Christian interpretation and application of Torah law in the early church

Christianity and the Torah

History of Christianity

Basic concepts in Christian theology

History of the Torah

Christianity and the Torah

Torah observance at the Table 130

The Significance of the Torah to Christian in modern day 134

It is the Powerful Word of God 134

It Leads Christians to Jesus the Messiah 136

It Deals with the Questions of Life 139

What we Understand about The Law 141

Interpreting and Applying the Law 143

Suggested Christian approach towards the Torah 144

Identifying what the specific law meant to the initial audience 145

Determine the differences between the initial audience and believers today 146

Develop universal principles from the text 146

Correlate the principle with New Testament teaching 147

Apply the modified universal principle to life today 148

Study Limitation 151

Conclusion 152

Suggestions for future study 155

References 156

Miles Raynor Page -- i

Introduction

The early church was founded within the framework of Judaism in the regions of Palestine and Jerusalem. The church's growth in the two regions is attributed to the Qumran Covenanters, who were to some extent tolerated by the authorities and only faced sporadic incidences of persecution. Gamaliel's tolerance[footnoteRef:1] of the Christians was probably out of his knowledge of the fact that the parties behind the persecutions were Sadducees, a group that he hated and feared much more than he did the Christians. The toleration of the Infant Church lasted up until the great uprising against the Roman Empire. By the time of the great uprising, disagreements between the Sadducees and the Nazarenes had heated up. Bar Kochba's 132-135 AD revolt[footnoteRef:2] further brought to the clear, the deep rift between Jewish Christians and other communities of Israel that had been brought about by the Savior in the form of Jesus. [1: Acts v. 34-39] [2: Sasson ]

The emerging Synagogue worship was adopted by the Infant Church. And from the ancient church to date this form of worship is still maintained within churches. Another church element adopted from Judaism was baptism - whereby the leaders of the Infant Church linked Christian baptism to the baptism of proselytes in Judaism through John the Baptist. Although, the Lord's Supper was increasingly becoming a frequent celebration, the practice was largely based on the practices related to the Passover supper. More significantly, the Infant Church adopted the Old Testament. To many individuals it must have been noteworthy that the Infant Church was born during the Pentecost. These individuals would have perhaps cited Jeremiah's prophesy[footnoteRef:3] of a new covenant that would give them a new power. They would be quick to remember that there was not a promise of a new law. However, for the Infant Church, the Old Testament was not new set of laws but scriptures for guidance[footnoteRef:4]. [3: Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34] [4: ELLISON, 231]

In the first few years, there were no significant changes when the Church first made forays into the Greek world. Some believe that before Paul died, possibility exists of a couple of converts who were not fully ready for the gospel through their former strong links to Judaism. It not known with certainty, whether such individuals were only fearers of God, had become proselytes, or were merely individuals who had been shaken from their pagan ways by the knowledge of something greatly different. What is known is that the majority of the Gentile Churches had sufficient numbers of converts from Judaism who later went on to spread the Jewish perspective of the Torah[footnoteRef:5]. [5: Ibid, 232]

There is little doubt that the author of According to the Scriptures C. Dodd is correct in his argument that certain parts of the Torah formed the main portions of the Gospel. In fact, the early church attributed Messianic significance to many of these portions, claiming the authority of Christ Himself for that revelation[footnoteRef:6]. The majority of Church members being former Judaists themselves would have known the portions of Torah used in the Early Church. The understanding of certain segments of Torah was such that even the mention or citation of a passage from the Old Testament in an apostolic letter from one church to another would have been easily understood. This however means that although non-Jewish Christians at best imperfectly knew many parts of the Torah, most of the gospel message was still largely based on portions of Torah. [6: Luke xxiv. 27, 44]

Passages from Torah were however so much a part of the early Church to such a degree that hundreds of years later, scholars such as Origen and Melito of Sardis noted in their respective works of public worship still being conducted in original Hebrew.

The role played by the use of Scriptures from the Torah led to the controversy regarding the place and interpretation of the Mosaic Laws in the New Covenant. This is because the Early Church had not taken time to reconsider the purpose of the Old Testament now that most of the promises there had been fulfilled and a new quantity of material (the Gospel Message) had emerged apart from it. As usually happens, in occasions where there is opposition to traditional perspectives of something important, the initial challenges went to the extreme. For instance, Marcion the son of a Pontus Bishop was of a Gnostic dualism perspective. He argued that the Torah had no spiritual value and ascribed no kind of authority to it. Instead, he claimed its value was merely historical. The church, realizing the kind of harm such sentiments could do to its growth, quickly excommunicated him and reasserted the Torah and reaffirmed its authority to its followers[footnoteRef:7]. What followed was that any intelligent discourse on the place and utilization of the Torah became almost impossible, since anyone who challenged the church-accepted views of the Torah could be labeled a Marcionist. It was unavoidable that the use of the Torah (Old Testament) would quickly fade away, and soon the Old Testament became either a challenge to the expertise of 'allegorizers' or a source of evidence-texts, Messianic or otherwise[footnoteRef:8]. [7: ELLISON, 232] [8: Ibid, 232]

Despite the reemergence of interest in the Old Testament among Reformers, the place of the Torah has remained in the position it was two centuries ago. Even though, for certain books, like Psalter, many portions were familiar, the average Christian had very little idea of what he or she would do with the book as a whole. It is noteworthy that for some individuals, different ways of incorporating such books into what had become the normal church routine, however very soon the Torah was lost owing to amplified dispensationalism[footnoteRef:9]. [9: Ibid, 233]

1.1 Background

According to dabru emet[footnoteRef:10], a book in which American Judaists document their reactions to the most recent developments in Christian theology, Christians and Jews worship one God. Obedience to One God, in addition to reference to the same scriptures (the Torah, which has now become the Old Testament of the Christian Bible) is now thought of as the most vital and undisputed similarity in the dialogue between Jews and Christians. At the same time however, the Torah, its Jewish interpretation, and the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazarene are now regarded as the most divisive factors between Jews and Christians. The division is however to be expected, given the heavy devaluation in many versions of Christian theology. Such versions view the Gospel message as the specifically Christ thing and not the law. In fact, the devaluation is extreme that recent theologies either overrule the Torah or disregard it altogether. Additionally, there is a strong dismissal of many portions of the Torah as either being incomprehensible, cruel or pre-Christian. Other widespread claims are that the church founded by Pual was a "law-free" gentile church or that Jews tried some sort of self-redemption by agreeing that the law had been fulfilled[footnoteRef:11]. [10: CRUSEMANN, 243] [11: Ibid, 243]

Moreover, the Old Testament, especially the Law, remains that part of the Christian Bible that many Christians are not aware is considered distant and not related to them or their faith. This is in contrast to other books in the Old Testament such as Psalms, Genesis and much of the prophets. Still, it is noteworthy that certain elements of the Torah, such as the command of 'love thy neighbor' and the Decalogue, are considered as the basis of Christian morals/ethics. Other segments of the law also retain their significance despite the many years and the changes that have occurred between that time and now. This significance or relevance applies in new ways outside areas of theology and church such as in call for debt release for underdeveloped countries or as an ethic of nature in the face of environmental crises such as global warming[footnoteRef:12]. [12: Ibid, 244]

1.1.1 History of Christianity

Christianity is widely-believed to have begun with the birth of Jesus about two millennia ago. However, given Jesus' background as a Jewish man, some scholars date the founding of Christianity many more years back to the formative years of Judaism. To show how Christianity unfolds through the centuries, this chapter is broken down into four sections. The first section deals with the roots of Christianity between the 1st and the 3rd centuries C.E. (dating for the birth of Christ). The second section describes the growth of Christianity during the Middle Ages and the third section covers the Reformations in the 1600s and their influence on the Church today. The last section focuses on the U.S. and also highlights a number of features of American Protestantism[footnoteRef:13]. [13: Corrigan and Winthrop]

As widely agreed, Christianity started within Judaism as a movement in the 1st century C.E. During that period, Jesus of Nazareth started teaching about the coming of the Kingdom of God. As is documented in the Scriptures (the Gospel recorded in the New Testament), Jesus formed a main group of 12 Jewish disciples and also recruited many other followers. Jesus and his disciples then set out to minister to the poor and those who were ill in the areas covering present day Palestine and Israel. In 33 C.E., a provincial Roman governor arrested and later executed Jesus of Nazareth. However, the followers of Christ assert that he defeated death and rose again. This further cemented their beliefs that Jesus was the true son of God and that his resurrection absolved them of their sins. As their belief grew, the followers of Jesus named him "Christ" -- meaning the Annointed One -- according to Jewish Scriptures (contained in the Old Testament). Thus the name Jesus Christ was born along with the term Christians to denote the followers of Christ.[footnoteRef:14] [14: Chadwick]

After the death of Jesus, Christians were first identified as a Jewish sect within Judaism. "Christians," essentially Judaists at that time, believed that the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah prophesized in the Jewish Scriptures, the Messiah whose coming they had long awaited. However, as time went by, the majority of Judaists did not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, leading to the conflict between them and the followers of Christ. In spite of the disbelief among the Judaists, many gentiles came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. This led to the emergence of "Christianity" as a religion, separate and distinct from Judaism[footnoteRef:15]. [15: Coogan, 148]

Over the next few decades, the followers of Christ recorded their memories of the sayings and teachings of Jesus in various texts. These texts formed the core of the New Testament. The four best known among these texts are the 4 narratives about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that now form the basis of the Christian Scriptures, namely the Gospels of John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. At the time these memories were being recorded, many letters were being penned to other Christian churches and communities to give them hope and to teach them how to live the new found lives the Christian way. The letters by Paul and several other writers were later to be included in the Scriptures along with the 4 narratives of the life of Jesus. The followers of Christ argued for many years over texts to include in their Bible; this debate raged on for many years. Thus it was only three centuries later in 367 C.E., that the first known Christian Bible to contain the current twenty-seven texts could appear. Some scholars assert that it may take even more time for all Christians to accept these twenty-seven texts[footnoteRef:16]. [16: Chadwick]

Since Christianity began as a sect within Judaism means that most of the religious practices in the latter formed the framework of worship in the former. However, over time the Christian practices gradually became distinct from those in Judaism. During the 1st and 2nd centuries, Christians worshiped in small congregation throughout Asia Minor and the Near East. The religious practices of these congregations were even different from each other. Furthermore, many Roman territories outlawed Christianity, resulting in many Christians being arrested or persecuted for their faith. However, at the beginning of the 3rd century, in 313 C.E. Constantine (the then Roman Emperor) converted to Christianity and made it legal, instantly stopping all persecutions. Upon his conversion, Constantine soon became aware of the disagreements among Christians on many issues, for instance, the relationship of Christ to God, and that such disagreements were bringing about confusion and unrest in the Roman Empire. Constantine called all Christian Bishops to a meeting (council) at Nicaea in the year 325 C.E. This was the first major meeting of Christian leaders and it expounded different theological points, including the holy trinity and the divinity of Christ. This meeting ended with the declaration of the Nicene Creed. Many more debates followed and a second major council was called in Constantinople in 381 C.E. In this second council, the Nicene Creed was expanded into a longer recital of faith that many Christian denominations still follow[footnoteRef:17],[footnoteRef:18]. [17: Gonzalez] [18: CRUSEMANN, 245]

Even though, more disagreements over important theological points emerged, Christians became more unified in the 4th century during the reign of Emperor Theodosius and through the works of Bishop Augustine of Hippo[footnoteRef:19]. Almost seven decades after the legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, Theodosius made it the official state religion. This led to the rapid growth of Christianity throughout the empire. Some individuals within the Empire converted solely to advance within the social and political ranks of the empire, others converted out of fear of the law, however quite a number of individuals converted willingly. These conversions led to Christianity becoming the leading religion in all Roman provinces and territories, which encompassed almost a third of the known world at that time[footnoteRef:20]. [19: Gonzalez,] [20: Chadwick]

A few years after the declaration by Theodosius, Augustine became the bishop of Hippo, a diocese in North Africa. Augustine, himself an adult convert to the religion, became one of the greatest Christian theologians of all time. During his reign as the Bishop of Hippo, many fundamental Christian beliefs were under contention. Thus, Augustine wrote his theology in reaction to the competing interpretations of certain issues both within the Church and to non-Christian faiths in the 4th and 5th centuries. Through the exploration of these issues, Augustine offered important arguments on human sinfulness, the Holy Trinity in addition to the relationship between the state and church. Augustine's works were of a great influence on Christian thought from the 5th century up to the Reformation period of the 1600s and many more years later[footnoteRef:21]. [21: Ibid]

Despite his clear articulation of issues, Augustine could not manage to put to end to the controversies within Christianity. At church councils, that occurred over 50 to 100 years[footnoteRef:22], the issues of the divinity and humanity of Jesus proved to be an ongoing point of contention. As Christians from various parts of the world drew on their own philosophical traditions to form their opinions on these issues, more differences emerged. The biggest difference of opinion was between the Christian Bishops of the Greek East and those of the Latin West. These agreements gained strength in 1054 C.E. in the "Great Schism" that split Christianity into two major factions, Eastern and Western[footnoteRef:23]. Today, Western Christianity encompasses the Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Churches, while Eastern Christianity encompasses Orthodox Churches. [22: Ibid] [23: Gonzalez]

Western Christianity grew more rapidly in the Middle Ages. Christianity inspired architecture, music, and art. Through the works of Thomas Aquinas, Christian theology became more systemized[footnoteRef:24]. The head of the Western Christianity became very powerful and influential in European politics. During the 14th and 15th centuries, the papacy lost most of its power and moral authority because of allegations of widespread corruption in the Catholic Church, and many Christians began to doubt the authority of the pope. These doubts led to another major division in the Church that took place in the early 1600s. This split started in present-day Germany when Christians protested against the corruption in the Western church[footnoteRef:25]. [24: Louis] [25: Chadwick]

The man behind the protests was Martin Luther (1483-1543)[footnoteRef:26], a Christian monk who wrote 95 theses criticizing different corruptions of the Christian church, most notably the sale of indulgences[footnoteRef:27]. Originally, indulgences were presents/gifts offered by repentant individuals to the church as a demonstration of gratitude for the forgiveness of sins. However, by the early 16th century, the gifts offering practice had become corrupted and it appeared that the church was in the business of selling forgiveness instead of simply accepting voluntary gifts from the sinners. Luther argued that the 'selling of forgiveness' devalued repentance and made Christians believe that they could buy forgiveness from God. Luther also objected to the hierarchical nature of the Church contending, instead that any Christian could serve as a preacher. His efforts to reform the church, however met with much resistance and the 1522 Christian council condemned Luther's theological claims. His efforts at reform led to another split from the original Western church. This splinter Christian group, referred to as "Lutherans," today have over five million in the U.S. alone[footnoteRef:28]. Other reformations such as radical, English and Calvinists reformations also saw the emergence of new churches. The Calvinists took their name from the French theologian John Calvin[footnoteRef:29], who had difference of opinions with the Catholic church. He called for a closer relationship between the Church and state. His disconcerting opinions led to him fleeing the city of Paris to Geneva to avoid persecution by the catholic authorities there. In the U.S., several protestant groups such as the Reformed Church and Presbyterians, have Calvinist origins. [26: Ibid] [27: Gonzalez] [28: Heschel] [29: Ibid ]

The English Reformation started in 1529 when King Henry VIII decided to divorce his wife defying orders from the papacy[footnoteRef:30]. To justify his marriage annulment, King Henry started the Anglican Church, which adopted a blend of protestant and catholic concepts. In the present day U.S., the Episcopalian church has Anglican origins[footnoteRef:31]. The Radical Reformation is associated with the Anabaptists who refuse to baptize their children until they reach an age when they can individually request it. In the U.S. today, the Mennonites and Quakers have Anabaptist origins[footnoteRef:32]. The Catholic Church, in recognition of the importance in some of the reformations adopted several of them but reasserted most of its teaching in the Council of Trent held in 1545[footnoteRef:33]. The Catholic churches in the U.S. today are part of the global Roman Catholic Church[footnoteRef:34]. Other groups also emerged drawing their inspiration from the earlier reformers. Such groups include Pentecostals, Methodists, and Baptists. Baptists now form the largest protestant group in the U.S.[footnoteRef:35]. [30: Chadwick] [31: Gonzalez] [32: Lynch] [33: Ibid] [34: Chadwick] [35: Lynch]

1.1.2 Basic concepts in Christian theology

Given the long history of the Christian Church it is easy to see the difficulty of summarizing Christian theology. However, despite the many denominations, both Protestants and Catholics are Christians. They do share some similarities in their practices and beliefs. Both worship a single God, manifested in the holy trinity. All Christian denominations accept that all men are sinners, who can only be saved from the wages of sin (death) through the grace of God. They believe that the Bible is the true word of God and regard prayer and worship as important. All denominations share sacramental activities and strive to lead moral/ethical lives. The following is a summary of these points[footnoteRef:36]. [36: Gonzalez]

i. God

Christians essentially trust/believe in an omnipresent God. This particular belief is not only perceived as immanent or present within the world, but also transcendent, having an existence way beyond the world and man's experience and imagination. Christians trust that individual people and groups could enjoy a personal relationship with God; however, God is a realm beyond man's comprehension. Protestants and Catholics share this opinion of God, though Catholics frequently place emphasis on the immanence of God when compared to Protestants. This is specifically evident through their comprehension of the sacraments as shall be elaborated in a later section[footnoteRef:37]. [37: Ibid]

What does it actually imply to understand God as both within and beyond the world? On one hand, God is totally beyond direct human understanding and experience. Christians, similar to Muslims, stand in the admiration of the magnificence and power of God over all the earth. Christians profess that similar to the way the human eye cannot directly look into the sun, man can also not understand the entire majesty of God. Conversely, the Bible has many earthly analogies for God, for instance a shepherd, a king, a parent, a mother hen, and even a woman searching for a lost coin. Therefore, Christians also trust that God loves humankind, like a parent caring for kids or a shepherd tending a flock. The test for Christians is a keep a balance perception of God as both within and outside the world; to have in mind that even though they trust that God tenderly cares for them as a mother, yet God remains a mystery beyond their understanding. Hence, Christians commonly feel love, trust, and respect towards God: they are aware of God's amazing magnificence, yet they are also thankful for God's intimate and gracious concern for them and the whole world[footnoteRef:38]. [38: Chadwick]

The views Christians have towards God mainly originate from the Scriptures. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, God is represented as Lord of all, the only true deity of the cosmos. The Christian Scriptures further continue to stress the monotheism of the Hebrew Scriptures, portraying God as unsurpassable and omnipotent. In the Gospels, for example, Jesus teaches in accordance to the authority of God only. Christians place emphasis on the sovereignty of God. By doing so, they trust that they are true to the Scriptures and to the teachings of Jesus. In accordance with the Christian tradition, sin is turning away from God[footnoteRef:39]. [39: Ibid]

By referring to Jesus, on the other hand, raises questions regarding the claim of Christians to monotheism. Christians are differentiated from other monotheists by their trust in Jesus as the holy son of God. Non-Christians correctly ask that if Christians trust that Jesus is God's holy son and worship him as God, how come they claim to be monotheists? The answer to this, for Christians, is in the doctrine of the Trinity. To be able to fully understand the Trinity, it is best to first think of the Christian belief in Jesus as heavenly and human, since the comprehension of the earliest Christians of Jesus facilitated the development of the doctrine of the Trinity[footnoteRef:40]. [40: Gonzalez]

ii.Jesus Christ

The beliefs of Christians towards Jesus emerge from the scripture together with other historical documents and artifacts. Given that few of these other documents hold information regarding Jesus, majority of the knowledge originates from the Christian Scriptures. The four Gospels narrate the story of Jesus' life and ministry, whereas the rest of the Christian Scriptures entails letters written by apostle Paul among others from the first Christianity generations. These documents give a description of the early communities' faith in the message of Christ's ministry and manifestation of this message[footnoteRef:41]. [41: Ibid]

According to the Christian Scriptures, there was lack of agreement regarding Jesus' human lifetime, even amidst those who were familiar with him. Though his disciples appear as those believing that Jesus was the Messiah and God's son, others thought regard him as a great teacher or a prophet. In a slow procedure that started during the ministry of Jesus and carried on for numerous years after his death and resurrection, Jesus' followers came to accept that he was truly God's son[footnoteRef:42]. The gradual growth of this particular belief is clear in the Christian Scriptures as well as other historical documents, which illustrate the worship practices of the early Christian communities. As mentioned, the first Christians had been the Jews that continued to trust in their "monotheistic" God. These Christians remembered and fought to comprehend the promise of Jesus, put down in their holy book (Gospels) that Jesus would continue to be with them even when they could see him no more, and that he would send them his spirit. Slowly, through a lot of discussion, prayer, and worship, Christians got around to subscribe to the belief that God was now with them in three different ways: the "Father" or God of the Hebrews Scriptures, Jesus the Son, and the Spirit[footnoteRef:43]. [42: Lynch] [43: Ibid]

Decades passed before Christians officially concluded that they could believe that Jesus was heavenly without giving up their trust in God. How could this be? At the great councils of Chalcedon, Nicaea, and beyond, Christians decided that Jesus was both completely heavenly as well as completely human. They claimed that only God that could save humankind, but only a human should pay the debt owed to God for sins committed. They therefore came to trust that Jesus encountered the richness of human existence, yet was also heavenly. Christians respect Mary, mother to Jesus, as the "Mother of God" since she delivered God's own son. Christians trust that God became human in Jesus to offer an access to the grace of God, and Christians see Jesus as the perfect human, the complete revelation of God's intended plan for humankind. Due to their faith in Jesus, Christians believe that God is always with them, loves them and saved them from sin and death, and shall raise them to everlasting peace. Jesus' simultaneous humanity and divinity is eventually a mystery that Christians confess in faith, even though they are not capable of completely explaining it[footnoteRef:44]. [44: Gonzalez]

Christians also trust that Jesus brings the forgiveness of God of sin to mankind. Christians refer to this as "atonement" or "salvation." "Salvation simply means that sin is gone and individuals are reunited with God. Whereas every Christian believes that Jesus achieved this, no agreement has been reached regarding how Jesus actually did this; even the scriptures describes it in different ways. For instance, the phrase "atonement" normally particularly refers to the belief that the death of Jesus on the cross achieved the taking away of man's sins; the cross hence represents both God's compassion and man's guilt. Certain Christians, however, do not agree with the "atonement theology" on the basis that it depicts God as an irresponsible and a mean parent, sentencing a child to an awful death. Such Christians opt to place emphasis on the teachings of Jesus and his healing ministry as reuniting individuals with God and perceive the death of Jesus as a calamity carried out by sinful individuals, not planned by God. Regardless of all these disparities, all Christians believe that via Jesus, God not only saves them from sin but also promises them everlasting life[footnoteRef:45]. [45: Chadwick]

iii.The Trinity

Whereas the preceding subsection elaborates the encounters and memories of the early Christians of Jesus directing them to believe that God existed in three ways, the doctrine of the Trinity still remains to be one of the most contentious points of Christian theology to elaborate. Also, with reference to this doctrine, God as a being is revealed to man in three ways: Father, Son, and Spirit. Through to this statement, Christian monotheism is quite easily questioned. If the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is God, and Jesus is also God, how then could Christians argue to trust in one God and not three? [footnoteRef:46] [46: Ibid]

With regards to their experiences with Jesus, the early Christians came to trust that that God's Trinitarian nature was similar to monotheism. They remembered, as written in the Christian Scriptures, that Jesus had a special relationship with God, whom he referred to as his father; that Jesus promises to stay with them even after they could no longer see him; and that Jesus mentioned that he would send them his Spirit. Christians believed that the Spirit of Jesus came to them at Pentecost, an experience recorded in the Christian Scriptures. As time passed, Christians started noticing that numerous pages in their scriptures could be understood as explaining distinctions within God. For example, Christians are commanded by the Gospels to be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In this manner, over numerous centuries, the doctrine of the Trinity gradually took shape. As mentioned, Trinity was first formally formulated in the creed of the Council of Nicaea in 325 and further enhanced at Constantinople in 381[footnoteRef:47]. [47: Gonzalez]

The councils did not put an end to the argument over the Trinity. Given that the idea is hard to understand, Christians sought to explain it with different degrees of success. In certain cases, it has degenerated into a belief in God as three different heavenly beings or as a single God revealed in distinct ways at different times. Such ideas of the Trinity have resulted to polytheism charges. Christian theologians have generally succeeded better at describing what the Trinity is not than at elaborating what it is. In short, however, the three could be described as follows: God the "Father" as the creator of everything; God the "Son" as Jesus, who became human and came to earth; and God the "Spirit" as God's wisdom that was sent by Jesus to be with mankind after his departure from earth. Mystics and theologians have understood these three of the Trinity to have certain names. The most regularly used names are Father, Son and Spirit. Other names used are Mother, Daughter and Wisdom, and Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier[footnoteRef:48],[footnoteRef:49]. [48: Ibid] [49: Chadwick]

The Christian perception of the Trinity is that one everlasting God revered in three different ways. Christians trust that God has a relational nature; hence, the three heavenly "identities" are believed to not only be present in the encounters of Christians with God, but also to correspond to real differences within God. The exact manner that this works is a mystery. Analogy is a common way of understanding the Trinity. Take into consideration, for instance, the numerous roles a one woman might occupy. She might be a mother, a wife, and a daughter. In each of these roles she operates differently in relationship to the individuals around her. She is one woman, but at the same time, real disparities in her own personhood correspond to her particular roles. This is the case for Christians. The one everlasting God is three roles sharing one heavenly nature[footnoteRef:50]. [50: Gonzalez]

iv.The Bible and Church Authority

Protestants and Catholics both see the Bible as the God's revealed word and the major authority for Christian life and worship. Every Christian respects the ability of individual people to read and interpret the Bible on their own; and as such, they do so in different ways. Protestant churches often tend to abide by a main principle of the sixteenth-century Reformations in giving absolute power to individual Christians to interpret the Bible on their own. Catholic churches, on the other hand, stress that individual Christians who are reading the Bible ought to take into consideration the long tradition of church interpretation of scripture. When thinking of Protestant and Catholic Bible interpretation, additional exploration of each one's idea of church is required. The following discussion provides a general explanation of the theology behind the varying Christian churches[footnoteRef:51]. [51: Ibid]

The Christian Bible is composed of an Old Testament and a New Testament. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Armenian, and the Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox Church incorporate their versions in the additional books of the Old Testament. These additional holy texts are Tobit, Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch that are part of the apocrypha in Protestant and Judaism Christianity[footnoteRef:52]. The earliest renditions of the Christian Old Testament were collectively referred to as LXX or Septuagint[footnoteRef:53]. [52: Achtemeier] [53: ELLISON, 235]

Protestants generally think of the church as a gathering of Christian believers that unite to worship God and encourage each other in their attempts to live a Christian life. In accordance to Luther's principle of the priesthood of all believers, the community, to serve as its spiritual head or pastor, might call upon any person. Given that they recognize church as a particular community of believers, Protestants have a tendency to read and interpret the Bible as applicable to their present status with minimal focus on how it was interpreted in the past[footnoteRef:54]. [54: Corrigan and Winthrop]

Various Protestant churches, like Methodists, Lutherans, and particularly Episcopalians, proceed formally in training and assigning their leaders. In the Episcopalian church, leaders succeed each other in a formal manner comparable to that of the Catholic Church. This particular "apostolic succession" is theologically linked back to Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus. In these Protestant churches, the stress in scriptural interpretation is normally on the current meaning and not on a tradition of past interpretation. A distinction is that whenever main arguments regarding scriptural interpretations surface, these denominations shall call general meetings to discuss them; while lesser organized evangelical churches would, in contrast, most probably divide and form new churches along the lines of contention[footnoteRef:55]. [55: Gonzalez]

Unlike most Protestants, Catholics describe the church as a much larger community. According to Catholics, church incorporates not just the believers in a certain faith community, but also every Catholic in the world and even all the believers that died, whose souls are trusted to be with God. There is a formal "ordination" or training procedure for the Catholic leaders. The Bishops choose the individuals that shall serve as the priest for every Parish. The Roman Bishop is referred to as the Pope, and he serves as the representative leader of the universal Catholic Church. The pope is normally seen as Peter's successor. Catholics do not worship the pope; however, Catholics hold the office of the papacy in very high regards since it signifies the unity of the universal Catholic Church[footnoteRef:56]. [56: Ibid]

Similar to Protestants, Catholics believe that any Christian could read and interpret the Bible. However, according to the Catholic understanding of the church as a large community that entails believers, even the dead ones, modern scripture interpretations consider past interpretations. These interpretations were frequently documented and have been conserved as the church's collective wisdom. Since the official church leaders and those educated in church history and theology have a wide understanding of this past tradition of scriptural interpretation, their views are also significant to individual Catholics in the way they read the scriptures. Hence, there is a long tradition of scriptural interpretation in the Catholic Church[footnoteRef:57],[footnoteRef:58]. [57: Ibid] [58: Corrigan and Winthrop]

Eventually, however, the Catholic Church places emphasis on the final authority of the individual conscience. It teaches that Catholics that those who sincerely pray and read the scriptures need to follow their consciences when it comes to spiritual issues, even if they oppose the church leaders and even if this results to their excommunication from the church. Valid disagreement with the leaders of the church is referred to as "dissent." For instance, several Catholics oppose the official position of the church on the subject of birth control, and this is not regarded as severe enough to merit punishment[footnoteRef:59]. The practice of dissent displays that even though Catholics put more emphasis on church tradition as a vital part of scriptural interpretation when compared to Protestants, all Christians eventually depend on their consciences and Bible as the ultimate spiritual authority in living as a Christian[footnoteRef:60]. [59: Gonzalez] [60: Chadwick]

