not the point here. Yeshua did not come to abolish but "to make full" (plêrôsai) the meaning of what the Torah and the ethical demands of the Prophets require. Thus he came to complete our understanding of the Torah and the Prophets, so that we can try more effectively to be and do what they say to be and do. Verses 18-20 enunciate three ways in which the Torah and the Prophets remain necessary, applicable and in force. The remainder of chapter 5 gives six specific cases in which Yeshua explains the fuller spiritual meaning of points in the Jewish Law. In fact, this verse states the theme and agenda of the entire Sermon on the Mount, in which Yeshua completes, makes fuller, the understanding of his talmidim concerning the Torah and the Prophets, so that they can more fully express what being God's people is all about.

The Anglican Christian writer Brigid Young-Hughes supports my understanding of this passage in these words:

" ' ... I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.' And surely 'to fulfil' means to complete, in the sense of bringing to perfection, not, as Christians have all too often interpreted it, to render obsolete; to fulfil in such a way as to perfect a foundation on which to build further." (Christianity's Jewish Heritage, West Sussex: Angel Press, 1988, p. 8) [3]

I hope this was thought provoking.

[1] The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982
[2] Hagner, Donald A.: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 2002 (Word Biblical Commentary 33A), S. 105
[3] Stern, David H.: Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament. electronic ed. Clarksville : Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996, c1992, S. Mt 5:17

Objections to Torah (Commandment) Obedience

Photo by rafa1121

Based on the writings of the Apostle Paul and the book of Hebrews, Christianity has developed a theology that rationalises why it should no longer observe the Commandments (or what the Hebrews call the Torah).

As far as I can make out, they are based largely on four arguments:

1. Didn't following the Torah become obsolescent with the advent of the New Covenant?


2. By observing the Torah, aren't you abrogating your own culture and trying to become Jewish?


3. Isn't Torah observance Legalism?
4. According to Matthew 5.17 hasn't Jesus fulfilled the law already, so we don't have to comply with it?

Each question opens up other questions before it can be adequately answered. For example, the second question leads one to ask: What is Jewish culture? How much of it is due to the Torah and how much of it comes from other cultures that have influenced the Jewish people over the eons?

Clearly some of their culture is a direct result of the Bible's requirements. Other features of their culture and traditions have arisen from historical influences. I suppose one could ask: To what extent should I, as a Gentile Christian, adopt Jewish culture? Firstly, to the extent that the bible's requirements make it so, and then I can choose to adopt the cultural norms and practices that assist me to constructively obey the biblical commandments.

A Christian's relationship with the Jews is special. According to Paul's writings, we are one: joined at the hip. By faith, we are counted as a part of the Seed of Abraham, a Child of God through the Spirit of Adoption. What blended family can sustainably exist with two different sets of rules? The Torah says that there shouldn't be a different Law for the alien that lives among the Hebrews. Since we are one People, whatever threatens them must also threaten us. In theory when they weep we should be too. When they celebrate so should we.

I will continue to investigate the answers to these three questions in subsequent postings.

Hebrew Roots of Christianity

Photo by Andy Babandy

I have been looking into the Hebrew Roots of Christianity over the last few years. It has been pointed out to me that:

• Most Christians have lost the knowledge and understanding of the Jewish society and culture which formed the context within which Jesus taught; and
• This knowledge and understanding is necessary to rightly interpret Jesus' teaching

In every culture and society there are norms and conventions that are often considered so obvious that most of the time they are not discussed and assumed to be axiomatic.Unfortunately because of the temporal distance between Jesus' society and today's world the axioms of life that applied then cannot be taken for granted now.

Some of the axioms that I have discovered along the way, but not widely known today, include:

• Observing the 613 Commandments contained in the first five books of the Bible was paramount to the Jewish understanding of religion; and
• The first and foremost commandment to love God with all one's heart, mind and strength provided the motivation and guide for all the other 612 Commandments; and
• Observing the Commandments was considered to be an act of righteousness and faithfulness; so to be called righteous meant that one was acknowledged for obeying the Commandments; and
• The Bible says that in addition to the written Commandments there were a number of spoken Commandments, which were taught to Moses, and the elders of Israel at Mount Sinai. These teachings have been handed down in the form of the Talmud; and
• God uses Jethro to inspire Moses to establish a multitiered hierarchical judicial system that would adjudicate over society based on both the written and oral Commandments. At the top of this hierarchical system stood a group of judges which came to be called the Sanhedrin; and
• The Sanhedrin was given the power to "bind and loose" that is, decide what acts are prohibited and permitted under both the written and oral Commandments. These decisions, much like common law in the British legal system, form precedents, which add to the corpus of oral law.Consequently,Any doctrine that might teach that observing these Commandments would be wrong should be rejected out of hand; andThe apostles, including Paul, showed that they were commandment-observant believers even in the latter chapters of the book of Acts.Yet many of Paul's writings suggest quite strongly that the salvation of mankind must be based on faith rather than legal compliance. This appears to contradict his behaviour.

