Torah and Yeshua: What Do We Make of Them?
by slaveofone

Protestant Christianity has been primarily interested in first century Torah observance inasmuch as it can be propped up as an example of a works versus faith system. It is said that Jews followed Torah in order to earn their salvation, whereas Yeshua advocated a different sort of religion in which salvation came through grace by faith alone. As will become apparent in the course of this analysis for those with a nose to sniff out heterodoxy, that old perspective will be abandoned in favor of one called the New.¹

Beyond becoming an abnormality and object of disgust to the Reformed faithful, Torah has also taken on the semblance of a perpetual enigma. Yeshua has fulfilled Torah, but what does that mean? Are we free from following it completely since we are no longer under it?² Will you love the Lord your God and keep his charge and his statues and his ordinances and his commandments³ or won’t you? Maybe it’s the moral part of Torah that must be kept because it is universal, whereas laws of ceremonial and sacrificial purity are culture and time specific and therefore unenforceable. Do we rely on the Spirit to satisfy Torah for us, working to bring us to a perfection Torah only hinted of but could never achieve⁴? Is keeping it a deeper expression of our faith? Declaring homosexual activity wicked⁵ but not wedding a rapist to his victim⁶ could easily be seen as picking and choosing which parts to follow and no doubt a good many might cry foul some such arbitrary decision. And throughout the New Testament, a possibly incoherent picture appears. Yeshua does something thought to be out-of-bounds at one moment and then upholds the sanctity of Torah the next. Not one jot or tittle will pass away and anyone who breaks the smallest of the commandments will be least in the Kingdom⁷, but Yeshua has no problem with David letting his men eat only what priests are to eat according to a little commandment and perhaps a few jots and tittles.⁸ Torah commands adulterers to be killed⁹, but Paul says disassociate from them so they will repent. ¹⁰ Torah says one thing and Yeshua says another¹¹, although what Yeshua says doesn’t seem to do away with Torah, but expand it.

Trying to navigate waters like these has become quite a venture, some tugging one way or the other with each their own course to steer while the less navigationally inclined trace like buoys the same hermeneutical circles. I suggest the way around this treacherous sea is best achieved through historical-critical investigation. But, of course, such a task would be too great to accomplish here. That is why the following pages will sketch a basic historical analysis by quoting portions from Jesus and the Victory of God in which such a thing is already done for us. Then, with course plotted, we will set sail and perhaps discover new worlds.

The question is, what is Israel’s god doing with, and for, Israel and the world? And what role does Torah play within that? At this point, ironically, the discussion has, I think, been hijacked by exactly the sort of Protestant dogmatic scheme which Sanders, elsewhere, famously, rejects: the celebrated ‘question of the law’ (is the Torah a good thing or a bad thing?) is raised in that form not in the New Testament but in the somewhat more recent debates between followers of Luther and of Calvin.

Torah, not least the purity codes, was regarded as the distinctive badge of the nation Israel.

These codes were the things which marked out the Jews from their pagan neighbors. The Jews knew it, their neighbors knew it.

What does loyalty to Israel’s god mean for a Palestinian Jew faced with the announcement that the long-awaited kingdom is now at last appearing? Jesus’ zealous contemporaries would have said: Torah provides the litmus test of loyalty to Israel’s god and to his covenant. Jesus said: what counts is following me.

Israel’s history was dawning, bringing with it great opportunity and great danger. The opportunity, he [Yeshua] believed, lay in his own kingdom announcement. The danger lay in Israel’s obsession with her national existence and liberation, and in the symbols which identified and reinforced it [such as Torah].

The rigorous application of the law in the way we have observed, as a defense against Gentiles and hence as a reinforcement of national boundaries and aspirations, had become, in Jesus’ view, a symptom of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The works of Torah functioned as symbolic praxis, as the set of badges which demonstrated both to observant Jews and to their neighbors that they were indeed the people of the covenant. For Jesus, the symbolic praxis that would mark out his followers, and which therefore can be classified as, in that sense, redefined Torah, is set out in places such as the Sermon on the Mount.

