The Purpose of the Torah

[The Liturgist]

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.
I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

When Jesus was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets He was first fulfilling Dan 9:27, that is He was confirming the covenant; by fulfilling all the prophesies concerning Him in the Law and the prophets, He confirms that He is the messiah, He confirms the existence of and some of the fruition of the covenant, there still outstanding prophesy. This is an argument against the false doctrine that says Jesus fulfilled the 10 commandments so that you and I do not have to keep the commandments.


John 8:
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, If you abide in My word,
you are My disciples indeed.
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

There is nothing wrong with these verse, there can be a lot wrong with how people use them.

Of course there is nothing wrong with any verse in Scripture. Hence my reference to Acts 15.

 

[HARK!]

The obligation for Gentiles to follow the Torah was clearly lifted by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

No it wasn't.

However, if you are a Messianic Jew, then I think Acts 15 would imply the Torah might still be somewhat in effect,

Do you think that YHWH has a double standard?

although elsewhere in Acts and in the Pauline epistles it is made clear, for example, there are no longer unclean foods, so ceremonial portions of the Torah are clearly not in effect.

Wrong.

I am not sure the Torah would be binding even on Messianic Jews however, since the Torah can no longer be observed due to the destruction of the Second Temple.

YHWH said forever. YHWH doesn't lie.

There is no legitimate means of making the various offerings or for a Levite or Cohen to provide the religious services required of him.

I'm not a Levite.

This is why I believe the most important thing for all Christians, including Messianic Jews, is to be baptized as an infant or on conversion,

Yahshua recited the Shema as the foremost precept. Baptism is nothing; and circumcision is nothing, but keeping the Torah.

and to partake of the Lord’s Supper and the other sacred mysteries ordained by Christ as appropriate.

I remember Yahshua, not only every time that I have bread and wine together, but at every meal. However, observing Leviticus 19:18 is far more important. I try to remember Yahshua all throughout my day; but abstaining from bread and wine, altogether, is fine; so there is no requirement to make a mass ritual out of it.

 

[sparow]

Of course there is nothing wrong with any verse in Scripture. Hence my reference to Acts 15.

Your salvation is your concern and gamble; I am not going to depend on anything that contradicts the OT for my salvation; which include Acts and Paul's epistles.

 

[HARK!]

Of course there is nothing wrong with any verse in Scripture. Hence my reference to Acts 15.

Circumcision

 

[HARK!]

Your salvation is your concern and gamble; I am not going to depend on anything that contradicts the OT for my salvation; which include Acts and Paul's epistles.

Acts and Paul's letters don't contradict YHWH.

I can see three possibilities for any contradictions here.

1.) YHWH is a liar.
2.) Paul got it wrong.
3.) Some twist Paul's words.

 

[sparow]

Acts and Paul's letters don't contradict YHWH.

I can see three possibilities for any contradictions here.

1.) YHWH is a liar.
2.) Paul got it wrong.
3.) Some twist Paul's words.

When did YHWH say gentiles do not have to be circumcised and do not have to keep the same Law (covenant) when residing in an Israelite camp; the Kingdom of God is an Israelite camp; there is only twelve gates into the New Jerusalem, one gate for each tribe; meaning a conversion is required for Gentiles

Some talk about Jesus but it is when they quote Paul their eyes light up; Clearly it is Paul they worship.

 

[HARK!]

When did YHWH say gentiles do not have to be circumcised and do not have to keep the same Law (covenant) when residing in an Israelite camp; the Kingdom of God is an Israelite camp; there is only twelve gates into the New Jerusalem, one gate for each tribe.

Some talk about Jesus but it is when they quote Paul their eyes light up; Clearly it is Paul they worship.

It wasn't Paul who clarified the law in Acts 15. It was Yaaqob, brother of Yahshua. Paul was subordinate to Yaaqob; and Yaaqob gave instructions for the Ger Toshav to keep the Torah. See: Circumcision.

