Hi All,
It appears as though believers are divided as to whether or not the New Testament teaches that obedience to Torah is commanded today.
I believe that all believers will state that they believe that Torah obedience is
not what saves, but salvation by grace alone. However, it is a question of what a believer "ought" to do, once saved.
Reading through the comments--and I apologize, I did "skim" rather than read carefully--it seems as though there is some belief that translators added comments or mis-translated some passages that indicate that Torah changed. However, I believe that it is clear that an honest translation of various passages indeed do indicate such.
For example:
"Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." (Hebrews 7:11-14, ESV)
"Law" above is the translation of the Greek word "nomos", which is the standard word used to describe "law" in the New Testament. It is very clear that the writer of Hebrews teaches that the law can and does change. Thus, arguments about the law being "eternal" must be measured in light of this.
Now, some may argue that only certain portions of Torah have changed, such as the priesthood now being held (permanently) by Yeshua, of the tribe of Judah. (Some might also believe a latter-day restoration of a Aaronic order as well, but something definitely
changed about the law--'added to', despite the plain reading of Deut 4:2 & 12:32). Other things, such as Sabbath observance are still binding.
Another important thing to note is that Torah--indeed, the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures--does not talk much about the afterlife, and salvation from hell.
At my current stage of life, I must admit that Paul, when read with an open mind and no a priori assumption that he supports Torah, says that Torah observance is for the past, not the present. And I also must admit that this seems to contradict both what Yeshua/Jesus stated
and statements in Torah itself.
Furthermore (though not the subject of this thread), it appears as though the way the New Testament handles the Hebrew Bible is not typical "grammatical-historical" exegesis, but rather it sees far more in the Hebrew Bible than the context would suggest. (Such as seeing Messiah having to go to Egypt in Hosea 11:1--a grammatical-historical reading of Hosea 11:1 would note that it is
not prophetic, let alone Messianic).
The bottom line is this: either you have faith to believe that the NT is the Word of God and that its understanding of the OT is better than your own, or you don't. To me, this is beyond an intellectual argument, it is a matter of choice. Those who believe that Torah observance is binding on the believer today are, in my understanding, mis-reading Paul on this matter in favor of the Old Testament. Those who reject Torah observance as binding are faithful to Paul, and the apparent contradiction between the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT is accepted as a matter of faith, in favor of reading Paul plainly and the OT...well, not so plainly.
Really, I think a lot of issues are like this. Whenever we build theological systems in an attempt to wrap our brain around the Bible, we end up trying to shave off the rough edges of certain biblical teachings that don't quite fit. We choose a particular point of view--say Paul, or say Moses--and we read the entire Bible in that light. We attempt to re-interpret that which does not quite fit into that pattern, and we do not accept the plainest meaning of certain scriptures, in favor of the plainest meaning of other scriptures.
Maybe I'm rambling now, but I hope you get my point: the Bible does not quite fit into any box--whether that box is Messianic Jewish, Calvanistic, or Roman Catholic. There will always be rough edges. You can hack those rough edges right off if you like--for example, reject Paul (as did the Judaizers) or reject the OT (as did Marcion), or reject the entire NT (as to converts to non-Messianic Judaism). But to be a Bible-believer means that those rough edges will always be with you.
In Christ,
Daniel
