Discussion on what Yeshua and Rav Shaul taught

[hamashiachagape]

I was having a very interesting discourse with a very kind gentleman named Yonah Mishael on the teachings of the Torah. I believe this thread would be good in discoursing about the teachings of Rav Shaul and Yeshua.

 

[hamashiachagape]

It is commonly asserted by some that Yeshua or Paul did away with the Torah. Here are some interesting comments made by Yeshua " 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. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For 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."

Paul requires closer attention to detail. Acts 24:14 states "14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,"

Is Paul consistent the rest of the way through? We shall see that in Romans 3:31 he states "31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

Romans 7:7 declares " 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Romans 7:12 states "12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good."

Romans 2:13 states "13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

In each of these cases, the appropriate term for Torah "Ha Nomos" from the Greek is utilized.

Peter also understood Paul to be writing about the Torah in a positive light. 2 Peter 3:15-18 "

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Are there any comments to be made here? I believe i have traced the source of the getting rid of Judaism within Christianity, but it is not from either of these people in question. Nor did any writers of the Brit Hadashah make mention of it.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Of course, anyone else would be welcome to contribute.

Here's my basic position:

(1) The words of Jesus are recorded by various authors. Each of these authors comes from different perspectives. Mark is probably the most original reading. Matthew's version was put together with the express purpose of presenting Jesus to a Jewish audience, so we find there things about the Law being eternal and such. Luke was a follower of Paul, so we see there things that line up more readily with Pauline doctrines. John wrote from a more esoteric perspective, presenting Jesus as more than a fisherman and carpenter, more than a prophet and teacher, more than the impetus for another religion -- but as divine. From the beginning to the end, John presents Jesus as the one who is so intimately connected with God as to be called Got himself. Which gospel writer we read reflects how we view the message that Jesus was trying to get across. For me, the most important distinctions are between those things present in Matthew and those present in Luke (representing the Jewish community of "believers" as opposed to the non-Jewish followers of "the Way").

(2) A harmony of the Synoptic Gospels (like here) shows that Matthew 5:1 to 8:1 are harmonized with Luke 6:20-49, with no comparable material in Mark. In 5:17-18, Matthew has Jesus say: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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." No comparable expression is found in Luke's version. There is no statement in all of Luke's writing that the Law (Torah) was eternal. As a disciple of Paul, it would have been contradictory for Luke to write such a thing! One might call on 16:17, where Luke writes that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than on tittle of the law to fail." In this case, he was actually saying the opposite of Matthew. He was saying that the Law had indeed ceased to be functional ("the law and the prophets were until John" in 16:16), followed by Luke demonstrating what he viewed the purpose of the Law was -- that it should lead the Jews to belief in Jesus rather than to the keeping of the Torah. Although it was more difficult for heaven and earth to disappear than for the Torah to be changed, Luke's version of Jesus had him saying that it had indeed happened.

(3) Paul claimed that the purpose of the Law was to function as a tutor, a companion whose only aim was the education and shaping of the child for greater things. The Torah was supposed to be a companion that would eventually lead the people to Jesus. Once the tutor brought the child to his goal, the tutor's position would fail to be necessary. This is how Paul can claim that he was "dead to the law" and that the life he lived was for Jesus, but the law was death. He admitted that the law had value, in that it showed him his sin, caused the sin to overpower him and make it necessary for him to turn to a savior. Apart from that, the law has no power to give life or to give justification for a sinner. This is the Pauline perspective on the law. He was not a "faithful Torah-observant Jew" unless he was in front of Torah-observant Jews whom he wanted to convince of his own orthodoxy in order to get in with them and bring them to Christ.

Regards,
Yonah

 

[yonah_mishael]

I'd like your commentary on this verse:

Galatians 2:19
"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." (KJV)
ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. (NA27)
כִּי־מַתִּי אֲנִי לַתּוֹרָה עַל־יְדֵי הַתּוֹרָה לְמַעַן אֶחְיֶה לֵאלֹהִים׃ (Delitzsch)

How can he claim that he died to the Torah, yet he lived according to the Torah? I don't understand your position at all. Paul believed himself dead to the Torah and had no reason to continue living by it, except when he found himself before a Torah-observant community that he was trying to persuade to follow Jesus. He said it himself:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Especially telling is where he said that (1) I am under no law and (2) I became like one not having the law (that is, a Gentile). His personal observance of Torah was unnecessary as a daily way of life, but Torah was useful as a tool of proselytization. That's it. This is why we see him taking a vow and fulfilling it in the Temple. It was for the sake of those who still believed in keeping the Torah -- so that he didn't cause offense and ruin his chance to convince them of Jesus.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'd like your commentary on this verse:

