What's up with Torah-observance?

[Meowzltov]

I'm not against Israel. I am careful, it's not as though it isn't what brought about (I think you're right about Talmud)

Are the two similar? I might not know the Torah, but I can easily. I do assume they are very similar.

This is a pretty big topic. We can brush over it in this one post, or go into as much detail a you wish.

The Torah (called the Pentateuch by Christians), is the first five books of the Bible, or the "Books of Law."

The book of Genesis records the creation stories and the legends and histories prior to the Exodus. It includes the history of Abraham with whom God made a covenant. This covenant was that he would be the father of many nations, and that his covenantal people would dwell in the Land that God had given him. This was an unconditional covenant, entirely on God's part, because he loved Abraham. The covenant descends from Abraham to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob/Israel, and from Jacob/Israel to his twelve sons (who later become the tribes of Israel.

The book of Exodus records God leading the children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt and into freedom in the wilderness. It records the first observance of the Sabbath. It is one of the two books to record the ten commandments. It gives many laws for the newbies.

Leviticus records most of the laws, especially the sexual laws and the laws regarding sacrifices. The name Leviticus comes from the tribe of Levites, which were in charge of the religious observances.

The book of Numbers gets its name because it includes a census of the tribes.

Deuteronomy is a retelling of most of the laws (just in case you didn't get 'em the first time around) including the ten commandments.

We can talk more about the Torah if you have questions.

Now for the Talmud...

The laws HAD be interpreted in order to be observed as a community. Your not supposed to work on Sabbath, but what exactly is meant by work? You can't have Jane having her idea of what is work, and Jim having a completely different idea what is work. It doesn't work as a community. Moses gave authority to seventy elders (that's what the sanhedron is). Sometimes these elders are called Judges (as in the book of Judges) because they sat in judgement over legal and civil matters. Levites were also sought out for teaching of the law, especially the Kohanim (priests). In Deuteronomy 17:8-13 God grants AUTHORITY to the Levites and Judges to interpret the law -- God said if you disobeyed you were to be killed, so that's LOTS of authority. So for example they ruled that "work" was any of the 39 labors done to form the Tabernacle, since God commanded work on the Tabernacle to cease on the Sabbath. Carrying (outside the home) was one of the labors used for the Tabernacle, so it became forbidden on Sabbath--that's why that guy was put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. (Healing is not one of the 39 labors forbidden. )

Each time a question of law like this came up, it was brought before the Judges (Sanhedrin) and ruled on. Over time, these rulings accumulated, similar to the way that case law works in our own legal system. Their sum total is called
Oral Torah.

After the destruction of the temple, and the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, Jews dispersed far and wide all over the world. This is called the diaspora. The Sanhedrin was worried that the Oral Torah would become lost in all the confusion and dispersion. Two attempts were made to record it all. One is the Jerusalem Talmud. The other is the Babylonian Talmud (this is the one most often used, and is usually just referred to as the Talmud).

The Talmud is a very difficult book to read, because it records the very conversations of the Rabbis as they discuss pro and con various possible interpretations of law before the final understanding is reached. IOW, if you don't know what you are doing, you could quote a Rabbi in the Talmud who is voicing an interpretation which was actually rejected and not know that's what you were doing. One should never EVER read the Talmud unless it is with someone who is already learned in Talmud. It takes years and years and years of proper study of the Talmud before one an expert. Studying Talmud online is a very, very wrongheaded idea.

 

[Meowzltov]

There is question if the Torah is inspired. I highly doubt that it's inspired. If it is then it's okay, if it's not, it might still be okay, I know nothing about it.

Christians believe the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, both Old Testament and New Testament, is inspired That includes the Torah.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In 1 Peter 1:14-16, we are not told to have a holy conduct because we are under the Old Covenant or because we should want to be like Jews, but because God is holy, so observing God's commands in the Torah for how to have a holy conduct are about identifying with the holiness of the God that we serve. The same goes for observing God's commands in the Torah for how to have a righteous and good conduct.