Perhaps our lack of understanding of Hebrew traditions, values and axioms may have led us to draw the wrong conclusion from his teachings. If we have, then a major revision of some widely held Christian doctrines may be required.

Apple Newton and Bible Study

I use the Message (a bible study program) on the Newton. The Message is a relatively rudimentary Bible Software program written for the Newton OS. It has only been partially completed. Presumably development halted when Apple announced that it was withdrawing the Newton as a product.

The Message does allow some gestures for navigating around the book. A broad downward stroke over the touchscreen executes a "page down" and an upward stroke provides a "page up". A left-to-right stroke navigates to the next chapter and the opposite stroke presents the previous chapter.

The Newton's pen-based copy and paste functionality is also supported with highlighted text that has been dragged to the clipboard being tagged with the bible reference.

It supports simple biblical text searches, shows a lengthy list of recently reviewed passages but doesn't allow one to attach a note to a verse or passage. It is evident that Saved Searches Bookmarks were intended because they can be seen as menu choices but they have not been implemented. More sophisticated Boolean searches are not possible.

I have the NIV, RSV and KJV bibles; but no other resources such as commentaries, dictionaries.

Consequently in order to fill in the blanks, I augment the Message with commentaries from material that I have purchased through Logos by creating Newton Books. These books can then be easily searched with Assist.

This works well but sometimes the books can get quite big.

So to keep the file sizes down I might take only a selected portion of the Commentary. For example, in order to use the Nelson NKJV Study Bible Commentary I might just take the Introductions to each book of the bible. This is very useful for reviewing the historical context of the text and the Commentators' summary of what they consider to be the key themes of each biblical book.

Theoretically I should be able to get a mountain of material into a format that can be accessed on a Newton.

Bible study software

Over the last year I converted to Nelsons eBible which uses Logos 3.0d. There is a bit of a learning curve with this package. However once you’re in the groove the system is really useful. I have previously used E-Sword and Wordsearch 7.

Effectively every bible study program has some basic functions to carry out:

• Provide “easy on the eye” access to content.


• Make quality content available.


• Provide abilities to search the content.


• Provide a cross referencing system so that relevant content can be discovered efficiently.


• Provide bible study/linguistic tools that aid analysis.

“easy on the eye” access: Logos is a little primitive here. It doesn’t immediately support font changes or multiple monitors. It is not immediately obvious as to how to operate the system. Logos has tried to address this issue by providing downloadable training videos. I didnt need this for e-Sword but I see Wordsearch now also provides them.

“quality content”: This is where Libronix shines. They have been more successful than anyone else in convincing third party publishers to license their system. So quality materials from Thomas Nelson, Jewish Publication Society and Baker Publishing et al can be readily purchased. Well-known authors such as Wiersbe, Pannenberg, Fruchtenbaum, Stern et al can also be purchased. The availability of various interlinear and reverse interlinear texts provide useful tools for linguistic studies without having a prior knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages.

“search”: contrary to reviews elsewhere, the usual search capabilities are all there including narrowing one’s search to various subsets of the bible. A “search as you type” feature has recently been added.

“Cross referencing”: When a particular bible verse is highlighted how does one know if another resource also deals with it. In e-sword little “i” flags appear on the resource tabs. This is fine until the resource deals with the passage in multiple places within itself. Logos deals with this by allowing a search for all references to the verse. If there are a lot of resources, this can take a while. Multiple hits just appear as lists, sorted by title of the resource.

“Study tools”: These include some technical linguistic graphical tools and diagramming that assist the reader to break down texts. I had to check a few dictionary definitions to understand some of the linguistic jargon: “Morphology”, “Lemma” etc. Still learning the basics on how to use these tools.

I started out with eBible but now I’ve expanded to include the IVP Essential Collection, Word Bible Commentary (Pentateuch and Gospel collections) and the Scholar’s Library. In our bible study we encourage wide reading which enhances the discussion and debate. We have recently discovered the richness in understanding more about the Jewish milieu during Jesus’s times. Materials from Fruchtenbaum, Stern and JPS have greatly assisted this line of enquiry.

On the whole, Logos’ strength is its access to quality contemporary content. Its weaknesses are its slow searches, its not obvious how searches within results can be effected, its inability to be customized by the user to allow different fonts and to support multiple monitors. Bible study readily lends itself to multiple monitors. My productivity is much higher when I don’t have to flick back and forth between the bible and a reference work.