Catholics consider the holy writings of the Bible as the inspired word of God, put down by humans guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic tradition assists in differentiating the heavenly features from the human features in the Bible. For example, Catholics presently interpret the biblical explanation of slavery as a function of a past historical period, and they are sure that slavery is in opposition to the will of God. In this manner, tradition offers guidance for Catholics[footnoteRef:61],[footnoteRef:62]. [61: Ibid] [62: Lynch]

Catholics and Protestants both believe that the church is made up of humans who come together to worship God profess their faith in Jesus. Majority of Protestants subscribe to "the priesthood of all believers" and put emphasis on modern Bible interpretation, whereas Catholics and a few Protestants also respect the long tradition of scriptural interpretation, including the teaching capability of church leaders and theologians. The legitimacy and power of a Protestant church leader frequently correlates simply to obedience of the Bible, whereas for the Catholics, tradition is an essential part of choosing the church leaders and interpretation of the Bible[footnoteRef:63]. [63: Gonzalez]

Whereas all Christians view the Bible as the authority for Christian living, they vary over the issue of the Bible's "inerrancy." According to Catholics, the Bible was the word God, however, composed by particular individuals over several centuries in different stages of revelations. For the Catholics, the difficulty is to establish the passages that are directly significant and those that need reinterpretation. On the other hand, fundamentalist Protestants believe that God's inspiration of the scriptures implies that everything written in them is true to the word or "inerrant." Liberal, conservative, and evangelical Protestants lie in between these two extremes. Conservative and evangelical Protestants view the Bible as inspired by God, with any clear mistakes signifying the mysteries that mankind should strive to understand; liberal Protestants tend to view discrepancies as result of cultural change and human error[footnoteRef:64],[footnoteRef:65]. [64: Ibid] [65: Chadwick]

1.1.3 History of the Torah

One must understand how the old covenant was assembled if they are to conceptualize the Torah concept? (also commonly referred to as the instructions from YHWH) and what the rabbi's -- Sha'ul and Yakov explored in discussion. The old covenant is referred to as the TaNaCh in the Hebrew language. This is the acronym that is used by Hebrew speaking people to refer to Nevi'im and Chetuvim Torah. Torah, in the TaNaCh, is essentially the five volumes authored by Moshe. The Hebraic name for prophets is Nevi'im. It refers to the collection of prophetic books. The remaining set of books, sayings and the books of history is referred to as Chetuvim (Hebrew for writings). This means that the TaNaCh refers to the old testament as a whole. It is the book commonly referred to as the Hebrew Bible[footnoteRef:66]. [66: ]

The significance of TaNaCh varies just as in its parts. The word Torah, which means instructions or 'teaching' is the plan of YWHH, on the way to live. The Torah is the life manual for believers. Nevi'im is the symbolic representation of the prophets, sweat, tears and blood in the period spanning 920 years; from Samuel to Ezra. The last prophet passed on a long time ago but their prophecies have always lived with us and still apply. A lot of the prophecies made were immediately relevant to the people but many revolve around the Messiah Y'shua. The most critical Jewish belief is about the Moshiach 7. Chetuvim refers to the collection of writings by Moshe, i.e. the Book of Job, Solomon (Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs), King David (in Psalms), prophets of Samuel, Jeremiah and Daniel and the Men of Great assembly[footnoteRef:67]. [67: ]

The rabbis say that there are two Torah's, i.e. the Oral Torah and the Written Torah. The written Torah refers to what Moshe (Moses) was given by YHWH ON Mount Sinai. The oral version refers to the concepts that have been drawn from the written Torah; by man's interpretation and perceptions on how to live the Torah out of a guided understanding of the book. This is the basic tradition as lived by the Hebrew people. Oral Torah comes with some fresh insights. However, the written word remains supreme. No one is allowed to add or remove anything from the written word. Deut:4:2. The scripture warns against such acts of corrupting the Torah and goes on to give the steady command that the people are bound by the written word. In Deuteronomy 12:32 is says that the people should obey everything that God commands and that nothing should be added or subtracted from it. The book of Proverbs30:6 reiterate the same message in different words[footnoteRef:68]. [68: ]

The written Torah contains the five books that were written by Moses. The Oral Torah has some extra instructions that have been passed on through the generations. The rabbis interpret the Written Torah as God's will on the people while the Oral Torah is regarded as the instructions with details on how to fulfil the written Torah; it is noted that we do not follow these instructions. Following the destruction of the second Temple, Judah the Prince started a systematic collection and sieving of the Oral Torah until he compiled it into an authoritative set referred to as the Minshah. A tradition that involved explanations and commentary of the Minshah grew over time[footnoteRef:69]. The Aramaic called this development: the Gemara (study). It evolved into an area of study and analysis independently too. Talmud is the Aramaic term coined to refer to the study of both the Minshah and the Gemara. The Talmud constitutes six parts that provide various examinations and explanations on the different topics. The modern day Hebraic Bible constitutes only 37 tractates of the original 60 of the Babylonian Talmud, and only thirty-nine of what originally constituted 63 tractates. The written Torah is the cornerstone of Kariate beliefs. This section of Jewish believers only follows the written Torah and ignores the oral Torah. HRTI holds a similar view[footnoteRef:70]. [69: ] [70: ]

The written Torah comes with 613 commandments. They highlight all that YHWH permits, requires of its followers, or forbids; the purpose and aim of the life and activities of a layperson to what is expected of the high priest. The commandments are coded and split into 365 negative laws and 248 positive ones. Notably, there is an interesting coincidence of numbers between the negative commandments and the total number of the days of the year. For the general knowledge, there also 365 muscles veins, ligaments, tendons and ligaments in the human body while there are 248 positive laws correspond to the number of limbs in the human body. The sinews and the nerves also constitute 365.

The Jews take the Psalmist seriously as He wrote "and my soul shall be joyful in YHWH. It goes on to draw direct parallels with the various human body elements and makes reference to the poor."

The reasons above explain the Jewish nature of worship. It is the reason why they keep reeling back and forth during their worship services. They focus on all their body parts in the worship process. There is mention of bones in the written command as it directs the Jewish people on how to worship with their bone and body. The reference to the bone signifies the whole human body structure. Moses' Torah is ideally a series of systematic instructions that were presented to Israel to assist them lead lives that are worth before God (holy lives). The sacrificial system nestles in these traditions and is a sign that God knew of the inequities of the people of Israel. He knew that forgiveness of sins would be necessary since they were bound to break these commands (the Torah)[footnoteRef:71]. Sefer Torah is the handwritten version of the five books of Moses that exists as a Torah scroll among the Jewish community. Although the text is of great significance among Muslims and Christians, it is not regarded as sacred as it is among the Jewish community. While the rest of the religions evolved their written scripture into books, the Jews stuck to their scroll. It is believed that the technology of the scrolls was initiated by rabbinic tradition and that the text was fixed in the 6th century[footnoteRef:72]. The practice of the scribes has been maintained. Therefore, it means that the content and appearance of the Torah are exactly the same as the scrolls that were used over 1000 years ago. The Sefer Torah is regarded as the most sacred text in Jewish religious life. It is the central focus in religious synagogues among the Jews and in their synagogues across the globe. The Torah is widely credited to Moses by the rabbinistic tradition that forms the basis of the Jewish worship tradition. Moses is believed to have been presented weight the Torah by God. Some scholars hold the belief that the Torah is likely to have come from a range of sources. The Torah elicits a variety of literary genres that include historical narratives, poetry, allegory, genealogy and the exploration and reference to a variety of legal systems[footnoteRef:73]. It is stated in the Jewish tradition that the Torah existed before the creation of the world. It is said to have served as the blueprint in heaven. It has been compared to various elements such as fire, water, wine, oil, milk, the tree of life and honey. The belief anchored in rabbinistic practice holds that it is the Torah that keeps the world going. Prominent scholars are said to have reaffirmed the importance of the Torah in the old. Rabbi Eleazer Ben Shammua observed that if the Torah never existed, there would never be Heaven and earth. [71: ] [72: ] [73: ]

L'dor v'dor means "from generation to generation." The dictum traverses across all the tenets in the life of a Jew. The main tenets of Torah scrolls is fixed on a tradition that dictates its passage to future generations as it has been adopted from earlier generations. The Torah scrolls are extremely protected and revered among the Jews. This care transcends the design stage, usage and storage. Torahs are made using durable materials[footnoteRef:74]. [74: ]

1.1.4 Christianity and the Torah

It is fairly easy to distinguish Historic Christianity from Rabbinistic Judaism. They are evidently separate. The Torah movement followers concern is how they can fit in the antagonistic religious groups. For example, an Orthodox Jew in modern world, with a member of the Torah community dialogue regarding their theology and hallachah. When the orthodox Jew is challenged to show how they differ from the modern Christian, they are likely to present a response that revolves around the life of Jesus, the Torah and the New Testament[footnoteRef:75]. The modern orthodox Jew does not accept Jesus and reasserts that the everlasting nature of the Torah as defined by the ancient sages of religion. Indeed, the Christian does not dispute the distinction. The Christian believes that he is different from the Orthodox Jew because he believes in Jesus and His existence. He accepts the New Testament and believes in salvation. He further reasserts that he Torah was done away with and replaced by the New Testament (the New Covenant). One wonders where this discussion places a Torah community member. On his part, he believes that Yeshua is the Messiah and that salivation can only come from him. He embraces the apostolic scripture with reverence and believes that they have divine power and authority but he believes that the Torah (as it is described and explained by Yeshua) is eternal and binding[footnoteRef:76]. [75: ] [76: ]

It seems therefore that the fundamental difference between the Christian and the Apostolic Judaist is the matter of the Torah. It is, indeed, the case. Yet, there is a deeper difference than most people would anticipate. It has been declared that Apostolic Judaism is not really "Christianity with a tallit." "It is not Christianity with Shabbat and the Festivals either." "

Several groups have attempted this over the life of the Christian church so far. Examples of such groups include the SDA World Wide Church [Armstrong]. several messianic church have tried it, too. Accepting the Torah as the central theme and symbol of God's revelation to his people plants a crucial difference because it proposes and teaches a different view of the world. It is theological assumption that influences all else. This perspective of the world and the crucial difference is what I seek to explain[footnoteRef:77]. [77: ]

The early Christian church took a different historically significant turn because of the introduction of the Greek philosophies. These philosophies from Greece were the brainchild of Plato. Ideally, the difference between the dualistic worldview and the unified worldview can be called correctly as a hermeneutics difference. This is the way his universe is generally understood to operate. Plato had developed and adopted a dualistic worldview and had gifted the world with a word based on hermeneutics that he used to explain, the world he inhabited[footnoteRef:78] . If we apply Plato's analogy of the cave, we see his description of a cave that is dug into the side of a hill, the floor extends to the back wall that holds the cave. Some people live in darkness here; and are unable to read the importance of their lives. They do not understand their circumstances. Plato claims that these people, in their ignorance believe that extreme darkness is the real world. Yet, when the sun comes through the opening of the cave, they can observe their own shadows cast against the back wall. They still believe that this is the reality of their life. To them, the shadows are "real." However, when they turn around, and see that the light is shooting through the opening of the cave, they crawl out of the cave and discover that the universe is not what they believed it was[footnoteRef:79]. According to Plato, the sun's light provided the eternal wisdom that shed ideas and clues on the existence of humanity. What man sees are shadows in essence. The idea and not the shadows on the back wall of the cave is the reality. The dualistic perspective of the world came from the idea that an object is the reality- the existence. This is how the nobility of humanity is observed. [78: ] [79: ]

When man musters the strength and courage to see "the light" and decides to live in the intellect realm, they escape materialism (shadows) for the actual world that constitute ideals, intellect and thought. It is unimaginable that a philosopher who existed several hundred years ago; before Yeshua arrived on the scene, could influence historic Christianity so much. It is a fact that thoughts of Plato have had a tremendous effect on western civilization; one of the major effects is that his views were incorporated into the early church[footnoteRef:80]. [80: ]

1.2 Problem statement

Jesus, while on earth, kept Mosaic laws but cited faults in them in the same breath. When Jesus returned to heaven, his followers convened to decide whether they should retain Mosaic laws. The issue surfaced when non-Jewish people decided to follow Jesus. Some of the followers who subscribed to the Pharisees party stood and pointed out that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and made to recognize the Mosaic Law[footnoteRef:81]. One wonders what these laws were. Could they have been laws from the Bible, or just traditional rituals by the elders? When the laws of Moses are mentioned in the New Testament everywhere in the Bible, the meaning of the books of Moses is reaffirmed[footnoteRef:82],[footnoteRef:83],[footnoteRef:84]. Luke did not say traditions; he could have though. According to the teachings of Jesus, unbiblical traditions were never a consideration. There was no need for debating Jewish traditions[footnoteRef:85]. Like circumcision, so were the laws of Moses Biblical. The persistent accent was on the need of circumcision of non-Jewish believers. They would then follow the covenant as part of their allegiance and belief in God. Mosaic Law demanded the circumcision of men. Paul explained that Jesus, ideally, put in place a new covenant; we can infer from the same and the fact that Jews were people of God not by virtue of being Jewish but because of their faith. [81: ] [82: ] [83: ] [84: ] [85: ]

The only requirement in the new covenant is faith. Ancestral ties have no place here. However, the council in Jerusalem saw it differently[footnoteRef:86]. [86: ]

Elders and Apostles convened to explore the question[footnoteRef:87]. After a protracted debate, Peter is reported to have stood up and said "Brethren, you understand that recently, God chose that the Gentiles would listen to me about God's word and believe" (v. 7). He cited the incident in which God used him to preach to Cornelius and family[footnoteRef:88]. Although Cornelius was not circumcised, it did not matter. The foundational tenets of salvation were more important to Peter. Believing was the only threshold required. God accepted these people based on their faith because He knew what was in their hearts. God did not discriminate between them and us. Their hearts were purified by God's faith. The uncircumcised family was gifted with the Holy Spirit and called them acceptable before Him through their faith[footnoteRef:89] [87: ] [88: ] [89: ]

Peter proceeded to reprimand those who demanded that the Gentiles obey Mosaic laws. He said "why are you testing God by overburdening the Gentiles with yokes that we all from our fathers have not been able to bear?" We believe that through the grace of Jesus, they are saved[footnoteRef:90]. The point in Peter's argument is that the Mosaic law was a yoke and unnecessary burden that they, themselves had been unable to carry. It further taught that no amount of hard work was sufficient to make people perfect. Further, it implied that human works were never the way to salvation. Rather, it is attained through grace. We cannot possibly earn it. It has to be gifted to us. The Law of Moses cannot bring salvation; therefore, there is no need for the gentiles to be circumcised. The Holy Spirit was supplied to them by God and dismissed the importance of the rituals in the Mosaic Law. By inferring Peter's argument, we can see that the Jews need not ascribe to the Mosaic law. They are saved through faith and grace just like the gentiles. Consequently, the Mosaic laws are no longer feasible. They were not need for anything. Therefore, Peter could live like a gentile[footnoteRef:91]. Yet, we seem to be acting hastily. Acts 15 highlights the question on whether the gentiles are supposed to keep Mosaic laws. [90: ] [91: ]

The laws of Moses include every law that Moses gave to Israel. It therefore means that the 10 commandments are among them. The question now is whether the Christians should observe the Ten Commandments. A number of these commandments are quoted in the New Testament. The only section that refers to the Ten Commandments holistically is in the letter by Paul to the Corinthians. He wrote to the church and said "you are a letter from Christ and the result of this ministry. You are written with the spirit of God, and not in ink. You are not carved on stone tablets either but on human hearts.... he has polished us and refined us as the agents and representatives of the new covenant of the spirit and not of the letter. The letter destroys life while the spirit gives it" [footnoteRef:92]. There is the new covenant and stone tablets mentioned by Paul. He paints a clear contrast between the old covenant and the stone tablets that contained the Ten Commandments and the new covenant that forms the basis of Christianity. [92: ]

"If the ministry that was engraved in stone tablets, that brought death upon the people came gloriously so that the Israelites could not face Moses with courage owing to the glory; even though it was fading, will the ministry of spirit not be much more glorious"?[footnoteRef:93] [93: ]

Paul refers to a stone inscription when the face of Moses was shining with glory. He is referring to the Ten Commandments. He refers to these commandments as the ministry that brought death. He was a minister of the spirit and not the letter. Paul casts contrast between the spirit and the law. The old and the new are equally contrasted. He shows that there is still life for the old just as there is for the new; they are both from God. Although God does not change, His covenant with believers does. Paul explains these differences in the verses that ensue. He aptly asks "if the ministry that brings condemnation on men is so glorious how much more glorious can the ministry that reasserts righteousness be!" (verse 9). The Ten Commandments were known to condemn people but they still came with glory. The New Testament is about much more glory because it brings righteousness. The Old Testament hardly brings righteousness, the new one does[footnoteRef:94]. [94: ]

What was previously glorious in not glorious now when you compare it with the new glory (verse 10). Paul is saying that the Old Testament does not have glory now when you compare it with the new covenant that brings righteousness and life. He asks a couple of questions aimed at reiterating that the new covenant carries a more significant bearing on the lives of people than the Ten Commandments. He alludes to the fading of the Old Testament to something. Although, indeed, the face of Moses was fading away, Paul was not referring to Moses or his face for that matter. He was referring to a ministry that had brought death to the people of Israel; the one that was carved in stone. (verse 7).

Paul says that the Ten Commandments came with glory but was certainly fading into the background, as was Moses. He says that the new covenant not only brings much greater glory but it lasts too. By implication, Paul says that the Ten Commandments do not last. He implies that they were a temporary arrangement and condemnation ministry whose primary intention was to lead people to Christ[footnoteRef:95]. Following the argument by Paul, it is inevitable to ask what exactly has been fading away or has, indeed, faded. There is a counter argument by some critics that the Ten Commandments are not really fading but having a greater grip on the people now than they ever did. These critics want to expand the commandments instead of letting them fade. However, according to Paul, people relate with God in profoundly different way. The old way in the form of the written law condemns people to destruction while the new way leads people to life and forgiveness. The spirit is the one that leads to obeying God but it is a different relationship with God. The old and new covenant meets at some point too. The Ten Commandments are appreciated in the New Testament. The commandments reflect aspects of God's laws that applied before the Sinai call. It was meant to be a ceremonial legal system that was designed to last briefly [footnoteRef:96],[footnoteRef:97]. [95: ] [96: ] [97: ]

What is the meaning of turning to the lord? The concept entails viewing Jesus as the cornerstone of our relationship with God. A shift directs us to see our identity in God and not in the Mosaic Law. We now only obey Christ's law[footnoteRef:98] . The covenantal shift is manifested to us clearly, when we put him before everything else. There is freedom that comes to every place that the spirit of the Lord exists (verse 17). We are left to ponder the kind of freedom that Paul alludes to here. This is essentially the freedom we get from divorcing from the covenant that brought death. Although there is continuity, there is a lot of shift in many respects. Apart from the changing of the shelf life of the covenants from the older temporary one to the new permanent version, the flock is changing too.; " that we are increasingly reflecting God's glory and image; a change that comes from the Lord's spirit. " (verse 18). [98: ]

Moses along with his covenant only had a fading glory. The fading covenant was only capable of providing temporary blessings to the people. The eternal spirit lives within us and enables us to live with permanent glory. This glory neither hides nor is carved in stone but one that focuses on the heart. One then wonders what the Christians ought to do with the Ten Commandments. The question arises whether it would be correct to treat it as God's inspired scripture and one that is useful in teaching for correctional purposes and reproof or even training people to be righteous[footnoteRef:99]. We should look at the Ten Commandments just as they are. It should be read firstly as a story and proceed to see if we should obey each of its elements. [99: ]

Genesis 17 says the males among the people of God were required to be circumcised, we do not need to apply the same requirement to ourselves now. When the Old Testament says that the people of God were required to redeem their first-born babies as a sacrifice to God, we do not follow suit or believe that this practice is required of us today. The commandments were only relevant in a specified context and a specific people. In Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments begin with "I'm the Lord, your God who delivered you from bondage." This sentence provides a historical context to the words being spoken. God had just rescued these people from slavery. They were in a desert surrounded by nations that did not know God and were mostly polytheistic. God gave the laws so that they would fill the void for their lack of civic awareness and experiences. These laws meant to help them reject polytheism practices. They were laws aimed at helping them become a distinguished nation that feared God. The laws would also aid them to shape a new nation in a new place. For the specific circumstances of a people that were facing so many challenges, these laws were practically helpful. However, they cannot be as useful in our situation today[footnoteRef:100]. [100: ]

The Old Testament is largely a story. The book of 2 Timothy would suggest that the stories were relevant for the purpose of teaching, training for righteousness, reproof and correctional purposes. Stories expand our perspective of the realities of life. They shape our ethical principles and cast light on a range of scenarios, possibilities, challenges and more. The narrative of Abraham and circumcision is helpful in helping us understand t nature of righteousness but we do not need to be circumcised to learn the moral and ethical lessons implied in the story. The commands relating to sacrifice are to be understood in the context of stories and not commandments that we are supposed to obey in modern day. Although the details have a moral and ethical usefulness, they should be read entirely as an aspect of a story and not an active law that needs to be followed now[footnoteRef:101]. Genesis is a story that highlights the commands that God gave and implied others. Some of these commands apply in modern day while others do not. The book of exodus expounds the story and provides more commands on the way people need to worship, and how to relate with each other and even provides remedies and solutions for dilemmas on cases where someone disobeys God's commands. While some of the commands may be useful and applicable in our lives, it is clear that here are others that are not practical in our situation. The commandments, therefore, only need to be seen in the context of their relevance according to the biblical analogies and description. They should be seen in light of an agreement God made with a distinct group of people and one that God Himself has declared as obsolete[footnoteRef:102].The commandments that God gave to the Israelites were clearly instructive but are not a must-do for us. They are not normative commands but rather informative. They describe ancient Israel but they are not prescriptions for the modern Christian on how they should live with God and each other. If we wish to clearly identify the laws that still apply in out Christian life today, we need to refer to the New Testament. The New Testament uses a single commandment- that the Sabbath is not enforceable any more. The Ten Commandments cannot be preached to Christians in modern day. That is a crucial exception at the heart of the Ten Commandments. It is also misleading to talk of Ten Commandments when you are referring to only nine of them. [101: ] [102: ]

Furthermore, there is a better behavior threshold in the new covenant than the old one. There is a broader range of literature and a justified balance. We now have the teachings of the apostles and Jesus; therefore, we should only direct people to Christ and not to Moses for providing instructions on life[footnoteRef:103] . [103: ]

Martin Luther observed that when someone falls off a horse on the right side, they climb only to fall off on the left side. The groups that observe Torah are often reacting to negative laws cited only in certain Christian setting. Unfortunately, in most evangelical Christian settings, the Old Testament is rarely taught, hardly mentioned in preaching sessions, and thus the average congregant understands little about it. Any mentioned law is portrayed as a shackle that the Christians have finally broken from. The law is portrayed by the Bible in a different way. The Old Testament law is portrayed as a gift from God. Is an invaluable guide to life and a thing to be cherished and something to be followed under the punishment penalty to enforce obedience? God's love for the people is manifest and bound in this covenant. God underscores His relationship with the people[footnoteRef:104] [104: ]

Paul reminds Christians, in the New Testament that the law is great. Obedience is further reiterated in the New Testament. It touches on the scripture from the Sermon on the Mountain to the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John and the Epistles. Ideally, out of the Ten Commandments, nine are reinforced in the New Testament. It emphasizes that the law isn't bad; rather, the misuse of the law is sinful. It states that human traditions often supplant the negative laws.

The principles behind the law, and particularly the one's that surround the ten commandments are the ones that form the basic framework in the lives of the people of the West and even the Churches that show the law in negative light[footnoteRef:105] (verse 18). Generally, Christians do not believe in the continuance of the Mosaic Law. The law was contextual. God made a covenant with the Israelites for a reason, and at a specific time and place. The arrival of Christ means that the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah has come to pass and that the old is now obsolete in our circumstances. Two thousand years have passed but it has been impossible to obey Mosaic laws that have been focused on animal sacrifices, temples, priesthood, and theocracy in the land of Israel[footnoteRef:106]. Orthodox Judaism knows this fact and when there was a destruction of the temple in A.D 70, Judaism was constituted as a temple-less religion. Reform Judaism is a movement that came up in the last 250 years sees the law as frequently antiquated and old fashioned but a significant and important element of our history, a symbolic representation and a source for ethical adjustment[footnoteRef:107] . These declarations do not mean that the modern Christian does not live by the law. The commands in the Mosaic Law manifested a part of God's will for the people and His nature. Each of the commandments reflects a principle. Each of the principles reflects God and is still as relevant to Christians today as they ever were[footnoteRef:108]. [105: Generally, Christians do not believe that the Mosaic Law should be kept. The law was contextual. God made a covenant with the Israelites for a reason and at a specific time and place] [106: ] [107: ] [108: ]

There have been questions on whether some Jewish practices are in line for a follower of Jesus. One dilemma is about how to separate culture and religion. According to an orthodox Jew, celebration of Passover is an observation of a divine order. It is carried out in line with a long tradition of rabbinistic law and customs that stretch 200 years. One wonders whether Passover is a religious practice of Jewish tradition. It is said that it is not monolithic with regard to cultural expression and religious practice[footnoteRef:109] [109: ]

Some messianic congregations embrace a Safer Torah. They own the scroll of the law (extract Torah readings) that are the same as the passage that is read in a particular week in synagogues in their respective services. Many believers of Jewish descent love to observe Kosher or celebrate the holidays. It is something significantly different from the aims of the groups that observe Torah. These examples mentioned may be carried out for showing solidarity with the community of the Jews or even worship in Jewish style and a couple of other reasons for keeping some form of Jewish identity love, communion and pride. If carried out voluntarily, it is believed that God accords higher favors to such an individual. However, the groups that rigidly observe Torah insist on keeping the law as the primary preoccupation and sign of obeying God. Consequently, they believe we are up against something that is fundamentally different[footnoteRef:110] [110: ]

It is true that several Christian organizations celebrate the Passover. However, their celebrations are somewhat different from those of Judaists. The main difference is that these Christian organizations generally celebrate the Passover as a form of worship and as a teaching tool strictly focusing on Christ, in contrast to Judaist organizations that celebrate the Passover as part of the mandatory requirement to observe Mosaic Laws. Thus, the activity should not be frowned upon as an old Jewish tradition; instead it should be embraced as a form of worship.[footnoteRef:111] [111: Riches]

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The aim of this study is to examine the link between the Torah and the New Testament with the objective of determining in which cases followers of Christ should observe the Torah. One of the main ongoing controversial issues among Christian theologians and scholars is the issue of the applicability of the Torah to New Testament Christians[footnoteRef:112]. In other words, this study investigates which of the six hundred and thirteen Mosaic Laws are binding to modern day Christians. The confusion regarding this question has been the source of heated debates in the Christian church and has somewhat affected the unity and growth of the church. [112: Achtemeier]

1.4 Research Questions

The Jewish-Christian dialogue and issues related to modern Christian ethics have brought into light the need for a certain level of understanding and application of the Torah. However, the issue of Christian ethics can't be decided by simply using examples, rather the solution requires a basis on theological principles[footnoteRef:113]. The following questions are posed with the aim of determining the link between the Torah and the biblical understanding of Yahweh in both the New and the Old Testament. [113: Heschel, Tucker, and Levin]

Should followers of Christ study and apply the Torah in their lives?

Did the Coming of Jesus Christ end the Torah?