Galatians 2:19
"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." (KJV)
ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. (NA27)
כִּי־מַתִּי אֲנִי לַתּוֹרָה עַל־יְדֵי הַתּוֹרָה לְמַעַן אֶחְיֶה לֵאלֹהִים׃ (Delitzsch)

How can he claim that he died to the Torah, yet he lived according to the Torah? I don't understand your position at all. Paul believed himself dead to the Torah and had no reason to continue living by it, except when he found himself before a Torah-observant community that he was trying to persuade to follow Jesus. He said it himself:



Especially telling is where he said that (1) I am under no law and (2) I became like one not having the law (that is, a Gentile). His personal observance of Torah was unnecessary as a daily way of life, but Torah was useful as a tool of proselytization. That's it. This is why we see him taking a vow and fulfilling it in the Temple. It was for the sake of those who still believed in keeping the Torah -- so that he didn't cause offense and ruin his chance to convince them of Jesus.

You'd have to cite the stuff stating that he is under no law. We have just shown that he agreed that he is to follow the Torah.

First of all, I don't think the KJV is a very good Bible to utilize (it comes from those who did get rid of the Torah, who were instrumental in the writing of Jerome's Latin Vulgate). On Galatians 2:19, we have upo nomou (under law, no article present) and then Ha nomos. Basically Paul is talking about his days when he was following the Torah legalistically, and when he did this, he did not follow the Torah and subsequently, he died to the Torah because he was living in sin.

David Stern in The Complete Jewish Bible shows it in a proper light. See "19 For it was through letting the Torah speak for itself that I died to its traditional legalistic misinterpretation, so that I might live in direct relationship with God."

http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/galatians/passage.aspx?q=galatians+2:15-21

 

[hamashiachagape]

On 1 Corinthians, this might help a bit. "19 For although I am a free man, not bound to do anyone's bidding, I have made myself a slave to all in order to win as many people as possible. 20 That is, with Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah. 21 With those who live outside the framework of Torah, I put myself in the position of someone outside the Torah in order to win those outside the Torah - although I myself am not outside the framework of God's Torah but within the framework of Torah as upheld by the Messiah. 22 With the "weak" I became "weak," in order to win the "weak." With all kinds of people I have become all kinds of things, so that in all kinds of circumstances I might save at least some of them. 23 But I do it all because of the rewards promised by the Good News, so that I may share in them along with the others who come to trust."

 

[yonah_mishael]

You'd have to cite the stuff stating that he is under no law. We have just shown that he agreed that he is to follow the Torah.

First of all, I don't think the KJV is a very good Bible to utilize (it comes from those who did get rid of the Torah, who were instrumental in the writing of Jerome's Latin Vulgate). On Galatians 2:19, we have upo nomou (under law, no article present) and then Ha nomos. Basically Paul is talking about his days when he was following the Torah legalistically, and when he did this, he did not follow the Torah and subsequently, he died to the Torah because he was living in sin.

David Stern in The Complete Jewish Bible shows it in a proper light. See "19 For it was through letting the Torah speak for itself that I died to its traditional legalistic misinterpretation, so that I might live in direct relationship with God."

Galatians 2:15-21 "We are Jews by birth, not so-called Goyishe sinners;..." CJB - Online Bible Study

David Stern's "translation" is anything but a translation. It is more propaganda than scholarship. I put the KJV as a reference. It's clear that my main intent is to use the Greek text as the basis of the discussion -- not David Stern or King James. The text itself says ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον. Perhaps the exclusion of the article indicates a generalization: "For as for me (the presence of ἐγώ is emphatic), I died to law through law." How was it "through law" that he died "to law"? He claimed in other places that the law is what caused sin to spring to life and kill him!

Romans 7:9-12
ἐγὼ δὲ ἔζων χωρὶς νόμου ποτέ, ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀνέζησεν, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον· ἡ γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἐξηπάτησέν με καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἀπέκτεινεν.
But as for me, I was living without law at one time, and but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died - and it was discovered to me [that] the commandment unto life, this [was] unto death. For sin taking the opportunity through the commandment deceived me, and through it (the commandment) it (sin) killed me.

He said before that he died through law, and now we see him describing specifically that it was the commandment (ἐντολ&#8053 that brought him death because it awakened sin! If it hadn't been for the commandment, he could have lived on -- but once the commandment made him aware of the sin, that sin came to life and destroyed him. This is exactly what I was expressing about Paul's views before.