But torah observance can never amount to holiness because of the curse.

 

[Meowzltov]

But torah observance can never amount to holiness because of the curse.

Holiness is simply anything/anyone/any time/any place/ any action that is set aside for the purposes of God. Because torah is observed FOR God, it is holy. There are two things we usually mean when we refer to as the curse of the law. The first is that try as we like we can't seem to observe it perfectly. The second is that the law makes us conscious of sin (when we'd really rather stay in denial). In the first case, this is no reason not to seek a limited righteousness, nor does it conflict with observance being holy. In the second case, that's probably the best possible "curse" I can think of having.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

 

[Soyeong]

But torah observance can never amount to holiness because of the curse.

The Torah is the way to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (Romans 7:12), not the way to become holy, righteous, and good. We are not to do what is righteous in order to become righteous, but because God has declared us to be righteous or because we are being saved from doing what is unrighteous. We are saved by grace through faith not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing them (Ephesians 2:8-10) and it is OT Scripture that is God-breathed and profitable for training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16). What God's grace brings in these verse is a description of what our salvation looks like:

Titus 2:11-14 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

So our salvation from sin involves being redeemed from our sinful or lawless actions through Jesus dying on the cross, but it also involves us being trained to do what God has revealed to be godly, righteous, and good, and being trained to renounce doing what God has revealed to be ungodly, sinful, and lawless.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Torah is the way to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (Romans 7:12), not the way to become holy, righteous, and good.

Very Very WELL SAID

 

[Soyeong]

Telling a man to carry a bed is at minimum equal to carrying sticks on the Sabbath: you are in denial about your faith.

If you want to say that it takes roughly the same amount of effort to pick up a mat as it does to pick up sticks, then you might be right, but that is completely missing the point because the Sabbath has never been about making sure that you don't lift above a certain amount of weight. There are 24 chapters worth of traditions in the Mishna just for how to keep the Sabbath and it is exactly this sort of legalistic interpretation of God's law that Jesus said he came to correct. He criticized the Pharisees for setting aside the commands of God to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-8). The point of the Sabbath is to break from our labor so that we have time to focus on delighting in God and to grow in our relationship with Him, not so that we have time to become focused on keeping a countless number of traditions. The Sabbath is meant to prohibit something like a farmer from harvesting grain to sell on the market, not to prohibit someone from picking a few kernels of grain and rubbing them together because they were hungry. While doing that was against Pharisaic tradition, it was not against keeping the Sabbath as it was intended.

It should be much more problematic for your faith is if you are right and Jesus did what the Father revealed to be sin by breaking the Sabbath. If he sinned, then he couldn't redeem anyone much less himself.

Moses commanded a person caught in adultery to be stoned and Jesus taught against that also: Jesus did not live by Moses law despite your need to believe otherwise.

While it is true that a person caught in adultery was to be stoned, it was not the case that someone could be accused of committing adultery and anyone could pick up a stone to stone them, but rather there was due process. For instance, as I cited, it takes two to commit adultery and Mosaic law requires both the man and the woman to be brought before a judge, who would diligently investigate the matter and question witnesses to determine whether the defendants were guilty, but there was no man accused, no judge present, and no witnesses who came forward. If Jesus had advocated stoning the woman without due process, then he would have been advocating murder. The Pharisees weren't interested in the justice of the matter and likely no witness came forward because they shared guilt in the matter, so it was about trying to trap Jesus into making a judgement, which Jesus declined to do because he didn't come as a judge. Jesus lived by the Mosaic law despite your need to believe otherwise.

If you think that Jesus taught against keeping the law, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, you should recognize him as a false prophet instead of the Messiah. Likewise, according to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so if Jesus had done that, then he would again be a sinner in need of a Savior and not the Messiah, so you should also have the need to believe that he lived according the the Mosaic law.

