Bugg's First Rebuttal

In my opening statement, I left several specific questions from Myles’ opening unanswered, because before one can address specific objections to the Torah, one has to establish that despite how a misreading of the letters of Paul may make it seem, the Torah is not the enemy, or an oppressor to be escaped, or something flawed.

Myles asks in his opening, “[If you agree that we aren’t saved by the Torah,] why are you debating on if the Torah is binding?” The answer has to do with my definition of “binding.” None of us can keep the Lord’s commands (really, His commentary on Torah) in the Sermon on the Mount perfectly either—but nevertheless, these commands are still binding on believers, and when we sin against them, we are obligated to repent (turn back from sinning). In other words, I believe that salvation is by faith, but that the commands of the Torah are still binding as a matter of practice for after one is saved, just as Myles would argue that the Lord’s Supper is.

Myles is making an assumption, and a mistake, that has been common throughout the Ekklesia for most of the last 2000 years: To believe that the establishment of a new covenant necessarily mandates the establishment of a new law as well. This can be disproved not only by Jer. 31:33 (see point #5 in my opening), but by two separate examples from the Torah itself:

When Moses descended from Mt. Sinai to see the golden calf, he shattered the tablets of the covenant containing the Ten Words to symbolize that Israel had broken their covenant with G-d by their idolatry. When G-d forgave Israel that sin, He had Moses inscribe a second set of tablets to symbolize the restoration of the covenant—but the commandments remained the same.
Likewise, when Moses re-established the covenant with the second generation of the Exodus after the first, disobedient generation had passed away, the commands of the covenant remained the same, though with some amendments due to the upcoming change in circumstances (that is, of entering the Land; e.g., Deu. 12:15 vs. Lev. 17:3f).

The last is important, because it sets the precedent that God (though no one else; Deu. 12:32) may amend the Torah when there is a change of circumstances without annulling or exchanging the whole—think “Constitutional amendment.” Thus, when Heb. 7:12 speaks of a change (Gr. metatitheimi, a movement, not a wholesale exchange of one for another; cf. Acts 7:16, Gal. 1:6, Heb. 11:5) of the priesthood and a change of the Torah (metathesis, again indicating movement, not exchanging one for another), this can be understood as an amendment which transfers the High Priesthood from the tribe of Aaron to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. This does not, by the way, indicate a complete end of the Levitical priesthood, as this would violate God’s promises (Num. 25:13, Jer. 33:17-22); there were many priests under the High Priest, who will one day return to rule a restored Temple (Ezk. 40-48).

Since Hebrews is focused solely on the subject of the Temple service and the sacrifices (which, though they never truly cleansed us from sin, still have their purposes; 9:13 & 10:3), and since the key words used indicate a transference, not a wholesale change, in the Torah, it cannot legitimately be used to advocate the complete removal of the Torah in favor of some “new law.” As Albert Barnes notes in his commentary on Heb. 7:12,

The connection requires us to understand it only of the Law “so far as it was connected with the Levitical priesthood.” This could not apply to the ten commandments - for they were given before the institution of the priesthood . . .

Neither could it be applied to the Feastdays—both Passover and the Sabbath were given before the priesthood, and all of the Feasts had elements that were completely independent of the Temple service which can still be (and are) observed—or to wearing tzitzit (tassels), circumcision of Jewish children (cf. Acts 21:21f), the agricultural commandments, kosher, releasing debts, or numerous other commandments which the Church today considers part of the “old law.”

This answers Myles’ citation of Heb. 10:9 as well—it was the sacrificial system, under a Levite High Priest, that was replaced, not the Torah as a whole.

Therefore, Myles cannot simply dismiss all positive statements about the Torah as applying to the “new law.” No such law exists—there is only one Torah.

In his illustration of British law, it must again be noted that we are not under British government. His historical quibble about whether the colonies were first released from British protection is irrelevant—we are under the Messiah’s protection. We are also under the Messiah King’s government, the “commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12).

Myles writes, “No, the Torah is not sin, but if you keep it Christ is of no affect to you.” Wouldn’t that make it sin by definition? And with all respect, this misquotes Galatians 3:5, which says that circumcision made Messiah of no avail to the Gentile believers.

The issue of circumcision is a complicated one; however, it must be noted that it was still expected by the Apostles that Jews would continue to circumcise their children (Acts 21:21). Ergo, it was not that circumcision was done away with in a “new law”; the question was whether Gentiles should be circumcised as a prerequisite to salvation (Acts 15:1). To be circumcised, rabbinically (not Biblically), meant to forego one’s previous culture and become fully Jewish—the question was therefore whether Gentiles could be saved at all! If the Apostles had not nipped circumcision in the bud, they would have been saying that salvation was by faith in Yeshua plus being Jewish! Obviously, such a distortion of the Gospel could not be allowed to stand, resulting in the letter to the Galatians and the Jerusalem Council’s decision.

Myles actually understands this, as he writes, “The old law was never intended to save anyone, nor for the gentiles.” That’s right, and it was this very misuse of the Torah that the Apostles were trying to correct, not keeping the Torah in faith! Otherwise, Paul damned Timothy by circumcising him (Acts 16:3) and himself by keeping the Torah.

Indeed, the Council actually thought Gentiles would learn and follow the Torah after their salvation by faith was firmly established. In Acts 15:21, James says in conclusion, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." What did he mean by this? Simply put, he was noting that the Gentiles were already coming into the synagogues on the Sabbath to learn about the one, true G-d (Acts 13:44, 14:1)—in fact, this was what spurred the debate of Acts 15 in the first place! Therefore, the fact that the Gentiles would eventually come to learn the Torah is considered a given in the Council’s decision.

What the Apostles wanted to avoid was allowing either Jewishness or keeping the Torah (particularly according to the stricter Pharisaical interpretations; v. 5) to be allowed to become a prerequisite to salvation. However, they were certainly not discouraging the Gentiles from learning the Torah in synagogue after salvation by faith—which would mean observing the Sabbath.

Regarding 2 Co. 3:1-18, Myles misunderstands the antecedent of “that which is done away”—it is the ministration of death which the Torah brings because of our fallen nature (cf. Rom. 7:8), not the Torah itself. The Sermon on the Mount, by virtue of its perfect instruction, brings about this same ministration of death when we sin against it—the letter, the written command that we fail against, kills. Indeed, even the single command not to eat of a certain tree brought a ministration of death. Would Myles argue that we should not keep the Sermon on the Mount? But the Spirit, who writes the Torah in our hearts and gives us the power to walk in obedience to G-d (Jer. 31:33, cf. Ezk. 36:27), gives life thereby.

Another question from Myles: “Are you dead to the law?” Indeed I am—the Law has no power over me. However, I follow the Teachings (the true definition of Torah) of the L-RD Yeshua, and He said to keep the whole Torah (Mat. 5:17-19).

Re: Romans 14, that cuts both ways: Is Myles judging me in matters of food or days? Indeed, he must be since he says that keeping the Torah means I am not saved. For that matter, is Myles arguing that we are “under the law,” and simply arguing about which law? Or that Paul, who kept the Torah, was not saved as a result? These are the natural results of his argument against the Torah.

As for questioning my fruits, I think such a question amounts to an implied ad hominem, so I will leave it be.

Shalom!

Back

Want to help Restore the Hebrew Root?

All donations are Tax deductible