Christians Too, Must Obey: Putting a Fence Around Torah

By Wayne Talbot

Cursed is the one who will not uphold the words of this Torah, to perform them; and the entire people shall say, Amen (Deut. 27:26 TJB).

King David wrote of Torah: The law of the Lord is perfect, converting my soul . . . the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes (Ps. 19:78). He also wrote, I will delight myself in Your statutes, I will not forget Your word. . . . Make me walk in the path of Your commandments, for I delight in it . . . I will delight myself in Your commandments, which I love. . . . Your statutes have been my songs, in the house of my pilgrimage. . . . The earth, O Lord, is full of Your mercy, teach me Your statutes (Ps. 119)

Centuries later, Martin Luther wrote: The law, when it is in its true sense, doth nothing else but reveal sin, engender wrath, accuse and terrify men, so that it bringeth them to the very brink of desperation. This is the proper use of the law, and here it hath an end, and it ought to go no further.

Who was right? Was the Torah a gracious gift of a loving God, providing guidance for all generations and for all time, or was its giving a malicious act of God against the children of Israel? Did Jesus fulfill the law in such a way as to be not applicable to his followers even though his early followers, the apostles, and disciples did not believe so, continuing to be Torah observant and practicing Judaism in a Messianic context? When the Church of Rome condemned the Nazarenes as heretics, were they not also proclaiming the Jewish followers of Jesus as heretics, including the twelve apostles?

This study attempts to answer those questions.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Jan 5, 2018
• ISBN: 9781543405651

Wayne Talbot

The author, Wayne Talbot, was once a Christian, but continually struggled with what it was that he should believe. Not quite sure, he went back to a beginning, questioning whether in truth, the existence of God was believable. He concluded for God, publishing his reasoning in his first book, “If Not God What?”. Raised in the Catholic faith, but finding some doctrines having no basis in the bible, his studies directed him away from Catholicism to non-denomination Protestantism; from there to Evangelical Christianity; from there to Messianic Judaism; and from there to where he is today - a theist believing in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but aligned with no identified religion. His quest for an understanding of God has him studying the ancient texts of Scripture, guided by the published works of numerous Old and New Testament scholars – Jewish, Christian, and secular. Focusing on specific issues has allowed him to see through the fog of doctrine, dogma, and theology, and reach conclusions which he has published in numerous studies, this analysis of prophecy fulfillment being his thirteenth. His journey continues, one that he believes he will never finish, for on many issues, he has only managed to uncover untruth. Though a late starter in the literary field, Wayne Talbot has published a novel, Finding the Shepherd, a pseudo-biographical account which alludes to his own theological wanderings against a background of places he has been, but entirely fictional people and events. He has published a refutation of Richard Dawkins’ Greatest Show on Earth, entitled The Dawkins Deficiency, and an entirely original treatise, Information, Knowledge, Evolution, and Self, which contends that the posited mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to account for the cognitive information and knowledge in humans.

Book preview

Copyright © 2018 by Wayne Talbot.

Library of Congress Control Number:   2017918592

ISBN:      Hardcover          978-1-5434-0567-5

                Softcover            978-1-5434-0566-8

                eBook                 978-1-5434-0565-1

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Scripture taken from:

The New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, 1994, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Artscroll English Tanach: The Jewish Scripture. Copyright © 2011, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Chumash, Stone Edition: The Torah, Haftaros, and Five Megillos. Copyright © 2009, Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Aramaic English New Testament: Peshitta English Aramaic Critical Edition. Copyright © 2012, Netzari Press LLC. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 01/04/2018

Xlibris

1-800-455-039

www.Xlibris.com.au

765592

by the same Author

Science:

The Dawkins Deficiency: Why Evolution is Not the Greatest Show on Earth, Deep River Books, Sisters, OR, 2011

Information, Knowledge, Evolution, and Self: a question of origins, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2016

Fiction:

Finding the Shepherd - A Tale of Two Loves, Westbow Press, Bloomington, IN, 2016

Theology:

The New Covenant on Trial: Examining the Evidence for a Replacement Covenant, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2016

Once A Christian – How the Bible Convinced Me to Walk Away, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2017

From the Back Pew: (series published by Peshat Books)

Volume 1 - If Not God What? On Being an Intellectually Fulfilled Theist

Volume 2 - Choosing to Know God: Understanding God’s Presence in the World

Volume 3 - Bible Inerrancy: Fact or Fiction? The Inerrancy of God’s Word versus the Fallibility of Human Interpretation

Volume 4 - Our Shepherd His Flock: Following the Jewish Messiah on the Path Less Travelled

Volume 5 - What New Covenant? Rethinking the Implications of the First Coming of Jesus

Volume 6 - God’s Only Law Book: What Christianity Fails to Tell You About Your Duty to God

Volume 7 - Defending God’s Sabbath: Obeying God’s Commandment to Safeguard the Sabbath

Volume 8 - From Sin to Salvation: A Fresh Perspective on God’s Plan for Mankind

Volume 9 - A Biblical Discourse - Volume 1: For Those Prepared to Risk Their Orthodox Theology

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Author’s Note

Acknowledgements

Preface

Theology

Understanding Law, Authenticity, and Authority

Part 1: The New Testament

Chapter 1-1 The Beginning of Error

Chapter 1-2 Jesus versus ‘Jesus’

Chapter 1-3 Paul versus Jesus

Chapter 1-4 Paul versus (Luke’s) Paul

Chapter 1-5 Paul versus Judaism

Chapter 1-6 Church versus Jesus

Chapter 1-7 Prophecies NOT Fulfilled

Part 2: The Guidance

Chapter 2-1 Seeking God Diligently

Chapter 2-2 God’s Law

Chapter 2-3 Terms of Reference

Part 3: The Discussion

Chapter 3-1 The Law Introduction

Chapter 3-2 The Law Conundrum

Chapter 3-3 Under the Law

Chapter 3-4 The Law Defined

Chapter 3-5 The Law Examined

Chapter 3-6 Purpose of the Law

Chapter 3-7 The Law as a Tutor

Chapter 3-8 Fulfilling the Law

Chapter 3-9 Imputation of Sin

Chapter 3-10 Law, Fences, Works, et al

Chapter 3-11 Law on our Hearts

Chapter 3-12 Prescriptive versus Descriptive

Chapter 3-13 To Do or Not to Do

Chapter 3-14 The Law and Obedience

Chapter 3-15 The Law – Is it Ended?