There was an assertion that the time had come for the institution to be transcended.

For Jesus, part of the point of the kingdom he was claiming to inaugurate would be that it would bring with it all that Torah offered, thereby replacing and making redundant Israel’s greatest symbol.

His own work - his kingdom-announcement, his prophet praxis, his celebrations, his warnings, his symbolic activity - all these were part of the movement through which Israel would be renewed, evil would be defeated, and YHWH would return to Zion at last.

It carried a challenge to Jesus’ contemporaries: give up the interpretation of your tradition with has so gripped you, which is driving you towards the cliff-edge of ruin. Embrace instead a different interpretation of your tradition, on which, though it looks like the way of loss, is in fact the way to true victory. And with this announcement and agenda there went a warning: those who fail to come this way are missing their last chance to repent. From here on, those who persist in their destructive interpretation of Israel’s traditions will reap the harvest they are sowing.

The fact that he could answer his challengers with a legal argument does not mean that the dispute was about the fine-tuned interpretation of Torah, such as might take place at any time; merely that Jesus was claiming that his (eschatologically motivated) kingdom-praxis could not legally be controverted, however unwelcome its symbolic implications might be.

Did Jesus as Israel’s would-be kingdom-bringer, affirm the key symbols of zealous Israel? The answer to that question was No. Jesus affirmed Israel’s election, Israel’s belief in her god, and Israel’s eschatological hope. But this status, this theology, and this aspiration were to be redefined around a new set of symbols.

Jesus’ eschatological announcement of the kingdom did not deny the god-giveness of the Jewish symbols, but cut right across them.

The traditions which attempted to bolster Israel’s national identity were out of date and out of line.

(Various portions of historical analysis lifted with gratitude from Tom Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God.)

So to sum up, Yeshua offered an alternate interpretation of Israel’s eschatological fulfillment that lay in him and not in what Torah had become the symbol of-i.e., he redefined what it meant to be Israel. Because the way of Yahweh’s working to bring about his Kingdom had changed, so too would those symbols that reinforced and communicated it. Those few key symbols included Temple, Torah, Land, and Race. Yeshua did not destroy these, but subverted their normal connotations through his kingdom announcement and praxis, while showing clearly to those who challenged his re-interpretation that it did not go against what the symbols stood for, but actually fulfilled them (and giving the signs necessary to vindicate his radical claim that Yahweh’s dealing with Israel had now changed in himself and his work).

So what then happened to Torah and what should a Christian’s reaction to it be whether in part or in whole? The answer to the first is that what was formerly accomplished through Torah observance is now accomplished through Yeshua. The answer to the second is nothing. Torah no longer applies because Yeshua applies instead. Torah has not been destroyed. It has not fallen away. It has neither ceased to be holy and righteous and good, nor become an evil, binding, or "work’s righteous" religion. It has simply been replaced with something better. Where before men showed their trust in the faithfulness of Yahweh to save and redeem by adhering to the commands and statutes and ordinances of Law, they do so now, according to Yeshua, by believing in and following him. Thus, to now follow Torah and subject oneself to its Law is to mock Yeshua and what he stands for and to look for that which Yahweh offers now through his Son through something else instead. What hope is there for a man to receive from Yahweh the promises and restoration if he shuns the way to them in favor of another? There is none. This is why the scripture says that it is impossible for those who have once become partakers of the Spirit to be renewed again to it if they have fallen away.¹² What is at issue is not losing one’s salvation, but looking for that salvation to be given through observance of Law¹³ instead of submission to Christ. It is not that people are attempting to earn or gain their salvation through works of Torah, it is that they believe the works of Torah must define them if they are the people who are saved and will see that salvation in due course, which is no longer the case. So the question then becomes, if Yeshua is now the way that Yahweh fulfills his covenant promises and faithfulness, thus redefining what it means to be Israel, what are the appropriate symbols to convey that?