Paul circumcised Timothy, shortly after the meeting.

 

[sparow]

It wasn't Paul who clarified the law in Acts 15. It was Yaaqob, brother of Yahshua. Paul was subordinate to Yaaqob; and Yaaqob gave instructions for the Ger Toshav to keep the Torah. See: Circumcision.

Paul circumcised Timothy, shortly after the meeting.

You are confusing me with those Hebrew names; is Jacob another name for James?

Didn't Paul say circumcision was nothing?

If I read you correctly you are saying that 2000 years ago the debate was not whether to circumcise or not, but rather what was the purpose of circumcision; that is, did circumcision save the person, or did it have another purpose. What do you now see the third part of the debate being?

In the beginning circumcision was a sanctification and also blood of the covenant, this hasn't changed.

The Torah cannot be changed; it can be administered differently; Jesus is a better administrator than Moses, certainly better than the Pharisees. In the NT the Torah is assumed and Jesus's teaching is in that context.

Does Baptism save? I believe Baptism is the beginning of a journey, where a seed is planted, some seed grow into good fruit and is saved, other seed grow into tares and are burnt.

 

[The Liturgist]

It wasn't Paul who clarified the law in Acts 15. It was Yaaqob, brother of Yahshua. Paul was subordinate to Yaaqob; and Yaaqob gave instructions for the Ger Toshav to keep the Torah. See: Circumcision.

Paul circumcised Timothy, shortly after the meeting.

Indeed, St. James, or Yaaqob as he would be known in some Aramaic dialects, indeed “Jacob” is more technically correct; I have no idea the etymology of James but its ok, but the guy who in English is commonly venerated as St. James the Just, who wrote the Epistle of James, and is associated with the ancient liturgy of Jerusalem (although this almost certainly postdates him, and some scholarship indicates it might postdate even the fourth century Liturgy of St. Basil), is generally accepted to have been in charge of the Church of Jerusalem and obviously presided over the Council of Jerusalem.

Acts and Paul's letters don't contradict YHWH.

I can see three possibilities for any contradictions here.

1.) YHWH is a liar.
2.) Paul got it wrong.
3.) Some twist Paul's words.

Absolutely, we are of one accord.

When did YHWH say gentiles do not have to be circumcised and do not have to keep the same Law (covenant) when residing in an Israelite camp; the Kingdom of God is an Israelite camp; there is only twelve gates into the New Jerusalem, one gate for each tribe; meaning a conversion is required for Gentiles

Some talk about Jesus but it is when they quote Paul their eyes light up; Clearly it is Paul they worship.

I’ve never met anyone like that, and I have met a number of adherents of strange religions, cults and sects on the fringes of Christianity.

 

[HARK!]

You are confusing me with those Hebrew names; is Jacob another name for James?

King James replaced the name Yaacob (Jacaob The letter J didn't even exist until about 500 years ago.) with his own name.

Didn't Paul say circumcision was nothing?

Paul said it is not but keeping the Torah.

If I read you correctly you are saying that 2000 years ago the debate was not whether to circumcise or not, but rather what was the purpose of circumcision; that is, did circumcision save the person, or did it have another purpose. What do you now see the third part of the debate being?

There is no 3rd part of the debate. You can't come in 2000 years after the debate, and add a 3rd position. Yaacob settled it. You must be circumcised to keep YHWH's Torah.

In the beginning circumcision was a sanctification and also blood of the covenant, this hasn't changed.

Paul said that circumcision sealed Abraham's faith.


(CLV) Ro 4:11
And he obtained the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which was in uncircumcision, for him to be the father of all those who are believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be reckoned to them,

The Torah cannot be changed; it can be administered differently; Jesus is a better administrator than Moses, certainly better than the Pharisees. In the NT the Torah is assumed and Jesus's teaching is in that context.

YHWH's word is a reflection of YHWH. YHWH doesn't change.