Part 4: Safeguarding the Sabbath

Chapter 4-1 Introduction

Chapter 4-2 Christian Speak

Chapter 4-3 Seeking the Truth

Chapter 4-4 A Brief Overview

Chapter 4-5 The Fall

Chapter 4-6 Sin - A Legal Argument

Chapter 4-7 Sabbath in the Old Testament

Chapter 4-8 Sabbath and Redemption

Chapter 4-9 Jesus and the Sabbath

Chapter 4-10 Paul and the Sabbath

Chapter 4-11 Early Disciples on Sunday

Chapter 4-12 The Early Church

Chapter 4-13 The Origin of Sunday Worship

Chapter 4-14 The Meaning of Sunday Worship

Chapter 4-15 The Situation Today

Chapter 4-16 Rethinking the Sabbath

Chapter 4-17 How to Observe the Sabbath

Chapter 4-18 Entering Our Rest

Chapter 4-19 Sabbath Conclusion

Part 5: The Solution

Chapter 5-1 Not a New Covenant

Chapter 5-2 The Error of Christianity

Chapter 5-3 On Salvation

Chapter 5-4 NO Necessity for a Redeemer

Chapter 5-5 The Law is Our Duty

Chapter 5-6 The Torah Hypothesis

Chapter 5-7 Understanding Obedience

Chapter 5-8 Obedience IS Worship

Chapter 5-9 Remaining as When Called

Chapter 5-10 Commandments for Gentiles

Chapter 5-11 God’s Dietary Laws

Part 6: Torah Abbreviated

Chapter 6-1 Introduction

Chapter 6-2 Understanding Commandments

Chapter 6-3 God’s Double-Sided Tape

Part 7: Torah for All of Israel

Chapter 7-1 Genesis

Chapter 7-2 Exodus

Chapter 7-3 Leviticus

Chapter 7-4 Numbers

Chapter 7-5 Deuteronomy

Chapter 7-6 Deuteronomy: A Sublime Autobiography

Part 8: Mishneh Torah

Chapter 8-1 Overview

Chapter 8-2 The Book of Mitzvoth

Chapter 8-3 Torah Summary

Chapter 8-4 Living the Commanded Life

Chapter 8-5 In Conclusion

Postscript

Bibliography

Other References

AUTHOR’S NOTE

"Half my life is an act of revision"

~ John Irving, American novelist and Academy Award-winning screenwriter ~

The subject of this book was earlier published under the title: God’s Only Law Book. At that time, I was still a Christian, but could not comprehend the Christian doctrine regarding the Law of God as recorded in Torah. It seemed entirely illogical, to my mind, that God would explain to the Children of Israel how He wanted them to relate to Him, and to one another, yet would later repeal that guidance and advice with the coming of Jesus. If the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 was to be fulfilled in Jesus, that God would put the Law on our minds and hearts, how could the Law’s only purpose be as Christianity teaches: to lead us to Jesus? Even more, how was it that rather than accepting the Law on their minds and in their hearts, the founders of the Gentile Christian Church rejected the Law?

Thus, in that original volume, I explained my understanding of the Law, from the perspective of one who sought to follow Jesus, the Christ, our Saviour from Sin. I wanted Christians to understand why numerous commandments applied to all people: both Jew and Christian, and to all others, irrespective of race or creed. That is not to assert that every commandment applies to every person, but that there are many which apply to people in their individual circumstances. Such was my considered belief from my understanding of Jesus’ teachings.

Since publishing that book some five years ago, I have learned a great deal more from Christian, Jewish, and secular sources. That journey of discovery, in search of God, had me conclude that the religion of Christianity was not one founded, or even desired by, Jesus of Nazareth, and was not one of which the God of the Old Testament would approve. I became convinced, from the bible itself, that the Church of Rome had taken its flock along a false path. Consequently, I published my findings in a study entitled: "Once a Christian"¹.

Putting a Fence Around Torah

"Cursed is the one who will not uphold the words of this Torah, to perform them; and the entire people shall say, Amen."

(Deuteronomy 27:26, TJB)

"The curse applies to anyone who does not accept the binding nature of the entire Torah and its commandments. Obviously, there is no man so wholly righteous on earth that he [always] does good and never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20), but man must strive to perform and excel, and not deny the validity of any part of God’s law."²

In Part 3, we delve further into the concept of fence laws, and why they are so important to help us resist our evil inclinations. The first evil inclination, the one that will so thoroughly undermine our relationship with God, is the rejection of how God has told us to live this life. This, one does, by misinterpreting, or worse, entirely rejecting Torah. Cursed are those who do not uphold the words of this Torah, i.e., testify to their validity as the Word of God; and cursed are those who do not perform the words of this Torah, i.e., live according to the teachings and commandments therein.

This publication expands my testimony, seeking to put a fence around Torah, to protect it from those who would seek to undermine its authority. I believe that the warning in Torah, of a curse, to be more relevant today than ever it was, as secularism infects both Judaism and Christianity.

Torah - 101

"You must learn from the mistakes of others;

you can’t possibly live long enough to make them all yourself."

~ Sam Leveson, 1911-1980, American humourist, writer, teacher, and journalist ~

There are two, common, opposing views of Torah, aka the Law: (1), that of King David as expressed in Psalm 119; and (2), that of Martin Luther as he wrote: the law, when it is in its true sense, doth nothing else but reveal sin, engender wrath, accuse and terrify men, so that it bringeth them to the very brink of desperation. This is the proper use of the law, and here it hath an end, and it ought to go no further.

I will add a third, my own personal view, consonant with the observation of Sam Leveson as quoted above.

As a driver and motorcycle rider, I consciously observe the behaviour of other road users, and often criticise behaviours, mostly sotto voce. I do so, not to be critical of the individual, but to remind myself of what NOT to do, and thus be as courteous as practicable. I study Torah in much the same way: considering many verses, not so much as specific prohibitions, but as EXAMPLES of what NOT to do. As much as Torah contains commandments, it also contains teachings, if only we are prepared to learn from them. Judaism has a teaching of PaRDes, (look it up here³), referring to the four levels of Scripture interpretation: Peshat, Remaz, Derash, and Sod. When we read Scripture verses, we see the simple meaning (peshat), but there are deeper levels of meaning below, which we can only discover through a willingness to search for, and learn from, numerous related verses. Let me offer two examples, one quote simple, the other more complex and quite possibly, a figment of my own imagination.

