Week 3: Gods Word

Feb 07, 2008 05:29 PM
I am curious why no one is taking this monster on?

Usually the law and the practices of the hebrew people are not taken seriously. It is almost like people role their eyes. "Those poor people, they don't get it", like we are so superior. The Jews I know, the ones I have read and the ones I see in the Bible loved the Torah. Is God's law a burden or a blessing? Are the festivals and observance a burden or a blessing? A quick read of Psalm 119 and one gets the impression its not such a bad deal. Did the Messiah start a New Covenant and a New Church or simply bring clarification and add to the one that already existed? Obviously Jesus represented something very new while at the same time very ancient. I think their is something dear to God's heart in the torah and I don't think most people have tasted that. When you practice Torah living it facilitates a different awareness that is absent in the world. When you go to restaurant and are concerned about what you can and can't eat, you are immediately aware that you are a servant in God's kingdom and the act of obedience serves to further your connection to God not distance it. The same thing happens when you shop for food. The calendar is God's, the seasons are God's and so on and so forth. Perhaps it is something like this "the Torah is only a burden if you think it makes you right before God and some how gives you merit". What a burden that is.

Check out this article and tell me what you think?
You may need to copy and paste.

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Matthew%205.17-20.pdf

Feb 07, 2008 09:40 PM
I did copy and paste but could not find this article. www.torahresource.com went to Google images.

Feb 08, 2008 07:47 AM
It looks like Shea made it so you can click directly on the link. I tried it and it seemed to work fine.

Feb 08, 2008 06:25 PM
Thanks for the thoughts Blake. A little over a year ago, I heard from the pulpit of a Christian church, "This is the new church, and the laws of the old church do not apply here." True story!!

My heart and spirit were broken because I know that Christ came to fulfill that law, not abolish it. Without the law there would be no sin. If there was no sin Christ would not have been necessary! I believe our morals and values are borne from God's law; imagine how we would behave if we didn't have them... It's bad enough on this planet with them!

The law keeps us out of trouble, and connected with God; Christ died to reconcile us to God through the Law... Seems quite relevant to me : )

Feb 12, 2008 08:52 AM
I've always thought of the law in strictly Pauline terms, and Messianic terms (meaning the law is GOOD for the purposes of pointing us to grace as provided in the Christ).

What I hear you saying, Blake, is that the "law" has intrinsic value in terms of keeping us connected with our past and directly with G-d. Is that right?

Talk a little more about how a "Messianic Christian" might draw a distinction between the "law" as something which points toward intimacy with God, and the "law" as a means of reconciling with God. What criteria are applied to make a distinction?

Feb 12, 2008 10:19 AM
I think that those are great and very wise words Blake. Its seams to me that even though Paul clearly says that grace is not to be abused that is exactly what we begin to do. As time moves along and the world's morality/law changes, we change, in a never ending attempt to remain in harmony with the world. I call it the "comfortable gap" it's this place that we want to be where we can point to differences between us and the world, our separation from the world but not so far as to create any persecution or disunity with the world. Of course the only way to maintain that is to continue lowering our standard.

I think of law as something that points to intimacy with God as well as pointing toward grace. In relationship with my parents growing up I was their sons and I would always be their sons no matter what, and they would always love me deeply. However, when I was willing to submit myself to their authority and live inside the walls they had established for me I was in a much more intimate relationship with them. I could have had dinner in my room and done homework and not have broken any rules. But when I new that my mothers desire was to have me eat dinner at the table with the family and I chose to do that it established intimacy.

God desires our willing submission to his authority and that creates intimacy.

P.S. Shea add spell check to this thing I'm an idiot and need help :-)

Feb 12, 2008 11:04 AM
Tod,
All you need is a better browser...
Besides being just out and out cool with a capitol C, Firefox has automatic spellcheck

http://getfirefox.com

Feb 13, 2008 08:33 AM
Yes Dan. If it points us towards grace why wouldn’t we practice what we were able to?