Is Torah relevant to the contemporary Christian's life?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This research will be of significance with regards to the development of a wider Christian theology and the observation of Mosaic Laws given that modern day Christianity has adopted both the New and the Old Testament, while acknowledging the discontinuity in terms of fulfilment and function of the Torah. The issue has gained a lot of attention both within and outside the church in the last few decades leading to outsiders suggesting that there is disagreement and confusion between denominations and individuals. The observation of the Laws of Moses can be a point of contention among individual worshippers of church reverends and deacons. This study will shed some light on some of the contentious issues surrounding the subject by clarifying the issues within the biblical context. On a personal level, this study will help me to improve my skills in research methodology and in biblical exegesis[footnoteRef:114]. [114: CRUSEMANN, 249]

1.6 Definition of Terms

The word Torah means teaching in Hebrew. Torah is the basis of Jewish thought. Torah is also regarded as the heart of spirituality among Jews. Many Jews regard it as the source of answers to many life questions and the one true blueprint for how to live on earth. The holy Torah unites all Jewish communities around the globe, linking generations and providing an unbreakable bond to God. The Torah also formed the basis for the foundation of two of the world's most common religions Islam and Christianity, and can be correctly considered as one of the most important foundational texts of Western civilization. Torah in itself is the recordings of the Laws given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. Portions of Torah form parts of the Christian Bible contained in the Old Testament[footnoteRef:115]. [115: Scherman]

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

2.1 Christian's relation with the Torah

Why don't modern day Christians observe the Sabbath, circumcise their sons on the eighth day or keep Kosher like many Jews do? Is it not true that Christianity after all began as a Jewish sect with most of its original members being from the Jews? Wasn't Jesus and all of his core twelve disciples from the Jewish society?[footnoteRef:116] [116: Riches]

For quite some time was not unusual for preachers and church leaders to argue that Jesus was the authority behind the inobservance of the Torah. Jesus was after all the first "Christian" and he had come to declare the end of Judaism and the Torah. The separation of Jesus from his Judaism reached its peak during the start of Nazism when some even declared the son of God as coming from the Aryan race. However, since the end of the Second World War, the Jewishness/Judaist nature of Christ has begun to slowly resurface. The blame for the separation of Christianity for Jewish practices has since been ascribed to Apostle Paul, who was ministering to the Gentiles[footnoteRef:117]. Apostle Paul has traditionally been viewed as a Jewish "apostate" who started new religion. This is in spite of the fact that Paul's Jewish heritage and his attitude towards the Torah, is still a point of contention among researchers of early Christianity and Judaism[footnoteRef:118]. [117: Ibid] [118: Allison]

It is becoming increasingly clear that many early converts to Christianity continued for quite some time to receive/conceive their faith in Jewish terms. Such Christians are even now strongly identified with the Jewish community upon their conversion. Social science studies of Judaism and early Christianity reveals that the social context back then was far more complicated than the idealist narratives that were found in a couple of the Infant Church literature that has survived the times. The majority of the early Christian literature that have survived history were those penned by Christian scholars -- often against the observance of Jewish practices -- who tried to assert the superiority of the theological concepts and norms upon other members of the Infant Church. However, the normal, average Christian would likely have not cared much about what some of the Christian intellectuals thought outside what was preached in the places of worship. As late as the 4th century C.E., John Chrysostom[footnoteRef:119], was loudly and in some ways unsuccessfully trying to convince his congregation at Antioch not to observe Jewish ceremonies or go to synagogues. Obviously, the surviving works do not give a comprehensive overview of the complex relations between Jews and Christians back then. [119: Oliver]

We should accept the likelihood that other Christians, including the authors of the texts now contained in the Gospels, were more favourable towards their Jewish backgrounds and practices, than was previously thought. Many in the past might have thought that the observance of Jewish customs might have ended after the 1st generation of Jewish Christians; it is however becoming increasingly plausible that many Christians might have remained open and even steadfast adherents of the Torah for decades up to 70 C.E., when Jerusalem Temple was obliterated by the Roman Empire. The book of Matthew[footnoteRef:120] is one of the main texts that record the destruction of the Temple, since it was written after 70 C.E. What is important to note is the statement made on the Torah by Jesus as is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew[footnoteRef:121], where Jesus declares that people should not think He came to do away with the prophets or the law, but rather they should think of him as a fulfilment of the Torah. Jesus further continues that the heaven and earth will pass away but not a single letter of the law will pass without being fulfilled. Even though, this could be simply interpreted to mean that Jesus was talking about the fulfilment of messianic prophesies within the Torah, this statement appears to talk about much more than prophecy. The statement in Matthew[footnoteRef:122] is followed by a much more striking declaration related to the adherence to the Mosaic laws -- that anyone who breaks even the least of these commandments, and teaches people to do similarly, will be the lowliest in the heavenly kingdom; but whosoever keeps these laws and teaches them will be called great in the heavenly kingdom[footnoteRef:123]. [120: 22:7; 23:37-38; 24:15-19; 27:25] [121: 5:17-18] [122: v. 17-18] [123: Mat. 5:19]

What did Jesus mean by using the term "these commandments"? The scriptures in the Gospel of Matthew[footnoteRef:124] paint a picture of the context in which Jesus was making this declaration. Matthew notes that Jesus was ministering to his disciples on a mountain. This depiction reminds many of Moses of Mount Sinai when he delivered the law to the Jewish peoples. Moreover, the word 'commandment' appears in Matthew 5:19, and appears frequently in early Christian and Jewish works penned in Greek as an equivalent of the Hebrew word mitzvah. The Jewish community, to refer to the Laws of Moses, has used mitzvah, numbering six hundred and thirteen according to Jewish tradition, over the years. Therefore, it can be said with a degree of certainty that Jesus was talking about observance of the Torah, since in the next few verses[footnoteRef:125] of the same chapter, Christ talks about the observance of specific Mosaic Laws, explaining what it truly means to not be adulterous or to not commit murder. In His discussion, Jesus does not devalue the importance of observing the Laws of Moses, instead He offers an interpretation of the Torah like any other Rabbi would do. For instance, in His interpretation of the commandment stating 'do not commit adultery', Jesus declares that the Law not only forbids having sexual intercourse with another married woman it also forbids desiring a married woman since that also constitutes adultery.[footnoteRef:126] [124: 5:1] [125: Mat. 5:21-48] [126: Oliver]

Several intellectuals such as David Sim[footnoteRef:127] consider Matthew 5:19 an anti-Pauline statement. Simply put, the text in that verse are contrary to the antinomian positions thought to be held by Apostle Paul, such as the idea that it was no longer necessary to uphold certain portions of the Torah (observance of the Sabbath, circumcision etc.), because the Messiah had already come and the Law was already fulfilled. This could be one interpretation of the text. However, the immediate literary context of the verse points the reader in the right direction -- in the continuing verses Jesus continues that unless one's righteousness is more than that of Pharisees and Scribes, he or she will never gain eternal life[footnoteRef:128]. Similarly, Matthew also seems to hold anti-Pauline views. In his text, Matthew emphasises the significance of observing the "ethical" requirements of the Law over the "ritualistic requirements" of the Jewish customs[footnoteRef:129]. Matthew records Jesus castigating the Pharisees for focusing on rituals instead of ethics[footnoteRef:130]. In this verse, Matthew utilizes the phrase "weightier matters of the law" to refer to moral commandments such as the observance of faith, mercy and the maintenance of Justice in contrast to the "lighter matters of the law" that the Pharisees are accused of focusing on, such as the tithing of harvest. However, it is important to note that Jesus, as Matthew recalled, did not call for the complete disregard of ritual laws. This is seen in His statement -- weightier commandments should be observed without disregarding ritualistic laws. Thus, the issue that Jesus had with the Pharisees was on the prioritization of the matters. It was Jesus' argument that ritual law could not be prioritized over the observance of ethical standards[footnoteRef:131],[footnoteRef:132]. Ethical/moral issues must be prioritized and can even in cases temporarily suspend the observance of ritual law. Thus the disciples of Jesus can harvest and eat grain on Sabbath, for this helps to stop their hunger and fulfils the ethical standard of providing help to individuals in need[footnoteRef:133]. The same principle can be applied to the issue of whether an individual can heal those afflicted with diseases on Sabbath. It is in observance of Mosaic Laws and indeed morally important to attend even on Sabbath to the needs of the afflicted[footnoteRef:134]. [127: Sim, "The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism"] [128: Matt 5:20] [129: Oliver] [130: Matt. 23:23] [131: Oliver] [132: Sim] [133: Matt. 12:7] [134: Ibid 12:10-12]

During the period of the Second Temple, Judaists had heated discussions on the circumstances under which one could be excused from attending the Sabbath. Some Jews had very strict views on the Sabbath. Some even refused to fight on the seventh day, preferring instead to even forsake their lives consequently. However, other clans decided that they could fight even on Sabbath arguing that their families could perish during battles if they did not take up arms[footnoteRef:135]. Some Jewish scrolls that have survived through hundreds of years have talked about Jews being forbidden from using certain tools on Sabbath even when helping someone who had fallen into a ditch or a river[footnoteRef:136], instead the scrolls suggest that one should use his own garment for the job. Rabbinic works are however more lenient and allow one to suspend observing the Sabbath whenever there is a need to save human life[footnoteRef:137], this exception is known as Piquah nefesh ("saving a soul")[footnoteRef:138]. The boundaries of this exception have however been expanded to include even attending to conditions that are not life-threatening[footnoteRef:139]. [135: 1 Maccabees 1:31-41] [136: Damascus Document 11:15-17] [137: Ibid, 12:10] [138: Yoma 8:6] [139: Oliver]

Pertaining Jewish dietary laws (Kosher Laws), creatures such as pigs are impure under Mosaic Laws. The case is the same in the Gospel of Matthew where he does not permit Jewish followers of Christ to eat lobster, pigs or any other animal forbidden by the Torah (Leviticus 11/Deuteronomy 14). Jews also had ritual purity laws whereby an individual could be rendered temporarily impure. For instance, when an individual comes into contact with a dead body or when a man ejaculates he is rendered impure for a period of time[footnoteRef:140],[footnoteRef:141]. The case is the same for a woman during her menstruation period[footnoteRef:142]. [140: Ibid 15:16] [141: Numbers 19:11] [142: Leviticus 15:19-30]

In Matthew XIV, there is however an issue related to kosher laws. The Pharisees have an issue with Jesus since his disciples did not wash their hands before starting to eat[footnoteRef:143]. Here again, Jesus castigates the Jewish for prioritizing ritual law over moral law. In 15:11 Matthew's Jesus asserts that it is not what goes into the mouth that makes one unholy, rather it is what comes out of the mouth that might make one impure. This should be put into context, Jesus simply interprets the law to mean that unwashed hands cannot defile holy food, instead it is the immoral thoughts that can render one impure. However, Mark[footnoteRef:144] makes an interpolation on the same story in his text stating that, by this Jesus meant all foods are clean instead. Matthew on the other hand, does not make similar interpretations, instead he argues that to eat with unwashed hands does not render one impure[footnoteRef:145]. [143: Matt. 15:2] [144: 7:19b] [145: Mark 15:20]

The majority of the sentiments held in the book of Matthew are also expressed in the books of Acts and Luke. These two books, assumed to have been penned by the same writer a few years after 70 CE hold the same opinion regarding the Torah. For instance, Luke[footnoteRef:146] says that the heaven and earth will pass away but not a single letter of the law will pass without being fulfilled, a statement that is very similar to the one made in Matthew. Thus, the writer of Luke also holds the opinion that the Kingdom of Heaven did not come to replace the Prophets or the Mosaic Laws[footnoteRef:147]. Furthermore, concerning observance of the Sabbath, Luke shows more interests in the practice than Matthew did[footnoteRef:148]. This is demonstrated in the fact that Luke narrates four controversial stories pertaining the Sabbath in contrast to Matthew's two stories. In all the stories Luke narrates, he does not try to devalue the Sabbath or to castigate those keeping it; instead, Luke attempts to make a case for the interventions made by Jesus on that day to tend to the oppressed, the needy, the sick or those possessed by spirits. Also within the Gospel of Luke, both Jesus and his disciples are depicted in favourable light as Torah keeping Jews. This is shown in Luke 4:16 where it is recorded that on that Sabbath day, Jesus went to the synagogue, as was his custom. Luke 23:56 makes a case for Jesus' disciples in that it states that they rested in Sabbath according the commandment[footnoteRef:149],[footnoteRef:150]. [146: 16:17] [147: Oliver] [148: Luke 6:1-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6] [149: Oliver] [150: Davies]

There are also no verses in the book of Luke that call for one no to keep Kosher laws. Instead, the sentiments raised here regarding dietary laws are related to prioritization. For instance, in a statement similar to that made in Matthew[footnoteRef:151], Pharisees are reprimanded for focusing on ritual law instead of moral law. Thus, nowhere in the gospel of Luke does he call for the abrogation of the Torah. [151: 11:42]

It is however, in the book of Acts[footnoteRef:152] that many readers may start gathering that the author is declaring the end of observance of Mosaic dietary laws. However, this statement does not specifically focus on Jewish Dietary Laws; instead, it speaks about the conversion of a Roman captain to Christianity. To understand the context, one must realise that ancient Jews often regarded gentiles as morally impure because they practiced idolatry and engaged in activities that were immoral under Mosaic Laws. Many Jews feared that extensive interactions with non-Jews could lead them away from keeping the Torah. Consequently, many Jews avoided interacting with gentiles. However, Acts chapter 10 and 11 makes the point that not all non-Jews (gentiles) are impure. Cornelius is one such non-Jew who fears God and cares for the needy (10:2), thus he should be treated differently. Apostle Peter leads this through a vision in which he witnesses all kind of four-footed animals, reptiles and birds being lowered from the sky on a sheet [footnoteRef:153]. A voice from heaven orders him to slaughter and eat the creatures on the sheet but Peter unwaveringly refuses arguing that he has never partaken of anything that is impure[footnoteRef:154]. The voice then responds that what God has made clean, Peter should not call impure[footnoteRef:155]. [152: chs. 10-11] [153: Acts 10:11-12] [154: Ibid 10:14] [155: Ibid 10:15]

Majority take this statement literally to state what they trust to be the clear application of the vision, that is to say, that every animal is now kosher and allowed for consumption. Nonetheless, the vision's moral is not quite simple and clear to Peter, its direct recipient, that stays "greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision"[footnoteRef:156]. In any case, a vision is a vision, with all of its symbolic pointers, which invite allegorical association. A Jewish from the time, who could be knowledgeable of prophetic and apocalyptic texts which entailed visions, would search for a use which looked beyond the literal horizon. An application of the vision truly does show later on in the same periscope. During Peter's visit to Cornelius, he realizes that God has sanctified and purified particular Gentiles, the ones that have abandoned their wickedness and become a part of the Jesus movement[footnoteRef:157]. The vision is concerned with "men, not the menu." Peter, being a Torah abiding Jew, should not be reluctant of consuming or even living with those Gentiles that fear the Israelite God and are morally purified. Peter resides at the house of Cornelius for a number of days[footnoteRef:158]; however, nothing is mentioned regarding him consuming bacon with cheese for breakfast. [156: Ibid 10:17] [157: Ibid 10:28, 35] [158: Ibid 10:48]

One of the reasons why the outlook on Torah adherence in Luke-Acts and, to a lesser degree, Matthew has been misinterpreted, results from the failure of acknowledging the ethnic differences pertaining to this question. It is obvious in Luke-Acts that Gentile Christians are not required to abide by the Torah in its totality. This point is made clear by Acts through the declaration that male Gentile followers of Jesus do not have to undergo circumcision but have to "abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood"[footnoteRef:159]. It is, presumed, nonetheless, that Jews still engage in Torah practice in its entirety. No Jewish individual in Acts accepts more the upholding of Torah observance than Paul. Paul loyally attends the synagogue on the Sabbath[footnoteRef:160], observes Jewish festivals like Yom Kippur and Pentecost[footnoteRef:161], goes to the temple located in Jerusalem and participates in its rituals, confirms his loyalty to the Jewish customs and the Torah, and even circumcises Timothy[footnoteRef:162]! [159: Acts 15:20] [160: Ibid 13:14-15; 14:1] [161: Ibid 20:16] [162: Oliver]

This kind of ethnic differentiation, in as much as Torah requirements are concerned, was very common in early Judaism. Numerous Second Temple Jews did not anticipate the day when Gentiles would convert in masses to Judaism through accepting the totality of the Jewish Law. The rabbis would afterwards continue this course, establishing the notion referred to as the Noahide Laws[footnoteRef:163]. According to this rabbinic teaching, Gentiles do not have to abide by the 613 commandments of the Torah; instead only observe seven general, ethical laws. This, however, does not imply that in the eyes of Luke, Jews are superior when compared to Gentiles. "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him"[footnoteRef:164]. For Gentiles, salvation could be attained without abiding by the teachings of the Torah that solely relate to the Jewish individuals. With reference to the Lukan ideal, the body of believers of Jesus comprises of two divisions. None of them needs to abandon its distinct identity and assimilate into the other one. Gentile Christians abide by only specific parts of the Torah; Jewish Christians abide by all the others. The phrase "bilateral ecclesiology" has been coined by Mark Kinzer[footnoteRef:165] to talk of this difference depicted clearly in Luke-Acts. [163: Heschel et al.] [164: Acts 10:34-35] [165: Kinzer, "Postmissionary Messianic Judaism"]

On the contrary, it is possible that Matthew did not accept this type of ethnic differentiation and even expected Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision. Sim has actively argued this case[footnoteRef:166]. A lot hinges on the manner through which one understands the final commission in Matthew[footnoteRef:167] present only in Matthew: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." Does the instruction to obey all that was taught by Jesus entail circumcision? If that is the case, why doesn't the commission clearly instruct the disciples of Jesus to have the new followers circumcised? Why is baptism clearly stated in the commission as a rite of integration into the circle of the followers of Jesus? Sim[footnoteRef:168] argues that baptism, instead of circumcision, is stated here since it acts as a common denominator for the incorporation of both the Gentiles and Jews into the Jesus movement. Jews that become a part of the Jesus movement shall have been circumcised already; they shall just require to be baptized so as to become complete members of the Jesus movement. The male Gentiles would have to carry out both rites. The passage's silence leaves the question open to different interpretations[footnoteRef:169]. [166: Sim, "The Gospel of Matthew"] [167: 28:19-20] [168: Sim, "The Gospel of Matthew"] [169: Oliver]

Others may wonder on the purpose of the Torah, if, in accordance to Matthew and Luke-Acts, salvation is made possible for both Gentiles and Jews via the death and resurrection of Jesus. Firstly, we should observe that Luke does emphasize the expiatory function of the death of Jesus on the cross. The declaration of the Christ-event offers an opportunity for everyone to confess and receive the forgiveness of sins[footnoteRef:170],[footnoteRef:171]. A clean slate is provided, in other words, to the Jewish individuals, as a whole, who have failed in their corporate calling[footnoteRef:172], together with the Gentiles who till the arrival of Jesus, have been living in ignorant times[footnoteRef:173]. This does not imply that the absolute involvement with Torah entirely loses its meaning. There are religious people that live up to the needs of the Jewish Law, and Luke acknowledges at a personal level, the righteousness of such individuals[footnoteRef:174],[footnoteRef:175]. We, however, need to be careful not to reduce the Torah to soteriological functions. Torah offers other services too. It could provide a distinct calling and vocation to those that study and abide by its words. Via adherence to Torah, values and teachings could be passed on to believers as well as following generations of followers. Consequently, numerous followers of Jesus might have carried on in believing in the significance of studying and abiding by its rituals that they could have interpreted christologically in light of the death, resurrection, and future coming of Jesus. When Paul reinterprets the Jewish festival in 1st Corinthians 5:8, he appears to be living along these lines ("let us celebrate the festival. . .")[footnoteRef:176]. [170: Luke 24:46-47] [171: Acts 13:38] [172: Ibid 13:39; 15:10] [173: Ibid 17:30] [174: Luke 2:25] [175: Acts 5:34; 22:12] [176: Oliver]

Matthew has often been referred to as the "most Jewish" gospel in the New Testament, whereas Luke-Acts is frequently seen as a Gentile Christian text, less Jewish. This actually is a false dichotomy, specifically when the question of Torah adherence in Matthew and Luke-Acts is assessed in concrete terms in its original Jewish matrix. Both texts concur that Jews need to continue abiding by the Torah even after accepting Jesus as their Messiah. Acts argues that Gentiles should not practice circumcision, that the Sabbath and majority of the dietary laws are not obligatory for the Gentiles but obligatory for Jews. Maybe, Matthew concurs with Acts on this point[footnoteRef:177]. Anyway, Matthew and Acts-Luke remind us that Jewish followers of Jesus occupied important positions in the early Christian history, even after the Temple's demolition in 70 CE, when Gentile Christians were slowly turning into the governing voice and force within formative Christianity[footnoteRef:178]. [177: Sim] [178: Oliver]

2.2. Place of Torah in Christianity

The desertion of the Torah in the modern declaration of the Church did not just occur by chance. It is, instead, the outcome of particular academic thoughts imposed on the Bible in the last years of the 19th century that are devastating yet still quite much alive amidst clergymen and laymen currently. Since the time of Marcion, there have been attempts in the church to eliminate the Old Testament part of the canon, but the contemporary desertion of the Book of the Old Covenant sprouts greatly out of the developmental, past philosophy of the history of Israel that was ultimately decisively created in Israelilische und Jiidische Geschichle (1894) by Julius Wellhausen[footnoteRef:179]. [179: Achtemeier]

According to Wellhausen's philosophical treatise, the Old Testament's history was seen as a natural advancement of human thoughts and institutions, taking place by its own internal dynamic and parallel natural advancement and progression in the biological world. With reference to Wellhausen, the sacred life of Israel went on by phases, emerging from an early natural, spontaneous time of monolatry, via the stern monotheism of prophets, to the legalistic and cultic religion of post-exilic Judaism. This implied that, as the ideas of Wellhausen were explained by academics and laity, the Bible's history came to be seen as a gradual development rising toward the eventual achievement of the greatest sacred ideals in Jesus' teachings[footnoteRef:180]. [180: Heschel]

Revelation was associated with views regarding God, and the greatest views, signifying the Master's teachings surpassed and made insignificant all that had passed before them. The Old Testament turned into an outdated text, archaic in its earliest history, dampened by a firm legalism in its last stages, showing just in occasional teachings of the prophets and psalmists sacred ideals consonant with the morals of Jesus. It surely had no authoritative value for the church. The Old Testament was for most part an object of research for the antiquarian. For the man in the pew and the preacher at the pulpit, it could be safely overlooked[footnoteRef:181]. [181: Achtemeier]

Any individual conversant with the contemporary biblical scholarship realizes that the philosophy of the past, developmental school has been comprehensively crushed against with the support of all branches of biblical science. The developmental perspective of biblical history has been deserted, the primary formative time of the Judaic-Christina faith has been put in Mosaic times, revelation is now understood in creative and active terms, and stress on the moral ideals of the Bible has paved way to the recognition of its totally kergumatic character. What has not been offered by contemporary scholarship is an interpretive approach to the Bible to substitute the Wellhausian agreement. For more than half a century, almost everybody in church concurred that the Old Testament could be deserted. Wise churchmen now recognize that such desertion is catastrophic to the Gospel's declaration; however, there is no general consensus amidst biblical interpreter to justify this. The outcome is that ordinary folk and clergyman alike continue hanging to their developmental opinions, uneasily denying to desert old secure positions for a maze of contradictory new ones[footnoteRef:182]. [182: Ibid]

Current efforts to substantiate the power of the Old Testament for the church have been just as many as they differ, and this article makes no effort to evaluate all of them. Instead, we shall focus on various efforts that have influence on Christian preaching, given that it is in the contemporary pulpit that the power of the Old Testament is most clearly missing. Lawrence E. Toombs involved with "Drew Theological Seminary" has been one of the major supporters of the significance of the Old Testament for Christian teachings[footnoteRef:183]. In numerous writings[footnoteRef:184],[footnoteRef:185], Toombs has tried to demonstrate how the significance of the Old Testament could be uncovered for our time. Toomb mentions that the two Testaments are actually one, in their interpretation of man's nature as well as his needs and the way through which God makes himself known. In addition, the importance of the sermon is the invite to take part in an existence lived in history under the command and freely provided mercy of God. [183: Toombs, "The Old Testament"] [184: Ibid] [185: Toombs, "The Problematic of Preaching," 302]

According to Toombs, the Old Testament is a text of the approach of God to mankind, and if preaching is an invite to embrace the God who presents himself to men, it can barely be conceived, much less carried out, in the absence of the Old Testament[footnoteRef:186]. Toomb relates our past existence with that of man in the Old Testament on the grounds of a shared humanity. In as much as we of the 20th century have in common with the ancient man in a shared humanity, his assessments of his situation are potentially applicable to our own[footnoteRef:187]. The preacher's role in Toombs' tactic of preaching from the Old Testament is hence to find out what aspect of the human situation an Old Testament text was originally directed. And, hence to enquire what the modern equivalents of such a human condition are, and then reform and change the ancient word of the Old Testament to allow it convey its genuine message to the new forms, whereby that human condition has found expression in the current world[footnoteRef:188]. [186: Ibid, 304] [187: Ibid, 306] [188: Achtemeier]

Toombs appreciates the relativity of man's historical existence in such methodology: the specifics of sacred demand heard at an earlier period cannot simply be stitched into the existence of another individual. It ought to be changed into a demand that sprouts from, and speaks back to his distinct state[footnoteRef:189]. The challenge is that Toombs has not entirely comprehended the Old Testament's historical specificity. The Word in the Old Testament is directed to Israel. It is not just that Israel is alienated from us by culture, language, and time and world outlook- Toombs has provided an allowance for that breach. It is also that she is a special person that knows that God is with her, to not only judge but also liberate her, and it is this exclusivity that is acknowledged by Toombs. Truly, even those Old Testament segments that appear to generally concern mankind, like Genesis[footnoteRef:190] or various writings, are assumptions or responses to Israel's awareness of her election. [189: Toombs, "The Problematic of Preaching," 308] [190: Gen. 1: 11]

It is this particular historical specificity that forms the offense of the Bible, for Old Testament and the new assertion that God came into this world just in relation to particular individuals. Hence, the Scriptures is a Word that is spoken to that persons, and not unless we are in one way or another related to Israel, the word is not for us. According to Paul: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises: to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ"[footnoteRef:191]. [191: Romons 9: 4-5]

The question of the significance of the Old Testament to Christian preaching is the main question of our relation to Israel. It is this historical specificity of the Word of the Old Testament that is known by Rudolph Bultmann. In Bultmann's article "The Significance of the Old Testament for Christian Faith,"[footnoteRef:192] he mentions the historical, relative nature of the existence of Israel and the simple truth that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is bound to the past of those specific individuals[footnoteRef:193]. [192: Anderson, 8] [193: So far as man belongs to this people, he can take comfort in the grace of God. What God has done in this history he has done unto each individual in so far as this individual has an integral place within his people and his people's history. What God has done unto the patriarchs, what he has done unto the people when he summoned Moses, led the people out of Egypt, guided them through the wilderness, and brought them into the Holy Land, he has done even now' unto each person, since this history is not past history but present, ever reactualized in the present generation of the people]

However, for Christians, according to Bultmann, this rigid history of God's encounters with particular individuals has now come to a finish. For a Christian, the Old Testament is no longer a revelation. However, even the rigid demands of the Old Testament are linked to the specific state of Israel, and hence they are archaic[footnoteRef:194]. The only stipulations of the law in the Old Testament that are still applicable for us are those strictly moral stipulations, which result from human associations as such and not out of its rigid historical form[footnoteRef:195]. [194: Anderson, 9] [195: Ibid, 16]

These are presented in a clear and radical manner in the Decalogue; however, they are not particularly Old Testament stipulations as much. They are founded in human relationship itself, and all periods find them basically by intense reflections on this relationship[footnoteRef:196]. It is these particular stipulations, then, with the misinterpretation of our existence as set under God's demand that could be utilized pedagogically to get us ready to hear the proclamation of grace in the Gospel. However, such demands are not simply located in the Old Testament; there might be other sources that offer a similar interpretation of existence[footnoteRef:197]. [196: Ibid, 32] [197: Achtemeier]

Bultmann puts down that if the Old Testament is seen as the God's Word for the church, it could only be so in the sense that it reflects situations into which God's Word is spoken. However, nothing is discovered in it that is not already recognized from the revelation in Jesus[footnoteRef:198]. Bultmann hence battles with the Old Testament's Word historical specificity in a more cognizant manner than Toombs. Its rigid stipulations should be transformed into general ethical stipulations, found also elsewhere, so as act as pedagogical church tools; Or its declaration to be God's Word, should be interpreted apart from Israel and within an eschatological, a past, distinctive framework, as Christ's message to the individual now.[footnoteRef:199] [198: Anderson, 34 ] [199: Achtemeier]

It is unfortunate that the approach violates both the new and Old Testament. To the Old Testament, the law is not a general moral obligation but rather, a direct command from God to serve a specific circumstance and a situation chosen by God. The New Testament on the other hand closely embraces the historical identity in Jesus Christ and the community of the Church through the same Christ. Bultmann makes an effort to cast light on the specifics of history with regard to the Word of the Bible and consequently places his writings beyond the biblical analysis and insights. John Bright[footnoteRef:200] tries to avoid the mistakes that Toombs and Bulmann made in his book The Authority of the Old Testament. He highlights that the Old Testament has close links with the new and thus has a strong implication for the Christians. He says that, since the Old Testament shares with the New Testament the common theology of faith. The theology is about election, the covenant and hope (it incorporates the Lordship of Yahweh and the covenantal demands he places on Israel as a nation) for the Christian in God's plans for the future. Bright does not aim at providing an exhaustive list[footnoteRef:201]. All structures of faith are nothing but an abstraction from the living history. Von Rad shows this explicitly in his book Old Testament Theology[footnoteRef:202]. Bright's language suggests that he has divorced the "structure of faith" from the events that influence the history of Israel and appears to have then taken refuge under a Gnostic revelation understanding. Yet, he bases the structure in biblical history events. Bright realizes that the participation is a common one in an electoral interaction between God and the people of Israel. God makes the Old Testament a useful tool in the fulfilment of the Gospel[footnoteRef:203]. [200: Bright] [201: Achtemeier] [202: Ibid] [203: Ibid]