"You shall not see the donkey of your brother or his ox falling on the road and hide yourself from them; you shall surely stand them up, with him (Deuteronomy 22:4). If you do not have a brother, or do not see a donkey or an ox fall under its burden, you might be inclined to consider this law as irrelevant for you. However, if you consider this as an example of improper behaviour, you will seek to embrace the underlying ethic in your own life. If you see someone, or even an animal, in strife or discomfort, do not turn your back, but proactively seek to offer assistance. Ah! you might exclaim, we already have that in the New Testament: love one another as yourself, or do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Precisely, but which teaching came first? You see, Torah offers many practical examples of the two primary commandments: love God, and one another. Torah explicates and expands on those first principles, and it is Torah which teaches us the how of loving. The more we study Torah, the more we learn how to love – God’s way. We also learn how to love the wrong way, when we seek to love someone in a way that God has forbidden. For example, numerous progressive" Christian denominations have come to accept, and even bless, same-sex marriage, justifying their acceptance of homosexual practices by the maxim: to love one another has been commanded by God, through Jesus. But we must love God FIRST, by keeping His commandments (John 14:15, 21, 23-24, 15:10, 1 John 2:3-5, 5:3, 2 John 1:6), and then love others, but under the same rules.

And now for something entirely different.

Many Christians belittle God by saying God is love, or something similar. I say belittle for God is more than that. Of all the perceptions of God that I have encountered, I believe the Jewish term Ein Sof to be the most accurate: The Infinite and Unknowable God. As much as we might like to believe otherwise, no finite being (us) can understand an infinite being (God). We can learn somethings, but not much in the overall scheme of things. Which brings me to my next observation of Torah: "You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heaven above, or on the earth below, or in the water beneath the earth (Exodus 20:4). Traditionally, the prohibition in this verse is said to refer to all beings, of any form, that can conceivably be worshipped as idols, the context being established by the previous verse: you shall not recognise the gods of other in My presence."

I sense another, deeper meaning. God is infinite, and thus unimaginable, for we, as finite beings, can only imagine finite things. God is truly unknowable: thus, in our search for Him, we should never expect to find Him – the best we can do is to get closer in our understanding of how we are to live our lives, according to what we believe He has revealed. Whenever religions dogmatically assert: THIS is God, they have created their own god, in effect, an idol. They cannot possibly know that they have accurately identified Ein Sof – they can only presume finite aspects of an infinite presence.

Thus, whilst the prohibition specifies a carved image, I do wonder whether a deeper meaning is inferred: you shall not make any image, not even in your imagination, for God is beyond our finite imagining. When we fail to understand this, we create for ourselves, an imaginary idol, making God much, much, smaller than He really is.

Torah study, I believe, is intended to reveal to us, an inkling of what cannot be revealed, nor fully understood. It is often said that a conclusion is where thinking ends: however, I would contend: this conclusion that I have offered is where thinking should start.

The Ger Movement

Lest any reader suspects that I have succumbed to the teachings of Rabbis David Katz and Chaim Clorfene, let me assure you that I have not. Perhaps you are not aware, but these two rabbis have started a movement that teaches a non-traditional Jewish understanding of how Gentiles are bound by halakhah (Jewish Law). Christians of all denominations, and people, such as myself, who believe in God of the Hebrew Bible, but have no desire to belong to either a Jewish or Christian denomination, are often referred to by Jewish authorities as Noahides, bound by the Seven Noahide Laws, but not by all the Written and Oral Torah, as are Jews. According to halakhah, Noahides can choose to follow additional laws or customs, and use the Written and Oral Torah to explicate the Noahide Laws (as I do). However, it must never be with the intent of forming a new religious movement, or to distract from the distinction between Ger Tzedek: a person who became a Jew through undergoing the halakhic conversion process; and Ger Toshav: a gentile (non-Jew) living in the Land of Israel who accepts upon him/herself (and observes) the Noahide Laws. The meaning of the term ger in Torah is always to be correctly understood in the context of how it is used, based on the mesorah (the textual meaning of the Hebrew Bible as transmitted in the Oral Tradition) and the accepted halakhah.

For most readers, this is hardly relevant, but for some others, it may be.

References:

1. Talbot, Wayne, Once A Christian, How the Bible Convinced Me to Walk Away, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2017

2. Scherman, Rabbi Nosson, The Tanach, Mesorah Publications, ArtScroll English Edition, Brooklyn, NY, 2011, p. 314

3. http://rabbimichaelsamuel.com/2009/11/the-meaning-of-pardes-the-

four-levels-of-scriptural-interpretation/

Wayne Talbot

Kelso NSW Australia

November, 2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

So many people have contributed to my understanding that it is difficult to know where to start. However, I cannot but highlight the Jewish contribution to my enlightenment on the true purpose of God’s Law: that of His loving gift to assist us in growing spiritually closer to Him. I fully embrace the Jewish expression of God’s purpose for Creation: the purpose of this life is to grow spiritually in preparation for the next - all else is distraction.

It was not until I fully embraced the spirit and wisdom of the Law, being obedient to God out of love, rather than coercion, that I began to experience the fruit of the Spirit, particularly joy and peace. It has added another dimension to this wisdom: the truth does indeed set me free (John 8:32).

Contributors to my understanding are listed in the Bibliography except for one, the most important: God Himself.

As mentioned at the beginning, I am no longer a Christian, although I once was. Studies such as this have convinced me that Christianity is not following the path of God, let alone the man that Christianity asserts, is also God, the Second Person of the Trinity. For a comprehensive study on the reasons for my decision in this regard, you may care to read Once A Christian¹, but beware. As C.S. Lewis warned atheists concerning the bible: "Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side.² Might I offer the very same advice for a Christian, young or old, in respect of what follows in that book: Dangers lie in wait on every side".

References:

1. Talbot, Wayne, Once A Christian, How the Bible Convinced Me to Walk Away, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2017

2. Lewis, C.S., Surprised by Joy, Harper Collins, London, 1955, p. 263

PREFACE

"Difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it"

(Matthew 7:14)

The Path

I would offer that centuries of ignoring the purpose, and full complement of God’s Laws, has made finding the path so much more difficult. It has become overgrown with weeds, the surface cracked and uneven, causing the traveller to stumble, and even fall off altogether into the broad way leading to destruction. Failure to properly maintain the path has almost led to its closure, for all but the most persistent - the casual are easily deterred when the way is not clear. So now, in need of urgent maintenance, we must clear away the entanglements to reveal the narrow gate.