My opinion is that we have a bias that has come from centuries and centuries of anti Semitism, and attempts to distinguish ourselves has lead to us intentionally distancing ourselves from everything Jewish. Perhaps the word Jewish should be changed to Hebrew because the second you say Jewish you think of a different religion. In practice they are attempting to live out the Torah and the Prophets which is our Old Testament. Hate the word “Old” here which again makes a distinction that is intrinsically negative.
If you read the reformers and the early church fathers they were grossly anti Jewish.
Here are some of their comments. A note on this. Even important people who contribute greatly to Gods Kingdom are going to make some mistakes. Anything at the end in “quotes” and bold is my comments.
Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (98-117A.D.) – Epistle to the Magnesians
For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity. “Jesus lived like a Jew. This clearly presses the idea that we are part of a different religion”

"Epistle of Barnabas" Chapter 4vs 6-7 (between 130A.D. and 138 A.D.)
Take heed to yourselves and be not like some piling up your sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it. “Lost it completely—wow that is a bold step.”

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart. “WOW—imposed like it was a curse or something. I don’t think this position can be supported in the scriptures”
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark. “WOW”

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) – A ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed to the early formation of Christian doctrines.
We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election. “replacement theology which again is not supported in the scriptures. Matt 23:37, Rom 10:1, There are lots more if you need more let me know”

John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) – One of the "greatest" of church fathers; known as "The Golden Mouthed." A missionary preacher famous for his sermons and addresses.
The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason .”Oh my my my”
From "The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism" by Malcolm Hay

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14
How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

Peter the Venerable – known as "the meekest of men, a model of Christian charity"
Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.
From "The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism" by Malcolm Hay

Martin Luther – 1543
On The Jews and Their Lies
What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.
First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...
Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home...If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination...
To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews...
Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods...
Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune.”
I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnapping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason, I would like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other heathen do not tolerate what we Christians endure from these venomous serpents and young devils...next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.
Translated by Martin H. Bertram, "On The Jews and Their Lies, Luther's Works, Volume 47"; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Martin Luther - 1543
Of The Unknowable Name and The Generations of Christ
But your [God’s] judgment is right, justus es Dominie. Yes, so shall Jews, but no one else be punished, who held your word and miracles in contempt and ridiculed, insulted and damned it for such a long time without interruption, so that they will not fall, like other humans, heathens and all the others, into sin and death, not up in Hell, nor in the middle of Hell but in the pit of Hell, as one cannot fall deeper...
Even if they were punished in the most gruesome manner that the streets ran with their blood, that their dead would be counted, not in the hundred thousands, but in the millions, as happened under Vespasian in Jerusalem and for evil under Hadrian, still they must insist on being right even if after these 1,500 years they were in misery another 1,500 years, still God must be a liar and they must be correct. In sum, they are the devil’s children, damned to Hell...
The Jews too got what they deserved. They had been called and elected to be God’s mouth as Jeremiah says...Open your mouth wide and I will fill it; they however, kept tightly closed their muzzles, eyes, ears, nose, whole heart and all senses, so he polluted and squirted them so full that it oozes from them in all places and devil’s filth comes from them.
Yes, that tastes good to them, into their hearts, they smack their lips like swine. That is how they want it. Call more: ‘Crucify him, crucify him.’ Scream more: ‘His blood come upon us and our children.’ (Matthew 27:25) I mean it came and found you...
Perhaps, one of the merciful Saints among us Christians may think I am behaving too crude and disdainfully against the poor, miserable Jews in that I deal with them so sarcastically and insulting. But, good God, I am much too mild in insulting such devils…

John Calvin
A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew
Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.


I will give this a go. This is a slippery slope because it’s conclusions can have radical implications on our practice. It is also one of those subjects that immediately gets a persons ire up, which ought to reiterate its importance to us. I also don’t have as much time as I would like to put into articulating this.

Let us dive directly into the verse that gives us the most direction on what Jesus thought on this subject, and see where it takes this. I think you will find it quite compelling or at least interesting.
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I want to dive into this but I don’t have time right now so I will work on it later. Talking about this verse in the meantime may serve to further the purpose of this discussion.

STAY TUNED FOR MORE I am sure this will provoke some discussion

Feb 14, 2008 08:05 AM
Yikes. I've read several of those statements before (and a few others) and a couple of these were new to me...but the weight of it still falls heavy. I'm ashamed that thinking and language like that were connected to the name of Jesus...

So Blake, since evidence of this KIND of bigotry in today's church is lacking (I know there are minority splinter-whacko-groups who might still hold to some of this) are you saying the the kind of anti-Jewish thought that was wide-spread hundreds of years ago (and as recently as the early 20th century) has created ripples in church history that we are feeling today in the form of (primarily) ignorance about our Jewish connections? In other words the horrific IMPACT of the hate we read in these words was like a rock in the pond: SPLOOOOSH! and we, sitting further away in terms of time from those terrible events are experiencing the waves? Or are you saying that the kind hate referenced above is active and NOW?