I don't need David Stern's creative interpretations. Nor do I need the KJV. I can read the Greek myself and see exactly what Paul was describing. Do you, by chance, read Greek?

 

[hamashiachagape]

David Stern's "translation" is anything but a translation. It is more propaganda than scholarship. I put the KJV as a reference. It's clear that my main intent is to use the Greek text as the basis of the discussion -- not David Stern or King James. The text itself says ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον. Perhaps the exclusion of the article indicates a generalization: "For as for me (the presence of ἐγώ is emphatic), I died to law through law." How was it "through law" that he died "to law"? He claimed in other places that the law is what caused sin to spring to life and kill him!

Romans 7:9-12
ἐγὼ δὲ ἔζων χωρὶς νόμου ποτέ, ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀνέζησεν, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον· ἡ γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἐξηπάτησέν με καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἀπέκτεινεν.
But as for me, I was living without law at one time, and but when the commandment came, sing came to life, and I died - and it was discovered to me [that] the commandment unto life, this [was] unto death. For sin taking the opportunity through the commandment deceived me, and through it I killed me.

He said before that he died through law, and now we see him describing specifically that it was the commandment (ἐντολ&#8053 that brought him death because it awakened sin! If it hadn't been for the commandment, he could have lived on -- but once the commandment made him aware of the sin, that sin came to life and destroyed him. This is exactly what I was expressing about Paul's views before.

I don't need David Stern's creative interpretations. Nor do I need the KJV. I can read the Greek myself and see exactly what Paul was describing. Do you, by chance, read Greek?

Well if you don't like Stern, CEB Cranfield, a Christian scholar concurs with this understanding as does Dr. Michael Brown, the ANE language and literature scholar.

It wasn't "through Law" that he dies "to law." It was Through the Torah that he died to legalism. The signfiicance is found in the expressions "upo nomon" and "erega nomou" vs. "Ha Nomos."

 

[yonah_mishael]

On 1 Corinthians, this might help a bit. "19 For although I am a free man, not bound to do anyone's bidding, I have made myself a slave to all in order to win as many people as possible. 20 That is, with Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah. 21 With those who live outside the framework of Torah, I put myself in the position of someone outside the Torah in order to win those outside the Torah - although I myself am not outside the framework of God's Torah but within the framework of Torah as upheld by the Messiah. 22 With the "weak" I became "weak," in order to win the "weak." With all kinds of people I have become all kinds of things, so that in all kinds of circumstances I might save at least some of them. 23 But I do it all because of the rewards promised by the Good News, so that I may share in them along with the others who come to trust."

Paul says that Jesus was born of woman and "under Torah" (Galatians 4:4) in the same way that he described the Jews that he was trying to convert as "under Torah" (above). If it was "in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah" that Paul was talking about, why would he use the same phrase to describe Jesus in Galatians 4:4 (that is, ὑπὸ νόμο&#957?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Paul says that Jesus was born of woman and "under Torah" (Galatians 4:4) in the same way that he described the Jews that he was trying to convert as "under Torah" (above). If it was "in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah" that Paul was talking about, why would he use the same phrase to describe Jesus in Galatians 4:4 (that is, ὑπὸ νόμο&#957?

4 but when the appointed time arrived, God sent forth his Son. He was born from a woman, born into a culture in which legalistic perversion of the Torah was the norm,

Thats how this verse should read.

 

[yonah_mishael]

And this is just ridiculous: "but when the appointed time arrived, God sent forth his Son. He was born from a woman, born into a culture in which legalistic perversion of the Torah was the norm..."

Is there no way in Greek to say "legalism"? Is there no way for Paul to be clearer than to use the same word again and again ambiguously? I have to disagree. I think Greek was an extremely precise language, and if Paul meant "legalistic observance", he could very well have said that. Rather, he chose to use the generic term for "Torah" in Greek -- νόμος.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Thats how this verse should read.

Should read?!? No way! That may be how you UNDERSTAND it or INTERPRET it, but that's not how it SHOULD READ. It should read as it was WRITTEN, and it wasn't WRITTEN like that!

 

[hamashiachagape]

And this is just ridiculous: "but when the appointed time arrived, God sent forth his Son. He was born from a woman, born into a culture in which legalistic perversion of the Torah was the norm..."

Is there no way in Greek to say "legalism"? Is there no way for Paul to be clearer than to use the same word again and again ambiguously? I have to disagree. I think Greek was an extremely precise language, and if Paul meant "legalistic observance", he could very well have said that. Rather, he chose to use the generic term for "Torah" in Greek -- νόμος.