My Goal

Perhaps due to my formative years at a Catholic boys’ boarding school; perhaps due to the ensuing years in the military; maybe because my life’s work has been in disciplines requiring strict conformity to rules; or maybe it is just my nature, but when I am called to be obedient, I want to know both the letter, and the spirit, of the law. The letter gives directions for defined circumstances, but it is the spirit that I obey from the heart, for it is the spirit that guides in circumstances not covered by the letter. Without specifics, the law would be nothing more than motherhood statements – be good, be careful, do not get into trouble. As a child, such exhortations were like water off a duck’s back; I knew not what they meant, and I was determined not to ask. As an adult responding to God’s clear direction to be obedient (John 14:15, 21, 23-24, 15:10, 1 John 2:3-5, 5:3, 2 John 1:6), I am determined to ask, and to keep on asking until I am confident that I have heard correctly.

I have been dissatisfied with the expositions of God’s commandments, in all the Christian commentaries that I have read: they mostly expound on what we need not do, rather than what we should do, and why. Thus, I have sought my own understanding by analysing for myself, God’s Law as recorded in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), most especially Torah.

A Sub-Text

Maybe I am more of a traditionalist than I care to admit, even to myself, but the wisdom of this wonderful book¹, printed in 1884, has struck a chord deep within me, and encouraged me immensely. Here are two quotes that should give you a sense of its applicability to my life, and perhaps yours.

Speaking of Paul’s calling to be an apostle of Jesus:

This meant that he had not taken up the great work of his life at his own impulse; it had been laid upon him by an authority which he could not resist. He had, therefore, no occasion for restless and anxious thought about his fitness for it. There was no reason for him to ask whether his knowledge of the gospel of Christ was sufficiently large and deep for so great a task, whether his moral and religious earnestness was sufficiently intense. He was vividly conscious of his weaknesses and imperfections, and it was a perpetual source of surprise to him that to such a man as himself the grace should have been given ‘to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.’²

On the common man:

If we are to live a really Christian life, we must all be sure that whatever work we are doing, it is God’s will that we should do it. How is it possible, if you are a Christian man, that you can do your secular work at all, unless you believe that it is God’s will that you should do it?³

Putting aside that I do not accept the Christian-specific tone of the above, whatever work I do, I pray that it is God’s will that I should do it, with the delightful bonus that the responsibility for the outcome is His, not mine, always provided, of course, that I am obedient to His purpose. Jewish wisdom, as taught by Rabbi Tarfon, conveys the sense succinctly:

"It is not for you to complete the task, but neither are you free to stand aside from it."⁴

Thy Will Be Done

When we pray The Lord’s Prayer, we recite: Thy Will be done (Matt 6:10); what understanding do we have of this exhortation? Do we understand the part that we must play in seeing God’s Will done on earth, both from an individual and Church perspective? What is it that we really do, and is that all that God requires of us? In the context of this book, regarding God’s commandments, do we see Torah as some Christians declare, being prescriptive for the Jew, but descriptive for the Christian? When, or perhaps if, we read Torah, Proverbs, Psalms, or Ecclesiastes, do we consider the words just good advice rather than commandments, and should we not consider that even advice, guidance, and teachings are also expressions of God’s Will?

Do we accept both the wisdom, and commission, as here: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt 4:4)? Every word, not just those we choose to obey. By whose authority do we pick and choose? In a philosophical sense, a reader connects him/herself with the author of the text being read, and similarly, when one reads, speaks, or writes the words of Torah, such action creates a connection with the author: God. But that connection is far more powerful, for it is truly spiritual, which is the primary reason why God exhorts the study of Torah: it brings us closer to Him.

If we are to honour God; if we are to accept Him as the source of all wisdom; if we are to accept that everything that God utters is an expression of His Will; and if we are to avoid hypocrisy when we pray, Thy Will be done, should we not treat all of God’s guidance as being synonymous with His commandments? Why does Christianity choose to ignore the commandment in Matthew 4:4? Christians like to feel comfortable with Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees, as recorded in Matthew 15:7-9, but consider whether in failing to faithfully follow all of God’s guidance in Scripture, these words may apply equally to all those who have succumbed to downplaying His teachings:

"Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you saying:

‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,

And honour Me with their lips,

But their heart is far from Me;

And in vain they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" (Isaiah 29:13)

This is my firm conviction - that the Will of God is that we do not differentiate between His advice, guidance, teachings, and commandments, for such differentiation is the doctrine of man, not God.

My Understanding of God

In any of my studies of both the Old and New Testaments, I remind myself of my understanding of God, and what He can and cannot do. Christians will quote: "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26) [emphasis mine]. We find a similar theme here: For with God, nothing will be impossible (Luke 1:37). Sadly, some translations twist the meaning: But nothing is impossible for God" (GOD’S WORD Translation)

However, if my understanding of God is correct, some things are indeed impossible FOR God. If God is truthful, He cannot lie. If God is omniscient, He cannot change His mind, for He would have no need of doing so. If God is responsible, He would not require others to be responsible for His actions and decisions.

How does that work out in practice, especially in relation to Christian doctrine and theology?

If we are to believe God saying: I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, seek Me in vain (Isaiah 45:19), why would we believe that He spoke in secret concerning Himself – He is not One God, but a Triune God? If we are to believe in relation to Creation, that on the seventh day God ended His work and sanctified it (Genesis 2:3); that God commanded those whom He rescued from Egypt: Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy (Exodus 20:8, 10); that the Prophets advised: hallow my Sabbaths and they will be a sign between Me and you (Ezekiel 20:20), further warning but they profaned My sabbaths; then I said I would pour out My fury on them" (v. 20:21); why would we believe men who claim that Jesus, supposedly the Second Person of the Trinity, would repeal that commandment?

If we are to believe that God forbids the spilling of innocent blood⁵; that He forbids human sacrifice⁶; that He desires mercy not sacrifice⁷; and that He is entirely responsible, truthful, and immutable; why would we believe that He desired the sacrifice of an innocent human life, to atone for the very circumstances which He Himself created? That is not to suggest that we are not to be held accountable for our sins, but that God is responsible for our ability to sin, and being omniscient, He foreknew the consequences of that decision.

God is either the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, responsible, truthful, and loving Sovereign Creator that we believe Him to be - or He is not. If He is, He cannot do anything which is antithetical to those attributes. Whenever man says that God did do something antithetical to those attributes, I would condemn man as a liar and a heretic, and not one who loves God in His essence.

