Whoever claims that a Jew is not obligated to observe Torah because this is what both Yeshua and Paul teach can be compared to that same incited crowd that attempted to lynch Paul because someone had spread a false report that he was not keeping Torah. Despite the fact that, ultimately, Paul paid with his life for this false report, some people try to convince us that this same “false rumor” was in fact true, that Paul did in fact teach the abolishment of the Torah. All of this leads to my unambiguous conclusion is that the new Testament does not teach us to abandon Torah, nor the tradition of the fathers (at least that which was known during that period). Consequently, however we understand Paul’s epistles, the guiding exegetical principle for interpreting his letters must be that he remained an “observant Jew” to the end of his life—and not merely as a “missionary tactic” to win souls for Christ. (Tsvi Sadan, Halakic Authority in the Life of the Messianic Community)
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
I completely agree with this statement, but it is with more than a little irony that I realize both Christianity and Judaism do believe that Paul taught the abolishment of the Torah, in essence, distorting the teachings of Jesus. More’s the pity.
By the way, thanks for providing a link to Kesher magazine online. Over this past year, I’ve asked, from time to time, for someone to send me the link (usually when the person has referenced some content from Kesher), but no one has been able to do so. I’ll be able to take a look at what they write now.
Did anyone catch the epilogue? The author writes,
Does Yeshua categorically reject the “tradition of the elders” here—or does he in fact only object to a particular position? If Yeshua actually teaches the rejection of this institution known as “the tradition of the elders,” how could one of his most devout disciples say, “now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us” (2 Thess 3:6).
I don’t understand the connection. Is he suggesting the tradition of the disciples is the same as the tradition of the Fathers?
“Is he suggesting the tradition of the disciples is the same as the tradition of the Fathers?”
No, Judah, you have to go a bit deeper. The whole point Sadan is trying to make is that some people today think that Yeshua wholesale rejects “tradition” and that he’s some “sola-scriptura” Protestant and against the customs and interpretations of the Bible passed down from elders (that is those who came before us).
Shaul, however, being an elder himself (we read that he even called himself a “father” to the Corinthians: “I’m writing as a father to you, my children.” 1 Corinthians 4:14), most likely is speaking about having passed down to them certain “traditions”, like fathers to children (practices, norms, probably not unlike Jewish halacha, but one tailored for these non-Jews) and that they should stick to them.
That’s the connection. Of course, the “tradition of the fathers” does belong to the Jewish disciples of Yeshua simply by virtue of them being Jewish. We have evidence of this when we read that they (including Shaul) lived according to Torah AND Jewish traditions. It is in that way it’s THEIR tradition too (and not that “tradition of the fathers = NT traditions).
That’s an interesting point, Judah. I know that Gene is planning on writing a blog post specifically detailing Yeshua’s position on the traditions and frankly, I’m looking forward to it. I’ve already said a number of times that I don’t see how you can separate the written and oral components of the Torah and then the associated halacha. Without all of those elements, you can’t “operationalize” the Torah…that is live it out.
How all this worked out in real life and especially between 1st century Jewish and Gentile believers, remains to be seen.
Oh, you can totally separate them. The “Oral” Law is just human judgment on God’s instruction.
One might say the Oral Law of Christianity is Catholic Catechism. Thank God Messiah’s disciples broke free of that mess.
I am not convinced the Oral Law of Judaism is much better. It is important that we don’t toss it aside flippantly — there is good in what Judaism’s sages have ruled — but it is not the final word, and it is not infallible, and sometimes various “fathers” contradict one another, and thus, opposing parts of it, as Yeshua did, is not some great heresy, but may actually be required of us as his disciples.
That may upset some Grandpa Tevye types, but the reality remains that traditions can nullify God’s commandments by turning them into a great burden. We ought be vigilant in that regard.
“Oh, you can totally separate them. The “Oral” Law is just human judgment on God’s instruction.”
That’s is a misunderstanding of what “Oral Law” is. That are commandments in the Torah for which it is obvious that G-d must have instructed something else (on how to perform it) but it wasn’t recorded. Small example: Exodus 12:2 “This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months”? To which month is this referring? Can you answer that question by quoting from Torah?
Yeshua kept MANY if not most of the traditions of his day, most of the halachic regulations of his day, AND many of his (if not most) expressed views reflected halachic (human) interpretations of Torah already in existence at the time (especially those of sages like Hillel and Shammai). In fact, theologically and practically speaking he was in agreement with Phariseeism in just about everything – his main issue was hypocrisy of some of the religious leaders (not unlike the present day leadership of any religion).