Bright's opinion seems to change to the opposite direction when he explores hermeneutics and the application of the Old Testament in the pulpit. He notes that there is both a heilsgeschichtliche continuity links both testaments and a discontinuity in the same vein; this is what inspired the Jews to reject Christ. The same reason led to the radical interpretation of the faith of the people of Israel. Bright explains that the discontinuity can be characterized by the glaring fact that the view of the Old Testament is rooted in BC5. In theology terms, BC is not just about the birth of Christ. It describes the living condition in various forms regardless of whether it happens by design or default, or as informed by the Messianic Kingdom of Jesus[footnoteRef:204]. Bright says that this condition affects all men including the Christian; consequently, the BC element. He explains that the Old Testament highlights every man's condition[footnoteRef:205]. This element helps the Old Testament scripture to address the modern Christian precisely. Human nature is unchanging over the ages. Therefore, their reaction to the circumstances and fellow men and God is typical over the time. It is clear, thus that the Old Testament serves as a teaching resource. It captures the nature of man and enables him to see beyond the BC bounds to the fresh perspective that the gospel provides[footnoteRef:206]. Bright, therefore, shares, here, Toombs' view with regard to the concept of common humanity. Bultmann's view is also manifest in this exposition of the Old Testament reflected as a propaedeutic angle to the Gospel. The letter evolves into an eschatological, individualistic and existential perspective of life. Like Toombs and Bultmann, Bright has abandoned the specifics of the history of the biblical Word. That has transpired with Bright's view of the "structure of faith" which Bright earlier postulated as normative to the biblical theology! [204: Anderson, 35] [205: Achtemeier] [206: Bright]

There does not seem to be a mention of the covenant relationship even as the Old Testament focuses on the BC factor with regard to the typical factor of human situation. Hardly does the Old Testament speak and fail to presuppose God's election relationship with the nation of Israel. The Old Testament message aims at those who know that Yahweh has been with the people of Israel. Such experience is divorced from the life of the modern man! Therefore, the old testament with its teachings remains removed from us in practice; irrespective of whether you are a practising Christian or not. It can only begin to have meaning if we get a chance take part in the relationship between Israel and her God. This aspect of Bright's hermeneutical approach is victim to the historical specifics of the good word of God[footnoteRef:207]. Some scholars such as Brevard S. Childs of Yale have noted the critical importance of analysing and explaining the Old Testament in its historical perspective and specifics. This is evident when he advocates for recovering the canonical context in pursuing biblical theology[footnoteRef:208]. The canon is given meaning by the Church and the writings that inspire the life of the church and continuously nourish with inspirational causes from God from generation to generation. According to Child, scripture interpretation should be based on the elected community of faith. From this community, that houses the Cannon, facilitates the listening to each of the testaments with the contexts that have been conditioned by history. One of these testaments is independent or sufficient. They are part of the canon that has given rise to the church and the one that the living God uses to face his people. Therefore, it can be seen here that the testaments are held in an antagonistic dialogue. They both give witness to the existence and cause of Jesus. Unfortunately, Child fails to present an exegetical ground of the canonical view of scripture. There is, therefore, a great chance that this scripture will be misunderstood largely. However, Child has succeeded in capturing the Old Testament in relation to the hermeneutical concerns[footnoteRef:209]. If people can understand the specificity of the Old Testament well, there is a good chance that the memorizing and allegorical references prevalent on today's Christian Pulpit will stop. The Old Testament is commonly misused today in the sermons of the church. In the sermon by the title: Moral Choice in Bountiful Land as published in the pulpit by Dwight E Stevenson[footnoteRef:210], Josh 24: 15-16 is quoted " choose whom you will serve today, but as for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord." it is easy to compare the Israelites arrive in the Promised Land, with the Americans fighting on the frontline. Will the comforts of urbanization conquer our hearts just as the Israelites were overwhelmed and obsessed with the fertility of the land they were promised![footnoteRef:211] The compelling element of the Old Testament as directed to YAHWEH's people as they participate in the realization of the divine promise to the patriarchs and Israel can be viewed from a general perspective to apply to the new people that are confronted with the challenges of civilization. The context and specific situation of the Israelites is overlooked, and even Jesus 24's credo with the memorization of the electing acts of God to the people of Israel ignored. Stevenson has parted from the fundamentals of his own text and setting from the onset of the sermon.[footnoteRef:212]. Similar errors are spotted in The Interpreter's Bible. For instance, when commenting on Num2:1-34 with the description of Tent of Meeting at the centre of the Israelite camp, Albert George Butzer points out on a moral note" it is not one of our deepest needs to put the church back again at the centre of the community's life?"[footnoteRef:213]. This insinuates that the church could be paralleled with the old Tent of Meting and the elect Israeli tribes with an American community. In another instance, Walter Russell Bowie (the late) Allegorizes that Joseph being thrown into a pit by his own brothers is a terrible physical occurrence. Yet, spiritually and morally, in the daily and practical lives of man, it would seem that their hearts are in a pit. This is a typical contextual abandonment of the contextual realities of the Old Testament. This is a common practice in American Churches[footnoteRef:214]. [207: Ibid] [208: Childs, 97] [209: Childs, 97] [210: Stevenson, 19-21] [211: Ibid, 21] [212: Achtemeier] [213: Butzer, 149] [214: Gen. 37: 24]

It should be noted that the historical context of the Old Testament should be preserved in all interpretations and further observed and followed that the Old Testament context interpretation must be based on the election relationship of Israel along with her God. We risk losing the proper interpretation of the context of the Old Testament if we abandon the specific election relationship mentioned above and assume that it was directed at mankind in general. The Old Testament relevance in preaching to Christians is basically the relationship of Christians with the Old Testament people of God[footnoteRef:215]. [215: Achtemeier, 11]

2.3 The theological and Exegetical foundation for the Christian use of the Torah

The issue about the relationship of Christians to Biblical Israel can be resolved by understanding of our relationship as Christians to God's Old Testament people[footnoteRef:216]. This view is offered soundly by both testaments. Jesus is approached at first through the New Testament. However, a closer analysis reveals that New Testament writers understand the New Testament in terms of the old one. It is not possible to show the full extent of the exegetical evidence that backs the statement. The general view can be shown though[footnoteRef:217] [216: Ibid, 11] [217: Ibid, 11]

The first line of first gospel expounds that Christ is the son of both Abraham and David. Indeed, the New Testament is understood to be the fulfilment of the promise that God gave to both David and Abraham. The fulfilment of the promise that comes later is evidence that brings the promise of the arrival of a king with the attributes of David or Messiah. The messianic images such as the ones in 9: 2-7 and 11: 1-9 or Zech 9: 9-11 have been a common allusion in the pulpits in America and around the world. The Old Testament Royal Psalms has largely remained oblique and unused[footnoteRef:218]. It presents the awaited descendant of David as the adopted Son of God and is the guarantor of the relation of Israel with Yahweh and the symbol of the lives of the people; the provider of righteous means and a Shalom, Yahweh's mandatory as he sits on his right arm and shares God's power and rule over the world[footnoteRef:219] [218: Ps. 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 89, 101, 110, 132] [219: Childs, 102]

The New Testament uses many of the concepts presented in the old testament in its clarification of the second coming of Christ and who He really is. There is a clear tinge of a link between the explanations and presentations of the New testament in portraying Jesus as the Davidinic Messiah and ties His life with that of the nation of Israel. The expectation of the Messsiah as expressed in 2 Sam 7, in the royal Psalms and in the book of Kings and the history of the chronicles lies the basis of the relation of Yahweh with Israel. The said king is the representative of Israel to God. It is through him that Yahweh is seen in theology as getting into relationship with the nation of Israel. The righteousness of this awaited Messiah guarantees that such a relationship brings Shalom and blessings[footnoteRef:220]. [220: Jeremiah 23: 5-6]

The Hexateuchal culture is based on God's promises to Abraham and differs significantly from Royal Theological viewpoints. The New Testament, nevertheless, still views Jesus in terms of the promises of the Fathers of Old. In the tradition as explained in Genesis, God will make a new people through Abraham and his descendants and that they will live following his righteous command. It further explains that the people will not suffer the interruptive tendencies of community life that are portrayed as products of man's sinful nature in Gen 2-11. The people will be given a "land that flows with milk and honey" 'in replacement of what man had lost; the good garden and, according to the traditions, man will take part in an eternal covenant with Yahweh in which; once again, they will be Gods People as He will be their God[footnoteRef:221]. [221: Achtemeier, 12]

Israel will then be a blessing to the world. It will be the community through which all peoples of the world who are currently under God's curse will find blessing once more. The promise is partially fulfilled in the descendant's gifts, nationhood and the land covenant with Israel. This is evident in the Old Testament account. The historians in Deutronomy reaffirm the fulfilment of the promise in its totality[footnoteRef:222] . However, the pre-exilic prophecies unveil that such fulfilment has been reversed by the rebellion of the people of Israel. Since the covenant has been broken, the land is bound to be lost in exile. Israel will become insignificant and her propagation power has been withdrawn by God, according to Hosea, the hope for a new covenant, people and a new land becomes central to the role of Israel as the hope of the world and the prophets' eschatological hope[footnoteRef:223],[footnoteRef:224],[footnoteRef:225]. [222: Jesus 21: 43-45] [223: Butzer, 149] [224: Is 19: 24] [225: Zech8: 13]

There is hope for a new Israelite congregation, a new covenant that is an aspect of the eschatological aspiration in the prophets as is the role of Israel as the source of blessing in the earth's midst[footnoteRef:226] . It manifests in Isaiah's hope that stands as the mainstay of the new Zion and the facilitator of peace and revelation to the universe[footnoteRef:227]. It is, thus, expected that Israel will be the avenue that will help all nations come to God[footnoteRef:228],[footnoteRef:229],[footnoteRef:230]. [226: Jer 4: 2] [227: Jer 4: 2] [228: Is 28: 16; 2: 2-4] [229: Zech 8: 20-23] [230: Pss. 47; 87]

This hope is expected to evolve into its radical state in Deutero-Isaiah, and is apparently clear despite the long-standing dispute over the identity of the suffering servant. We think that the servant is meant to be transformed by God's spirit, and his work is to be in consonance with the picture presented by Isaiah and to whose school of tradition Deutero-Isaiah belonged.

Again, we see that Israel is seen as the facilitator of hope; the centre that exudes Yahweh's lorah and Mishpal to the world populace[footnoteRef:231]. A transformation has made the theology quite incarnational, and the suffering and the covenant along with the atonement of death for the sins of the people intertwined in the person of the servant[footnoteRef:232]. Royal theology, as a steadfast unwavering passion for David is taken as the supplemental guarantee of the favour of Yahweh towards his people[footnoteRef:233]. It is evident that the profound emphasis of Royal and Hexateuchal theologies are summarised in the image of the suffering servant as shown in Deutro-Isiah. An emphasis is laid on the covenant of the good, the exodus and the new people being a blessing in the middle of the earth. The servant's figure in the Hexateuchal arrangement borrows significantly from Isaiahnic perception of the Messiah as the bearer of the spirit and the one who brings righteousness and the emphasis by Isaiah on Zion as the epicentre of revelation incarnated in the fresh congregation of faith[footnoteRef:234]. It is hard to separate the Hexateuchal and Royal theologies because of the manner in which they are combined. The Chronicler and the Deuteronomic historians blended the Hexateuchal and the Royal before and after Deutero-Isaiah and to an extent, the Davidic King subject to the Mosaic Law and the former by configuring David after Moses' figure. The traditions are evidence to the efforts (postexilic) to combine the varying theological complexes of Israel in a holistic structure. The benefits of the efforts in the Old Testament are eschatological forecasts into the future, i.e. the future hope of Israel before God[footnoteRef:235]. The New Testament provides fulfilment of Israel's hope and the unity that the theologies of the Old Testament find firm historical realization in the person of Jesus from Nazareth. He is the bearer of the promise to David and, of course, the awaited Messiah. He is also the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham in the concrete substance of the promise. He is the blessing in the midst of the world[footnoteRef:236],[footnoteRef:237], as indeed, Israel was meant to become. He is the beginning of the new people of God. He is associated with the Promised Land too; Israel's place of rest[footnoteRef:238]. [231: Zeph 3: 9] [232: Is 42: 6; 49: 6; 52: 13-53: 12] [233: Is 55: 3-5] [234: Is 40: 9; 51: 16; 52:8-9] [235: Achtemeier, 14] [236: Acts 3: 25] [237: Gal 3: 8] [238: Heb 3: 12-4: 13]

All has turned incarnational, though, after the way of Isaiahic prophesies. The prophetic uttering and the promises are draped in blood and flesh. Therefore, Christ is an incarnate covenant[footnoteRef:239] and serves as the hope of nations and the atoning sacrificial symbol. Jesus' body becomes identical with Zion and its temple as its revealing point[footnoteRef:240],[footnoteRef:241]. He is the cornerstone of Isaiah the budding seed of the fresh and faithful Israel. Those who trust in him are enjoined in his being. He is also the new Moses in the initial Gospel and in John's gospel and the book of Acts. Just like Moses, he is the awaited prophet[footnoteRef:242]. The New Testament puts all resources to use to demonstrate that Christ fulfils the role of the Old Testament Israel as understood in individual and corporate terms. the Old Testament realizes unity and accomplishment of its historical foundations that Israel had hoped for through Jesus. Jesus is, ideally the realization of the history of Israel. He reassures her that the hope they held was not in vain and that God's Word came to pass. Indeed, the Old Testament cements the significance of Jesus. [239: Gal 4: 21] [240: Mt 26: 61; 27:40] [241: Jn 2: 19;4: 21] [242: Acts 3: 22-23; 7: 37]

In the same breath, Israel is the end of the history of the Old Testament; he is God's chosen son and effectively replaces the Israel of the Old Testament. The unfaithful son in the old testament[footnoteRef:243],[footnoteRef:244],[footnoteRef:245] paves way for the faithful one of the new one. All the hope that Israel holds can be understood through Jesus Christ. Jesus is thus understood to be the realization of the fulfilment of the prophetic judgement words and salvation. His death marks the end of a judgement that was never fully attained in Israel's exile. His resurrection of the new mankind with Israel attains a consummation that remains unrecognized, yet one that the Jews still hope for. The New Testament serves as a summary and fulfilment (completion of the Old Testament). It is also viewed as a transformation and it is a fact that a Christian can only read and understand the Old Testament in view of the new one and vice versa[footnoteRef:246]. The Old Testament remains largely strange to the Christian today if there is no effort to dig in and figure out what the new Israel means. Of course, the new Israel refers to Jesus Christ; it is through him that God's new people find anchor and the foundation for life. If Jesus is removed from the argument, then there is no new people and no realization of the Word to the nation of Israel. The proclamation of the New Testament facilitates us to become part of God's chosen flock and take part in his life through faith in Jesus and the saving act of God. We enter a covenant relationship with God through Jesus. The earlier alienation, caused by our own sin, ends. Therefore, we stand as the redeemed people of God. We become the Kingdom of priests that belongs to God and, indeed his holy nation and chosen for the instruments of the purpose of God in the universe. This is evident in 1 Pet 2:9-10 and Eph 2: 11-22[footnoteRef:247]. The words that were directed to the old testament Israel when she was near the covenant as explored in Ex 19: 6 are in 1 Pet 2: 9 directed to the people that were in Christ and the promise of a new nation is realized by Christ's people as elucidated in 1 Pet 2: 10, and Hosea[footnoteRef:248],[footnoteRef:249] [243: Ex 4: 22-23] [244: Is 1: 2] [245: Hos 11: 1-9] [246: Achtemeier, 17] [247: Kinzer] [248: Hos 2: 16-23] [249: Rom 9: 22]

Those of us who were considered outsiders with regard to the group that constituted the people of God have become, in Paul's words, part of his people[footnoteRef:250]. According to Mother's Gospel, Jesus followers are presented with a new set of laws, provided from a new place of covenants by the new Moses[footnoteRef:251]. Following the rejection of Jesus by the scribes, Christ calls the 12 disciples to the mountains to represent the 12 tribes of Israel (In Mark 3: 13-19). In John's gospel, Jesus is the Manna presented to everyone who believes in his existence just as it was provided to Israel while in the wilderness[footnoteRef:252].We also become God's new people just as those who are 'members of his body"; in Pauls words. We are the new Israel in Christ that is embedded into the fabric of God's Kingdom as bona fide members of his fresh covenant. The new Israel that follows Christ is a profound historical reality as shown in the life of the Christian church. This is quite contrary to Bultmann's view[footnoteRef:253]. The whole set of culture and ethnic tradition of the Old Testament Israel has been abandoned. The new Israel that follows Christ is the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham and the fellowship of mankind's division portrayed in Gen 2-11. There is, now a single fellowship as represented in God's sovereignty[footnoteRef:254]. Since we are part of God's chosen congregation as postulated in the old testament, we see it (the old testament) as directed to us as the authoritative word in our lives. The Old Testament is directed at Yahweh's covenant people and holds authority exclusively for them. Our faith in Jesus Christ makes us part of that group. The Old Testament is now our story too. The history of the people of Israel in now our history too and finally their God is our God. There is no authority in the Old testament except within the same covenant and the foundation that has made us part of His people[footnoteRef:255]. Therefore, there is no chance of understanding the Old Testament as God's word for the B.C. man and no chance of viewing it as divine law only, and indeed, no chance of linking the word of the Old Testament with God's instruction to man under His wrath. The Old Testament has effectively become the word for Christians today in the context of AD grace and in the context of the new covenant with Christ[footnoteRef:256]. [250: Ibid 11: 17] [251: Mt 5-7] [252: Jn 6] [253: Anderson, 11] [254: Achtemeier, 18] [255: Carter] [256: Achtemeier, 19]

2.4 Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

It is clear in the Bible that Jesus introduces a radical discontinuity of the order of the world and how believers relate to the Law of Moses. Three frameworks of ethics that cause a misunderstanding of the discontinuity have affected evangelical studies. Divine command Voluntarism postulates that we do not live under the reign of the Old Testament Law of Moses since God's commands are directed at specific audiences and can never be universal- relative to the order.

Theological Historians postulate that the moral order presented in the Mosaic Law has been overtaken and replaced by a new order. In the same breath, situationalism misunderstands the state of not being under the law explaining that it is a shift from ethics on the basis of concrete commands in writing and directed to a private order of the spirit with content that has not been defined[footnoteRef:257]. [257: Loader, "Jesus' Attitude towards the Law]

Chapter 3: Methodology

This study constrained itself to the meaning of the words under analysis. If for instance, Yeshua said that he did not come to abolish the Law of Moses[footnoteRef:258], then we need to understand it as such. There is, of course wonderment on whether it is the Law of Moses of the Old Testament (the Torah) and its Moral aspect only or another element. The broader perception that Jesus had no intention of abolishing the law makes it hard to figure out what has affected the law. Yet the continuous validity of the law is used as a valid parameter[footnoteRef:259]. [258: Mt. 5:17] [259: Loader]

The conceptual foundations of this study relates to ideal Christianity and how it relates to the Torah. The approach, once it has been developed will inevitably make some assumptions with regard to the concurrent present and future elements of the reign of God over the earth. Such assumptions thus form the basis for the interpretation of the new testament- the basis for Christian belief and practice[footnoteRef:260]. This study is exegetical, and a well-done exegesis does not just determine the meanings of words in abstraction and proceeding to combine the words in an effort to decipher meaning of the periscope under examination. There is always a need to start with the cultural and historical contexts of a given periscope to place it in its appropriate socio-cultural setting. The analysis involves studying the Torah; the aspects related to Christianity in particular. Another way to do an exegesis is to place the periscope in a broad setting in the New Testament. We analyse passages from the New Testament and focus on specific ones such as Galatians Chapter 1 to 5; it deals with the Mosaic Law. The periscope must also be analysed from the context of the practice of the gospel and Christianity in its entirety. The objectives and theology of Christian practice will help us to understand the periscope being analysed. We need to examine the context just before and after Christianity takes shape, i.e., the Sermon on the Mountain[footnoteRef:261]. [260: Dorsey, 321] [261: Viljoen, 135]

If we are to do a thorough analysis of the text- the New Testament with reference to the book of Galatians, it is critical that we understand the broader context of the specific passage under study. The book of Galatians is important here because it was a letter written by Paul to the Gentile community. They were not Jews and were under no obligation to obey or serve the Torah. Christianity constitutes non-Jews. Therefore, Galatians is appropriate to demonstrate instructions directed at Christians in as far as the Torah is concerned and conserved. The broader contexts constitute the application of the Torah in Christianity along with the associated history that leads to the passage under study. The study thus starts with an overview of the Torah and the segments that are relevant to the Christian faith. Once this background is in place, it is possible to conduct an in-depth analysis of the New Testament and the relationship with the Torah can be pointed out[footnoteRef:262]. [262: Isaac, "Do Christians Have to Keep the TorahTorah?"]

Chapter 4: Research Findings

4.1 The Christian approach to the Torah

Evangelical scholars, for the most part, interpret the Law of Moses by pointing out the difference between civil, moral and ceremonial law. Moral laws are described as the ones that tackle eternal truths with regard to the intention of God for ethical behaviour among humans. One good example of a moral law is "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" On the other hand, civil laws deal with the legal system in Israel. They include land issues, criminal justice and economics. Deuteronomy 15:1 states that after every 7 years everyone needed to cancel their debts. Ceremonial laws on the other hand deal with festivals, sacrifices and the activities associated with priests. Deuteronomy 16:13 provides an example Israelites were instructed to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles for seven days following the gathering of the produce of the threshing floor and their winepress[footnoteRef:263]. [263: Viljoen, 137]

Separating the moral, ceremonial and civil laws are essential because the identification enables the believer figure out whether a specific law is applicable in their situation or not. Moral laws are universal and everlasting- according to this interpretation. Therefore, they are relevant and valid to the Christian practice today. The civil and ceremonial laws could only apply to ancient Israel. They do not and cannot be applied to the Christian today. Nevertheless, this traditional method manifests a number of weaknesses. Therefore, it cannot be seen to represent strong hermeneutical approach[footnoteRef:264]. It does not pass he acid test owing to the reasons discusses in the following sections. [264: Hays, 22]

4.1.1 The Distinctions Are Arbitrary

The distinctions discussed above are largely arbitrary and are imposed from outside the text. In fact, the Old Testament does not mention these distinctions anywhere. For instance, "love your neighbour as you love yourself"[footnoteRef:265] is quickly followed in the next line with the law that warns against wearing clothing that is made of two different types of material (19:19)[footnoteRef:266]. Should we consider verse 18 as binding and dismiss verse 19 as not applicable? There is no indication that there is a hermeneutical change between the verses mentioned. What is the basis for deciding that a verse is timeless and universal and another in the same text, in fact in the next line, is irrelevant is non-applicable or irrelevant to a given context? Most of the so-called moral, civil and ceremonial laws are mentioned in the same breath without a signal of a distinction between them in terms of application differences or contextual relevance. Moreover, it is not always easy to determine which law is ceremonial, civil or moral since the Mosaic law defined highlights the covenant relationship with God and the nation of Israel and this was naturally theological substance. In fact, all the laws contained theological elements. How can a law be theological but fail to be a moral one? In Leviticus 19:19, there is a command: " do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." [265: Lev. 19:18] [266: Ibid, 24]

The holiness of God is a major theme that dominates the text in Leviticus. Leviticus 19 comes after the proclamation of the commandment: "Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy."

The lesson inferred here is that holy things must be separated from profane things. Although the significance of the commands on mixing clothing material and mixing seed is hard to fully comprehend or decipher, it is evident that they are linked to God's holiness. The overarching principle of the holiness of God and the required separation owing to the holiness are closely related with Levitical laws. Is it possible that such a law is not moral?[footnoteRef:267] [267: Hays, 24]

The most evident examples of the supposed moral principles -- God's Ten Commandments to Moses -- pose problems for civil, ceremonial, and moral distinctions. For instance, under what category do Sabbath laws (which were a clear component of the Jewish system for worship) fall -- ceremonial or moral? If the condition is content, then they fall into the former category. A bigger question is: what is the condition for distinction, if not content? If location, in the context of the Commandments, is the decisively indicative test for moral laws, a straightforward system exists, having just two categories, namely, the ageless, universal Ten Commandments that are applicable as moral tenets in Christianity, and all of the remaining Law that does not apply in the present day. This is, indeed, similarly unacceptable, as it does not afford believers the right to love one's neighbors as oneself,[footnoteRef:268] as stipulated by Jesus (under the 2nd most important commandment). Separating Leviticus 19:18 from surrounding verses and identifying it as a tenet under the moral category necessitates that content assume a central role within the distinction. Sabbath laws should be categorized as ceremonial if the condition is content[footnoteRef:269]. [268: Leviticus 19:18] [269: Dorsey, 229]

Moreover, while numerous Christians assert that Sabbath law represents a moral rule, virtually no Christian abides by it. One cannot really consider visiting church on the first week-day, i.e., Sunday, as adherence to the law. Certainly, Moses would not accept substituting Sunday for Saturday. Additionally, following the Sabbath rule encompassed a lot more than simply attending church. Numbers states that an individual was executed as he gathered wood on Sabbath day[footnoteRef:270]. Hence, the distinctions among moral, civil, and ceremonial laws seem arbitrary rather than textually-based. Must the followers of Christianity apply such arbitrary distinctions for deciding on a crucial applicational matter? [270: Num. 15:32-36]

4.1.2 The Legal Material Is Embedded in Narrative Texts and Must Be Interpreted Accordingly

The legal content in the Old Testament does not appear separately. Rather, the Law of Moses is deeply entrenched in the theological history of Israel. It forms a key component of the narrative running between Genesis 12 and 2 Kings 25. One can perceive the law as being presented under the theological story describing the way the Lord delivered the children of Israel from the Egyptians and finally established them as His people within His Promised Land, rather than being presented distinctly (by itself), in the form of some kind of enduring, yet disconnected, universal behavioral code. For instance, the central legal matter within Exodus appears from chapters 20 to 23. The aforementioned Ten Commandments also appear in this section. But, one needs to note its narrative context. Chapters 1 through 19 relate the tale of the bondage of the children of Israel[footnoteRef:271] by the Egyptians and their release by God's mighty works. This part outlines Moses' call and his tough encounters with the tyrannical Pharaoh. It recounts the tale of the ten terrible Egyptian plagues, which culminated in the Egyptian firstborn's demise. Subsequently, Moses led the children of Israel away from Egypt, through the Red Sea. The story explains the Israelites' journey through the desert until, in the 3rd month following the Exodus, they reached Mount Sinai, in which they were called by God into a covenant relationship[footnoteRef:272]. Exodus 20 presents the Ten Commandments; the rules appearing from Exodus 21 to 23 form part of their tale. [271: Hays, 25] [272: Exod. 19]

Furthermore, Leviticus covers the story of Moses' famous encounter with His Lord upon Mount Sinai[footnoteRef:273]. Law within this Biblical book is presented through the dialogue of Moses with God. Such usage of dialogue represents a typical feature of narratives. Leviticus starts with the summoning of Moses by His Lord, who then addressed him from a "Tent of Meeting." All through the Leviticus, one can repeatedly see the expression "The Lord said to Moses" appearing. Further, Leviticus covers several time sequence expressions, indicating storyline movement of time, which is another feature of narratives[footnoteRef:274]. [273: Lev. 26:46; 27:34] [274: Hays, 27]

Numbers begins with the 2nd year following the Exodus[footnoteRef:275]; it outlines the expeditions and wanderings of the children of Israel in the following forty years (33:38). A dominant topic in Numbers is the Israelite's rejection of God's promise, recorded in chapter 13-14. Their disobedience is what led them to wander for several years. At several instances in the course of the story, the children of Israel were presented with further laws by the Lord. Just like in the 2nd and 3rd books of the Hebrew Bible, Numbers' laws are connected strongly to the narrative matter. Deuteronomy's narrative setting is the 11th month, forty years after the Israelites' Exodus from Egypt (Deut. 1:3), and just prior to entering Canaan. The location is specified as east of River Jordan (1:1, 5). The children of Israel had wandered four decades as punishment for their refusal to go into the land at God's command[footnoteRef:276]. In the meantime, the next generation of Israelites grew up, and the merciful Lord re-offered them the covenant made by Him with the prior generation, four decades earlier. A major portion of the book comprises of a collection of Moses' speeches, delivered to his people on behalf of the Lord. They are related to the tale as they indicate the very same place, time, and key characters featured in the narrative. Moreover, the book's ending covers a few non-legal, narrative components: Jesus's appointment as the leader (31:1-8), Moses' song (32:1-47), Moses blessing upon the tribes of Israelites (33:1-29), and his death (34:1-12). The Deuteronomy's events flow uninterrupted into the 6th book -- the Book of Yehoshua[footnoteRef:277]. [275: Num. 1:1] [276: Hays, 26] [277: Ibid, 26]

Hence, the Law clearly comes under the Pentateuchal story and is deeply entrenched into the tale of the Israelites' Exodus from Egypt, wandering, as well as conquering an interpretive outlook of the Law must consider this. Linking text with its context represents a fundamental principle of correct interpretation. The Law forms part of the tale, and hence, the tale presents a crucial context for the Law's interpretation. One must interpret laws of the Old Testament in the same way as one interprets Old Testament stories, as the former is contextually included within the latter[footnoteRef:278]. [278: Sasson, "A History of the Jewish People"]

Does this weaken the text's authority and force? Must the followers of Christianity go under this Law prior to feeling called to abide by the Scriptures? Aren't the Law and the Scripture's narrative equally authoritative? According greater power to the Law of Moses over Christianity's morals than other Old Testament sections implies creating canon within canon. Similarly, stating that legal and narrative content need to be construed in a similar fashion certainly does not contribute to diminishing the Scripture's divine imperative. Disciples who plucked grain on Saturdays were accused by Pharisees of breaking Sabbath Laws[footnoteRef:279], as reaping was forbidden on Sabbath, according to Exodus 34:21. But Christ explained this seeming violation of Sabbath laws through a narrative paragraph within 1 Samuel 21:1-9. Essentially, He was criticized by the Pharisees, in regard to the Law's details, but Christ laid their accusations to rest through principles he drew from the narrative. [279: Mark 2:23-28]