Such is my understanding of what is written in the Old and New Testaments. I may be wrong, but if so, I pray that God does forgive my misunderstanding, and any actions that result from that error. But of one thing I will assure you: I have no desire to be called least in the kingdom of heaven (whatever that may mean), by teaching men to break the least of the commandments (Matthew 5:19).

References:

1. Dale, R.W., The Laws of Christ for Common Life, Hodder and Stoughton, London, England, 1884

2. Ibid, p. 2

3. Ibid, p. 3

4. Lieberman, Senator Joe, The Gift of Rest – Rediscovering the Beauty of the Sabbath, Howard Books, New York, NY, 2011, p. 102

5. Spilling of innocent blood – Proverbs 6:7; Deuteronomy 19:10; I Samuel 19:5; 1 Kings 2:31; 2 Kings 21:16; Psalm 94:21, 106:38; Isaiah 59:7; Lamentations 4:13; Joel 3:19; Jonah 1:14; Jeremiah 22:17; Matthew 7:24.

6. Human sacrifice – Genesis 22:1-13; Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10; 2 Kings 3:26-27, 16:2-3, 17:16-17, 21:6, 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:1-3, 33:6, Psalm 106:37-38; Jeremiah 7:30-31, 19:2-5; Ezekiel 23:37-39.

7. Mercy NOT Sacrifice – Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13.

THEOLOGY

"The greatest proof of Christianity’s decay is the prodigiously large number of [like-minded] Christians."

~ Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Danish philosopher and theologian ~

Religious Decay

For most of my life, I was a Christian, and as guilty of being like-minded as any of that faith. In later years, as I studied Judaism, I began to see another side of faith in God – accepting the Jewish understanding of Ein Sof: the Infinite and Unknowable God. If Jews, with their 1500 year start on Christianity, do not know God, what was I missing? Recently, I found that within Judaism, there are critics echoing Kierkegaard, one of note being Nathan Lopes Cardozo, a Dutch-Israeli rabbi, philosopher, and scholar of Judaism. He was discussing Halacha¹ (the collective body of Jewish religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah), but I shall paraphrase for Christianity, as I believe that it has a parallel issue:

Most religious Christians are not aware that bible study has nearly become passé. They believe it is thriving. After all, bible study is very in" and there are more books on this subject than ever before. Despite this, it lacks courage. We have fallen in love with—and become overwhelmed by—an endless supply of all-encompassing but passive theological information, which does not get processed but only recycled. We have access to a nearly infinite amount of information via the Internet, books, journals and pamphlets, providing us with all the knowledge we could ever dream of. The problem is that this easily accessible information has replaced creative thinking. It has expelled the possibility for big ideas, and we have grown scared of them. We do not discuss big ideas because they are too abstract and ethereal."

Reverting back to the original text, as it is not so easily paraphrased:

"Novelty is always seen as a threat. It carries with it a sense of violation; a kind of sacrilege. It asks us to think, to stretch our brains. This requires too much of an effort and doesn’t suit our most important concern: the need for instant satisfaction. We love the commonplace instead of the visionary, and therefore do not produce people who have the capacity to deliver true innovation.

It is only among some very small, secular fields that we see staggering ideas emerging (Hawking and black holes, Aumann and game theory). In the department of Halacha, with only few exceptions, we rarely find anyone who even comes close to suggesting something really new. This is all the more true within Orthodox Judaism. While in ages past, discussions within Halacha could ignite fires of debate, we are now confronted with an increasingly post-idea Halacha. Provoking ideas that would boggle our minds are no longer in. If anything, they are condemned as heresy. Since they cannot easily be absorbed into our self-made halachic boxes, and they don’t bring us the complacency we long for, we stick to the mainstream where we can dream our mediocre dreams and leave things as they are."

Christianity holds grimly to its long-held traditions, naively accepting that the creators of those traditions, were truly working in concert with the wishes of God. But we have reason to believe that they were not, that in truth, the Catholic Church as it emerged into the 5th century had so compromised with the pagans of the Roman Empire, that its religion was no longer grafted into its root, neither those of Judaism, nor of the original Christianity of the Nazarenes. Much later, there was a Reformation, seeking to discard the worst of Catholicism, but in its place, came the even greater heresies of Martin Luther concerning the Law. Whereas the Law of God had been set aside, now it had been trampled, abused, and condemned.

Reading two adjacent articles², Theophany & Theodicy³ ⁴ followed by Choosing the Good Portion, I contend that Christian scholars have missed a significant issue, misled no doubt, by years of tradition. In the first article, mention is made of Walter Brueggemann’s works, describing the lament psalms as Israel’s foremost word on pain and Israel’s most daring theological act… Israel articulates its pain publicly not simply as a cathartic activity, but in order to make the pain into public business with God. (p.38) This raises the question: What was the cause of Israel’s pain? The Prophets answer plainly: They failed to keep the covenant and obey the Law. In the next article, discussing Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option, one option that is obviously ignored by the author, is Covenant & Law. This goes to the heart of Christian Replacement Theology and the New Israel; I would offer that Christianity’s pain has the same cause as Israel’s pain: a failure to accept the Covenant agreed at Sinai, and a failure to abide by the covenantal condition of obeying the Law. I have undertaken a study of Mosaic Law, and identified some 200 laws that pertain to both Jew and Christian. In essence, these laws explicate the more basic laws concerning loving God and one another, e.g. regarding immorality and idolatry. By ignoring these laws as anachronistic for the Christian, Christianity has deprived itself of a great deal of Godly wisdom and advice, paying lip service to what Jesus said: It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ (Matt 4:4) I would suggest that if Christianity were to return to the word of God, the congregation would reap the rewards promised to Israel of old, as we are witnessing in the modern Israel.

Many Christian leaders proclaim that Christianity in Western society is under threat, especially in Europe and America, and some even lament that in just a few decades, the very society that was founded on Judaeo-Christian values will no longer be recognisable as such. If Christianity is to make a resurgence, it needs to more closely examine its roots, and return to them. The early centuries of Gentile Christianity, steeped in Hellenic culture, and increasingly anti-Judaic, eventually flourishing under the pagan, sun-worshipping, Emperor Constantine, saw Catholic Church leaders compromising with pagan festivals and rituals, cemented into Christianity in what became the Holy Roman Empire. Sadly, the Church became a victim of its own success, creating its own idolatry: worshipping that which God forbade.

Only a return to God via Torah, the essence of repentance, will restore peace to the world.