What many in the Protestant-derived sola-scriptura world fail to get, is that unlike Catholicism and much of Christianity, Torah was and is the constitution for the Jewish NATION and not just a “religion” of Judaism or some nice personal ethic. That is why it’s foolishness to think that Torah can be practiced apart from Jewish halachic elaboration that makes it a living document. Karaites tried that and failed – they simply ended up developing their own halachic interpretations in many ways just as elaborate as rabbinic ones.
The various halachic interpretations of Torah by Jewish sages and rabbis make Torah usable (by Jews) in the real life (e.g. Talmud contains whole sections dedicated just to business dealings). This is not unlike the U.S. Constitution and all the hundreds of thousands of U.S. laws that have been subsequently developed with Constitution as their base to serve the needs of society.
Whatever the burdensome traditions Yeshua may have opposed in the first century (many probably are not even practiced anymore), the devout Jews today do not view the modern Jewish exercise of mitzvot as a burden but a great delight. And of course, for secular people any religious practice is a burden.
Regardless of whether or not one thinks that halachic requirements or certain Jewish customs were or are a burden, Yeshua himself acknowledged the G-d given right and responsibility of Jewish leadership to rule on the matters of Jewish life and he tasked his disciples with obedience to them. He never once taught his disciples to break the established halachic practices or even customs – he only opposed faulty interpretations of a FEW of his detractors most of which were to do with hypocrisy. At the same time he also expected that the Jewish leaders themselves practiced what they preached:
“The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the Torah of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.” (Matthew 23:2-3)
Judah said: “That may upset some Grandpa Tevye types, but the reality remains that traditions can nullify God’s commandments by turning them into a great burden. We ought be vigilant in that regard….One might say the Oral Law of Christianity is Catholic Catechism. Thank God Messiah’s disciples broke free of that mess. I am not convinced the Oral Law of Judaism is much better. ”
You are on a roll, Judah! On the other hand, the Cowboy Religionists types have blown up Jewish halachic understanding of the Torah and the Jewish traditions in general into the greatest evil ever to befall the mankind. For them, it’s not the hypocrisy (!) that Yeshua warned against and that they must be vigilant of, but specifically the Jewish understanding of Torah and Israel’s traditional practices that are the main culprit to fight against and deride.
Never mind that Yeshua’s own Jewish disciples and the Apostle Paul himself, a man who single-handedly wrote much of NT, are on record to have sworn allegiance to both Torah AND specifically the Traditions of the Fathers, and have desperately sought to squelch false rumors to the contrary from spreading. So, let’s stop spreading the rumors that got Apostle Paul killed!
Nothing I can add to what Gene has said, but if you drop in on my current blog (hint: click on my name in this comment), you’ll see that I find it pretty easy to integrate Midrash, Chasidic tales, and the teachings of the Master. They are more alike than unalike.
“The various halachic interpretations of Torah by Jewish sages and rabbis make Torah usable (by Jews) in the real life (e.g. Talmud contains whole sections dedicated just to business dealings).”
How usable is separating meat and milk when the written Torah does not call for it?
Painting everything with the “dreaded” Sola-Scriptura moniker is not a reason to destort and invent new halachot.
“How usable is separating meat and milk when the written Torah does not call for it?”
Dan, I do not know. However, it makes just as much sense as the commandment from which it is derived, that is not to “boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.” While the true reasons for this law may be obscured from us, perhaps G-d simply wants us to be holy by not mixing life (milk) and death (slaughtered meat). Torah is filled with such “do not mix” commandments.
How about it’s grandmother’s milk, is this allowed? And why the separate dishes for life (milk) and death (meat)?
And if the true reason of the law may be obscured from us, why not just stick to Scriptures and let them interpret themselves? Go with the Peshat….
“And if the true reason of the law may be obscured from us, why not just stick to Scriptures and let them interpret themselves?”
Dan, the scriptures do not interpret themselves, they are interpreted by people. We are to look for the underlying principals, not just surface reading. Even most ardent “Sola-Scriptura” people know that. That’s Bible 101. For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:9 Shaul interprets Deuteronomy’s 25:4 “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” by saying “Is it about oxen that G-d is concerned?” and applying the principal to providing for workers of the Good News.
If Shaul were to follow your advice and “just stick to Scriptures and let them interpret themselves?” he would have missed this underlying principal. In fact, he would have missed MANY underlying principals.
A new term is born in defense of no defense, “underlying principals.”
Here is some Bible 101 question for you, well, 2 questions:
1) You shall not murder. What in this commandment you do not understand so you can invoke your “underlying principles?” Does God maybe means “you shall not maim?
2) You shall not cook a goat in its mothere’s milk. What in here you do not understand in order so you can invoke your “underlying principles” thing? Who are we to decide if God has some “underlying principles” in this case? Can’t we consider that that is exactly what He ment? Why can’t I eat a cheesburger when it is obvious that the meat patty was not cooked in milk at all, let alone in its mother’s milk?