Does Baptism save? I believe Baptism is the beginning of a journey, where a seed is planted, some seed grow into good fruit and is saved, other seed grow into tares and are burnt.

Baptism, like circumcision, is an outward sign of what has already taken place within.

 

[sparow]

King James replaced the name Yaacob (Jacaob The letter J didn't even exist until about 500 years ago.) with his own name.



Paul said it is not but keeping the Torah.



There is no 3rd part of the debate. You can't come in 2000 years after the debate, and add a 3rd position. Yaacob settled it. You must be circumcised to keep YHWH's Torah.



Paul said that circumcision sealed Abraham's faith.


(CLV) Ro 4:11
And he obtained the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which was in uncircumcision, for him to be the father of all those who are believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be reckoned to them,




YHWH's word is a reflection of YHWH. YHWH doesn't change.



Baptism, like circumcision, is an outward sign of what has already taken place within.

I am probably wrong, but I have always believed Baptism fulfills the same Law as does the Priest when he washes his hands in the Temple.

 

[Soyeong]

When did YHWH say gentiles do not have to be circumcised and do not have to keep the same Law (covenant) when residing in an Israelite camp; the Kingdom of God is an Israelite camp; there is only twelve gates into the New Jerusalem, one gate for each tribe; meaning a conversion is required for Gentiles

Some talk about Jesus but it is when they quote Paul their eyes light up; Clearly it is Paul they worship.

While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if one keeps the Torah (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we keep the Torah.

Either there are correct and incorrect reasons for someone to become circumcised and Paul only spoke against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:3) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, there was a group form Judea who was wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, and a ruling against something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

 

[BobRyan]

While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2)

Romans 3 is not about circumcision specifically -- it is about contrasting a Jewish Christian vs a gentile Christian - and it follows directly from the teaching at the end of Romans 2.

Rom 2:

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.​

Rom 3:

Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 Far from it! Rather, God must prove to be true, though every person be found a liar,​

:

The first benefit is that the Jewish nation (Israel) was historically given the Word of God - scripture. Gentiles can not say that - and it does not matter that they are Christian or that they choose to be circumcised , they cannot claim that the Irish, or the Vikings were the ancient people that received scripture from God at Sinai - only Israel can claim that. So they have a deeply ingrained national history , national lineage, in scripture, in the Word of God. This is not a "benefit" that gentile would get simply by becoming outwardly circumcised.

 

[Soyeong]

Romans 3 is not about circumcision specifically -- it is about contrasting a Jewish Christian vs a gentile Christian - and it follows directly from the teaching at the end of Romans 2.

Rom 2:

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.​

Rom 3:

Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 Far from it! Rather, God must prove to be true, though every person be found a liar,​

:

The first benefit is that the Jewish nation (Israel) was historically given the Word of God - scripture. Gentiles can not say that - and it does not matter that they are Christian or that they choose to be circumcised , they cannot claim that the Irish, or the Vikings were the ancient people that received scripture from God at Sinai - only Israel can claim that. So they have a deeply ingrained national history , national lineage, in scripture, in the Word of God. This is not a "benefit" that gentile would get simply by becoming outwardly circumcised.

In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, God instructed them to circumcise their hearts and obey His commandments. In Deuteronomy 30:1-8, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah. In Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33, the context is the Israelites returning from exile and the New Covenant, where God would take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us to obey His law, and where He would put His Torah in our minds and write it in our hearts, so they are describing God circumcising our hearts by means of the Spirit. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Torah, so having a circumcised heart does not refer to anything other than living in obedience to the Torah, and the New Covenant is about returning to obedience to it.

So it was not about Jewish Christians vs Gentile Christians, but about both walking together in obedience to the Torah and asking what the significance of being a Jew is. Though Paul still said that circumcision has much value in every way, so 1 Corinthians 7:19 should not be interpreted as speaking about circumcision not having value when we obey God's commandments.

 

[The Liturgist]

No it wasn't.

How do you figure?