The Mission of Jesus

There is a curious element of Jesus’ mission that has me suspecting that his view changed over time, and was further changed by Christianity in the geopolitical shift from Jerusalem to Rome. Jesus’ most unambiguous mission statement was in response to a Canaan woman’s cry for help: "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:25). The house of Israel comprised the ten tribes in the northern kingdom, whereas the house of Judah comprised two tribes, Benjamin and Judah, in the southern kingdom. Jesus later refers to judging all twelve tribes (Matt 19:28, Luke 22:30), but one can infer from Jesus’ mission statement that the house of Judah was not lost", else why be so specific?

In this statement, Jesus was echoing earlier prophets in their call to the Israelites to repent, return to God, and be faithful to the Covenant made with their forefathers at Sinai. If we had nothing but this statement from Jesus, it would be reasonable to assume that he saw himself as a prophet like those before, most especially Moses, for whom a successor was forecast (Deut 18:15). Moses’ mission concerned the twelve tribes of Israel, their role as being a kingdom of priests, and a light unto the world. In short, Jesus goal was to reunite the tribes in the Covenant. But, of course, that is not what happened, and not how Christianity sees the accomplishment of Jesus.

Catholic scholar, Bernard J. Lee, S.M., has noted:

There is little likelihood that Jesus had any conscious intention of founding a new religious institution either superseding Judaism or alongside it⁵.

If we take Jesus’ mission statement as our guide, we have no reason to dispute this observation by Bernard Lee. That being so, Jesus had no intention of fulfilling the Law as interpreted by Christianity, and no intention of announcing a new covenant that replaced the old. On the contrary, his mission was to uphold Torah, and bring the ten lost tribes of the house of Israel back to living by the Sinaitic Covenant, as the two tribes of Judah had been doing. So, what went wrong? How, and why, did Jesus renounce his stated mission, and set out to save the world through his sacrifice on the cross? That is for another day, and not central to this study on Torah. My point here is simply this: Jesus, at one stage in his life, saw his mission as being the same as earlier prophets – calling for the repentance of those Israelites who had forsaken God, and forgotten the Covenant.

The First Believers in Jesus

There is a lesson here that Christianity seems to have missed: by ruling on which laws the Gentiles should obey, the Apostles were implicitly acknowledging that they themselves, as Jews, were not excused from any Mosaic Law; in other words, the Apostles, even as Jewish Christians, were Torah observant. The initial Followers of the Way, the Nazarenes, were Torah observant, and thus, their understanding of Jesus’ teachings on the Law was opposed to later Christian doctrine in Rome.

Epiphanius (310-403 CE) was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, at the end of the 4th century. He is considered a saint, and a Church Father, by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. He gained a reputation as a strong defender of orthodoxy; see here⁶ for a Catholic review. Note how his comment separates the Nazarenes from Catholic orthodoxy:

The Nazarenes do not differ in any essential thing from them (meaning the Orthodox Jews), since they practice the customs and doctrines prescribed by Jewish Law; except that they believe in Christ. They believe in the resurrection of the dead, and that the universe was created by God. They preach that God is One, and that Jesus Christ is His Son. They are very learned in the Hebrew language. They read the Law (meaning the Law of Moses)… Therefore, they differ… from the true Christians because they fulfill until now [such] Jewish rites as the circumcision, Sabbath and others.⁷

Marcel Simon, a devout Catholic, and a modern scholar of religions, writing on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism in the early centuries:

They (Nazarenes) are characterized essentially by their tenacious attachment to Jewish observances. If they became heretics in the eyes of the Mother Church, it is simply because they remained fixed on outmoded positions. They well represent, (even) though Epiphanius is energetically refusing to admit it, the very descendants of that primitive community, of which our author (Epiphanius) knows that it was designated by the Jews, by the same name, of ‘Nazarenes’.⁸

Author, Norman Willis, continues:

If Epiphanius and Marcel Simon were right, and the Nazarenes really were a different group of people than the Christians, and if it was the Nazarenes (and not the Catholic Christians) who descended directly from the first century apostles, then doesn’t Marcel Simon’s and Epiphanius’ complaint seem to be that the Nazarenes followed Scripture rather than them? At least from one perspective, isn’t their complaint that the Nazarenes chose to please Elohim (G-d) rather than men?⁹

I am ever bemused by theologians speaking of outmoded positions, for that is a secular philosophy, not one that could possible relate to an omniscient God. Irrespective, my point is, that it has long been recognised that the earliest followers of Jesus did not reject Torah, nor did they have any sense of the primary purpose of the Law being to lead them to Jesus. Beyond doubt, that was a later theological development.

There is an irony, in the above quotations, that the respective authors seemed to have missed. If, as Marcel Simon noted, they [the Nazarenes] became heretics in the eyes of the Mother Church, and if, as Norman Willis opined, it was the Nazarenes (and not the Catholic Christians) who descended directly from the first century apostles, does that not mean that the Apostles, and the early Followers of the Way, should also be considered heretics in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

I am utterly convinced, from the history of the Jesus movement, that it was the Gentiles who later eschewed Torah, not Jesus, nor his immediate disciples. Thus, whether, or not, one believes in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour, there is no justification for abandoning God’s Law. In passing, note that the Nazarenes were "very learned in the Hebrew language", an issue we will revisit in another context.

References:

1. Nathan Lopes Cardozo, https://www.cardozoacademy.org/thoughts-

to-ponder/problem-future-true-halacha/

2. Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity, July/August 2017, pp. 36-45

3. Theophany - a visible manifestation to humankind of God.

4. Theodicy - the vindication of divine providence in view of the existence of evil.

5. Lee, Bernard J., S.M., The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus: Retrieving the Jewish Origins of Christianity, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1988, p. 17

6. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm

7. Epiphanius, "Against Heresies", Panarion 29, 7, pp. 41, 402

8. Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christian and Jews in the Roman Empire AD 135-425, Schoen Books, South Deerfield, MA, 1986, pp. 47-48

9. Willis, Norman B., Nazarene Israel: The Original Faith of the Apostles, Custom Book Publishing, 2012, p. 25

UNDERSTANDING LAW, AUTHENTICITY, AND AUTHORITY

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law and the Prophets.

I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

(Matt 5:17, NKJV)

I am challenged by the understanding of those commentators who interpret Matthew 5:17 to mean that Jesus somehow fulfilled all the laws in Exodus through Deuteronomy, in such a way as to abolish them, for such understanding is contrary to the plain sense of the subsequent verses 18-48. No matter how we choose to interpret verse 17, it must be consonant with the following verses, and be faithful to the overall theme.