Feb 14, 2008 09:46 AM
Yes, I think we have many biases as a result of the ripples. I can't imagine anyone I have met feeling comfortable using the kind of language used in those quotes. I would say the anti Jewish sentiments go way way back. I don't think we have the hatred felt back then. I would say we have biases that we need to question because I believe we are guilty of isogesis in our interpretation of many passages that are connected to how we see ourselves in respect to the "Old Testament Lifestyle" and how we interpret the Torah(that was a major run on sentence). I am sure we have all had moments when we were confronted by a bias or prejudice we held without knowing and that bias vaporized or atleast diminished with new or more information or a new experience. An example of this for me was when Julie and I decided to move to the inner city of Seattle. I remember feeling afraid and later feeling silly about it. I would leave two car lengths in front of me at a stop light because I was afraid of being car jacked. I was in a different culture and became very aware or my prejudices. I am not racist but I have definitely been confronted by the stereotypes and presuppostions I hold. When I get some time later I want to go thru that verse from my previous comment. As you go thru it and look at the words and the meanings they hold in our day it really seems they could have used different english words that would have lacked the biases we hold about "The Old Convenant" and the "Law" and the word "New". Peace

Please forgive the run on sentences. I am doing this very quickly as I am anxious to get back to valentines day at the Paines and with the little Paines. No pun intended.

Feb 14, 2008 05:38 PM
I am not a racist either, but there are many times that I might be accused of culturalism. Not that I experience or demonstrate seething hatred for other cultures, but I do fear, mistrust, suspect, avoid, and misunderstand cultures different from my own.
What is the term? xenophobia? I don't like it but I think it might apply to me.

I noticed several of the quotes came from a book called The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism.
I'm just curious if the author proposes any reasons for why the hatred started and perhaps why it became so common.
Have you read it?

Feb 14, 2008 06:00 PM
I have not. Might be an interesting read.

Feb 15, 2008 02:19 AM
Do you think that perhaps, in regards to these statements from early christians, that the correct phrase should be anti "Judaic" rather than anti-semitic?

Certainly hatred spills out from some of these words with disturbing force, but isn't it a religious hatred rather than a racial hatred?

I see a side note too... wasn't much of what was practiced as "Judaism" quite different in practice than what was handed to the nation through the law and the prophets? Are we guilty of perverting the practices handed to us as Christians? And if so, should we not despise our own perversions with words even stronger than these?

Feb 15, 2008 03:49 AM
It looks like you pulled these quotes from
http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

I've been trying to find some references for these quotes.
The Origen quote was also used n Every Person's Guide to Judaism by Stephen J. Einstein
It points to Origens "Contra Celsus" as the source of this quote.
www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html
But this document is more a defense of the jews, or at of least their history and testimony, than an attack - and I cannot find the quote.

He does call them a heretical sect because they refuse to believe that Christ was the subject of prophecy.

And the Augustine quote:
Wondrous depth of Thy words! whose surface, behold! is before
us, inviting to little ones; yet are they a wondrous depth. O my God,
a wondrous depth! It is awful to look therein; an awfulness of honour,
and a trembling of love. The enemies thereof I hate vehemently; oh
that Thou wouldest slay them with Thy two-edged sword, that they might
no longer be enemies unto it: for so do I love to have them slain
unto themselves, that they may live unto Thee. But behold others not
faultfinders, but extollers of the book of Genesis; "The Spirit of
God," say they, "Who by His servant Moses wrote these things, would
not have those words thus understood; He would not have it understood,
as thou sayest, but otherwise, as we say." Unto Whom Thyself, O Thou
God all, being judge, do I thus answer.

I dug through the entire 12th section and found no context for saying Augustine meant solely the jewish people when he referred to the enemies of the Scriptures.

Chrysostom - I found all kinds of references to this quote, and many which used it to defame Christianity as a false and bitter religion, but none provided the original reference where Chrysostom originally said this.

I finally found it... - and there are some ugly words in it.
Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

Also... John was quoted as saying
"As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason."
Here is the original as far as I can tell...
"Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness-and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage."