“1) You shall not murder. What in this commandment you do not understand so you can invoke your “underlying principles?” Does God maybe means “you shall not maim?”
Dan, G-d indeed does have underlying principals in mind even here in what you view as fairly straightforward “sola-scriptura” commandment. Yeshua said: “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” (1 John 3:15) So, according to Messiah the underlying principal behind the commandment “you shall not murder” could also be expanded into “you shall not hate” – a FENCE LAW by Yeshua (since hate often leads to murder).
“Who are we to decide if God has some “underlying principles” in this case?”
G-d gave people a brain and for some, ability to discern and interpret difficult scriptural passages. Our Sages saw that underlying behind this THRICE-commanded law of not boiling an offspring in mother’s milk is the principal of not mixing life and death.
“Can’t we consider that that is exactly what He ment?”
Dan you are free to consider whatever. However, if a Jew wants to live in the manner of Jews, one of the thing he/she does is separating milk and meat. Period.
“Why can’t I eat a cheesburger when it is obvious that the meat patty was not cooked in milk at all, let alone in its mother’s milk?”
That would be violating the underlying principal of the law, that is by mixing “life” (milk) and “death” (meat). That would also be disregarding one of the most basic of Jewish prohibitions based on Torah and would bring dishonor to Messiah if we claim to be “Torah-observant Jews”.
First off let me introduce myself as new to the Daily Minyan, and first time contributor. So go easy on me if I say something wrong, but please correct me if I my theology is in error. The articles and comments I have read so far on the DM, are a breath of fresh air to me, especially the above article. I completely agree that the new Testament does not teach an abolishment or abandoning of Torah for Jewish followers of Yeshua. Quite the contrary according to Acts 21:20. Even the minimal requirements for gentiles (Acts 21:25) who came to the faith, abandoning their former belief systems, and would be coming into a more invevitable communal relationship with Jews, was directly taken from Torah. It was also taken for granted that they would continue to grow in Torah enlightenment and application as they heard Moses read at the synagogues they were free to attend on the sabbath.
I cannot even begin to count how many times since I became believer, I have been at loggerheads with my fellow Christians over Acts 21:18-27. These verses, along with Acts 15:21: For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. and Ephesians 2:10, For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should (not must to attain salvation) walk in them; have been instrumental in the way I understand the gospel of Messiah, and as a gentile have conducted and applied them to my living and growing faith in God, since I first believed some 25 years ago. So they tend to come up when Christians ask me about my faith or denomination.
From my reading so far on Daily Minyan, I get the impression that I do not really have to go into much depth explaining how the aforementioned verses tie into one another, and relate to my understanding of how the early church understood, preached and applied the gospel.
Needless to say I have not had close affiliations with any specific denominations until recently when I found a congregation ministered by a man I think may be the father of one of the thread contributors to The Daily Minyan.
From time to time in my discussions with Christians, when they find out my understanding of the episode in Acts (cited in the above article), where Paul is forced to address the false rumours circulating about his teachings. The question arises if I believe the animal sacrifices (Acts 21:26) have been abolished or not. I try and point out that at that time, the elders of the Jerusalem community of believers and Paul himself did not believe they were abolished or they would have been guilty of hypocrisy. At this point the conversation tends to get very ugly and onesided, and 99.9% of the time I am disfellowshipped and my salvation comes into question.
After 25 years I have learned when to walk away, without losing my cool. Trying to counter the claim my Christian brothers make that, “None of those sacrifices, ever actually took away sin. But were simply archetypes, and looked forward to, and were fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ.” I reply, “Then isn’t it possible that Paul, and the Jerusalem elders in continuing to adhere to temple liturgy, sacrifices and worship, were performing them and looking back to the sacrifice of Christ.” Of course by this time my words are useless, logic and the art of listening have left the building, and my quoting Psalm 50:8 is futile.
My understanding of scripture is that the temple (or at least the altar) will be rebuilt before the 2nd Advent, and the priesthood and sacrifices restored. More than likely under the guidance of the 2 olive trees (Rev 11:1-7)as the 2nd temple was under the guidance of the 2 olive branches Joshua and Zerubbabel.
Now I have probably said more than enough for my first contribution to the Daily Minyan, but it has been rare for me in the past 25 years to find brothers like Gene and James, where I feel at home with my understanding of new Testament scripture. I am more than open to any corrections or questions anyone may have regarding my first contribution.
Sincerely,
Brad
Thank you, Brad, for your comment. I know yours is a rough journey against the grain and I am sure that a good number of like-minded DM readers and contributors can relate to your experiences. You’re welcome to participate in any discussion here.