I am even more challenged, given this debatable Christian interpretation, on what it would mean to destroy the Prophets. I acknowledge that Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled some 100 – 350 Old Testament prophecies, but my own analysis demonstrates that he failed to fulfill any, in a substantive way, although some he did fulfill in a circumstantial sense. Although that is not a theme of this study, we will later review a few of the more obvious failures to substantiate my contention.

Many Christians understand Mark 7:19 to mean that Jesus abolished all of the God-ordained dietary laws, but then point to the letter written by the Apostles to the Gentiles regarding the laws they should observe (Acts 15:29). The irony is that of these four laws, two are of the form of dietary laws, yet to my knowledge, Christianity has never advocated such observance. It does seem illogical to assert one understanding of Mark 7:19 while ignoring a contrary understanding in Acts 15:29.

Let us revisit some basics concerning law.

Law is Complex

In recent years, with the upsurge in violence by fundamentalist Islamists, we hear much concerning Sharia Law, but practically all that I have read in the popular press is based on ignorance. I have a copy of Sharia Law, although I am unaware of which Islamic sects consider that version authoritative, but many adverse claims of what Sharia teaches are not in that copy. There are numerous versions of Sharia Law, and just as the Jewish sages debated the meaning, implications, and the application of Mosaic Law, so too do Muslims, concerning Sharia Law. Each sect seemingly has their own version, just as Christian denominations have their own church laws, and not all Jewish denominations accept the authority of the Oral Law.

In civil law, a lawyer accepted at the Bar in one State, is not entitled to practice law in another State, or in another country. When someone is accused of a crime, they will seek the services of a defence lawyer, acknowledging that the complexities of the local law are beyond their understanding, and accepting the logic that someone trained in law, is better able to navigate the ever-changing streams of civil jurisprudence.

Yet curiously, people untrained in Mosaic Law, venture opinions on that subject, as if they knew what they were talking about. Such people would be unlikely to assert knowledge of the civil laws of a foreign country, yet for them, the Hebrew Bible is a foreign country, separated in geography, culture, and time, and their familiarity with it is no more than they would experience a foreign country by transiting through its airport.

If you have not studied the law, any law, and have not been guided in your studies by persons well trained in that discipline, then any opinion you hold is unsafe. The same is true for other untrained people.

Authenticity

Something is said to be authentic, if its origin is not in dispute. Christian doctrine is based on many writings whose authenticity has been long disputed. For example, the doctrine that asserts that every word in the New Testament is inerrant, being the very Word of God, is largely based on this verse: All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), with 2 Peter 3:14-16 given as corroboration. Since the 1700’s, New Testament scholars, both Christian and secular, generally agree that these letters addressed to Timothy are not authentic Pauline. They are believed to have been written by one of Paul’s students, circa 90-140 CE, as they reflect a church hierarchy that is more organized and defined than the church was in Paul’s time¹. The question becomes: Why would Christians place so much credence on the writings of some unknown person, perhaps a student of Paul, but writing long after the time of both Jesus and Paul?

Another Christian doctrine is based on these verses: For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change in the law (Heb 7:12), and Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest… in that he says, ‘a new covenant’, he has made the first obsolete (Heb 8:1, 13).

If, as many scholars assert, Paul was not the author of Hebrews, how can we be confident of the real author’s knowledge, understanding and intentions? The traditional Christian view is that it was written by Paul, yet: Although pre-modern commentators assumed that Paul wrote Hebrews, virtually all scholars today agree that Paul was not the author. The document was circulated anonymously in antiquity, and the title ‘To the Hebrews’ was added when it was collected together with Paul’s letters… Although it has traditionally been considered a letter, 13:22 identifies the work as a ‘word of exhortation’, implying that it was a sermon². In the 3rd century, Origen wrote of the letter: Men of old have handed it down as Paul’s, but who wrote the Epistle God only knows.³ History records Jerome and Augustine of Hippo as both supporting Paul’s authorship, with the Church agreeing in the 4th century to include it as one of Paul’s letters.

Now consider that many writings in the New Testament were not truly written by those to whom they are traditionally attributed, then wonder why the Church Fathers thought it necessary that they be attributed to persons of authority; i.e., men who were closely associated with Jesus, or who were appointed by Jesus, or his appointees. They understood that for these writings to have authority, they had to be authentic. Given that the authenticity is much disputed, then so too, their authority must be in doubt.

Authority

Who was authorised to speak for God?

If we are to believe the Hebrew Scriptures, Moses and all the Prophets were. If we are to believe the Gospels, Jesus was. If we are to have the audacity to speak for God, we must first ensure that we have heard authentic voices, speaking with authority. If we read or hear words that are not corroborated by persons at the first level of authority, then it is incumbent upon us to verify the authority behind such words, and the source of the inspiration. As we saw above, many words which Christianity use as proof texts for doctrine, are of dubious authenticity and thus, of suspect authority.

But even when we accept the authority of an author, we must be certain that we are hearing them in their own voice, lest we misunderstand.

Speaking in Their Own Voice

Catholic scholar, Bernard Lee, observed: Since the rise of historical consciousness, doing theology has been experienced as riskier than in time past. The perceived (in earlier times) timelessness of normative pronouncements has been historicized. We recognize how often scriptural texts have been read in the light of dogma, and not heard in their original voice.⁴ In other words, over time, the developed doctrine has become normative, and the voice we hear is an only impersonation of the true voice, one which we no longer hear as originally intended.

When people speak in their native tongue, they do so not just in the words they use, but in how their mind works when forming their sentences, and just as often, in their worldview. When people speak in a language other than their native tongue, they are likely to be still thinking in their native tongue. We hear this especially in sentence construction and word choice. Thus, in many ways, we are not hearing them in their own voice. This is especially true of the Hebrews and Greeks of the 1st century CE. To hear Jesus in his own voice, we must acquire an understanding of the Hebraic mind, the contemporary culture, what he would have learned from his teachers, and the colloquialisms then in use.

We discuss this more fully in Chapter 1-1.