Did you not read the prophecies that tell us that God was going to make a NEW Covenant not according to the covenant that God made with the children of Israel which covenant they broke... do you not understand that it is a new covenant? Jesus' words are law this is my beloved son HEAR YEA HIM. The King is Jesus and his words are law: they are the commandments of the New Covenant.

Indeed, we are under a New Covenant, but we are not under a new God. God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so the way to have such a conduct existed from the beginning and exists independently of any covenant, but was later revealed in the Mosaic law. This means that anyone who wants to know how to do what is holy, righteous, and good can find out how to do so by reading the Mosaic law regardless of what covenant they are under, if any, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10).

Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father over what laws we should obey or about what was holy, righteous, and good, but rather he said that he his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16) and that he came only to do his Father's will (John 6:38). If Jesus could change his character or what was sin on whim, then there would have been no relevance to him being sinless and he would not have needed to be sent to die in the first place when God could have just lowered His righteous standard instead.

 

[Soyeong]

Keeping the Law is both a burden and a delight at the same time. Some times the hard road can be very satisfying. Being observant myself, I can say there are times when I think it's a pain in the butt. I'll want a cheeseburger or pepperoni pizza. Or I haven't done my grocery shopping in a week and now it's Shabbat. But all in all keeping the law helps me to serve God as a Jew, and that makes me feel good about things.

I agree that that the Mosaic law is a burden, but it is a burden that is light and easy (Matthew 11:28-30), not one that is heavy, legalistic, or that no one can bear, so it is not what is being referred to in Acts 15:10.

 

[Meowzltov]

not to prohibit someone from picking a few kernels of grain

You think that's what the disciples did? They picked grain in order to make bread. You can't just eat grain plain. You have to reap it, thresh it, winnow it, sort it, grind it, sift it, knead it, and bake it. To be seen harvesting grain implied the disciples would be doing all the rest, and that IS a lot of work. The question is, is one permitted to do it on Shabbat if one is hungry?

I imagine that Jesus also had a private conversation with his disciples, and said something like, "Why did you procrastinate? Next time, take care of things on Friday!"

 

[Soyeong]

If your hypothesis were true (that Acts 15 merely stated that obedience to the law wasn't necessary for salvation for Gentiles) then it would have said the same thing for Jews as well, but there is no such statement.

No, Acts 15 deals simply with the question to observe or not to observe.

At no point has obedience to the law been required in order to become saved either for Jews or for Gentiles, so that was purely a man-made requirement and the Jerusalem Council was upholding God's law by rejecting it. God didn't require Israel to obey His law before He would save them out of bondage in Egypt, but rather he saved them by faith first, then gave them instructions for how to live in a way that is pleasing to Him. So Jews were also never to obey the law in order to become saved, but because they had been saved.

There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so you should be more careful not to mistake something that was against obeying man-made customs as being against obeying God. None of the writers of the NT spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands, but rather they only spoke against obeying man-made commands, and Acts 15 is an instance of that. The issue in Acts 15:1 was whether Gentiles had to become circumcised and obey the customs of Moses in order to become saved. It does not follow that because no one was required to obey man-made customs or God's commands in order to become saved that therefore we shouldn't obey God's commands.

With the authority given them in Deuteronomy 17:8-13, the Judges determined that "labor" referred to those activities needed to build the Tabernacle, since such labor ceased on the Sabbath. These labors are divided into 39 categories called melachot. There are many labors forbidden on shabbat that have nothing to do with profit. Gathering wood to make a fire to cook food resulted in a death sentence. Your idea that Shabbat is to remember that God provides for our needs is a nice interpretation, but it's not really scriptural. Shabbat is to recall that God rested after creation and that he delivered us (the children of Israel) from Egypt.