John does outright say "I hate the jews" although it is not quite as quoted...
"This is why Paul was very much grieved [Acts 16] and why he hurried to stop up the demons' mouths when they took to themselves a dignity which ill became them. This is the reason why I hate the Jews. Although they possess the Law, they put it to outrageous use. For it is by means of the Law that they try to entice and catch the more simpleminded sort of men. If they refused to believe in Christ because they did not believe in the prophets, the charge against them would not be so severe. As it is, they have deprived themselves of every excuse because they say that they do believe in the prophets but they have heaped outrage on him whom the prophets foretold."


By no means am I defending any antisemitism or hatred, but I know that hatred is a vicious cycle that breeds itself. I wanted to know if these quotes were legit or if they are twisted from context in order to fuel a new hatred. I obviously haven't checked out all of the quotes, and to be honest I'm afraid of what I'll find from Luther - I have read stuff from him before that made me wonder about this subject...

Feb 15, 2008 08:45 AM
Wow Shea! Were you really up at 2:00-3:00am reading this stuff and researching?

As to the Judaica question and the Jews adding to the Torah:
Jesus criticized that very thing. I don't believe the Torah and whatever of value it brings to the table was ever the issue. It was everything being added to it and the loss of right perspective that was of consequence to Paul and Jesus. They were both devout Jews, practicing the Torah with a restored perspective. The question of what is cultural Judaism and what is Torah today is a whole huge subjject on its own. My point is that we have a natural bias towards things Hebrew, Torah, Old Testament etc... because of a long history of anything associated with things naturally thought to be a part of Judaism and thus serperate from Christianity. If we assume and substantiate that bias then it must be considered when approaching the scriptures. It also should cause us to dig a little deeper when interpreting passages that "appear" to be anti Torah and ask ourselves if the bias was present in the choice of the English words used.

I never intended to indict any of those quoted for their anti Judaic perspective and I appreciate you looking into the context. The point was to substantiate a bias I believe we must consider as we approach truth and ask the question of "what to do with the Old Testament?(still hate saying that way)".

Feb 15, 2008 09:32 AM
I have no problem falling asleep, it's staying asleep that presents the trouble...
I often wake up about 4 hours into the night and there is no returning to slumber, so I get up and read or code or watch my favorite episodes of Highlander (In the end, there can be only one!)

The best verse I can come up with in regards to what to do with the books of the law and the prophets is John 5
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%205:31-47

Jesus tells the people flat out that they were misusing the scriptures, trying to find life and salvation in the words of books and failing to understand that the words were meant to point them to the person who is life and salvation.

Feb 15, 2008 09:45 AM
So, Shea, what is your perspective on "how then shall we live" and the practical outworking of that verse in respect to the daily activities of life. If the Torah points to the person of Jesus does it not follow that we should see value in doing the Torah to the extent possible?

Feb 15, 2008 10:49 AM
Yes.
Should I not see myself as bound to "Love the Lord my God with all my heart and mind and strength and love my neighbor"?

This much we know...
- even the most lax set of rules is going to be broken at least once and therefore cannot save, but they can represent a standard that will judge us and reveal our sin.
- the blood of bulls and goats cannot atone for the sins of a human but they can represent our need for atonement.

I see immense value in the Torah, and the whole of scripture, to the extent that it manifests and reveals God's work to redeem us through history.

If I turn that on its head and use the bible, or the Law within it, to perform my own redemptive work on myself it's value has been nullified, or worse, become destructive.
If it becomes merely a book wisdom or philosophy to my head and heart, it is a poison to me. The power is not in the words themselves, but in how God will use those words on our lives.

Feb 22, 2008 12:03 PM
I read back thru to regain my perspective on this discussion and found that I was speaking as if I were some authority on this subject. I would like to clearly state that is not the case. I am a gardener of sorts who would like to grow and flourish for God and this is a discussion that I hope facilitates that in some way.

Shea--I agree with your last statement. Most of the reading I have done has shown me that most modern day Jews would also agree with that statement. When I read Paul I believe he also shares that perspective. Rom 9:31 ....but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. Rom 10:3 says they tried to establish their own righteousness.