4.1.3 The Traditional Approach Overlooks the Law's Theological Context

The Lord explicitly presented the Law within the context of covenant by stating that if He was obeyed absolutely, and His covenant kept, then, from among all nations, the children of Israel would be His treasured possession[footnoteRef:280]. They agreed to abide by its terms (24:3), and Moses sealed the agreement in blood by (24:8). One pivotal component of the covenant was the Lord's promise to remain in the midst of Israel. The second half of the Book of Exodus stresses this point numerous times[footnoteRef:281]. Connected to the presence of God are instructions to construct His ark and tabernacle, wherein He would dwell[footnoteRef:282]. Therefore, Leviticus forms the natural sequel to this second half of the Book of Exodus, as it deals with how the children of Israel were to lead their lives, with Him present among them. How must He be approached? How must they address personal and collective sin, in front of the Lord when he was among them? And lastly, how should their worship as well as fellowship be with the divine, awesome God who was amidst them? The above questions are answered in the Book of Leviticus, which provides practical guidelines to live with Him under the Mosaic Covenant's terms. [280: Exod. 19:5] [281: Ibid, 25:8; 29:45; 33:14-17; 40:34-38] [282: Exod. 25-31, 35-40]

Following the Israelites' refusal to go into God's Promised Land[footnoteRef:283], He ensured that the disobedient generation perished. Later, he directed the children of Israel back to Canaan. However, prior to stepping into Canaan, the Lord offered a renewal of the covenant to the new generation of Israelites. This event is explained in the Deuteronomy. It comprehensively describes the covenant's terms, which would enable the Israelites reside successfully within the Land and become recipients of God's blessings. Clearly, the Law represents a tightly-intertwined element of the Covenant. Thus, many key observations concerning this Covenant warrant discussion. [283: Num. 13-14]

Firstly, the Sinai (Mosaic) Covenant is related closely to Canaan's conquest and annexation by the Israelites. The Covenant is not universal or geographically neutral. It offered the children of Israel a framework for occupying, residing and prospering in the land with their Lord. Deuteronomy stresses the close link of the covenant with the land frequently. It transcends the distinction among the so-called moral, civil, and ceremonial regulations. Moreover, the land's loss in the year 587 BC impacted how the Law began being perceived profoundly, precisely due to terms for God's blessing "within the land" being defined by the Law. Besides, when the Babylonians annexed the land of Israel, the children of Israel lost God's presence within the temple[footnoteRef:284]. Two central Mosaic Covenant elements include the land's possession and God's presence in the temple and tabernacle. After the exiles' return to Canaan[footnoteRef:285], they failed to relate to things as they were originally in their life. Deuteronomy 28 outlines God's blessings on them, which were not again bestowed on them significantly; these blessings included political independence, domination over the region's military and economy, etc. Also, there isn't any statement concerning the Lord's return to his dwelling in the temple, contrary to prior passages which concentrate on God's presence within the tabernacle[footnoteRef:286] as well as the temple[footnoteRef:287],[footnoteRef:288]. Positively, things did not revert to the way they were prior to the Israelites' Exile. [284: Ezek. 10] [285: Hays, 28] [286: Exod. 40:34-38] [287: 1 Kings 8:9-10] [288: 2 Chron. 7:1-2]

Secondly, blessings mentioned in the Sinai Covenant were subject to conditions. Deuteronomy records that the Lord informed the children of Israel that their adherence to His covenant would result in His blessing; on the other hand, disobeying His covenant would lead to curses and punishment. Deuteronomy 28 very clearly mentions the Law's conditional nature. From Verses 1 through 14, the blessings He promised to the Israelites for abiding by the Law of Moses are listed, while verses 15 through 68 elucidate the dreadful consequences they would face if they violated its terms. Additionally, the link between land and covenant, as well as the conditional nature of the blessings of conforming to the covenant, appear connectedly within the Book of Deuteronomy[footnoteRef:289]. [289: 30:15-18]

Finally, the Sinai Covenant does not function, and is not valid, any more. This fact is confirmed in the New Testament. Hebrews 8-9 plainly states that Christ was born as Mediator, and he brought with him a new covenant, replacing the existing one. The term 'new' implies that the prior code has now become obsolete"[footnoteRef:290]. Therefore, the Sinai (Mosaic) Covenant does not function any longer, and is now invalid. This poses significant implications for grasping the Law. The law in the Old Testament described the terms laid down by God for the Israelites to enjoy His blessings within the Promised Land, as per the old Covenant. However, if this Covenant is now invalid, how can its corresponding laws continue to be binding? If it has become obsolete, mustn't one view its laws as obsolete, too? [290: Heb. 8:13]

Paul constantly reaffirmed that the Old laws do not bind Christianity any longer. For instance, Galatians 2:15-16 indicates that individuals are not justified by their observance of the law; rather it is their faith in Christ that justifies them. Paul's verse in Romans 7:4 indicates that all of humanity was detached from the former law through Jesus's body. Galatians 3:25 shows him asserting that with the coming of faith, mankind is freed of the law's supervision. He was intensely against Christianity's reversion to the laws of the Old Testament. If a difference existed among moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, its neglect by Paul was rare. Moreover, if moral regulations had to be construed as universal, Paul would, at the very least, have utilized them as a base for Christianity's moral behavior. But, as suggested by Goldingay, Paul's moral teachings weren't typically grounded in this foundation; rather, his principles' underpinning was the gospel's nature, the Spirit's guidance, and churches' practice.[footnoteRef:291] [291: Hays, 29]

How, then, must one interpret Matthew 5:17? In this verse, Christ tells mankind not to think that his advent implies an abolishment of the previous Law or Prophets' teachings; rather, his mission is fulfilling them. Does this mean that Paul and Jesus disagreed with one another? Indeed, not. Firstly, the "Law" as well as the prior "Prophets" denotes all of the Old Testament. Therefore, here, Christ did not allude only to the Law of Moses. Further, the antithesis does not lie between the terms "observe" and "abolish," but between "fulfill" and "abolish." Christ did not state that his mission was observing or keeping the previous Law; He stated that his goal was fulfilling it. Matthews cites the term (meaning, to fulfill) several times. Normally, it implies "bringing something to the meaning it is intended for." Christ was not saying that the old Law eternally binds New-Testament followers. If this was the case, modern-day Christians would have to retain the ceremonial and sacrificial rules in addition to the moral rules, and this would be in clear violation of some sections of the binding New Testament[footnoteRef:292]. [292: Kugler and Hartin]

Christ merely meant that His purpose wasn't sweeping away the Law's righteous demands, but rather, fulfilling them. As the culmination of this facet of salvation history, He fulfilled every righteous demand, as well as all of the Law's prophetic foreshadowing and the Prophets. Further, He was the Law's ultimate Authority and Interpreter, as highlighted by other passages within the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus Christ restated a few Old laws[footnoteRef:293], while modifying others[footnoteRef:294]. While He intensified some laws[footnoteRef:295], He made considerable changes to others[footnoteRef:296]. Still other laws were completely abrogated[footnoteRef:297]. He was not promoting the continuance of the conventional Israelite approach towards the law's observance. Neither was his aim a complete dismissal of the Mosaic Law. He was, in fact, asserting that the Law's meaning should be understood taking into consideration His coming as well as the significant modifications presented under the newly stated Covenant[footnoteRef:298]. [293: Mathew, 19:18-19] [294: Ibid, 5:31-32] [295: Ibid, 5:21-22, 27-28] [296: Ibid, 5:33-37] [297: Mark 7:15-19] [298: Hays, 30]

4.2. Observation of Torah by Christians

While assessing the Torah-following sects within Christianity, numerous elements are worth taking into consideration. Without a doubt, the precise function and nature of the Mosaic Law is a topic of debate among the followers of Christianity, but they understand that Christians (including Gentile as well as Jewish members) are not required to abide by all of the Mosaic Law. Therefore, this section is, by no means, meant to be the ultimate word; it is merely something that should be thought about, and will hopefully give pause to modern-day individuals attempting to rush towards observing the Mosaic Law[footnoteRef:299]. [299: Robinson]

Clearly, Christianity can no longer adhere to each of the 613 (if the traditional Jewish enumeration is to be accepted) regulations, as there is no longer any Temple, priesthood, or theocratic system in the Holy Land. A such, Torah-following Christians end up being exceedingly choosy in their observance of the law. Mostly, the focus is on Sabbath, festivals, and holy days, with, possibly, a bit of focus on other areas of the old Law. Essentially, one will see that these are not very much Torah-conforming as festival-conforming people[footnoteRef:300]. And as there is no priesthood or Temple, and most Jews now reside outside of the Holy Land, even their festivals cannot be observed strictly according to the traditional, biblical way of observance. Possibly without them understanding that they are doing so, Torah-following Christians are relying on post-biblical rabbinic tradition, or develop new traditions. For example, such individuals are not sending their male members to present themselves before God in the Holy City, as mandated by the Mosaic Law, nor do they offer sacrifices required of them. Therefore, this is undeniably not a case of original, first-century method of the law's observance[footnoteRef:301]. Furthermore, included in the law's commandments are punishments for violation including death sentences in several instances. Torah-conformists do not, and as a matter of fact, apply such punishments to non-Torah-conformists. To do so would make them liable to murder charges in the present society. There is no longer any theocratic system, wherein God's stipulated penalties can be meted out[footnoteRef:302]. [300: Levin] [301: Robinson] [302: Isaac]

Therefore, one may perceive that Torah-following Christians focus much more on their observance of the Torah than on their faith in Jesus; indeed, they imply that their sect has much deeper spirituality, or obeys the Lord much more, than other Christians. They would, possibly contend that the fact that they obey the Torah reflects their faithfulness to Jesus; however, a definite imbalance exists in their manner of observance. Perhaps unwittingly, they have developed a two-level system of classifying believers: those conforming to the Law (who are (obviously, in their view) more spiritual, and the non-conformists (who are less spiritual). This is unbiblical, and unhealthily separates them from other sects of Christianity[footnoteRef:303]. [303: Robinson]

As much of Torah-observation is largely in response to negative instruction concerning the Law, one can, likewise, observe a failure by these sects to understand that a large number of Christian groups view the Law in a rather positive light. This is especially true in case of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches that positively emphasize the old Laws in their confessions, teaching and preaching. However, according to them, the Lord's Law does not denote the precise 613 Mosaic commandments (coming under the Sinai covenant meant for the people of that time within redemptive history). Rather, they are principles intended by Him for mankind, and he commands mankind to adhere to them. For a number of such churches, the tenets embodied particularly within the Commandments constitute a standard for overall Christian obedience[footnoteRef:304]. [304: Ibid]

In fact, obedience mandated by the covenant we now follow, is more stringent compared to that mandated by the previous Covenant. For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 requires an individual to construct a roof parapet- a safety element -- during an age when roofs served two purposes- a bedroom and living room. I don't think Torah-following Christians need this sort of parapet. However, a lot more is mandated under the covenant followed by other Christians[footnoteRef:305]. The aforementioned commandment is one instance of how a believer needs to follow the generic rule of loving one's neighbor. It can be regarded as an element that completes the 6th commandment, which states that one must not commit murder. In theory, its modern-day application would include preserving family safety, as well as that of our guests, serving the purpose of country security, or even public policy. Mosaic Law's requirements are widened and deepened by the New Covenant, which states that every individual who is bestowed much will be required to give much in return[footnoteRef:306]. An emphasis on adherence to the Mosaic Law while failing to focus on the more complete applications of its principles is nothing but missing the point[footnoteRef:307]. [305: Viljoen, 143] [306: Luke 12:48] [307: Galatians 3:24]

Torah-observing Christians justify what they do, based on select biblical verses; they forgo the rest. A large part of this is derived from the word "forever" utilized in connection with a few of the old laws. Meanwhile, Hebrews 8:13 and other such sections that mention that the Sinai covenant has become "obsolete" are completely ignored. Moreover, these sects ignore the "redemption history" (as theologians typically call it), which is the progression of the Lord's dealings with mankind all through history. Christ has undeniably brought with him something new; however, Torah-observants try to minimize the meaning of this newness brought on by the Messiah's arrival. Furthermore, they try to minimize how much of the old law worked, for distinguishing the Holy Land from other nations. Though there is, in fact, uniqueness to the followers of Judaism, not every Old distinction applies. For instance, one may argue effectively that food regulations were meant to indicate Israel's separation from other nations. Jesus' New Covenant indicates that Gentile and Jewish followers of Christ unite with Him[footnoteRef:308]in such a way that wasn't realized as part of the Old Covenant. Consequently, one can develop a sound case that the obligatory adherence to kosher laws is not required any longer for a Jew believing in Christ[footnoteRef:309]. A number of Torah-following individuals are not Jewish. One must ruminate on why non-Jewish people are so keen on observing a law that doesn't apply to, and isn't required of, them, as well as on the New Testament's teaching about the Mosaic Law's place in Gentile Christians' life[footnoteRef:310]. [308: Ephesians 2:14] [309: Robinson] [310: Ibid]

4.3. New Testament relation with Torah -- focus on Galatians chapter 2-5

In effect, there is no Galatians verse, or any biblical verse for that matter, stating that the old law has, at any point of time, been completely abolished. On the contrary, Galatians actually demonstrates that, though one is not saved by one's adherence to the Torah (which, through all of the scriptures, is the Hebrew term for "Law") a true believer will sincerely strive to follow its precepts. If one examines all the verses between Galatians chapter 2 and 5 that consist of the main verses that speak of God's law/Torah and what significance it holds in our lives, one will note that the expressions in this section are most often construed as "abolishing of the old law." Therefore, this section of the paper will explore these verses, for evaluating whether the Apostle, Paul is indeed claiming that the old law has now been abolished and one need not heed it[footnoteRef:311]. [311: Galatians proves]

Nearly every group of Christianity believes Paul's epistle as a "proof" that we don't need to worry about abiding by the Torah any more. This is one key mistake that needs thorough consideration. Typically, it is harder for an individual to 'unlearn a wrong idea' than to 'grasp truth.' Thus, research into Galatians is much longer relative to most others. Following Paul's introduction in the 1st chapter, he begins his epistle by stating that:

He marvels that mankind has detached itself so soon from the Lord who called men into Jesus's grace to another gospel. 7 This isn't, in fact, another, but some people may try to spread trouble and pervert His gospel. 8 Paul goes on to say that if any gospel was preached other than that dictated by God, let that person be accursed. 9 He stresses his point again through the expression "As we said before so say I now again," and goes on to say that if anybody preaches another gospel apart from the one received through Christ, "let him be accursed." "[footnoteRef:312] [312: Galatians 1:6-9]

The above topic represents the main theme in Galatians. The actual question in Galatians is not about whether the Torah ought to be kept or not; it is: What is the actual "good news" we must proclaim, according to Jesus? Does it imply that humanity receives salvation after he has abided by the law and been circumcised? Does it proclaim salvation via the law's abolition, so that humanity's sins are absolved? Or does it merely proclaim that one can be forgiven for violating the law simply through repentance and belief in Jesus?

In the next chapter, Paul reports that after a span of fourteen years, he revisited Jerusalem with Titus and Barnabas, and going up by revelation, communicated the gospel (preached to the Gentiles) to them. He states that he did so privately to those of reputation for fear that he should, or had, in any way run futilely.[footnoteRef:313] [313: Ibid 2:1-2]

The second chapter starts with him explaining, as stated above, his days in the Holy City with Barnabas, a companion. They had journeyed together to the City for discussing the issue of the real "good news/gospel." What are the conditions for receiving salvation? The Acts of the Apostles[footnoteRef:314] has a detailed description of this visit of Paul to the Holy City. This trip was undertaken because certain individuals from Judea bringing up the idea among their brethren that one could not gain salvation without first being circumcised. When this theory was presented before the elders and Apostles in the Holy City, Kepha/Peter described such a theology as a "yoke" on disciples' necks, which none could bear[footnoteRef:315]: [314: Acts 15:1] [315: Ibid 15:10]

Kepha/Peter asserts that, by Jesus's grace, all were "saved." As is proven by this declaration, the issue discussed was whether Gentiles were saved by adhering to the commandments and circumcising, or through Jesus's grace. Acts 15:1 also cites this as the actual question. Kepha states that "we believe that through the grace of the Master Yahushua the Messiah we shall be saved, even as they." He meant that everybody, Gentile or Jew, was delivered by grace, rather than by circumcising or sticking to the law. Even the followers of Judaism who adhered to the law as well as circumcised could not attain salvation till they started believing in Jesus. He further stated that considering circumcising or following the law/Torah as the condition for attaining salvation would imply "testing Elohim" (God in Hebrew). Now, the question is that, how does this test God?[footnoteRef:316] [316: Galatians proves]

The test is suggested as: Can the Lord still gather Gentiles to Himself while stipulating that keeping His law and circumcising (which is a painful act) are a condition to being granted deliverance? In fact, none among the children of Israel ever abided by the Torah, therefore making this a condition for attaining salvation was definitely not the real "good news" taught by the Apostles and Jesus. Therefore, Peter, after elucidating that God had accepted uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 10 mentions centurion Cornelius receiving the Spirit), asserted that Gentiles as well as Jews were saved through Jesus's grace rather than through acts of observance of the Torah (including circumcision). Ultimately, James concluded in chapter 15 of the Book of Acts that circumcision was not required for salvation[footnoteRef:317]. [317: Ibid]

The event described by Paul (Acts 15) chronologically represents the first place Titus finds mention in the Bible. He ultimately went on to assist and accompany Paul, aiding him at many places, including Corinth (refer to Titus and Epistles to the Corinthians). Titus was one of the people who travelled to the Holy City, whose Apostles did not demand circumcision[footnoteRef:318]. Once again, Paul emphasizes the gospel's truth instead of "another gospel." He states, in the 4th verse, that the individuals from Judea were "false brethren," who preferred to work secretly. Galatians 6 cites another attribute of these men: [318: Galatians 2:4-5]

"As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Messiah. 13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh."[footnoteRef:319] [319: Ibid 6:12-13]

Thus, these individuals themselves didn't keep the Torah; however, they were highly interested in ensuring the Gentiles were circumcised, so that on return to the other Pharisees, boast about it. Among the key characteristics of a few Pharisees during that time, was their focus on receiving praise. What Jesus stated concerning them remained true at the time Paul wrote his epistle to the people of Galatia. They wished to drop the burden of learning, circumcising, and keeping the law, on Gentiles before their acceptance as absolved individuals, and therefore, acceptance into Messiah's brotherhood and fellowship. This definitely is not Jesus's yoke[footnoteRef:320]. [320: Matthew 23:4-5a]

Hence, the Pharisees considered it their obligation to approach the Gentiles who believed in Jesus and attempt to impart "another gospel" to them, with its own method of attaining salvation. It appears that they perceived the real "good news/gospel" as being "bad" for their sect's sustenance, and hence, wished to corrupt the real good news using their doctrines[footnoteRef:321]. Therefore, Paul writes to the people of Galatia that the elders and apostles did not add anything to the news he was declaring among the Gentiles. They had, in fact, agreed to allow Barnabas and Paul to visit the Gentile population, while they themselves visited the followers of Judaism. However, he next writes that Barnabas and Kepha/Peter were involved in some kind of hypocrisy[footnoteRef:322]. [321: Galatians 2:6-10] [322: Galatians 2:11-13]

Here, "dissimulation" as well as "dissembled" indicates "hypocrisy"; this is the translation given in a majority of translations. What is the reason for it being called hypocritical? Also, what made Paul build up the courage to rebuke Peter/Kepha, who accompanied Jesus for more than three years? In chapter 15 of Acts, the council had just terminated, and Antioch was approached to convey their decision before the brethren[footnoteRef:323]. Barnabas and Peter/Kepha had sided with Paul, accepting the good news proclaimed by them together. That they withdrew from Gentile company was, thus, rather hypocritical of them. They stood by the decision that Gentiles would have a place in fellowship as well as attain salvation, as described in chapter 15 of Acts, but they were actually pulling out, anxious of what the advocates of circumcision may do or say. [323: Acts 15:30-35]

Peter was particularly at fault, as he accompanied Jesus for more than three years; he was also chosen by God to be the bearer of His good news (Acts 10). He was, at that point of time, ready to be in the Gentiles' company, defending it, apparent in the 11th chapter of the Book of Acts. Hence, in this scenario a few rather important leaders were committing sin and wreaking confusion among Gentiles through their behavior, which went against the collective decision. Therefore, Paul rebukes Peter, stating that he saw them not walking honestly in accordance with the gospel's truth[footnoteRef:324]. Here, the chief issue is what constitutes the real good new or gospel. [324: Galatians 2:14-15]

Some individuals are inclined to present a different interpretation of Galatians 2:14-15. They believe that Paul states, here, that if a Jew has started living the life of a Gentile (by giving up the law), how can he force a Gentile to stick to the law (as Jews must) by making him only eat with Jews? This interpretation has commonly led to the understanding that this passage promotes abolition of the old law. However, in the 15th verse, the error of this misinterpretation can be clearly understood, when the Gentiles are contrasted with Jews; Paul identifies the former as sinners. Thus, though a number of people believe that the statement regarding Peter following the Gentiles' manner was positive, it is, in fact, negative, as Paul asserts that they are not "sinners of the Gentiles," in the 15th verse. That is, he asks Peter how the sinners (or Gentiles) can be made to live righteously when Peter himself is a sinner. This is a rather condemning statement that exposes Peter's hypocrisy[footnoteRef:325]. [325: Galatians proves...]

Therefore, the rebuke of Paul was not evidence that Gentiles mustn't observe the law; it was merely a reprimand of Peter was breaking the law himself[footnoteRef:326] through his choice to fear mankind rather than God, pretend to accept a gospel, which, in his opinion was false, and thus commit hypocrisy. This construal gains further credence when one explores an alternative reading in more ancient Greek manuscripts. According to the King James Version, the verse is: "why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" whereas the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (whose basis is older manuscripts) reads: "How can you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." [326: 1 John 3:4]

Thus, the issue was not about why they were attempting to make the Gentile population (who didn't observe the Torah) live the way Jews (i.e., Torah keepers) do, when the law has been abrogated. Rather, the actual issue was about how the Gentiles could be compelled to observe the law (the way Jews must) by a person who was himself a sinner. The two Greek versions are in keeping with this understanding; however, the Novum Testamentum Graece (i.e., Nestle-Aland version) would be in contradiction to the widespread interpretation of the verses.

4.3.1 The True Good News Explained

The 15th and 16th verses of the Book of Galatians, chapter 2, state that those who are, by nature, Jews rather than Gentile sinners, knowing that mankind is justified by its faith in Jesus (Jesus) and not the law's works, have chosen to believe in him; that this may help justify them, rather than the law, as the law does not justify the man.[footnoteRef:327] The 15th verse in the King James Version has "who are" italicized (This italicization is intended to alert readers that the original biblical text does not contain those words). Hebrew and Greek languages also do not incorporate commas. Hence, what it ought to translate into is: "We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Yahushua." The above statement reinforces the interpretation that the Apostle, Paul is asserting that the righteous Jew, who is aware of the truth, should be aware of the correct way, and proclaim it to Gentiles. Hence, he was declaring that "We" (meaning, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, etc.), who were, by nature, Jews, were well aware of the fact that faith in Jesus, and not the law's works make them righteous[footnoteRef:328]. [327: Galatians 2:15-16] [328: Galatians proves...]

The fact that nobody can be made righteous by God's law is one simple, yet significant truth. The Lord's law merely guides one regarding wrong and right. It does not declare any human being as righteous. In fact, it will rather declare humanity as unrighteous. No man will, on Judgment Day, be capable of standing before Him and proclaiming that he kept the Lord's law all his life. Thus, mankind is condemned, unless it can, by some means, be declared as righteous despite being unrighteous. It requires a Savior. Jesus's righteousness needs to be applied to man for him to attain salvation. After being clad by faith, with Jesus's righteousness, man will have in his possession all righteousness required for deliverance[footnoteRef:329]. [329: Ibid]

When Peter/Kepha refused to dine with the former idol-worshipping Gentiles, who were only just in the process of learning the Torah/law, he was insinuating that they were yet to attain salvation, and hence, were not worthy to dine with him. The example he set indicated that he was in agreement with the advocates of circumcision regarding the idea that Gentiles had to keep the law and be circumcised, for acquiring God's acceptance as well as that of the brethren. However, in Jesus, all one must do was to seek forgiveness (i.e., turn one's back on sin, and seek the direction of righteousness), and God would purify one's heart through faith, gracing one with the learning of His commandments, without being condemned, at whatever pace one could bear[footnoteRef:330]. [330: Isaac]

This subject of the "good news" concerning circumcision was what took up a great deal of Paul's time. It was really believed that man could only be delivered after being circumcised and hence, become Abraham's sons. What is the reason behind this belief? The fact is, there nearly appears to be some sort of logic, within the Bible, to it. This logic is that, as circumcision signified Abraham's covenant with his Lord, in which it was stated that Canaan would go to Abraham's descendants, circumcision was necessary for being considered Abraham's offspring, and hence, inheritor of Canaan. This inheritance was necessary for receiving associated promised blessings specified in that covenant -- i.e., eternal living in Canaan. There are, however, several reasons for why the belief was a mistaken one. Chapter 3 of the Book of Galatians provides a comprehensive explanation in this regard[footnoteRef:331]. [331: Galatians proves...]

Galatians states that if, when pursuing righteousness by the Messiah, man finds himself a sinner, is the Messiah, too, (God forbid!) a supporter of sin?18; because, if one rebuilds that which one destroyed, one becomes a transgressor.[footnoteRef:332] Here, Paul seems to be making a rather interesting statement, discussing a possible scenario wherein an individual who sought righteousness and deliverance by Christ, was instead, revealed as a sinner. How can this sort of situation transpire? Isn't every individual who looks for justification by Jesus declared a righteous being? The answer is an emphatic 'No'. Every individual seeking it can't, and isn't, proclaimed as righteous. Jesus himself asserts this in the Gospel of Matthew 7: 21-23[footnoteRef:333]. [332: Galatians 2:17-21 ] [333: "Not every one that saith unto me, Master, Master, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Master, Master, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."]

Those who were to be condemned by Jesus evidently believed Jesus Christ would justify them, even claiming to perform a number of miracles as proof that Jesus had not abandoned them. However, they were discovered and labeled "sinners" (and were asked to depart, for they worked in inequity). Clearly, no one who does not conform to the Lord's biding will be proclaimed as righteous. "Iniquity" is translated from the Greek word, anomia, which, as per the Greek Lexicon by Strong, literally implies, "transgressing or illegality." As per the Greek Lexicon of Thayer, the word means, 1) a lawless condition: 1a) owing to ignorance 1b) or owing to violation or 2) violation and contempt of law, wickedness, iniquity[footnoteRef:334]. [334: Galatians proves...]

The fact is, individuals claiming that they follow Jesus but desiring to continue leading life in sin (i.e., breaking God's law) are in a great deal of trouble! Thus, Jesus is undoubtedly not a supporter of sin. As stated by Paul, God forbid (which literally means "May it not be!"), if, when pursuing righteousness by the Messiah, man finds himself a sinner, is the Messiah, too, a supporter of sin[footnoteRef:335], implied that God forbid that we decide upon continuing to remain sinners or annul the law through faith. Instead, the law must be established (i.e., caused to stand). This is the very percept stated by Paul in the Book of Galatians. Jesus is no transgressor of law, or supporter of sin[footnoteRef:336]. Hence, Paul states that if one elects to rebuild that which he has destroyed (namely, sin), he will become a transgressor. The New Testament cites the term "transgressor" five times; each time, it has been utilized in connection with somebody who broke the Mosaic Law.[footnoteRef:337],[footnoteRef:338],[footnoteRef:339] [335: Galatians 2:17-21 ] [336: 1 John 3:4] [337: Rom. 2:25, 27] [338: Gal. 2:18] [339: Jas. 2:9, 11]

In Galatians, Paul reports that he is "dead to the law" through the old law, that he may live unto God; he is crucified with Jesus yet alive, and Jesus, not him, lives within. The material life he now lives is by Jesus' faith, who loved him, giving himself for humanity.[footnoteRef:340] It must be borne in mind that the expression used is being "dead to the law," rather than the law being dead to man. A great difference exists between the two. Mankind being dead to it implies it has fulfilled the law's requirement through death. The law mandates our death, as we have violated the law sometime or other in life. After receiving Jesus, one becomes "dead to the law" as one is impaled or crucified with Christ. However, one also lives to God. The implication here is: if we elect to rebuild what we destroyed (i.e., sin), it is an act of transgression, and we are rebuilding what sin was placed on us prior to dying to the law. Jesus is not a supporter of sin. His death does not mean that, now that our prior sins have been absolved, we can revert to our earlier life of violating God's law. His death was to fulfill the death criterion of the law; it could be fulfilled if one unites with Him whose body was dead upon the tree, but lives to the Lord now[footnoteRef:341] [340: Galatians 2: 19-20] [341: Galatians proves...]