Do you think that YHWH has a double standard?

No, I believe that the Law served as a tutor, as St. Paul says in Galatians. Having attained majority, through the New Covenant of Christ, the situation has changed.

Wrong.

Forgive me, I am not trying to be vexatious here, but if you are going to dismiss an extremely widely held interpretation of Acts 15 which I repeated, as erroneous, it would be helpful if you could expound upon your rationale. If you just say “Wrong”, that doesn’t help me understand your position. And I do believe humility requires us to be willing to change our views in response to evidence and reason. Earlier today, I was mistaken about a matter concerning the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church, having forgotten about the particulars of a scandal which my friend @Andrewn remembered; he, like me, is extremely agreeable, and suggested we agree to disagree, which I suppose would have been very Wesleyan of me, but I, realizing my memory was fallible, decided to disagree to disagree and asked him to expound upon what he was discussing; he did, my memory was refreshed, on an important matter, by the way, and we had a mutually edifying discussion which happened to involve ecumenical politics and homicidal monks. It was actually a bit Godfather Part III (or The Godfather: Coda, if you prefer the re-edited version); I am amazed the Internazionale Immobiliare consortium did not come up in the discussion.

Jokes aside, my point is that I am willing to learn from you and give your views a hearing, even though I have beliefs that I hold. I might come to believe some of your doctrinal positions even if I do not embrace them entirely. This is the beauty of ecumenical discourse.

YHWH said forever. YHWH doesn't lie.

Indeed, but the means of grace, via sacrifices to atone for sins and to support the priests and Levites, according to Second Temple Judaism, are not extant. Now, on the other hand, the Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews) continue those sacrifices and have never used a Temple, and the Karaites and Rabinnical Jews have theological explanations for what to do in the absence of a Temple, I just don’t understand them.

I'm not a Levite.

Forgive me, I was not suggesting you were.

Yahshua recited the Shema as the foremost precept. Baptism is nothing; and circumcision is nothing, but keeping the Torah.

Where does the Torah direct us to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Or is this a supplementary commandment to enhance Torah observance?

I remember Yahshua, not only every time that I have bread and wine together, but at every meal. However, observing Leviticus 19:18 is far more important. I try to remember Yahshua all throughout my day; but abstaining from bread and wine, altogether, is fine; so there is no requirement to make a mass ritual out of it.

Most Christians believe that our Lord instituted two or more sacraments or ordinances, Baptism and the Eucharist, and Christians, including churches which are comprised heavily or exclusively of Jewish converts, such as the Syriac Orthodox, an endogamous group within the Indian dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox that have their own parishes and are of pure Jewish descent, whose ancestors were shipwrecked and converted to Christianity, and the Ethiopian Orthodox.

Now, by the way, given your knowledge of Judaism, and my interest in Jewish liturgy, even if we cannot reach an agreement on some of these theological issues, I would love to know what you know about Jewish worship. For example, which Siddur and which Nusach do you follow? Are there legitimate regional variations, for example, between Sephardim, Ashkenazim and Romaniote Jews? What do you think of the Karaite Jews and the Beta Israel and how they worship?

I would love to be able to pray in the recently rebuilt Hurva Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, which is one of the most beautiful houses of worship I have seen.

 

[The Liturgist]

King James replaced the name Yaacob (Jacaob The letter J didn't even exist until about 500 years ago.) with his own name.

I wouldn’t blame it on King James. The Great Bible, the first official English Bible in the Church of England, printed under Henry VIII* has the Epistle of Iames which begins thus: “Iames the seruaunt of God & of the Lorde Iesus Christ, sendeth gretyng to the twelue trybes which are scattered abroade.”