It was not just the children of Israel who were delivered from Egypt, but a mixed multitude who aligned themselves with the God of Israel went up with them as well (Exodus 12:38). The Sabbath was also for those Gentiles who aligned themselves with God (Isaiah 56:1-8) and the "us" includes anyone who has been grafted into Israel through faith in Messiah. I would agree that the Sabbath is about recalling that God rested after creation and delivered God's people out of Egypt, but the rest is also about putting our faith in God, especially in keeping with the theme of shmita years.

 

[Meowzltov]

I agree that that the Mosaic law is a burden, but it is a burden that is light and easy (Matthew 11:28-30), not one that is heavy, legalistic, or that no one can bear, so it is not what is being referred to in Acts 15:10.

Looks like we are just going to have to disagree. Acts 15 refers to whether Gentiles need be circumcised -- IOW come under the Mosaic covenant. The answer was no. If you don't see that, then you don't see it.

 

[Soyeong]

You think that's what the disciples did? They picked grain in order to make bread. You can't just eat grain plain. You have to reap it, thresh it, winnow it, sort it, grind it, sift it, knead it, and bake it. To be seen harvesting grain implied the disciples would be doing all the rest, and that IS a lot of work. The question is, is one permitted to do it on Shabbat if one is hungry?

I imagine that Jesus also had a private conversation with his disciples, and said something like, "Why did you procrastinate? Next time, take care of things on Friday!"

Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them.

 

[Meowzltov]

At no point has obedience to the law been required in order to become saved either for Jews or for Gentiles

I agree with you on this. There is no reason for you to keep bringing this up.

 

[Meowzltov]

that was purely a man-made requirement and the Jerusalem Council was upholding God's law by rejecting it.

The Jerusalem Council was not determining requirements for salvation. It determined whether Gentile believers needed to become Jews and observe Mosaic law (answer, no). The underlying assumption of the Council is that Jews kept the Law and Gentiles need not.

 

[Meowzltov]

None of the writers of the NT spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands, but rather they only spoke against obeying man-made commands, and Acts 15 is an instance of that.

Wow, you are just so wrong. Acts 15 had nothing to do with manmade customs.

 

[Meowzltov]

Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them.

Okay, I stand corrected. Let it never be said I don't admit it when I'm wrong! It must have been horrible to eat that.

 

[Basil the Great]

I do not believe that the vast majority of Christians are bound by the Torah laws. I am a little uncertain about Jews who convert, as it seems that the Early Church Jews who converted still kept the Torah laws. However...... I do part with 99+% of Christians on one point. If someone is born a Jew and converts, then I would say that he is still bound to keep the Passover feast, for God commanded the Jews to keep said feast unto the end of their generations, as an ordinance forever. He did NOT say, "keep this passover feast until the coming of the Messiah". No, He said "unto the end of your generations, as an ordinance forever."

 

[Moxie123]

I hope you aren't saying that in a democratic State that Christians should not participate in our government.

There are two jurisdictions on the land. Most default to the "democracy". I choose the Republic, which the Declaration intended.

 

[Moxie123]

Not as well as he should if he wants to talk about it authoritatively.

He knows the ingredients of a True Bill, and that's more than most people in this forum.

 

[Soyeong]

I do not believe that the vast majority of Christians are bound by the Torah laws. I am a little uncertain about Jews who convert, as it seems that the Early Church Jews who converted still kept the Torah laws. However...... I do part with 99+% of Christians on one point. If someone is born a Jew and converts, then I would say that he is still bound to keep the Passover feast, for God commanded the Jews to keep said feast unto the end of their generations, as an ordinance forever. He did NOT say, "keep this passover feast until the coming of the Messiah". No, He said "unto the end of your generations, as an ordinance forever."

What do you make of this verse?:

Psalms 119:160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

When God gives His people in the OT instructions to follow for how to do what is righteous, and then He gives instructions to His people in the NT to do what is righteous, should it any mystery to us what we should be doing? Or are only Jews supposed to do what God has revealed to be righteous?