If Jesus abides or lives within a person, he/she will walk the way He walked. Now the question of how He walked arises. Jesus observed the Law perfectly. Therefore, He is righteous. This righteousness of His saves mankind when it lives no more, but Christ abides in it. Jesus is not a supporter of sin; rather, He supports absolution from sin, saving man from perishing and enacting His righteous commandments within us, which were observed by Him during His earthly life. Our observance of God's Law/Torah is proof of Jesus's residing within us. This does not imply that He demands for us to immediately begin walking in perfection. Jesus only wants us to leave sin behind, sincerely seeking to observe the Lord's commandments as one absorbs them at the pace decided by Him, and not man. Our ultimate righteousness stems from our Messiah, who sacrificed Himself for us[footnoteRef:342]. [342: Ibid]

If mankind's righteousness (and hence, deliverance) were to result from Torah-observance, it would mean that Jesus gave Himself up for sacrifice for nothing, as mankind could be proclaimed as righteous without Him. The circumcision-related "good news" taught that those who believed in Jesus aren't delivered till they get circumcised and learn as well as observe His Law (Torah). However, the real "good news" states that man is saved as soon as he elects to seek forgiveness and belief in Jesus. It is, indeed, great news! For faith purifies one's heart as soon as one repents and believes. This is exactly what Peter/Kepha has stated in the Book of Acts, chapter 2, verse 38[footnoteRef:343]. [343: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahushua Messiah for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as Yahweh our Elohim shall call."]

Mankind repents, and gets baptized in Christ's name, for representing the old man's death and Christ abiding within it. God's Spirit then comes to dwell within mankind, directing everyone to truth, each day more elevated positions of obedience, as Ezekiel, the Prophet, predicted[footnoteRef:344]. The individuals who supported the gospel concerning circumcision felt that observance of the Torah and circumcision ought to take precedence; consequently, they were astonished that the Spirit could fall upon the uncircumcised being[footnoteRef:345]. Nevertheless, Torah-observant individuals who were circumcised tended to treat people who came to Jesus without the traits he possessed in a different manner, as though they were not delivered as yet. However, the real "good news" isn't about what they believed; hence, Paul wrote his epistle to the people of Galatia. [344: Ezekiel 36:27] [345: Acts 10:45]

Also the prophesized "good news" wasn't that mankind's sins were absolved, so he could once again begin disobeying God's law. This is obviously no good news. The real "good news" also wasn't that man attains forgiveness and deliverance via Jesus, after keeping the law and getting circumcised. It is the fact that God receives man and is ready to save him as soon as mankind starts yearning to learn and follow the path mentioned within the Torah (as well as the remainder of the Lord's word), receiving our Savior as the "righteous" for when man failed to obey it. As soon as one settles on doing that, one is received into Jesus's body, and become God's daughters and sons, the Israelites, through Jesus, the living God's Son, who, by God's Spirit, dwells within man[footnoteRef:346]. [346: Galatians proves...]

Chapter 3 of Galatians was meant to account for why Torah observance and circumcision aren't criteria for attaining absolution; this vindication was derived from Old Testament text. Paul explicitly demonstrated why man achieves salvation via Christ and why every Gentile is a son of Jacob, and thus, Isaac and thus, Abraham through Christ. From Paul's viewpoint, he is standing up against individuals bringing forth another gospel/good news -- one of circumcision. Supporters of circumcision did not accept the Gentiles, as the belief was that despite the latter receiving the Messiah, it was not good enough. It was believed that Gentiles could not be considered Abraham's sons; they could only be saved if they observed the law and got circumcised. This unbiblical means of attaining salvation threatened the Messiah Himself. The start of Paul's Epistle cites the extreme danger it posed[footnoteRef:347]. [347: Galatians 1:8-9]

Paul says that if they elected to declare any good news, their message needs to be true, for otherwise, they would be constructing a base upon falsehood. Jesus represents the truth, the way, the life; and the "gospel" of those who advocated circumcision and Torah-observance threatened the brethren's ability to reach out to other human beings across the globe with salvation. Through all of the Old Testament and other biblical works, it is seen that God is always most concerned with regard to mankind's hearts. Supposing that two centuries prior to Jesus' advent, a Gentile existed who concluded that "Yahweh is the true God" and sought His forgiveness. Subsequently, as he acquired more knowledge of God's commandments, he sincerely started walking in them. In this case, when would the Lord receive this man? Would he be received after observing 5 or 10 commandments, or would he be required to observe all the enumerated 613 commandments before he can attain salvation? The fact is, God knows what is in each man's heart; he can meet with him anywhere, and this has remained true always[footnoteRef:348]. [348: Ezekiel 33:12 ]

Therefore, the "gospel/good news" concerning circumcision wasn't founded on an accurate grasp of the way God deals with us. It did not hold true at the time of Paul the Apostle, nor has it ever held good at any other instance in history. God sees every man's heart. But ego-driven individuals wished for their own personal 'club' where the Messiah's good news was turned into a sort of works-centered salvation, and circumcision corresponded to the 'hazing' required for acceptance into their club. They twisted what the Lord intended of His plan for granting salvation to man, and His intention for circumcision.

Paul reprimands the Galatians, calling them "foolish" and asking them who bewitched them into disobeying the truth. He demands from them answers as to whose eyes were they before which our Savior had been plainly set forth and crucified. Paul states that he only asks them whether they received the Spirit through faith or the Law.

The Gentiles whose lives were submitted to the Lord received the Spirit not because of observing the law but because of their repentance and acceptance of Christ the Savior. Paul, as a reaction to the erroneous 'good news' propagated by the men of circumcision, reminded them that a proof of their instantaneous salvation was the Spirit being readily received. Peter/Kepha had also seen this truth[footnoteRef:349],[footnoteRef:350]. [349: Galatians 3:1] [350: Acts 10:44]

The Lord's plan of instantaneously recognizing the salvation of the Gentiles was a matter that numerous Jews found rather hard to accept readily. It was an idea so deeply entrenched in Jewish tradition that Gentiles could not simply come to the Lord and gain His acceptance precisely like natural Jews, by forgoing the lengthy process they had to follow. However, the Lord demonstrated that they were accepted by Him, through the act of pouring out His Holy Spirit upon them as soon as they took it upon themselves to have faith, thus proving that faith was the key to absolution of their sins, and not Torah observance and circumcision. Thus, Paul indicated clearly that the Spirit was received through faith's hearing, and not on account of them having kept the law (which, in fact, they had not). Galatians 3:3 states that some thought that any being aiming to observe the Lord's law is aiming to attain perfection "by the flesh." So, would a deed like respecting one's parents be counted as an endeavor to attain this sort of perfection? Of course not; however, submitting oneself to the Jewish 'gospel of circumcision' definitely would be.

As the Gentiles were already bestowed the Spirit as proof that they have been absolved, it was ridiculous that they be inclined to go over to the those who propagated the gospel of circumcision as this would, in reality, have led them to condemnation instead of salvation. This is because, if observance of the Torah is a precondition to achieving salvation, nobody can be found flawless before the Lord on Judgment Day. Mankind would be dependent upon the self (Adam) and his material abilities for observing the Torah and attaining salvation instead of having faith in what Jesus has done for mankind already. Consequently, human kind's end would not be in "Spirit" but in "flesh." Any individual depending upon his bodily perfection as a criterion for being delivered will understand on Judgment Day that their personal righteousness will not be able to save them[footnoteRef:351]. Additional evidence that Paul's context on this matter is: "Which "gospel" ought to be accepted and what are the requirements for deliverance?" can be found in the 4th verse[footnoteRef:352]. If the Apostles (including Paul) had misled the Gentiles and given them a deceptive message concerning salvation, all the hardships they had to face until then were in vain, as, firstly, they attained no salvation at all. Paul asserts this very view while questioning them whether they endured persecution for nothing. In the 5th verse, Paul adds additional proof that the Lord has acknowledged them by reminding them of the Spirit's ministry, which performed miracles amongst them, despite them not knowing the Torah and being uncircumcised. Just as Peter has declared in the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts, the Lord cleansed their hearts through faith. Thus, all of mankind is saved by His grace, rather than the "good news" propagated by the advocates of circumcision, which went against the genuine good news[footnoteRef:353]. [351: Galatians proves...] [352: Galatians 3:4 ] [353: Galatians proves...]

Paul's teachings never meant that to be under God's grace granted man the freedom to continue to violate His law. This constitutes another falsification, and is frequently proclaimed in the contemporary world as "good news." The fact that man is now the Messiah's body is proof that mankind must live the way He lived, love the way He loved, and walk the way He walked. He was perfect in his observance of the Torah, and He continues to abide in mankind even now. Mankind has a choice to revert from violating Torah laws and receiving Him for its salvation; this is proof enough that He is present within us. The issue with the people of Galatia is: they had the whole thing backwards. Adherence to God's law is not sought via human effort, followed by salvation. Rather, salvation is received through the Messiah's indwelling, such that mankind acquires power to be obedient.[footnoteRef:354] [354: IBid]

The 'gospel of circumcision' was untrue, and served to create dissension among Christianity; the Gentiles began to be considered as second class Christians who could not be regarded as worthy of complete fellowship by mere righteousness of Jesus. Paul's aim is demonstrating a principle explicitly that reveals the falseness of the 'gospel of circumcision', which never held true: Salvation was not of the Torah but of promise[footnoteRef:355]. Thus, man does not require circumcision for being regarded as Abraham's son. He needs Christ the Savior, who is Abraham's Seed abiding within him. God be praised, for in His eyes, all of us are Abraham's Seed via Jesus. This is because of God's pledge to Abraham, and not due to our personal righteousness, or circumcision, or Law observance. It is only through Jesus, His indwelling, His Son-ship, and His righteousness. We are indeed the children of Israel through Him who abides within us. Thus, we are strangers no more, but heirs[footnoteRef:356],[footnoteRef:357]. [355: Galatians 3] [356: Galatians 3:27-29 ] [357: Ephesians 2:8-13]

Certainly, a large number of individuals were earlier Gentiles, alien to the Promised Land, and strangers to the Lord's covenants. But via Jesus's good news, we remain Gentiles no more, and have been elevated to the status of Abraham's sons, made nearer to His covenants, and joint inheritors as per the promise, and thereby, have become a new man: Jesus our Savior, residing individually within us all. The blessing in this is: we all become the true God's children, Abraham's seed by Christ. We are one in Him now. This was not made possible through the gospel of circumcision, but through Jesus's blood[footnoteRef:358]. [358: Galatians 4:1 ]

In Paul's time, the customary practice was appointing a caretaker for children until they reached a particular age. Thus, the Apostle employs this cultural trend for illustrating the part God's law plays in our life. Instead of serving as the mode through which mankind can receive God's promise of everlasting life, His law merely reveals to us the meaning of sin and man's bondage to sin. In the Galatians' case, their pagan practices (including idolatry) were exposed as being worth condemning. The Lord's Law/Torah tells us that God's mercy alone bestows eternal living. We receive this mercy by means of Jesus's righteousness on us[footnoteRef:359]. It must be kept in mind that like us, the law also bound Jesus. Some people hold the mistaken belief that being bound by the law metaphorically represents an individual perpetrating a sinful deed. This, however, is untrue -- Christ was bound by the law since birth but never sinned. All through his life, he perfectly observed the Law. Therefore, he is rightly named "the Righteous," who can redeem the people bound by His law but convicted as sinners, enslaved by worldly elements[footnoteRef:360]. [359: Ibid 4:4 ] [360: Ibid 4:6 ]

In His mercy and love, God redeemed man, His slave, and adopted them, thereby making them His sons. This was possible due to Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. Adam man was a participant in His death for us, and rebirth; consequently, we became newly created. At this juncture, Paul starts with a few fundamental statements concerning circumcision and what role it has in the actual 'good news'. The inference, then is, circumcision does not form part of Christ's good news, as man is still able to attain deliverance if uncircumcised[footnoteRef:361]. One among the key points to take into account while reading Paul's Galatians is, Paul is addressing a particular people here (i.e., the people of Galatia, who would soon have fallen prey to some misguided idea of God's 'good news'. Paul states that they, who tried to attain righteousness by following the law, had separated themselves from Jesus, for he himself was keenly anticipating through faith the Spirit's arrival, and with it, righteousness. Hence, the issue in question is whether circumcision comes under the genuine good news that brings absolution or not[footnoteRef:362]. [361: Ibid 5:2-5 ] [362: Galatians proves...]

Paul was certainly not opposed to circumcision that was performed for the correct reasons[footnoteRef:363]. Considering the widespread interpretation of the Book of Galatians, chapter 5, he was, in fact, doing what a majority of individuals feel he was instructing against to the people of Galatia. Was Timothy circumcised so that Jesus could not profit him anything, and to cause his estrangement from Jesus?[footnoteRef:364] Why were the Galatians warned by him that circumcision due to pressure from Jews would cause their estrangement from Jesus, and that they wouldn't receive any gain but would, rather, fall from grace, when, at the same time, Timothy was circumcised for the very same reason? Can Paul be called a hypocrite? Of course not; however, if one kept to the widespread interpretation of his Book, he would. On the one hand, Paul was striving to instruct the Galatian Gentiles not to yield to Jewish pressures while on the other hand, a majority of interpreters claim he himself submitted to their pressures as evidenced by Acts 16:1-3. However, the fact is that Paul was not opposed to circumcision. Rather, he was opposed to the erroneous doctrines that were a part of the "gospel of circumcision," twisting the real "good news" God wished to proclaim[footnoteRef:365]. [363: Acts 16:1-3] [364: Galatians 5:3] [365: Galatians proves...]

Timothy was part Greek (i.e., he had a Greek father). This implies that he would not be considered of Jewish descent, as the Bible states that an individual's lineage follows his/her paternal line. Orthodox Jews of the present day believe that it follows their maternal lineage. However, it is not clear whether this was a first-century custom. However, even as a descendent of Gentiles, the Bible claims that Eunice, his mother of Jewish descent, raised him[footnoteRef:366]. It also claims that he was prepared to undergo the process of circumcision, and that the brethren held him in high regard (as cited in Acts 16:2). No record exists of Paul the Apostle circumcising any individual other than him. However, Acts 16:3 states that Paul took the task of circumcising Timothy upon himself. Why did he wish for this process of circumcision in case of Timothy? The answer is, he wanted to show the followers of Judaism that he was not opposed to circumcising a Gentile's son at all, if done for a cause that would serve Jesus's good news. This event took place immediately after Paul approached the elders and Apostles concerning the matter of circumcision, as cited in chapter 15 of Acts. Paul's resolution to ensure he himself circumcised Timothy was meant to alleviate all concerns that his Jerusalem visit was intended for abolishing the overall circumcision tradition, even for a Gentile's son -- it is said that all were aware of Timothy's father being Greek.[footnoteRef:367] [366: 2 Tim. 1:5, 3:15] [367: Galatians proves...]

If an individual was attempting to reach righteousness through the law, through submission to the 'gospel' of circumcision, and subsequent self-circumcision, he would be required to observe all aspects of the law. The reason is that, to be declared righteous, one is required, under the law, to keep all of its commandments and disobey none. Because, whether one fails to follow one law or a hundred laws, he is still a transgressor of the law. Hence, all attempts for justification through the law will result in failure, ultimately and thus, the law plays no role in justifying Christians. Jesus is needed for their justification (or righteousness). Therefore, Paul aptly states that man anticipates hope of justification through faith.[footnoteRef:368] [368: Galatians 5:5 ]

Thus, Paul again stresses that if one is in Jesus, one's uncircumcised or circumcised state amounts to nothing with respect to whether one has righteousness or not. If one approaches Jesus, he is saved by Him irrespective of his state- i.e., uncircumcised or circumcised[footnoteRef:369]. Paul addresses the untrue gospel of circumcision, thus, for anybody to undergo circumcision by them signified acquiescence to the false doctrine, which was so harmful that man could be robbed of his salvation by it. While Paul himself circumcised Timothy, a Gentile's son, for demonstrating that he was not opposed to circumcision, he strongly refuted anybody who taught it as the 'good news' since this had always been an erroneous doctrine[footnoteRef:370]. The fact is, one a person is in Jesus the Savior, his circumcised state (or lack of it) does nothing to buy him salvation. In contrast, if one utilizes it (and other commanded actions) as an endeavor to replace Jesus' work, one puts oneself under His law, thereby separating himself from Jesus. If one examines the Torah, one can clearly see that circumcision was not ever the foremost item on the list of God's desired things. Abraham was given the promise of circumcision several years after walking with God and not when he was first called unto Him[footnoteRef:371]. [369: Ibid 5:2 ] [370: Galatians proves...] [371: Ibid]

Therefore, the Gentile people were receiving justification through faith in Jesus Christ whereas a number of Judaism followers were not, owing to the fact that they set aside His work, and attempted to attain righteousness by means of their personal law keeping. Therefore, to them, Jesus was a rock and stumbling stone of offense, and not the intended, lone Son of God who could lead them on the path to righteousness. If Paul did not preach regarding circumcision, a valid reason would exist for their stumbling, as circumcision is evidently something the Lord commanded[footnoteRef:372],[footnoteRef:373],[footnoteRef:374]. However, Paul indicated that: he preached circumcision, for the cessation of the 'offense of the stake/cross'. The sole reason it does not is that some individuals are not in search of righteousness through faith in Jesus, but through their personal works. But everybody, whether Gentile or Jew, who is ready to let Adam perish and Christ dwell in them through God's wisdom and power, can receive the Spirit's rebirth[footnoteRef:375],[footnoteRef:376]: [372: Genesis 17:12] [373: Lev 12:2-3] [374: Exodus 12:48] [375: 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 ] [376: Galatians 2:20]

Therefore, God intended to promise mankind everlasting life via Jesus, Abraham's Seed. Firstly, He guided man onto the righteous path as stated in God's law and later, through His mercy, He gave His lone Son to help deliver man from whatever curses sprung from their disobedience. The principle of righteousness remains the same when the Messiah is accepted; however, one's standing before one's Lord does change. It is totally wrong to spread the message that everybody else must to stay away from sin (i.e., from violating His law) and those who fail to observe it will be found a sinner, while people who receive Jesus can freely break the law on purpose, whenever they wish! This is certainly not God's 'Good news'; Paul appears to be making this very clear! Christianity must walk in His Spirit, for then, it will be bound by God's law!'[footnoteRef:377] [377: Galatians proves...]

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 Did The Messiah End the Law?

A quick look at the book of Romans Chapter 10 verse four states that Christ ends the law and makes righteous all those who are faithful. This is the usual but wrong translation of the text. In a similar manner to most translators, scholars interpret the text to mean that Jesus ended the Torah. However, the Greek term translated to "ends" in the above verse is telos, from which the English word teleology is derived[footnoteRef:378]. The normal meaning of the term telos that is also the meaning intended in the original text is "purpose, goal, consummation, and not end as is translated by many. Christ did not end the law. Rather, focus on and faith in Christ is the objective and direction towards which the law aims. The Messiah is the logical result and consummation of keeping the law out of true faith, in contrast to keeping the Torah out of legalism. This is Sha'ul's point and not an end to the Torah as can be derived when the verse is put in context[footnoteRef:379]. [378: Stern, "TorahTorah Incognita"] [379: Romans 9:30-10: 11]

The majority of Christian theology on the law is based on the misinterpretation of two Greek terminologies that Sha'ul initiated. The first term is upo nomon. This term appears in not only Romans but also Galatians and first Corinthians and is usually translated to "under the law." The second term is erga nomou, which appears in several minor variations at least ten times in the book of Romans and Galatians, this term, is often translated as "the works of the law." Regardless of what Sha'ul is trying to convey by using these terminologies, one thing is certain; he regards both "the works of the law" and being "under the law" as bad things. Christian theologians often interpret erga nomou to mean works of obedience to the Torah and upo nomon to "within the framework of observing Torah. Both of these interpretations are wrong. In no place does Sha'ul write that it is bad to obey or live within the framework of Torah, instead he opines that keeping Torah is just, holy and good[footnoteRef:380]. [380: Romans 7:12]

Researcher C.E.B Cranfield in his in 1964 article on the subject matter gave his opinion on the two terminologies[footnoteRef:381]. According to Cranfield, erga nomou should be interpreted to mean a "legalistic adherence of certain Torah laws" and not "the works of the law." Similarly, we should interpret upo nomon to mean "in subjection to the world that results from distorting Torah to mean legalism" and not "under the law." This is also how the Jewish New Testament renders the two terminologies[footnoteRef:382]. [381: There he writes, " ... the Greek language of Paul's day possessed no word group corresponding to our 'legalism,' 'legalist' and 'legalistic.' This means that he lacked a convenient terminology for expressing a vital distinction, and so was surely seriously hampered in the work of clarifying the Christian position with regard to the law. In view of this, we should always, we think, be ready to reckon with the possibility that Pauline statements, which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a convenient terminology. In this very difficult terrain Paul was pioneering."] [382: Stern, "TorahTorah Incognita"]

The phrase "in subjection" is crucial because the upo nomon is often translated or interpreted with some elements of oppressiveness. However, looking at other works by Sha'ul such as his writing of the book of first Corinthians 9:20, where he emphasised that he was personally not without the Torah enlawed to Christ (ennomos Christou), one can see that he deliberately replaces the term upo nomon with ennomos to differentiate the element of oppression rendered by upo nomon. The term he uses (ennomos Christou) stresses a free relationship with the law in contrast to being burdened by the law like many non-Jews were. Simply, put Sha'ul was trying to convey that instead of Gentiles freely "en-lawing" themselves to God's good, holy and just Torah, they were subjecting themselves to its distorted legalistic version[footnoteRef:383]. If the above-mentioned renderings of the terms erga nomou and upo nomon were utilized in the 20 verses that these terms occur, I believe that Christian theology of the law / Torah would be more positive. [383: Ibid]

One of the most interesting discoveries that I made when is that in the Jewish New Testament[footnoteRef:384], the New Covenant/agreement is given as Torah in the same context that Moses was given the Torah on Mount Sinai. A simple look at Messianic Jews [Hebrews] 8:6 reveals this well-kept secret. This verse states that Jesus has a mission that is much better than the older since the covenant that he now mediates is based on better promises[footnoteRef:385]. The word nomos, which appears fourteen times means Torah and never the law when used at Messianic Jews. The word as it was used a few verses prior in Hebrews 7:11 can only mean 'the giving of Torah'. Thus the more improved translation of the Messianic Jews Hebrews 8:6 states that Yeshua has a mission that is much better than theirs, since the covenant that he now mediates has been given as Torah based on better promises[footnoteRef:386]. [384: Hebrews 8:6] [385: Stern, "TorahTorah Incognita"] [386: Dorsey, 330]

The translation that the new agreement has been "given as Torah" means that Torah was not terminated by the coming of Christ and that it is to be kept even today by all Jews and Non-Jews, as we shall later discover. Though the fact that Torah should be observed is clear, what is not clear is what specifically within Torah should be observed.

In the Jewish society, only the Orthodox Jews focus on the Torah, while the Conservatives and Reform Jews focus on "Israel" and "God" respectively. Both secular and Reform Jews argue that the Torah is not eternal, while conservative Jews dispute the exclusive determination of the specific application of the Torah by the Orthodoxy[footnoteRef:387]. This is in spite of the fact that they agree that the Torah is forever binding. Regardless of the fact that Orthodox Jews form about fifteen to twenty percent of the total Jewish population in Israel, and constitute a much less percentage of the Jewish community in the U.S., the perspective of the Torah as eternally binding has been well accepted by many Jews from different backgrounds. Now, imagine a new religion (Christianity) that comes into such a complicated scenario with the view that the Torah stands terminated. This view simply cuts all lines of communication between Christianity and Judaism (especially Orthodox Judaism). Moreover, if opinions about the significance of the view of Orthodox Jews on Torah within the Jewish society are true, then even the average Jew acknowledges to some degree that the Orthodox Jews are right. In fact, it is thought that there are non-religious Jews who think of Orthodox Jews as the keepers of the Jewish culture[footnoteRef:388]. This means that if Christianity cannot seriously and properly address the issue of the Torah, then it has no commonality with the Jewish people. Even though individual Jews may be convinced and converted to Christianity, a wide difference continues to exist between the Church and the Jewish society. Christian preachers or theologians may brush off the issue of concern to the Orthodox Jews by a casual citation of Romans 6:14 that reads: all are not under law but under grace. It is my argument that such a casual and sterile thought process has persisted for a long time among the Christian Church and that such thinking serves only the enemy's purpose. Furthermore, this kind of thinking is not only casual but perverse. Jesus said it very clearly in the topic sentence when he gave the Sermon on the Mountain: I did not come to abolish but to fill the law. The original word used in the place of the English translation "to fill" is plerosai. Plerosai here means to make clear the complete and proper use of Torah[footnoteRef:389]. This appears so plain and direct to mean that it is difficult for me to understand how some Christian scholars could even attempt to suggest that the law is no more. [387: Kugler and Hartin] [388: Stern] [389: Sasson]

To me the suggestion that Torah is no more, might have come from anti-Semitic sentiments infused into the gentile church in the years after the death of Christ. These kinds of sentiments are so deeply rooted now within the Christian Church that even members of the church with no personal anti-Jewish feelings might be inevitably affected by it. The only way to correct this is to re-evaluate the Christian theology of the Torah. I am convinced that a thorough reassessment will reveal that the Torah was not abolished and should still be observed[footnoteRef:390]. [390: Stern]

Matthew 5:21 to 48 provides a series of six antitheses against modern literal rendition of the Torah. In terms of format Matthew 5:21 to 48 is made up of 6 paragraphs, each narrating the Messiah's interpretation of the Torah. First, Moses outlawed murder[footnoteRef:391],[footnoteRef:392], Christ forbids anger[footnoteRef:393]; Moses forbade sexual relations with a married woman[footnoteRef:394],[footnoteRef:395], Jesus forbids adulterous thoughts[footnoteRef:396]; Moses allowed divorce[footnoteRef:397], Jesus permitted it only under certain circumstances[footnoteRef:398]; Moses gave instructions on how oaths should be taken[footnoteRef:399], Jesus forbade the taking of oaths of any kind[footnoteRef:400]; Moses gave the principle: an eye for an eye[footnoteRef:401],[footnoteRef:402],[footnoteRef:403], Jesus rules that the principle should not be applied to personal disagreements[footnoteRef:404]; Moses required individuals to love their neighbours[footnoteRef:405], Jesus on the other hand requires individuals to love their enemies, other words he calls for the love of all[footnoteRef:406]. [391: Ex 20:13] [392: Deut 5:17] [393: Matt 5:27] [394: Ex 20:14] [395: Deut 5:18] [396: Matt 5:28] [397: Deut 24:1-4] [398: Matt 5:32] [399: Lev 19:12] [400: Matt 5:34] [401: Ex 21:24] [402: Lev 24:20] [403: Deut 19:21] [404: Matt 5:39] [405: Lev 19:18] [406: Matt 5:44]

The 6 antitheses are all preceded by the words "You have heard what was said to your forefathers.... but now I say to you....[footnoteRef:407], [footnoteRef:408]. The way Jesus was speaking to his audience clearly shows that he was quoting the law as it had actually been heard by those listening to him. Thus, for a total of six times, from verse 21 to 48 Jesus quotes Torah command and then gives his interpretation. These renditions simply confirm what was said a few verses back in Matthew 5:17 that Christ did not come to end Torah but to fulfil it. However, as has been mentioned before, some scholars and Christian theologians disagree with this position[footnoteRef:409]. [407: Ibid 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43] [408: Ibid 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44] [409: Viljoen, 140]

These antitheses are not conservative, in fact in several cases the interpretations given by Jesus require an individual to do something more challenging or demanding than the old or literal meaning of the command. This is no way suggests that the literal meaning/application is abolished[footnoteRef:410] instead it is in some way enhanced or "filled." The Old Testament principle of 'love your neighbour' is expanded to encompass love for enemies[footnoteRef:411]. Divorce, which appears to be allowed by Deuteronomy 24:1-4[footnoteRef:412], is restricted in Jesus' interpretation. The complex system of vows and oaths is truncated to the clear principle of not taking oaths at all, the explanation is that the system comes from the evil one[footnoteRef:413]. The precept of an eye for an eye is limited only to disagreements between nations and not within the personal context, thus promoting harmony in Jewish communities[footnoteRef:414]. Thus, when one first encounters these antitheses it seems clear that Christ is opposed to the literal application of these Torah commands. [410: Matt 5:21-22, 27-28] [411: Matt 5:43-47] [412: Matt 5:31-32, 19:3-9] [413: Matt 5:33-37] [414: Matt 5:38- 42]

Some intellectuals such as Ridderbos[footnoteRef:415] however, argue that these antitheses were at best detailed interpretations of the Torah; While others such as Meier[footnoteRef:416] argue that Jesus clearly annuls some of the commands of the Old Testament in several instances. Meier argues that the teaching by Jesus on the Mosaic precept of an eye for an eye is perhaps the plainest abrogation of commandments among these six antitheses[footnoteRef:417]. Similar views are held by Bornkamm[footnoteRef:418], who argues that the 3rd, 5th and 6th antitheses clearly show the enhancement of the Torah, while the 1st, 2nd and 4th clearly show the abrogation of the law. Another scholar, Strecker[footnoteRef:419], is in agreement with the thought that the six antitheses for the most part replace the demands of the Old Testament through the introduction of new rules. Thus, from these arguments, we can correctly infer that Matthew's treatment of the Law appears to be inconsistent. On one hand, he depicts Christ as being an observer of the law, while on the other (pretending to be true to traditions) he presents new regulations. [415: Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 299] [416: New York: Paulist Press, p. 135] [417: Ibid, p. 157] [418: London: SCM, p.16] [419: Gottingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht [FRLANT 82], p. 146]