No there is no way in Greek to literally state legalism, but CEB Cranfield pretty well confirms that that is what is meant in the expression. Also we can look back at the Dead Sea Scrolls "works of Law" from the Essene community and infer the same exact thing.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Should read?!? No way! That may be how you UNDERSTAND it or INTERPRET it, but that's not how it SHOULD READ. It should read as it was WRITTEN, and it wasn't WRITTEN like that!

You are relying upon a translation from the Latin Vulgate in your understanding when utilizing the KJV.

In its understanding it means the same thing when translating from the earliest Greek copies, but I believe Stern to be more precise in his translation.

 

[yonah_mishael]

You are relying upon a translation from the Latin Vulgate in your understanding when utilizing the KJV.

I don't use the KJV. I posted the Greek text of the verses along with my own word-for-word translation. I read and know Greek. Perhaps it's true that there are posters on this forum and others who quote the KJV and think it's wonderful. I quoted it above just to post an English translation, assuming that readers don't know Greek. If you'd prefer, we can do this completely with the Greek text and avoid posting any English translation at all. I can handle it with no problem, if that's what you prefer. I don't rely on the Latin. I don't read Latin. I don't care about the Vulgate. I deal with the original language as far as it can be placed.

The Greek text I use is the Nestle-Aland text in the 27th edition. In the States I also have a copy of the Textus Receptus with its textual apparatus along with the USB-4. Here in Israel I have only the NA27. I don't have an English translation of the NT, though I have one in Hebrew (a poor translation by a man named David Ginzburg), but I prefer to pull the Delitsch version off the Internet when quoting the NT in Hebrew (since it's a much stronger translation).

Again, if you'd rather me not use English translation at all (to avoid posting the KJV for those who read on this forum), I'd be glad to comment only on the Greek text. Let me know.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I don't use the KJV. I posted the Greek text of the verses along with my own word-for-word translation. I read and know Greek. Perhaps it's true that there are posters on this forum and others who quote the KJV and think it's wonderful. I quoted it above just to post an English translation, assuming that readers don't know Greek. If you'd prefer, we can do this completely with the Greek text and avoid posting any English translation at all. I can handle it with no problem, if that's what you prefer. I don't rely on the Latin. I don't read Latin. I don't care about the Vulgate. I deal with the original language as far as it can be placed.

The Greek text I use is the Nestle-Aland text in the 27th edition. In the States I also have a copy of the Textus Receptus with its textual apparatus along with the USB-4. Here in Israel I have only the NA27. I don't have an English translation of the NT, though I have one in Hebrew (a poor translation by a man named David Ginzburg), but I prefer to pull the Delitsch version off the Internet when quoting the NT in Hebrew (since it's a much stronger translation).

Again, if you'd rather me not use English translation at all (to avoid posting the KJV for those who read on this forum), I'd be glad to comment only on the Greek text. Let me know.

Its fine, I'm simply trying to let it be known that some translations are better than others.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I was really getting into this conversation, but I'm about to fall asleep at this moment. I will hopefully get to talk with you soon Yonah. Be blessed .

 

[yonah_mishael]

Its fine, I'm simply trying to let it be known that some translations are better than others.

And I'm saying that translations should not go further than the original.

If I give you the numbers 4.56 and 3.25, and you take an average, you cannot give me six decimal places. You can only be as precise as the numbers that I give you to start with. You can give me two decimal places with precision, and that's as far as you can go precisely (unless I specificy that these are exact measurements).

So it is in translation. If I use the word "law" in the original, you cannot change that into something else with any justification. If you do, it will lead to inconsistency in translation. Additionally, you may be representing your own perspective more than that of the original writer. Paul may not at all have seen a distinction where David Stern sees one.

Similarly, as to your claim that νόμος must have the article in order to refer to the Torah, I don't think that can stand up at all. Have you investigated this? I find people that Jehovah's Witnesses claim this about the word θεός in John 1, stating that the lack of an article indicates something there regarding Jesus being "a god" or something. Within that very chapter, however, θεός is used with no article to refer to GOD (not Jesus). I haven't looked to check out consistency, but since you're referring to this, can you absolutely say that Paul doesn't use νόμος (as anarthrous) to refer to the Torah?

 

[ContraMundum]

I don't need David Stern's creative interpretations. Nor do I need the KJV. I can read the Greek myself and see exactly what Paul was describing. Do you, by chance, read Greek?

I do, and you are doing quite well with it. I don't want to be too involved in this, but it seems to me that you have studied Koine properly, am I right?