So into Matthew 5:17... Don't think I have come to abolish the Law(torah) or prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I think the word "Law" deserves some discussion to get around the negativity that word immediately has in our mind and to clarify what exactly is meant.
Law or Torah literally means "teaching, doctrine" and is referring to the first five books of the Bible. It is rendered from the greek "nomos'. The word "Law" could just as easily have been rendered "Teachings of God". Law carries a more legalistic air to it and makes it easy for us to dismiss it as "practically irrelevant", "works", "fundamentalist" or even bad. This idea of the "Old" being replaced by the "New" is reinforced even more with the choice of the word "fulfill" as the English equivalent of the Greek "plerosai". Fulfill carries the idea that the requirements have been satisified(as if they were a horrible burden) and that us lucky Christ followers don't have to do it because Jesus did. Paul teaches in Romans that Faith in the Messiah doesn't seek to deny the Torah but only confirm it. There is a lot of tension in these verses when I read it. He says He "did not come to abolish" but then we read into the verses the idea that He did. I feel confused. It can't be both. If I assume that my prejudices are influencing my take on this verse then I want more context in order to reconcile this tension.
If I read it differently the tension seems somewhat resolved. Do not think that I have come to end the "Teachings as given to Moses" or the Prophets and their ethical imperatives. I have made my appearance not to end the teachings but to restore and give full expression to them.


Here is an article hat has a lot more substance on this topic.
http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Matthew%205.17-20.pdf

Feb 23, 2008 04:40 AM
I believe that when Paul speaks of the curse of the law, he is not speaking about the law itself ("may it never be!" as he often states)
... rather I think the curse comes from the fact that the law expects something from us that we cannot deliver - perfection.
The law reveals to us truth about God, and therefore is holy and perfect. It does have intense requirements on anyone who would be in God's presence and those requirements must be fulfilled with absolute holiness and perfection.

God cannot simply forgive and forget my blemishes and blasphemies, and I would not want him to because that would make Him less than holy, less than perfect, less than God.

When you said "Fulfill carries the idea that the requirements have been satisfied and that us lucky Christ followers don't have to do it because Jesus did." I walk away with the impression that you feel that the requirements have not been satisfied and that we as Christ followers must still satisfy the requirements of the law. If I must do this, I am lost, hopeless and cursed - not because I am unwilling to follow a perfect standard, it's just that all my willing fails to make it so. My willer is just plain broke.
If the requirements are binding on me at all, I lost all hope many many years ago.

The law itself, that which reveals perfection to us, has not been abolished as it continues to manifest. My take is that the curse of it has been abolished.

Galatians 3
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Note that Paul does not say - "All who perfectly observe the law are under a curse" - the very clear implication is that no one sufficiently continues to perform everything written in the law and that relying on it to justify results in a curse. So whether I live utterly contrary to the law by choice or I seek to guide my every moment by it, I still end up cursed.

This passage in Galatians is the basis for my understanding of this subject. Christ redeemed me from my curse by becoming a curse.

This was tricky business because in order for Christ to perform the redemption he had to be punished as a law breaker and yet never - not once - actually break the law and deserve to be punished.

If God punished Jesus as the utter innocent which He was, would not God be unjust? Would not His own law condemn Him? But how is God to justify the wicked and at the same time remain just Himself? The law only accomplishes the remaining just part - there is no provision for justifying wicked law breakers in the law. The law is perfectly sufficient in revealing a perfect God, but it was not sufficient to justify law breakers.

It turns out there was a loophole of sorts - the cross.
In order to justify the unjust, Christ had to become cursed and yet not justly "deserve" the curse. I know it's confusing - I've been thinking and quite puzzled about this one verse for over 12 years.

Others came and hung Jesus on a tree. He remained silent so as to not appear to be encouraging them to nail Him up - He could not in any way be responsible for His crucifixion. He could not die by the hands of the Romans who beat Him and mocked Him *before* His walk up Golgotha. If He had died on the way to the cross, the whole mission would have failed - He had to end up on that tree.

As it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

At this point He becomes our substitute - He redeemed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us or on our behalf. God justly punished our guilt by punishing a guiltless and yet legally cursed substitute.

The law requires blood
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Our High Priest entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Feb 23, 2008 02:33 PM
Aren't we in a sense discussing two different "laws" represented by ONE written code: the Torah?

"Law 1" is the eternal, justice part which is perfect, un-attainable by humans, fulfilled by Christ, and the "put aside" for the Christ Follower by grace.
"Law 2" is the temporal PRACTICE of those laws which, while they do not provide any salvation, DO represent a methododlgy for intimacy with God and which is still Holy.

Aren't both true of the same Torah?

Feb 23, 2008 06:19 PM
Yes, Dan I think that is it.
Shea- Based on your response I would say I am not articulating very well. This subject deserves a lot more discussion and attention to details of words and meanings than is possible on this message board.

Feb 26, 2008 03:25 AM
Gosh...
wasn't I the dog with a bone on this subject!?!