Other scholars are however of a different opinion. Davies[footnoteRef:420], for instance, contends that in these antitheses, Torah does not stand annulled, but that it has been made more challenging or interpreted in a high key. In other words, Jesus simply intensifies the demands of the Old Testament commandments. In Mat 5:21-48, Allison argues that Christ is directly quoting from Mosaic Law -- that Christ is not so much interpreting as he is qualifying the commands. According to Allison, Jesus quotes the scriptures to challenge his disciples and audiences. In most cases, He brings out the societal and ethical applications of the laws through his interpretations. However, Allison also agrees that in the 4th and 5th antitheses Jesus allows part of the OT to pass away (Allison 1993, 184). Carter[footnoteRef:421] simply contends that the taking of oaths (oaths and vows system) and revenge (the eye for an eye precept) are not parts of the Kingdom of heaven. [420: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 102] [421: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSNTSup 204), p.144]

Jesus quoted the Torah several times in the scriptures. He did so to add meaning to the Mosaic laws. Thus, the issue is not that those who follow what Jesus says (the New covenant) will transgress the Law; instead they will gain so much more than they would have if they used the law as their only guideline[footnoteRef:422]. On the incidences that the statements made by Jesus appear to change the law, this should not be taken as a second opinion. Instead it should be taken as a final and authoritative announcement made by Jesus given his God-given authority[footnoteRef:423]. [422: Allison, p. 183] [423: Loader, p. 173]

5.2 Awareness of Torah - Why Christians ought to review Torah

The majority of Christians are of the opinion that the OT is irrelevant to the modern day world, owing to the fact that most of the doctrines of the Christian Church are specifically made in NT writings. This is however a grave mistake[footnoteRef:424]. [424: Parsons, "TorahTorah Awareness"]

Jesus and all of his followers observed the Torah. The texts that they loved, quoted and studied were the Mosaic Laws and the Prophets. In fact, Jesus quoted more times from Deuteronomy (Torah) than from any other work in the scriptures. As a toddler, Jesus like any other Jewish child would have studied and memorized the Torah. He would have also studied the prophets and other Jewish writings on Israel. For instance, when Jesus was asked, the greatest commandment of God is according to him, He quoted the Shema: "And you shall love the LORD, your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength"[footnoteRef:425]. And then he added the command "love thy neighbour as you love yourself"[footnoteRef:426]. Both of these commands are Mosaic Laws. This proves that he in no way came to abolish the Torah, but rather to fulfil it[footnoteRef:427]. [425: Deut. 6:5] [426: Lev. 19:18] [427: Matt. 5:17-19]

Jesus said that the Jewish scriptures clearly testify of Him[footnoteRef:428]. As Christians, this would help us to be aware of what it really means to bear witness of Jesus as the King of Jews[footnoteRef:429]. Additionally, by studying the OT/Torah we can appreciate the grace and glory of God and our Messiah more readily and completely. For instance, we can better understand the significance or value of the sacrificial system and how Jesus fulfilled all of God's requirements to be the New Covenant's High Priest. Similarly, in the same way as Jesus, we should be able to recount or tell to others how Jesus is revealed in the ancient Jewish Scriptures. [428: John 5:39] [429: Matt 2:2; 27:11]

Christianity began during the Jewish celebration of the Pentecost among the Jews of Jerusalem. Peter's sermon during that celebration[footnoteRef:430] was completely Jewish. He quoted scriptures from David and the prophets heavily; scriptures which could have likely meant very little to any non-Jew who attended that sermon. Thus, it is very likely that of the three thousand individuals who were born again on that day, none of them was gentile. The very first Christians also met only at the temple where non-Jews were not allowed[footnoteRef:431]. It is noteworthy that apostles John and Peter always went to the temple for prayers during afternoon sacrifices[footnoteRef:432], and their ministry is thought to have continued exclusively among the Jews; the majority of whom were zealous followers of the Torah[footnoteRef:433]. Even after Paul and Peter's imprisonment and later miraculously escape, they were instructed by an angel to go before the people in the temple and tell them the good news[footnoteRef:434]. Peter's vision of animals on a sheet lowered from heaven and his subsequent visit to a Roman captain was a huge dilemma for him[footnoteRef:435]. First, he refused three times when asked if he could eat the animals before him because they didn't meet Jewish Kosher (purity) laws and secondly he didn't want to enter the house of a gentile. This shows how deeply Torah observant Peter was even after spending several years with Christ. [430: Acts 2:1-41] [431: Ibid 2:46] [432: Acts 3:1] [433: Ibid 21:20] [434: Ibid 5:20] [435: Ibid 10]

Afterwards, when the Jerusalem Council wrote their letter to the Gentiles concerning their relationship to the Torah, they first advised them to refrain from the things that would render them repugnant to the Jews, with the presumption that they would afterward proceed to study the Torah of Moses and other Jewish Scriptures[footnoteRef:436]. [436: Ibid 15:19-21]

Apostle Paul was brought up as a Torah observant Jew that studied under the well-known Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem[footnoteRef:437]. Rabbi Sha'ul was properly --established in the Jewish leadership of his era and he even had a relationship with the Sanhedrin and High Priest of Israel[footnoteRef:438]. However, even after his transformation on his way to Damascus[footnoteRef:439], he still described himself as a Jew. He went ahead and confessed in Acts 23:6 that he is a Pharisee. He even announced that in regards to the Torah observance he was "blameless," which shows that he lived in Jewish lifestyle until his death[footnoteRef:440]. Paul swore that he observed the Torah all through his life[footnoteRef:441]. He took the Nazarite oath, lived "in observance of the Torah"[footnoteRef:442], and also offered sacrifices in the Temple of the Jews. Note that Paul did not just simply pay for his own sacrifices so as to be liberated from his Nazarite oath, but he also paid for the sacrifices of other Jewish believers! Also, note that this was carried out at James' open request who was the head of the Church of Jerusalem. [437: Ibid 22:3] [438: Ibid 9:1-2] [439: Ibid 9:1-21] [440: Phil. 3:6] [441: Acts 25:7-8, 28:17] [442: Ibid 21:23-24]

Paul frequently attended synagogue. He went to Thessalonica, to visit the Jewish synagogue. And Paul, as his conduct was, reasoned with them for three Sabbath days regarding the Scriptures[footnoteRef:443]. In Paul's writings to the Gentiles, he mentioned that all Scripture comes from God and is good for teaching, correction, criticism, and teaching righteousness, that the man of God might be knowledgeable, equipped for every good work[footnoteRef:444]. So as truly understand the writings of Paul, we should remember his training as a Rabbi when he mentions the Scriptures in his writings. For instance, when he wrote, "And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ"[footnoteRef:445], he was actually quoting from a story written in the Talmud (that is, that from the period that the rock at Horeb was struck by Moses and presented water till Miriam's death[footnoteRef:446]), this water-providing rock followed the Israelite children through the desert and provided them with water every day (Taanit, 9a and Bava Metizia, 86b). [443: Ibid 17:1-2] [444: 2 Tim 3:16-17] [445: 1 Cor. 10:4] [446: Ex. 20:1]

Most Christian denominations admit to believing in the power of both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures while functionally consigning the study of the Torah to history's dust-heap. If the Jewish Scriptures are not at all considered important, these denominational customs try to elaborate their clear reading, for instance the convenient promises made to ethnic Israel, and arrogate the text's meaning as being only relevant to the Church. This is both inconsistent and short sighted because it is unfeasible to comprehend the writings of the New Testament while overlooking the theological and cultural context of which it is a part [footnoteRef:447]. Additionally, it should be remembered that the Greek text of the New Testament obtains its honour and power from the Jewish Scriptures, and not vice versa. Simply put, whereas it is possible that the Hebrew Scriptures are valid and the Greek Scriptures are not, it is not possible for the Greek Scriptures to be valid if this is not the case for the Hebrew Scriptures. Majority of Christian theologians understand this backwards, reading the New Testament as the Hebrew text's interpretative filter. Western traditions theologians should always bear in mind the dictum, "a text without a context is a pretext" and repent of their sacrileges of replacement theology and implicit anti-Semitism[footnoteRef:448]. [447: Parsons] [448: Westermann, Richmond: John Knox Press, 84]

5.3 Homiletical Methodology

The above does not imply that we desert the historical interpretation of the Old Testament. In should be interpreted in its historical framework, as phrases and traditions addressed at particular times, via the witness of human writers and speakers, to the ancient Near Eastern Israel individuals. Similar to Israel's history, it informs us of our beginnings. It reveals to us the long and convoluted manner through which God has created a new people for himself. It informs us of the promises of which we are now heirs. It elaborates how the Christian has been established in Jesus and the reason its establishment was necessary. These can all be read and studied as the fascinating history of our beginnings, similar to the way a United States citizen could read of the fascinating history of the American Revolution[footnoteRef:449]. [449: Achtemeier]

The Christian preacher surely bears the responsibility of conveying that history to his congregation, of announcing the story of what God has done in Israel. If not, his congregation shall not know who Jesus is or even who they actually are as members of the new covenant individuals. In addition, in the absence of this knowledge, the Old and New Testament can never be God's Words for the congregation of the preacher. There needs to be the declaration of what God has done, and this is as true when an individual is preaching from Genesis as it is when one is preaching from Psalms. The image of the historical Israelite people, in their historical state before God, should be well implanted in the preacher's mind as well as that of his congregation[footnoteRef:450]. [450: Ibid]

Back in the 1940s, it was the trend of majority in the Biblical Theology Movement to consider this opening step in biblical preaching as enough; during the 1950s and 1960s, it turned into a shibboleth all through the United States churches to consider biblical theology as made up of only the declaration of the "mighty acts of God."[footnoteRef:451] However, the declaration of what did in the history of Israel simply lays the foundation for biblical preaching. It has, simply made it feasible for the Old and the New Testament to turn into God's Word for us, because it has made it clear that we have an association with biblical Israel, and that our association is based on our new covenant with God in Jesus Christ[footnoteRef:452]. [451: Childs, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, p.119] [452: Achtemeier]

Nonetheless, the entire story regarding what God has done, and of how we became what we are, could remain an entirely historical occurrence, with no meaning for us except as etiology. It is totally possible to know that we are new Israel in Jesus without having to refer the biblical story as power for our life. Toombs, Bultmann, and Bright together with others in long list of contemporary biblical academics that stress the existentialist nature of the biblical Word are very right when they stress that biblical preaching need to portray the Word to be salvation and judgement and crucial for our current state if it is to be God's Word for us. To utilize one of Bultmann's colourful terms, the sermon should somewhat eventually "nail the hearer to the pew."[footnoteRef:453],[footnoteRef:454]. [453: Ibid] [454: Anderson, New York: Harper and Row, p.24]

The question then is: How is this to be conducted in Christian preaching, particularly with regards to the Old Testament? Two ways present themselves from the biblical material itself and they are analogy and representation. However, at the risk of being tediously repetitious, let it be once more stressed that neither way has any validity apart from as it is utilized against the background of our association to Israel in Jesus. Bultmann has used representation, and Toombs analogy, for instance, but our dispute has been that the foundational connection of Christians to Israel via Jesus Christ has not been totally comprehended by either of these academics, as is the case with several others[footnoteRef:455]. [455: Ibid, p. 27]

In Martin Noth's article, "The 'Re-Presentation' of the Old Testament in Proclamation"[footnoteRef:456], he talks about the technique of re-presentation. He correctly points out that the three grand annual festivals of Israel past and future occurrences in the history of Israel with her God, like the wilderness wanderings or the eschatological succession of God to rule or the exodus, together with the giving of the commandments, were put forward to Israel as current, modern events, which brought with them direct judging as well as saving and demanding action of God towards Israel. In other words, the history of Israel with God, both past and future, became modern, a fact of "now;" for every new generation of Israel who made their pilgrimage to the yearly festivals, and this was done, Noth trusts/believes, via the cult, majorly by means of narration and declaration but possibly also through cultic drama[footnoteRef:457]. [456: Westermann, Richmond: John Knox Press, p.77] [457: Achtemeier]

That this was the scenario in ancient Israel is made clear throughout Deuteronomy, whereby 17th century B.C. Israel is addressed as if she were the Israel of the 13th century B.C., still in wilderness with Moses. Hence, there is a constant stress on "this day" in the book of Deuteronomy: " ... this day you have become the people of the Lord your God"[footnoteRef:458]. Simply put, the biblical understanding of Word's nature is that it brings with it the action of God, not just in the past or in the future but contemporarily in the present "now." For instance, for biblical Israel in Palestine, the exodus was not just a historical saving event that the Israelites recognized to be a portion of its initial history with God. All through the exodus story narration, at the Passover and at the Feast of Tabernacles, the exodus event became modern; the Exodus' Word continued to function, placing its influence on the current and functioning redemption amidst those that were listening to the tale anew. According to von Had, it was this continuing working of Word that was resultant to the constant restructuring and contemporizing of the past customs of Israel, and the ever new action of the past Word to Israel could be seen all through the Old Testament in the continuous updating of the past regulations and happenings[footnoteRef:459]. [458: Deut 27: 9] [459: Achtemeier]

Essential to this phenomenon of contemporizing in the Old Testament is a double understanding pertaining to God's Word. It is taken for granted that God's Word is an active, effectual power that establishes and shapes the path of history,[footnoteRef:460] same as it works in the realms of nature. Second, it is presumed that a Word, directed to a particular situation, is not exhausted in its action in that circumstance, but that it continues to function in the following events, impacting their course. The Word of God in the entire Bible is not the conveyor of knowledge, but instead God's powerful action within man's sphere. The Word is always alive, it functions, its acts in accordance to God's will, and it exercises its impact[footnoteRef:461]. Such an interpretation may appear unbelievable to the 20th century man if it were not for the fact that we are familiar with the same fact in Christian worship. It is via the narration of the past, that the happenings of the Bible become current history for us, and we find ourselves faced with the direct action of God via them[footnoteRef:462]. [460: Bright, Nashville: Abingdon Press] [461: Achtemeier] [462: Ibid]

Hence, as members of the covenant people, when we come across a tale of God's dealings with Israel from the Old Testament, in all its rigid historical detail, it could occur by the functioning of God's Word that the tale turns into a present happening for us. The saving, demanding, or even judging of God, focussed on our fathers in the faith, becomes an action focussed instantly also to us, and we could say, in Deuteronomy's manner, "Not toward our fathers did God act, but toward us, who are all of us here alive this day." For instance, when we hear of the exodus story, we turn into the ancient Israelites, waiting behind the doors smudged with blood. God's Word, spoken to ancient Israel and once more spoken to us, creates the situation before God of which it speaks in our lives, and it is via that Word that God acts not just toward ancient Israel, but also toward us[footnoteRef:463],[footnoteRef:464]. [463: Ibid] [464: Levin, Princeton University Press]

Hence, it could occur that the dramatic declaration of the story itself turns into the medium via which the Bible becomes God's Word for us and authoritative. It is exactly this happening that gave the Biblical Theology Movement its huge momentum in the past two decades. However, given that this phenomenon relies on the God's free grace, acting via his Word, it is also an encounter that cannot be forced, as the Biblical Theology Movement also found out. There exists no homiletical method that shall assure that the tale turns into God's Word for us. The preacher could surely believe that such a happening shall occur. He could propose to his congregation that it might occur. He could, and certainly he ought to, via careful preparation as well as historical research and clarity of language, try to eradicate unnecessary barriers from the path of the coming Word. However, in the last study, regardless of if the biblical story becomes God's Word for us depends on God himself. We preachers stand under the order to announce the story-as Paul states it, to plant and to water[footnoteRef:465]. Whether or not growth occurs relies on God[footnoteRef:466]. [465: 1 Cor 3] [466: Levin]

Hypothetically, as the whole Testament is majorly concerned with God's action towards ancient Israel, in this technique of re-presentation, no segment of the Old Testament ought to be incapable of being declared as part of the action of God, and the church actually requires much more to apply the narrative segments of the Old Testament in this approach. There are huge regions of the biblical witness to God that have been removed from the declaration of the church through the exclusion of these stories. On the contrary, there are parts of the Old Testament narratives whereby God's action is very unclear or whereby such action is spread out over such a considerable time duration that it gets almost impractical to present it within the sermon's framework[footnoteRef:467]. [467: Achtemeier]

The preacher is faced with the task of carefully selecting his texts so as to narrate the entire story most clearly and forcefully; however, he should be equally sure that he does not exclude various parts of the biblical tale just because they are unpleasant to him or since he himself has not read them enough to comprehend what God did in them toward Israel. Lastly, in re-presenting the Old Testament, the preacher should always establish the clear basis on which the Old Testament is presented to us via God's act in Jesus Christ. This ultimately implies that the Old Testament is never the story exclusively in itself, but it is the tale that finds meaning and satisfaction, and proximity in Jesus. This foundation might simply be put forward at the start of the sermon, and the preacher could then: carry on to the description of an Old Testament text. However, methodologically, the preacher shall most frequently find it essential to use a second technique- that of depicting the Old Testament narrative as the analogy of our lives before God[footnoteRef:468]. [468: Loader]

A lot has been documented regarding this technique of utilizing the Old Testament in the Christian church, mainly on the grounds of von Had's renewed application, and most frequently such a technique is referred to as "typology." However, this is a bad phrase because it confuses the technique with that of the previous pre-critical advancements towards the Old Testament. For instance, in pre-critical typology, the mark placed on Cain in Genesis 4:15 was interpreted as representing the cross, or the figure that Jacob fought with in Genesis 32 was interpreted as in reality Christ[footnoteRef:469]. [469: Allison]

There could be no doubt that our life as Christians is surprisingly alike to the life of the ancient Israelites in its relationship to God. Both we and Israel are liberated through no worth of our own, freed from slavery, and presented with the possibility of a new life. In response to God's first action of deliverance, both of us enter into an agreement with Yahweh. Both of us have covenant laws placed upon us, whose focus is the command to love God and our neighbour. Both of us have not proceeded into our last fulfilment and both of us are faced with the task of being the witness of God to the world. Both of us fight towards to the supreme goal the worship of God on this earth. Both of us wait for the Kingdom of God in hope and faith, with all confidence that it shall come. It is hence quite evident that the life of ancient Israel before God is similar to our own, and that her past could authoritatively light up and direct our history in Christ[footnoteRef:470]. [470: Achtemeier]

Such similar utilization of ancient Israel's past is not new to the Bible; both the Old and the New Testaments utilize such a technique. Whereas Deutero-Isaiah explains the new age, for instance, he portrays it as similar to the old, having a new exodus, a new wilderness roaming, a new and universal individual, similar to the way Jeremiah has new covenant and Ezekiel a new David. There exists a true connection amidst the histories of the old Israel and the new, and hence the preacher could declare the Old Testament as God's Word that is also significant for us. We are alienated from Israel by some large historical breach; however, historically take part in the relationship with God the Israel took part in as illustrated. Through Jesus Christ, we now have entered into that covenant relationship[footnoteRef:471]. [471: Ibid]

In the representation approach, God's previous action is actualized in the current time (the now) while with analogical approach the 'now' changes to 'then'. 'When we hear the word as is pronounced in scripture such as in Deuteronomy, for instance, we can view ourselves as having travelled back in time and standing into the situation of the targeted audience. This is because we have become God's people, travelling the cause from redemption to our eventual fulfilment. Thus, the Old Testament can serve as a warning in such context; and the New Testament often applies it. The relevant substance of the word is "Harden not your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness"[footnoteRef:472] Therefore, the Old Testament warns us not to rebel as Israel did in the wilderness so that we do not face God's rejection and destruction as happened in the case with ancient Israel. The Old Testament targets the message to us not as the BC men of old; rather as those who have received redemption; even though still sinners, through the resurrection of Christ. This condition of the AD man is synonymous with that of ancient Israel only as far as the new covenant is concerned. Therefore, the Old Testament serves as a warning to us towards preparation for the Gospel and not the "propaedeutic"[footnoteRef:473]. [472: Heb 3-4] [473: Achtemeier]

The Christian cannot simply understand the Old Testament as mere law. It forms part of the canon of Christians in the context of grace manifested earlier and helps us to share in the redemption experience, because we have shared in Christ's cross. The analogy makes the instrument of the Old Testament available to the preacher of Christianity today. Every portion of the life of Israel is of interest to the present Christian. Israel continues to work out the consequence of its relationship with Yahweh. Indeed, this is among the greatest gifts of the grace of God that we should absorb Israel's story as the precedent to our own cause. It is recognizable that the story of Israel is culturally and historically specific. The commands of the Mosaic Law, for example, are structured on the basis of Israel's actual historical realities. Yet, the aim of the law in implementing God's Lordship in the individual and communal life of his preferred flock is relevant to our situation; so that both Israel and the current Christian are presented with the commands because we are redeemed by grace[footnoteRef:474]. [474: Parsons]

Through this method of analogy, Israel's prophetic situation, although specific to their situation, still applies in our lives. The Old Testament enables the modern day Christian to live in his right as an elected person of God (the new Israel). We are the target audience of God and, thus, authoritatively so, via the Old Testament. Some critics will cite this to be extremely "Christological." Some will claim that the Old Testament gains authority as distinct from the New Testament. The standard response for the practising Christian today should be that we should not expect it to be different. Jesus lived, died, lived once again, and has stated plainly that one comes to the Father only through Him. We should anticipate hearing God's word from the Old Testament but by Christ. The Old Testament (the new Israel) is only given to us through Jesus. God only speaks his word to us through Jesus[footnoteRef:475]. [475: Achtemeier]

5.4 Torah observance at the Table

In the first kehilla history, observing the Torah was associated with the Table. In the initial accounts of the Council of Jerusalem, as relayed in Shaul's letter to the Galatians, the matter of the separation of Jews from the gentiles around the Table was generally condemned. Ewe understand the condemnation in the present day as related to the Gentile and Jews mixed kehillot that originate from the kehilla of Antioch. This context gave rise to the eccesiology, that is the union of Jews in a single body that eats the same bread and drinks from the same cup. This is strongly summarised in the epistle of Shaul to Ephesians[footnoteRef:476]. In a description earlier, Yaacov Hatsadik requests the gentile community to accord some defined respect to the Torah of Israel; "to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood"[footnoteRef:477]. The disappearing of recommendations of the diet in the foundational pesika of Yaacov testifies to the sad disappearance of Jewish- gentile or Jewish kehillot and joyously renascent in the latter part of the 19th C[footnoteRef:478]. Luke and Shaul are awaiting the Gentiles who are brought into Israel's commonwealth through their faith in Yeshua. Yet, we ponder what happens to the followers of Yeshua who are Jews and asked to welcome the Gentiles into their commonwealth. What is the role of the Torah with its ordinances and the commandments? For the Gentiles, these commandments and ordinances are replaced by faith. These gentles have been pulled closer without having to observe the Toraic ordinances. Although Jews are also brought closer by faith, the Toraic relevance does not necessarily cease, even after realizing that justification is faith based and, thus, relativizes the Torah[footnoteRef:479]. For the Jews who follow Yeshua when they are observing the Torah, the continuation of their observance still makes sense. They would have been defined by practice that is not in contradiction to what the discipleship of Yeshua is about. In contrast, it actually harmonizes the Torah and with full memory of the fact that even Yershua along with the initial Jewish disciples were observing the Torah. However, the varying fashions of Torah observance; including Conservative and Reform and orthodox, on one hand and the common failure to observe the Torah by many Jews raises eyebrows on the real Torah observance definition and meaning to the Jewish community in the modern world. Indeed, Jews who believe in Yeshua must ponder this question too[footnoteRef:480]. [476: Ephesians 2:11-18] [477: Acts 15:20] [478: Bornkamm] [479: Bornkamm] [480: Meier]

Moreover, Rabbinistic Jews have asserted a monopolistic exercise since the early years of the first millennium, that marked the era of Christianity in the formulation of halakha (the practical mitsvot observance) is a dominance that resulted in schism in the Jewish world of old, such as the Karaites and many more in the modern age. It makes it hard to define what the observance of the Torah means for the Jews who do not follow Yershua and those who do. When I reflect on this, I'm obliged to define my meaning as I appreciate the special link that joins us with the Torah of Israel. It affirms that God's gifts and call to the nation of Israel[footnoteRef:481] are not reversible and listening to Yershua say "Think not that I have come to destroy the Torah, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill"[footnoteRef:482]. I'm inspired to envision for myself and those Jews in my community that encourage observance of the Torah in consonance with us as Yershua's Jewish disciples incorporated in the universal church and unbound by Rabbinistic ways. This observance of the Torah will, inevitably differ from how the Torah concept has evolved among the Jews that appreciate the Hazal (the sages)[footnoteRef:483]. [481: Rom 11:29] [482: Mt 5:17] [483: Levin]

My reflection on observance of the Torah starts from our Shulkhan Arukh. This table is centered in the life of kehilla. As kehilla, we partake of the blood and body of the Jewish Messiah and purpose in the world community. Jews and Gentiles gather around this table reformed in a shared communion and become a united kehilla. There is no chance of erecting a wall of observance of the Torah to discriminate Jews from Gentiles in Yeshua. The exit from the scene of Jewish believers in Mashiah's body has consequently led to the diminishing of the Torah, the character of the first kehilla as defined in the acts of the Apostles. I suggest that we need to renew Yaacov HaTsadik's "symphony"[footnoteRef:484]. In Acts 15, at the council of Jerusalem, the leader of Torah observance among the elders partaking in the kehilla of Jerusalem lends his ear to Shimon concerning the foundational incorporation of the Gentiles in the area of Caesarae and proceeds to highlight how Shimon's sharing develops a symphony with the prophetic word in the scripture and cites Amos. The action word in Acts 15:15 translates as "this agrees with." This expression in prose, hides with skill, the expert usage of the Greek verb "sumfwnou/sin," which means to symphonize. This gorgeous concordance stands between the world that between the event and salvation history. This consequently leads to an applied pastorally sensitive pesika that promotes harmony between Jews and Gentiles in a single body[footnoteRef:485]. The Gentiles are brought in to develop and enjoy the sensitivity to the Jews and the practice of the Jews, sensitivity to the scriptures of the Jews, sensitivity to the Mashiah of Jewishness and learn of the language that provides the words that articulate the experience of being in contact with the Mashiah and indeed being sensitive to the Torah. The pesika repeated three times in Acts is not a diplomatic compromise; rather, a potential trigger of an important revelation for the believers of Jewish dissent and whose integration in Mashia's body is blended with the kehillot of gentiles and Jews. Therefore, the continued observance of the Torah is connected to their faith to the language of the Torah as they seek a symphony between the word and the world, Israel and Church and Torah and life[footnoteRef:486]. The Jew is committed to maintain a Torah language that is not halakhic but foundational in epistemological terms. While gentiles might be naturally distanced from Toraic language and the characteristic rendering of God's experience along with his Mashiah, the Jew in Mashiah's body has a commitment to the language of the Torah that makes him understand God and his Masiah. The Jews in the body of Christ have an obligation to bring congregations to the issue of the Torah along with the accompanying mitsvot from generation to generation. The attachment to the Torah is associated with the progressive validity issues including the questions about whether circumcision still makes significant obedience before God, and kashrut and Shabbat; body cultivation for God and body oriented for God. Torah is an ongoing language, at the centre of the relationship with God. Speaking Torah in Church is a preoccupation of the modern day Jew in light of the emerging tendencies of the gentile church to speculate philosophically and consequently putting the church in the danger of removing God from the encounter of incarnation[footnoteRef:487] [484: Stevenson] [485: Carter] [486: Viljoen] [487: Dorsey, 330]

5.5 The Significance of the Torah to Christian in modern day

5.5.1 It is the Powerful Word of God

The earlier testament is not just a divine word directed from mortals to the human race about what transpired among them. Rather, it is possessive authority, also divine with the power that crosses over the abilities of mortals to expound and create reason for their peers or the generations that follow[footnoteRef:488]. God manifested the word in different literary styles that the writers and authors of the biblical texts presented. Yet, the revelation of God was not prevented or stopped as a sunbeam refracted as it attempts to pass through glass that is stained. It should be noted, thus, from the analogy, that the God that made the sunbeam is the same God that made the stained glass. The latter parallels the Old Testament writers. God filled the writers with unique attributes that each of them brought to the writing of scripture and its revelation[footnoteRef:489]. The point I am trying to make is that the authors' preparation by God was an important task and was not subordinate to the revelation of God. Therefore, each of the writers was gifted with experiences, different cultural settings and a variety of language and literary techniques to deliver the Word in God's intended form and content for each part of his revelation[footnoteRef:490]. In fact, the preparation of the writer started right from their birth. Actually, some were called to the cause right from the point of conception. For instance, Jeremiah, the prophet knew that he found his calling when he was in his mother's womb[footnoteRef:491]. Isaiah, on the other hand sensed the calling from a sense of need later in life[footnoteRef:492]. If Jeremiah's case is used to demonstrate an internal call of God, then the call of Isaiah is a sign of what God's external call looks like. The question that suffices, therefore, is how is it possible that each author is so unique but still delivers what God intended in His revelation? Is it mandatory that we sacrifice human uniqueness or the divine authority? It is not possible to have it in both. Any fresh student that reads scripture in its original language, viz., 'Hebrew' and 'Aramaic' finds that there were many distinct differences in difficulty levels in all language aspects such as vocabulary, grammar, style and so on in the entire list of 39 books in the Old Testament. This is evidence of the uniqueness of each of the authors. Yet, this is not just a mortals' mere word; the writers assert that they all wrote God's disclosure and it was to be distinguished from their own making. An example is found in Jeremiah 23:28-29[footnoteRef:493] [488: Ibid, 331] [489: Stern] [490: Kaiser Jr., Baker Academic, 16] [491: Jer. 1:4-5] [492: Isa. 1-5] [493: Let the prophet who has a dream tell his dream, but let the one who has my word speak it faithfully. For what has straw to do with grain," declares the LORD. "Is not my word like fire," declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?"]