Thus, Yaacob became Iames and then James in English when we developed the J character, just as in Spanish it became Iago. Hence, the Patron Saint of Spain, St. James the Great, whose actual name was Yaacob, the first of the Apostles to be martyred, whose relics are believed to have been miraculously translated to the city bearing his Spanish name, Santiago de Compostela, is revered in Spanish culture, and many cities in the New World are called Santiago, for example, Santiago de Chile, and the war cry of Spanish soldiers was Santiago y cierra, España! meaning “For St. James and the Sealing of Spain’s Borders!”

However, the origins of the name Jim or James have not been forgotten. Supporters of the deposed Stuart monarch James II, who was overthrown in favor of the Dutch King William of Orange and his wife Queen Mary, in what was branded the “Glorious Revolution” by its supporters, were called Jacobites, not to be confused with the Syriac Orthodox also called Jacobites, because of the vital importance of Mor Yakub bar Addai, known in the West as Jacob Baradaeus, in preserving the faith by ordaining bishops during a purge in which many were imprisoned or killed by Emperor Justinian, or Ivstinian, to use the old Roman spelling, and furniture and architecture associated with the period of his reign is called Jacobean.

*The Great Bible was of course was seriously flawed and replaced by the Bishops’ Bible; the KJV or Authorized Version was an attempt to address criticism of the Bishops’ Bible by fans of the Geneva Bible, which was dominant in the Church of Scotland and influential among the Puritans in the Church of England, who wanted a more Calvinist church and saw the Bishops’ Bible being too full of “Popery.” The goal was to provide one Bible so King James could unify the two very different churches of his two realms; in the end, the KJV did ultimately replace the Geneva Bible in the Church of Scotland by 1674, but to this day it is very much independent of the Church of England and union of the two seems quite impossible.

 

[sparow]

While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if one keeps the Torah (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we keep the Torah.

Either there are correct and incorrect reasons for someone to become circumcised and Paul only spoke against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:3) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, there was a group form Judea who was wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, and a ruling against something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

I disagree with your reasoning, and you misunderstand Paul thinking he is articulating Law, instead of Paul being up go his ears in an oral/literal brawl.

Circumcision is Israel's "blood of the covenant"; circumcision is also a sanctification, separating Israel from gentiles or strangers; this sanctification is still required after all there are only twelve gates into the new Jerusalem, one for each tribe. This being true should we not ensure we are able to genuinely call ourselves Israel.

 

[Andrewn]

The obligation for Gentiles to follow the Torah was clearly lifted by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

According to Jewish belief, which is quite reasonable and supported by biblical scholars, Gentiles had an obligation to follow the Noachidic law, not the Torah. Yahweh's righteousness, equity, and truth are everywhere operative in creation.

No, I believe that the Law served as a tutor, as St. Paul says in Galatians. Having attained majority, through the New Covenant of Christ, the situation has changed.

Christians generally understand the word "law" in the NT as a reference to the Torah. And in Messianic Jewish translations, it is translated into Torah. But relatively recently, I read in an EO book (I've read many EO books in the past year and can't remember which one), that the word "law" refers to all laws of the nations, including the Jewish Torah.

Thus, Yaacob became Iames and then James in English when we developed the J character, just as in Spanish it became Iago.

I suppose the J character in biblical names came from the German Bible. In Germanic and Scandinavian languages J is pronounced Y. The problem is that J in English is pronounced like in French, rather than German. Thus we pronounce all biblical names incorrectly .

 

[HARK!]

According to Jewish belief, which is quite reasonable and supported by biblical scholars, Gentiles had an obligation to follow the Noachidic law, not the Torah. Yahweh's righteousness, equity, and truth are everywhere operative in creation.

I believe that you are speaking of the Ger Toshav, not to be confused with the Ger Tzedek.

Gentiles? Not Anymore!

 

[HARK!]

No, I believe that the Law served as a tutor, as St. Paul says in Galatians.

(CLV) Ga 3:24
So that the law has become our escort to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.

This is present perfect tense.

(CLV) Jn 5:46
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he writes concerning Me.

(CLV) Jn 5:47
Now if you are not believing his writings, how shall you be believing My declarations?"