|
What's New? Who We Are
Teaching Articles (new) Blog (reguarly updated) Podcast (link) (new) Bookstore (link) (new)
Other Resources
___________________ |
Michael Bugg Opening StatementI agree completely with Mr. Davis that we need to make sure that we are defining our proposition for our audience. For the purposes of this debate, “Torah” will refer to the narrow sense of the commands given in the first five books of the Bible, as interpreted by (as opposed to abrogated by) the Prophets, Writings, and New Covenant Scriptures (the NT). While the Torah itself gives the basis for Israel’s leaders’ orders to be accepted as Torah by those under them (Deu. 16:17-20, 17:8-13), provided that they neither added to or took away from G-d’s commands (Deu. 12:32), Yeshua gave this same authority to bind and loose to His own Apostles (Mat. 16:19, 18:18) and through them to the leaders of the Ekklesia (the Church). The issue today is therefore not whether the Ekklesia as a whole is bound by the rabbinic interpretations and traditions (though Jewish believers in the Messiah living within a Jewish community would still be bound to obey the community authorities per Mat. 12:17, 23:2-3 and Rom. 13:1ff), but whether the written Torah has been superseded by a “New Law” or whether the New Covenant assumes the Torah to be still in place. Before dealing with Mr. Davis’ arguments against the Torah, let us take a moment to review what the Bible says about the Torah. Surprisingly to most Christians, raised on the idea that the Law was an impossible burden that Christ came to deliver us from, the Scriptures are overwhelmingly positive in regards to G-d’s Torah:
In light of the above, particularly the fact that as part of the New Covenant the Torah is supposed to be written in our hearts and the fact that Yeshua HaMashiach Himself commanded us to keep even the least of its commandments, one can only come to two conclusions regarding the popular anti-Torah interpretation of Paul’s letters: 1) That Paul was not only in conflict with the L-RD Himself and dozens of other writers, he was schizophrenic regarding his own opinion of the Torah. Either way, he could not be regarded as a canonical source. 2) Paul’s writings on the subject have been generally misunderstood by later generations of believers. Realizing that the Torah is written on our hearts as part of the New Covenant also answers the objection from Heb. 10:9—indeed, the Old Covenant, in which all of Israel promised in their own strength to keep all of G-d’s commandments (Ex. 19:8, 24:7f). That the covenant which Israel broke changed does not require that the commands of the covenant had to change rather than be “transferred” to the New Covenant. Indeed, we have a Biblical precedent for just such a transference: In the golden calf incident, when Moses saw the calf, he broke the tablets of the covenant, containing the Ten Commandments, to show that the people had violated their covenant with G-d. When G-d accepted Moses’ atonement, Moses brought a second set of tablets with the same Ten Commandments to the people as the sign that the L-RD had forgiven their sin and re-established His Covenant with them. Now let me deal briefly with Mr. Davis’ analogy of our position to British Law. It is true that we formally separated from the King of Britain, and so from British Law. Is Mr. Davis actually claiming that we have rebelled and separated from Israel’s King in the same manner? As for the things that I must allegedly prove, none of them follow from my argument, which is not about how one should be saved, but rather how one should comport one’s self after one is already saved. I fully affirm that only in Messiah is anyone saved, for His sacrifice alone can cleanse us from sin. So did the Apostles—and yet, the Scriptures tell us that the Apostles themselves kept the Torah! Note that in Acts 15 the subject of whether Jews should continue to keep the whole Torah is never even addressed. It’s assumed that they would, and the question centers solely on what the new Gentile converts must do in order to be saved (v. 1). And notice that the Council’s concludes that the Gentiles would learn the Torah in the synagogues (v. 21). Indeed, nearly thirty years after the Cross, there were in Jerusalem “[tens of] thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20). In the ensuing verses, we see Paul and James rejecting the charge that Paul was teaching Jews not to keep the Law or circumcise their children (v. 21), and he even takes a Nazrite vow with four other believers and even goes to offer the necessary sacrifices in the Temple (vv. 23-26, cf. Num. 6:1-21) to prove that he “walk[ed] orderly, keeping the Law” (v. 24). This was apparently not the first time Paul had taken a Nazrite vow, either (Acts 18:18)! Remember, these were the people who were closest in time and place to Yeshua’s teachings! How could they, the Apostles, be so wrong about the Torah and yet modern Christianity, dependant upon their writings, be right? Now then, when we read Paul’s letters, are we to assume that a man who had no problems taking Nazrite vows, who rejected the charge that he was teaching Jews not to keep the Torah, and who even made sacrifices in the Temple was going around telling people that to keep the Torah was to lose their salvation? On that basis, NONE of the Apostles were saved, and we have no New Testament to supposedly tell us that the Torah is no longer valid! On the other hand, if the Apostles themselves kept the Torah, even including Temple worship and sacrifice, on what basis can we claim that it is contrary to the New Covenant to do so? It is time to prayerfully re-examine Paul’s writings in the context of his life and times, as I will do in my next response. Shalom!
|
Want
to help Restore the Hebrew Root? All donations are Tax deductible
|
|