Indeed, it is said that confusing the words of the prophets with the word of God was as foolish as confusing chaff and straw from the actual grain on the same stem. Paul declined to have any diminution of the Old Testament as he directed his friend of youth, 2 Timothy 3:16 that God breathed all scripture and that it is helpful for teaching, training in righteousness, correcting and rebuking[footnoteRef:494]. [494: 2 Timothy 3:15]

5.5.2 It Leads Christians to Jesus the Messiah

The unfortunate and tragic consequence of separating the two biblical testaments is that the modern Christian easily fails to see that the events that followed, i.e., the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ were all expected long before they happened. If the Old Testament is viewed as a non-Christian message, there is an advance setting of an expectation for some people that there is little Christological or messianic to benefit from studying or even preaching, or reading the Old Testament yet that view is discredited in the evidence provided in the text in focus[footnoteRef:495]. [495: Kaiser Jr.]

Indeed, the Messiah is a central element of that section of the Bible that is increasingly neglected. In evidence provided by the rabbis, there are 456 texts in the Old Testament that refer to the Messiah directly or to the times associated with the Messiah. Although the figure is inflated basing on the standards of scholarship in use among some communities, what you remain with, even after cutting the list down is still highly significant[footnoteRef:496]. [496: Parsons]

Unfortunately, an increasingly high number of modern theology scholars bear some scepticism to the consciousness about the Messiah in the Old Testament authors. Carter falls in the same category by claiming that there is really no precept for Messianism that can be regarded as true up until the 2nd century BC. Carter tries to make us believe that it is particularly at the onset of the new Testament that we start to see evidence for a Messiah! Interestingly, Carter, and none else noticed that such a claim is in contradiction to some very convincing evidence from the early Christians who lived in the early initial Christian century and who had no New Testament in any of its parts; whole or sectional[footnoteRef:497]. He let the conclusion that he had made rise against one of the core concerns of the New Testament that emphasizes with surprising regularity, unanimity and intensity that, indeed Christ was firstly proclaimed in the books of the Old Testament. Critical scholarship studies and arguments cannot disown such analysis and claim of the New Testament. In fact, Carter is a self-defeatist. He destroys his own conclusions. He stated that in order to discover Christ at every step of the way across the history of Israel is not just a real worthy cause but also a duty brought onto our shoulders by the testimony of the New Testament whose meaning we must make effort to internalise[footnoteRef:498]. [497: Carter] [498: Kaiser Jr.]

James H. Charlesworth postulates that the phrase Messiah does not reflect the final agent of God in salvation history. The concept of the Messiah in the New Testament is connected to the Old Testament in the theology of early Judaist practice. However, this claim misses the incessant assertion of the Old Testament. The term Messiah is found nine times to refer to Jesus as the coming anointed agent of God[footnoteRef:499]. However, the Jewish community, in the early days, just before Christianity and the early church found hundreds of texts that support the concept of the Messiah and the ensuing argument as shown in this discussion earlier. Peter used the Old Testament as early as during the day of Pentecost[footnoteRef:500] to show that the death of Jesus, burial and resurrection had been expected clearly by the Old Testament authors. Indeed, Peter requested Joel (the prophet)[footnoteRef:501] and the Psalmist[footnoteRef:502] and to the understanding of King David[footnoteRef:503]'[footnoteRef:504]to clarify the same ideas before the surfacing of the literature of the New Testament. Later, after a few days as John and Peter headed into the temple, he brought healing to a lame person at the entrance[footnoteRef:505]. Peter presented yet another sermon in which he made references to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as he pointed out how these indicated what God had promised through His prophets[footnoteRef:506], i.e. that Jesus was bound to suffer. Peter made it clear that Jesus was that prophet that Moses had written about. Indeed, Moses had anticipated God to bring up such an agent appear in the current day. The system of referring to the Old Testament to show that Christ is the anticipated Messiah was rendered in the speech of Stephen in the book of Acts 7 and also in the speech by Paul in the synagogue at Antioch[footnoteRef:507]. It is not a case of these early prophets drawing from Judaism (the Jewish religion that started in the Babylonian exile days) that replaced the temple with the synagogue; the scribe would replace the priest, and prayers replace sacrifices. Rather, the appeal of the apostles was solely and precisely to the earlier and initial text of the Old Testament[footnoteRef:508]. [499: Charlesworth, London and New York: T&T Clark] [500: Acts 2:16-36] [501: Joel 2:28-31] [502: Ps. 16] [503: 2 Sam. 7] [504: Ps. 110] [505: Acts 3] [506: Ibid 3:18] [507: Ibid 13] [508: Kaiser Jr.]

Indeed, the testimony by Jesus himself about his cause was just as clear. He says, "These [Torah texts] are the Scriptures that testify about me"[footnoteRef:509]. Further, in the hour of temptation of Jesus, when confronted by Satan, His answer to the triad of temptations was citing the Old Testament as a definite and authoritative refuge. He (Jesus) did not need to accommodate the devil or his Jewish listeners as may be claimed by some. This was, in effect a conviction shared by the devil and the Lord. The authoritative word of God was the scripture- thus far, the devil was right![footnoteRef:510] [509: John 5:39b] [510: Kaiser Jr.]

5.5.3 It Deals with the Questions of Life

The teaching of the Old Testament in terms of scope on the major issue of life is greatly stretched and even confusing in its application. It ranges from addressing the issues of the dignity of humans and environmental matters in the initial Genesis Chapters to the nature and objective of marriage and love in the Song of Solomon. There is also the culture theology in Ecclesiastes. Its laws address a range of values including the sanctity and uniqueness of God, the dignity and worth of mortals, and respectful treatment of the life of humans and a range of others; not to leave out respect for parents, for property and for the truth. Civil laws address matters such as public safety, how orphans should be treated, property rights, and respecting authority. The ceremonial laws are just as helpful and teach us to distinguish between sacred and what is secular and defining the holy and isolating it from the ordinary and common items[footnoteRef:511]. [511: Charlesworth]

If we can utilize the scripture in Lamentations to teach and train Christians regarding the theology of suffering, then, the book of Psalms is a great resource in teaching how to worship and praise God. Judges, Kings Jesus and Samuel (the earlier prophets) and those who came later including Ezekiel Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Minor Prophets, with regard to the arrangement provided in the Hebrew Bible reveal God's promised plan. They provide useful practical lessons to apply in observation of successes and failures of the nations and individuals that came earlier. Indeed, anyone who declines history as a source of learning is doomed and bound to repeat similar mistakes[footnoteRef:512]. [512: Kaiser Jr.]

Chapter 6: What we Understand about The Law

6.1 Interpreting and Applying the Law

There have been numerous analyses of the law. Many critics have claimed that civil and ceremonial law have been abrogated while Moral law remains in force. Although there may be some value in a distinction like that, it is generally an arbitrary stand and does not have a basis in scripture[footnoteRef:513]. For instance, one wonders whether Sabbath regulations are civil, ceremonial or even moral. In my view, there is a better option that stands superior to making the distinction based on this three-fold theory, as believers that read the Torah and not simply applying the content of the law in a literal manner, in part or even dismissing it all the same. We should embrace an approach that constitute a few stages: using a diligent analyses of the context and text interpreting the original material of the law to the audience that it was targeted; determining the varying substantial between the original targeted groups and the audience of modern day; identify the universal principle that underlies the prohibition or prescription and sieve this principle via the continuous revelation of the New Testament and the Gospel clarity, and make use of a unified and modified universal principle to our life today[footnoteRef:514]. [513: Ashley, "Christian Responsibility"] [514: Ibid]

If we use this approach to apply to a specific law to serve as an example, referring to the nations that surround Israel, the lord said "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons"[footnoteRef:515]. Some people have literally applied this law. The consequence is the barring of interracial marriages. This is a wrong way of interpreting the Old Testament in today's context. Using the above principle, we see that Israel was called to be set apart from the rest and sanctified to both God and the nations surrounding it. Many of the laws that God prescribed for Israel were intended to sustain the important difference between Israel and the rest of the nations. Israel represented the chosen people of God and was meant to be kept pure and undiluted with such interactions as intermarriages[footnoteRef:516]. Although God has not forgotten or neglected Israel in its entirety, the New Testament introduces the idea of a people that are chosen and of being sanctified with a fresh and greater meaning[footnoteRef:517]. Therefore, the question of the chosen people arises. We ponder who really are the chosen people? These are the people of faith[footnoteRef:518],[footnoteRef:519],[footnoteRef:520]; irrespective of whether they descend from Israel's genealogy. What, therefore, is sanctification? Physical separation was emphasized in the Old Testament. Therefore, we note the principle of homogeneity, i.e. do not mix clothing fibres, and do not till your land with a mix of breeds and more. Gentiles and Jews were distinguished from each other clearly because the Jews were set separate from the rest of the nations. Indeed, the people of God are still "set apart," 'but this distinction is based on a different criteria. It is not based on laws that dictate physical separation but on sanctification of the spirit[footnoteRef:521]. Considering these dimensions, what lesson or principle should the book of Deuteronomy and the associated texts necessarily provide[footnoteRef:522]? Taking a passage from 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, we can observe that the original mosaic restraints are not to be used on the basis of race, but on the basis of spiritual provision. God no longer bars races from marrying each other. He bars marriage between believers and those who do not believe. This principle should help us reaffirm the validity of the Old Testament without interpreting it as if we still live under the earlier covenant[footnoteRef:523]. [515: Deut. 7:3] [516: Ashley] [517: Charlesworth] [518: Rom. 9:6-12] [519: Gal. 3:23-4:7] [520: 1 Peter 2:9-10] [521: Ashley] [522: Deuteronomy 7:1-4] [523: Ashley]

The question is whether Christians should still follow and obey the Old Testament. The answer to this question is a complex one as has been shown. Generally, though, it is evident that Christians are free from the overwhelming demands of the former covenant. Some demands of the new covenant may even be more demanding that the law of the old covenant. There is a new law provided by Christ. We are, consequently not bound like slaves, but with grace, as the sons of the lord and the spirit. In the new dispensation, we respond to the promises of the gospel and not to the demands of the law[footnoteRef:524]. [524: Ibid]

6.2 Suggested Christian approach towards the Torah

The approach aligned to the hermeneutical approach is, it A) remain consistent and treat both the old and New Testament as God's word to man. b). doesn't rely on arbitrariness. C) Shows the literary and historical background of the law and centres it in the Pentateuch. d). Shows the theological context of law. e) Corresponds to the teaching of the New Testament. Principalism is the ideal approach that incorporates these criteria. Several evangelicals have used it to interpret the Old Testament. There is no good reason to categorise the law into applicable and non-applicable types[footnoteRef:525]. The approach is practical and can be used by scholars, preachers, students and lay people alike. It is consistent and simple. Its weakness is that it may also attempt to oversimplify some complex aspects. The question then is whether there is room to improve or refine the approach. Of course, there is such space but the approach used is already a much better way than the division of the law into civil, ceremonial and moral; as has been applied traditionally[footnoteRef:526]. [525: Hays, 31] [526: Stern]

Principalism is a different method of employing the Law and this can be done in five ways. These ways are considered in the following discussion.

6.2.1 Identifying what the specific law meant to the initial audience

This step requires considering the context of the law and this requires a consideration of the history and the literature. Historically, one would consider the location of the Israelites when they received the law. It would involve finding out whether they were at Mount Sinai, having left Egypt (Exodus, Leviticus) or at the River Jordan about to go into the land they had been promised (Deuteronomy). Another consideration would be whether the law addresses a particular circumstance, or just as instructions for daily living when the Israelites entered the land[footnoteRef:527]. In the particular situation of the Jews, was the law an addition to other laws, a clarification of something, or even a connection between the Old and the New Testament? What was the focus? The focus could be the relationship between God and the people, the relationship between the people, the way they carried out their transactions, how they were to treat the land among other things. Thus in this step, the idea is to understand what the law specifically meant to the audience that received it[footnoteRef:528]. [527: Hays] [528: Stem]

6.2.2 Determine the differences between the initial audience and believers today

This involves marking out the differences between the Israelites then and the Christians in the modern day in terms of their condition and their theological beliefs. An example of this would be the fact that the Israelites were under the Old Covenant while the Christians are under the New Covenant and therefore not subject to the Old Covenant. The Christians are thus not sacrificing animals so that they can relate with God and they are not physically looking forward to a Promised Land. The initial audience of the Law was also governed religiously unlike the believers who have secular governments. The stresses that the Israelites faced were also different from those of the believers. The ancient Israelites faced pagan religions practiced by the Canaanites, while the believers today are under pressure from views and philosophies held by the world that are in contradiction with their own beliefs[footnoteRef:529]. [529: Hays]

6.2.3 Develop universal principles from the text

In this step, principles are drawn from the laws of Moses that transgress limitations of time and can be applied in any context. The law was specifically given to the Israelites and it had value with regard to the Old Covenant. However, this value and the truth in it is not bound by time but can be applied to the people of God in spite of the time period they are in and the covenant they are under. Thus, this is a step to search out the universal principle in the particular law and its application in the modern day[footnoteRef:530]. There are rules that are to be followed in identifying the principle. The principle should be contained in the words given, it should also be applicable in an ageless way, it must align with other scriptures, it must go beyond a specific culture and it should be one that was useful then and is useful now. Some of the characteristic of the universal principles are that they point to God's character, they reveal His sanctity, they define sin, point to obedience to God and highlight the consideration of others[footnoteRef:531]. [530: Ibid, 32] [531: Kaiser Jr.]

6.2.4 Correlate the principle with New Testament teaching

This step is about studying the principle with the New Testament view or looking at it through the percepts of the new covenant. In the New Testament, one will find some laws restated, making them relevant for the believer who is under the New Covenant. It is clear that the Law under the Old Covenant does not apply to the Christians under the New Covenant. There are however, exceptions where an Old Testament law has been restated in the New Testament so that it applies to believers even now. The commandment thus stated is made relevant by the New Testament and its context, not the Old Testament[footnoteRef:532]. Sometimes it can be seen in the New Testament a law being adjusted so that it becomes more meaningful. Thus for a correlation to occur, there must be the law, the principle behind it, and incorporation of view of the New Testament. One example of this is the verse in Exodus 20:14, which forbids the act of adultery stating, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The principle behind this command is that marriage must be pure and not be tainted by this act. In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus expands this commandment by stating in Matthew 5:28, "But I say unto you, that whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."[footnoteRef:533] In this statement is an expansion of the command in its understanding because He points out that it is not just about the act but the thought in the heart. He addresses both the act and the thought. Therefore, in the Christian context, it becomes apparent that the New Testament command reinforces the principle of upholding the sanctity of marriage, not just in the actions but also in the inner man as well. Thus, the believer does not just uphold it because it is a Mosaic Law. [532: Ashley] [533: Matt. 5:28]

6.2.5 Apply the modified universal principle to life today

This step is concerned with how the principle that has been identified as universal can actually be relevant in the context of modern life. The new Testament has examples of how the principalism has been applied. One example of this is when Paul the apostle quoted a Scripture from the Old Testament to defend his right to be supported by the Corinthian church. He quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 where it states, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain."[footnoteRef:534] This law under the Old Covenant was quite literal in that it addressed something specific. However, Paul draws out the principle of this law in this context, not sanctioning it for the believers[footnoteRef:535],[footnoteRef:536],[footnoteRef:537],[footnoteRef:538], but applying its principle under the New Covenant. Thus, it is a principle that can be applied apart from its context historically[footnoteRef:539]. [534: Cor. 9:4, 11-12] [535: Rom. 6:14-15; 7:1-6] [536: 1 Cor. 9:20] [537: Gal. 2:15-16; 5:18] [538: Eph. 2:15] [539: Hays, 33]

When principlizing, the believer draws out a principle from the law and applies it to his context. A passage that can demonstrate this is Leviticus 5:2, 5-6. The whole passage reads, "Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean -- whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground -- even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin."

The first part demonstrates how a person becomes unclean ceremonially. The second part indicates the process through which a person would become clean. Looking at these verses in this context, one only finds a law that can be applied to a specific context. It does not seem to have any relevance to the Christian in modern society. This can however be applied in today's context through the principle of principlizing as with any other passage in the law[footnoteRef:540]. [540: Ibid, 34]

Step One: What did the text mean to the initial audience?

In Leviticus, the focus is on the lives of the Israelites in the presence of God who is holy, mighty, and magnificent and thus, feared. It deals with how the Israelites would draw near to God. It also addressed how the Israelites would remove sin from themselves as they dwelt in the presence of a holy God (Leviticus 4:1-5:13). This would be in terms of the sacrifices that they offered. There were instructions for leaders to follow as well as those for the people. In Leviticus chapter 5, the Israelites were instructed on the things that would defile them or make them unclean in the eyes of the Lord. One of the things that would defile them thus was the coming into contact with dead animals by intention or by mistake. This was clearly an instruction that would enable them to know their status so that they could make it right before approaching a holy God. To be clean again, a priest would offer as a sacrifice a lamb or goat[footnoteRef:541] brought by the unclean person who would confess his sin and be made clean and thus he could come into the presence of the Lord[footnoteRef:542]. [541: Lev. 5:5-6] [542: Hays, 34]

Step Two: What are the differences between the initial audience and believers today?

For the believer, the New Covenant has eliminated the need for sacrifices to cover sin. By the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, the sins of the believer were all paid for and this sacrifice remains sufficient. The Lord Jesus also opened up the door for the believers to access the presence of God so that the believer does not need a priest to mediate for him[footnoteRef:543]. [543: Ibid]

Step Three: What is the universal principle in this text?

The text in Leviticus brings out the principle of God being holy. The emphasis on the things that can make a person unclean comes from the fact that a person who is unclean cannot approach God. His people must therefore be clean and avoid uncleanness from any element so that they can dwell in His presence. There is a solution for uncleanness offered to restore the person, and this is in the form of an animal being sacrificed in his stead. The Scriptures reverberate with the message that God is holy. It is a universal principle that applies to the New Testament as well as to the Israelites under the Old Covenant[footnoteRef:544]. [544: Ibid]

Step Four: How does the New Testament teaching modify or qualify this principle?

The New Covenant highlights the fact that God does not dwell in a physical temple or tabernacle among His people. He is present in every believer through the Holy Spirit. He remains holy and calls for holiness on the part of the believer, or the separation from sin. The New Testament adjusts the requirement for holiness as it specifies through the words of Christ, that nothing outside of a man can make him unclean, rather what comes from his heart. It also specifies what comes out of a man's heart as things like pride, adultery, deception among others. These are characteristics that emanate from a person's heart and thus make him unclean[footnoteRef:545]. [545: Mark 7:15, 20-23]

In the New Covenant, the believer does not clean himself through the sacrifice of a lamb or goat. The New Covenant is solely based on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His blood washes away all of the believer's sins. There is therefore no more sacrifice that is required of the believer as his sins have already been paid for. The believer confesses their sin[footnoteRef:546] at their conversion and receives full forgiveness. Thus the universal principle of God being holy and requiring that His people be holy is seen under the New Testament as the believer experiences the cleanliness paid for by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ[footnoteRef:547]. [546: 1 John 1:9] [547: Hays, 35]

Step Five: How should Christians today apply this modified universal principle in their lives?

This principle can be applied to various contexts. Knowing that God is holy, and dwelling in him, will keep the believer from such unclean acts as viewing pornography wherever he/she is. The believer will be conscious of the presence of God and this will act as a deterrent for them to participate in such activities as they will be dishonoring their God; at the same time, the believer is assured that where they fall, or have fallen into sin, the blood of the Lord Jesus is sufficient to cover this sin and restore their relationship with God[footnoteRef:548]. [548: Ibid]

6.3 Study Limitation

Depth has been lacking in the studies on the use of the Torah by Christians today. This is especially so in relation to the context and the literature supporting these studies. There were arguments that were not supported by literature or theology. Exegesis is not present in the Scriptures used and there is bias detected in the arguments.

There is also a lack of clarity on how the believer can actually relate the Torah and its teachings to their daily life. There is little literature that relates to the believer not observing the Torah but a lot of literature in support of it. This seems to indicate a biased view[footnoteRef:549]. [549: Kaiser Jr.]

The function of the Torah in history has been ignored in most of the literature thus rendering the use of the Torah out of context to the believer[footnoteRef:550]. [550: Parsons]

Chapter 7: Conclusion

There is no dispute that the Torah was the functional Bible of the early church. Still, there is an objection that ricochets from detractive sources: " Since we now have the New Testament, why shouldn't we start with it and understand the scripture of the Bible and proceed to the Old Testament and analyse it on the basis of the Old Testament? 'The approach has gained favour from many preachers in today's church and, therefore, needs a direct confrontation to allay confusion and set the record straight. Indeed, the approach, despite it increasing popularity, is historically mistaken, illogical and unfounded biblically. From our discussions, the initial New Testament believers checked what they had heard from Christ and His 12 disciples against the text of the Old Testament. They did not have another source of assistance or canon. How did they reach the correct conclusion?[footnoteRef:551]. [551: Ibid]

It is wrong procedurally and historically from the beginning if we try to understand the Bible in backward fashion of exploration. Additionally, the initial church understood the Torah as true, thus, they couldn't test what was obviously true and established. They only had the Old Testament. Passages such as Deuteronomy 13 and 18 had been used to teach Israel to check new biblical teachings and claim to divine authority using what had already been revealed by God in his holy word- in the Old Testament. Thus trying to understand the Bible and even teaching it backwards is equally backwards in its credibility. In validating authenticity claims, the proven practice requires that we move from what has already been acknowledged to what develops and builds on the earlier. One wonders what the basis is for interpreting the Bible, learning and teaching it backwards![footnoteRef:552] [552: Loader]

In fact, if anyone rejects the Old Testament and the first authentic revelation of God is simply rejecting the basis for knowing who is and isn't the Messiah. Jesus pointed out the failure of the Jewish congregations in the fact that they failed to believe Moses' writing. Jesus declared in John 5:46-47'If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? "Reducing the scope of the study of the New Testament by dismissing the Old Testament will inevitably raise the question " how can i believe God's word in the New Testament if I tend to doubt what he has spoken in the old one?" The authority of the New Testament is based on the old one. This is why the book of Mathew1 starts with a genealogy that anchors in Genesis and stretches all the way to the New Testament. If a new teaching came in contrast to the Tenach (Old Testament) nit was bound to be declined. It is warned in Deuteronomy 12:32" See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it. "[footnoteRef:553] [553: Kaiser Jr.]

Paul drew his teachings from the Old Testament, He preached the material he drew from the Old Testament scripture. He said" For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"[footnoteRef:554]. It is clearer when Paul was put on trial for his own life. He reasserted" Now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers"[footnoteRef:555]. He concludes' and so, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day . . . stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place"[footnoteRef:556]. He testified that he believed: " everything that [was] in accordance with the Law, and that [was] written in the Prophets"[footnoteRef:557]. While under the arms of the law, Paul still called aside the Jewish community to clarify his message. He considered himself testifying to God's kingdom and attempting to persuade them regarding Christ from Mosaic Law point-of-view and from the prophetic perspective all day long[footnoteRef:558]. It is clear that the Old Testament has the capacity to stand independently as it has done in both the pre-Christian era and even the early Christian times. Teaching and preaching of the scripture of the Old Testament as contingent to on an earlier commitment to making a standard measure for faith in teaching the New Testament overlooks a lot of the teachings of the Old Testament scriptures. It belittles a large chunk (3/4) of what goes has to speak to man. Interpreting the Bible backwards is a critical problem of procedure because it is bound to leave a major emptiness in out teaching of the word and serves as a fertile seedbed for the heresies of the future. It is a reductionist tendency to cut down the Bible to only constitute the Old Testament. The Old Testament is invaluable to the Christian. Avoiding it is basically missing out on three quarters of the message that God means for man; irrespective of whether the Christian person hears it or doesn't.[footnoteRef:559] [554: 1 Cor. 15:3-4] [555: Acts 26:6] [556: Ibid 26:22] [557: Ibid 24:14] [558: Ibid 28:23] [559: Kaiser Jr.]

Suggestions for future study

Christians should apply Exegesis and hermeneutics in the future studies on application of the Torah. The New Testament should be thoroughly studied so that it can be seen alongside the Torah. The Torah should also be studied in light of the New Testament so that relevance can be seen as applied to the believer. This way, principles can be identified which will be hermeneutically sound[footnoteRef:560]. [560: Viljoen, p. 154]

Works cited

Achtemeier, Elizabeth. The Relevance of the Old Testament for Christian Preaching. Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, (n.d.). web. 19 Jan. 16

Allison, D. C. The New Moses. A Matthean Typology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, (1993). Print.

Anderson, B. W. ed . The Old Testament and Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Row. 1963), pp. 8-35.

Ashley, Geoff. Christian Responsibility and Mosaic Law. The Village Church, 2012. Web. 19 Jan. 2016

Bornkamm, G. "End-expectation and church in Matthew." Pages 15-51 in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Edited by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held. London: SCM, 1963.

Bright, John. The Authority of the OldTestament, Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1967.

Butzer, Albert George, The Interpreter's Bible.Vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953, p. 149.

Carter, W. Matthew and the Margins. A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. (JSNTSup 204) (2000). Print.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Penguin, 1993.

Charlesworth, James H. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 20, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2014.

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970). 97-122.

Coogan, Michael D. A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in Its Context. Oxford University Press, (2009). pp. 148-149. Print.

Corrigan, John, and Winthrop Hudson. Religion in America. Prentice Hall, 2003.

CRUSEMANN, FRANK. The Torah and the Unity of God, Word & World, Vol. XXI, No. 3 (2001), p. 243-252. Print.

Davies, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1963). Print.

DeSilva, David Arthur, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry, InterVarsity Press, 2004

Dorsey, David. The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise. Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 321-334.

ELLISON, H. L. The Significance of the Old TestamentToday, (n.d.). 231-238.Web. 19 Jan. 16.

Galatians proves that we should observe the Torah, n.d. web. 20 Jan. 16

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Prince Press, 1999

Grace Communion International. Should Christians Keep the Law of Moses? - What About the Ten Commandments? (n.d). web. 19 January 2016

Hays, Daniel J. Applying the Old Testament Law Today, Bibliotheca Sacra 158: 629 (2001): 21-35. Web. 19 Jan. 16

Hegg, Tim. Historic Christianity & Apostolic Judaism: The Core Difference. TorahResource.com, (2003). Web. 20 January 2016

Heschel, Abraham Jesus, Tucker, Gordon & Levin, Leonard, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, London, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. Print.

Heschel, Susannah. The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Print.

Isaac W. Oliver, Do Christians Have to Keep the Torah? The Cases of Matthew and Luke-Acts, May 2015. Web. 19 January 2016

Kaiser Jr., Walter C. Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament A Guide for the Church, Baker Academic, 2003.

Kinzer, Mark Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2005. Print.

Kugler, Robert and Hartin, Patrick. The Old Testament between theology and history: a critical survey. Eerdmans, 2009.

Levin, Christoph L. The Old testament: a brief introduction. Princeton University Press, 2005.

Loader, W. R. G. Jesus' Attitude towards the Law. A Study of the Gospels. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck (WUNT 2. Reihe) (1997). Print.

Louis, Jacobs. The Jewish religion: a companion. Oxford University Press. (1995). Print.

Lynch, Joseph. The Medieval Church: A Brief History. Longman, 1995.

Meier, J. P. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

Oliver, Isaac W. Torah Praxis after 70 CE: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish Texts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.355. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Parsons, John J. Torah Awareness -- why Christians should study Torah. Hebrew4christians.com (n.d). web. 19 Jan. 16

Riches, John. The Bible: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Ridderbos, H. The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962.

Robinson, Rich. About Torah Observance. Jesus for Jesus, (2005). Web. 18 Jan. 16

Sasson, Ben, H.H. (Ed.) A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.

Scherman, Nosson, (ed.), Tanakh, Vol. I, The Torah, (Stone edition), Mesorah Publications, Ltd., New York, 2001. Print

Sim, David C. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community. Studies in the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Stern, David. Torah Incognita, Congregation Netzar Torah Yeshua, 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 16

Stevenson, Dwight E. Moral Choice in a Bountiful Land, The Pulpit, Jan. 1968; pp. 19-21.

Strecker, G. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Matthaus. Gottingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht [FRLANT 82], 1971.

Toombs, Lawrence E. The Old Testament in Christian Preaching, Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1961

Toombs, Lawrence E. The Problematic of Preaching from the Old Testament. In/erp. July 1969. 302-14.

Viljoen, Francois P. JESUS' TEACHING ON THE TORAH IN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, Neotestamenica 40.1 (2006) 135-155. Print.

Westermann, Claus ed., Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, 2nd ed. (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964), Chapter 4, pp. 76-88.