Some legal issues

Or: "No problem with Paul".

One of my bents is that Christians, new or otherwise, run the risk of being fodder for the professional atheists of the world like Dawkins or Hitchens or conspiracy nuts like Dan Brown. There will always be claims of contradictions in the OT and the NT. Unless we understand why they appear so, but actually aren't, we'll struggle to explain our faith to anyone or worse, to ourselves.

Much of the Paulene letters look this way, one minute extolling the virtues of obeying the Torah and the next, appearing to downplay the Torah's importance. We need to understand not just the context, but the spiritual climate and audience to which he was speaking. Even Peter acknowledged that Paul's stuff was a little tricky to understand (2 Peter 3:16).

Those who are uncomfortable with the idea of the Torah being relevant to modern Christians often cite those very parts of Paul's letters which place less emphasis on the Torah. Here's some examples:

Romans 10:4, “Messiah is the end of the Law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”

This is my favourite bad Bible translation! In English, "end" can mean "finish, no more, kaput" etc. It can also denote a conclusion or completion, i.e. my hand is on the end of my arm. That doesn't mean I no longer have an arm. The Jewish Bible translation has that verse as "For the goal at which Torah aims is Messiah". Much better!

By the way, you can tell the serious Bible scholars: they're the ones who spend more time arguing about which is the better translation than, say, about the seriousness of divorce or something. But I digress. What would one of my rants be without a good digression?

Ephesians 2:15-16: “Having abolished in His flesh the enmity that is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two thus making peace. And that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.”

This is used as another "Jesus abolished the Law" passage, but not so. The only way you can twist that is to substitute the word "enmity" with"Torah". The enmity referred to here is clearly a literal one- alienation, antagonism, separation... between Jew and non-Jew. Because earlier in that same chapter it says:

Ephesians 2:12-13 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Near to what? The Commonwealth of Israel. Chosen by YHWH. It's saying that Yeshua's death brought us into the Law.

Colossians 2:13-15. “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross ”

This is often assumed to mean that The Torah was nailed to the cross with Yeshua. It's a dodgy interpretation at best. Firstly, the Torah was given to alert us to our sin. It's like a spotlight. It doesn't save us, it warns us that we need saving. Secondly, some historical context:

In those times, when you were jailed for a crime(s) there was kept a written list of things you'd done for which you were jailed. It also included the terms of your incarceration. Somebody had to pay for these crimes with the exact terms of the incarceration. If the prisoner escaped, the jailer had to finish off those terms. (This explains why Paul's jailer was about to off himself after the earthquake which opened the cell doors in Acts 16:27.)

When the sentence was completed, the list of ordinances was marked with the word (in Greek) tetelestai. In that context it meant "paid in full". This is from where we derive the term "he's paid his debt to society".

This word comes from the root tele'o which means "it is finished". Do those words sound familiar?

Okay, back to our legal issues.

Colossians 2:16-17, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,: which are a SHADOW of things TO COME but the substance is of Christ."

Well that smacks me on the wrist for caring about the feasts! Or maybe not. First of all, observe the tense. ARE a shadow of things TO COME. ARE is in Greek este (similar to modern Latin based languages such as Spanish, Italian and Portuguese) and it is a clearly defined present tense. This is just as much referring to the second coming of Messiah as the first, which happened before this book was written. Perhaps it refers to both that which happened and that which is yet to happen, but by no means does it abrogate the importance of the feasts.

To be really contentious I'm going to quote one of my favourite Bible commentators from the 18th century, Matthew Henry:

...but here the apostle shows that since Christ has come, and has cancelled the ceremonial law, we ought not to keep it up...to continue the ceremonial observances, which were only types and shadows of Christ and the gospel, carries an intimation that Christ has not yet come and the gospel state has not yet commenced. Observe the advantages we have under the gospel, above what they had under the law: they had the shadows, we have the substance.

Matthew Henry is a classical commentator and I would safely suggest that much seminary-based theology derives from his ilk. I love his stuff generally but he has no doubt been influenced by post-Constantine theology which was at times extremely anti-Jewish (this explains a few problems with seminary based theology). In any case I completely disagree with Sir Henry at least for the inappropriateness of his wording if not the whole implication: Sure, the ceremonial sacrifices can rightly be viewed as Henry does. They are done away with and completed by Yeshua, chronologically speaking.

But the verse talks about festivals, sabbaths and dietary requirements. The Festivals, for example, are YHWH's "appointed times", which He asked us to keep. Secondly, they are vital prophetic events marking different points on YHWH's timeline for the redemption of humankind. Not all the events pointed to by each feast have happened yet.

A surprised-looking Matthew Henry

Another point about this, albeit slightly anecdotal, is that shadows don't exist without the substance which casts it. A shadow results from light being shone on the substance. Wouldn't you love to be in the shadow of the Messiah?

Besides, a few verses later it says

Colossians 2:20-22 ...why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances, "Don't handle, nor taste, nor touch", (all of which perish with use), according to the precepts and doctrines of men?

This is clearly warning against following the doctrines of men, not an instruction to avoid Torah. An elementary piece of advice, one would think. Overall, these passages admonish believers not to not judge other believers on their observance of the holy days (or not) whilst still acknowledging their importance. Remember, according to Isaiah 66 and Zechariah 14, these holy feasts will be celebrated in the reign of Messiah on earth! Sounds like fun...if you've ever seen a Sukkot celebration .

Romans 7:4-6, “So, my brothers, you also died to the Law through the body of Messiah, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

Again, this is my whole point; if Paul really means from this that we may now totally disregard the Law (Torah) , this his writings, and indeed the whole Bible, are confused, contradictory and we may as well become humanists. It also shows how much of a bummer the chapter breaks can be, given they were inserted so much later. A few verses later in chapter 8, Paul speaks of the "Law of Sin and Death". That's the "Law" he's talking about here in verse 6. Note this means we have been released from the consequences of sin and death, not freed from the events of sin and death themselves.

Lastly, this, which I happen to think is extremely helpful (just like the Torah!):

Acts 15: 19-21 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

We quickly notice the first bit but are slow to understand the second. It simple; let's not scare people away from Yeshua's saving grace by telling them they have to wear funny coloured tassles and can't eat yummy bacon or shrimp. But every Sabbath they can hear the Law preached in the synagogue (remember that "Christianity" began in synagogues) . Then throughout their faith walk they should hopefully grow in knowledge of what is pleasing to God.

Is that any different to today? We can't stay babes in Christ forever, suckling on the milk of grace whilst letting the heart stay where it is- loving what the world loves instead of what God loves.

My little exercise here might seem a little antagonistic but it highlights the challenges of Paul's ministry. One moment he was dealing with extreme legalists who tried to tell new believers they had to be circumcised to be saved (ouch), the next he was dealing with hideously liberal anti-Jewish types who went out of their way to ignore YHWH's Law, and who were grounded in pagan idolatry.

Basically, Paul had the same problem then as we have now.

Here's another reason why appreciating the Torah is a well-considered choice:

(Yeshua said:) "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher". Luke 6:40


.