An Issue of Jurisdiction

I sense that Christianity ignores an imperative of Divine Law, and confuses it with the restrictions of secular law. In the latter, there is coincidence of the law maker, and those subject to the law, usually expressed as a geographical jurisdiction. Thus, someone who transgresses in one country (jurisdiction), cannot be tried under the laws of another country, even though the two laws are substantively the same. Divine Law is different, because all people, of all time, are all under the one jurisdiction - that of our Creator. When people claim that all of Mosaic Law has been rendered obsolete, or words to that effect, they are asserting that in the case of some laws, e.g. that against murder, God has repealed that law and reinstated it (more than once). Quite frankly, I find that absurd. The law against murder that Cain transgressed, is the same law that has existed since Creation, irrespective of where, or when, it was articulated by God. Based on that reasoning, it should be obvious that not all Mosaic Law has been, or even could be, repealed. If even just one still applies, there are likely many more, and thus the Christian cannot simply choose to ignore the laws that were given to the Children of Israel saying: O, those are only laws for the Jews, and do not apply to me.

I am not confident that wilful ignorance is an acceptable excuse.

For the modern Christian steeped in the Greek style of thinking as epitomised by Plato, Aristotle and others, the Hebrew Bible is full of conundrums and apparent contradictions. On the one hand, it is right to apply the law of non-contradiction, but on the other, we must learn to accept the ambiguity where two opposing ideas are held in tension. For example, how do we understand I am the One who forms light and created darkness; Who makes peace and creates evil; I am HASHEM, Maker of all these (Isa 45:7)? How do we reconcile the concept of the elect with the existence of free will? We cannot accept just our preferred understanding and ignore the ambiguity, for then we fail to take on the full counsel of God.

The modern Christian antipathy toward Torah is, to an extent, founded on the belief that the 613 mitzvot do not apply to non-Jews. In this they are correct, for these 613 regulations are religious laws based on Scripture, just as are Catholic and Protestant laws. Protestants are not required to obey the 613 mitzvot for the same reason that they need not obey Catholic laws: they are the religious laws of men. The essential point, so often overlooked, is that hopefully, all these religious laws are based on God’s laws, neither adding to, nor taking from. In this book, I provide a cursory review of Jewish law to evidence the Scriptural basis for them, and how so many should still be our instructions for living in faithful obedience to God.

This study contends that Torah, as faithfully observed by the Jesus and the Nazarenes, is as relevant today as it ever was. None of the laws have been done away with - not one. What is needed is a proper understanding of the law:

1. Firstly, that God’s Law is to be obeyed corporately - the whole law applies to the whole of humanity, for there is but one Divine legal jurisdiction.

2. Israel is God’s First Born, and the special identity of the Jewish people is to be retained in law, meaning that some laws only apply to the Jewish people, or perhaps have an application in different ways for Jew and Gentile.

3. Individual commandments are to be differentiated as to whom they apply.

4. Individual commandments are to be differentiated as to the circumstances under which they apply; and

5. Individual commandments need to be reworded for the modern age, such that the underlying ethic is expressed in contemporary terms.

Only then can we stand before God on the final judgement day and, hand on heart, say that we have done our best to be obedient. If we are wilfully ignorant of the law, we must judge ourselves. As that old African proverb states: It is bad to not know, but it is so much worse to not want to know.

I would offer this thought: how are we to live our lives, if not in the way that God has ordained? I do not believe that God expects perfection of us, for He did not create us in a way that would enable us to be perfect, as He is perfect, as intimated in Matthew 5:48. However, God has given us instruction in how to live in harmony with Him, and one another, and only fools consider themselves wiser than God. The issue is that obedience is our duty in our relationship with God, and it is God who has defined how He wants that relationship to work.

This thesis supports the overall goal of wanting to see Jews and Christians reconciled in God’s Word, but that is not to suggest that the cultural differences are to be eliminated. God having given us His Word: we should use that as our rallying point for all who acknowledge His sovereignty and glory, and seek to develop a close relationship with Him in the way that He has instructed us.

Summary

Much of what we consider regarding civil law, we must also consider regarding Divine Law. One cannot rush to judgement on matters in which we are not well trained, nor conversant with the context. It is my contention that the Christian departure from Mosaic Law is predicated, not on what Jesus said, but on unauthorised statements in documents of dubious authenticity. These were Hellenic in origin, not Hebraic, and later made normative in the Church of Rome, which had become progressively anti-Jewish to the extent of compromising with the pagans under the influence of Emperor Constantine.

This study offers the evidence that such was so.

References:

1. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible, Mayfield Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1985; The Pastoral Epistles, pp. 340–345

2. Levine, Amy-Jill, and Brettler, Marc Zvi, The Jewish Annotated New Testament, Oxford University Press, New York, NY 2011, p.406

3. Eusebius, Church History Book, VI Ch. 25 v14

4. Lee, Bernard J., The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1988, p. 46

Part 1

THE NEW TESTAMENT

"So long as the New Testament served to decipher the Old, it was taken as an absolute norm."

~ Paul Ricoeur, French Philosopher, 1913-2005 ~

Sadly, the code used to perform the deciphering was not one devised by God.

The followers of Judaism do not need to be reminded of their duty under Torah, although some denominations accept only the Written Torah, not the Oral. I have no intention of joining that debate. Christians, however, have been given various reasons to believe that they have been relieved of obedience to Torah, and so my initial comments in this study are directed at the sources that gave rise to such beliefs. The issue is complex, for the Christian doctrine regarding the Law is based on misinterpretation, misdirection, preferential treatment of specific texts, wilful blindness, and poor scholarship, all garnished with developing anti-Jewishness.

This opening section is intended to unsettle Christians in their faith, by illustrating the inconsistencies in the New Testament, and how even the evangelists did not seem to understand what they were on about, in relation to the Law. Many Christians subscribe to the belief that the New Testament, as they have it in their hands, is the inerrant Word of God, and their faith in their beliefs in anchored in that doctrine. I intend to cut away that anchor, and let the ship drift on a tide of reality, hopefully to berth in a land under a new light.

My goal, in this study at least, is not to convince you to walk away from Jesus as I did, but to encourage you in a new understanding of the Law: Jesus did NOT relieve you of the responsibility to be obedient, but in the opinion of many, it was Paul who did so. Herein the crux of the argument: was it Jesus who said that you are saved by faith alone, or was that Paul? Did the Apostles agree with Paul’s version of salvation, or did they agree with the beliefs of their fathers: that repentance, and obedience to the Law, were the prerequisites to share in the world to come? Did the Apostles, following the example of Jesus, believe that following the commandments demonstrated love of God, or did they believe as Paul is said to have taught, that following the Law was burdensome, and all that was needed for salvation was belief and trust in Jesus?

Not once in his writings, did Paul directly call the people to repent. Why was that?