Race? It cannot, because Yeshua has destroyed the division between Jew and Gentile. Those who were not the chosen people of Yahweh or the children of Abraham are now called children of the Most High God.¹⁴

Land? What is the Promised Land when Yahweh has further promised the ends of the world to his Messiah and thus to his people who follow him?¹⁵ If all authority on earth has been given to Yeshua¹⁶, what great importance is a small plot of dust called Palestine? The promise of land in Torah is but a meager portion of the original command to Adam to have dominion or rule over the entire Earth.¹⁷ Instead of ruling the earth, Adam was ruled by it, but Yeshua became the second Adam and restored the command of Yahweh to creation. And his followers would have nothing to do with reigning over the Promised Land, but went into all nations, to proclaim in every land the name of Christ and his dominion-even into the very city of divine Caesar. When Rome destroyed Israel and threw down the Holy City and Temple, what Christian lamented its fall or stood with the Jews in opposition? The reason Christians were not distraught by Roman dominion of the Promised Land was not because they believed Yahweh would restore Israel to her land some day, but that because of Yeshua, such nationalistic geographical boundaries had not only become pointless, but dangerous.¹⁸

Temple? As you can guess, the issue is the same. So what about Torah, the main subject of our inquiry? While Torah speaks of a great number of things falling into our previous categories of Temple, Race, and Land, there were other laws that stood out from the rest; commandments that defined Israel both in her eyes and the eyes of others outside her; commands the people of Israel might easily give their lives for instead of breaking them. These also included Sabbath, food laws, and circumcision. A pious and god-fearing Jew would willingly stretch out his hands and tongue to be cut off, and surrender his body to be skinned and then boiled alive rather than be forced to eat pork¹⁹, but Yeshua said there is nothing that goes into a man that can defile him, but what comes out that defiles²⁰ and clean the inside of the cup and the outside will be clean.²¹ So already we see a major re-definition taking place. Yeshua said Israel is the one who is inwardly cleansed, not the one who cleanses outwardly. Therefore what stands as symbols of outward cleanliness no longer applies because it suggests other than the reality made known by Yeshua. But let us spend a little more time and dig into an aspect of Torah and how it was re-interpreted and fulfilled by Yeshua so that its observance is rendered obsolete.

Recall that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there by strength and power. That is why the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

Deuteronomy 5:15

Jesus is portrayed as taking up and transforming the great theme of Sabbath as release from work, bringing into immediate and sharp focus the theme of Sabbath as rest after trouble, as redemption after slavery. Jesus was claiming that Israel’s longing for a great Sabbath day when all her enemies would be put to shame and she herself would rejoice at God’s release was being fulfilled in him. That is why it was not merely generally appropriate that someone should be healed, and if it happened to be on the Sabbath, well and good. The claim was that the Sabbath day was the most appropriate day because that day celebrated release from captivity, from bondage, as well as from work.

Tom Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God

Yeshua claimed in his kingdom announcement and praxis that the captivity and exile had now come to an end, therefore Sabbath, being a symbol of the day when the release from captivity would occur, no longer held that meaning. In the new context Yeshua proclaimed (the captivity was ended), normal Sabbath observance would be like men sent out from their prisons refusing to undo their shackles. Obviously, this wouldn’t do. The new symbol must show the now-present redemption from slavery--in other words, the very thing Sabbath meant to convey. And thus a new definition, in light of the new circumstances, would be fit Sabbath better--i.e. replace it.

Sabbath was no longer defined as a certain day when certain duties could not be performed, but as a recognition and reliance upon the works Yeshua had done and was doing being the end of captivity and the rest of Yahweh given at long last to mankind. The command to keep Sabbath then was not only met but also fulfilled (according to Yeshua) by himself. Others observed this Sabbath by believing and following him. Again, this doesn’t mean Sabbath ceased, that Yeshua broke Sabbath, that Sabbath was no longer supposed to be followed, or that he was simply arguing with other Jews about legal matters--it means the definition of Sabbath had now changed according to the new situation Israel’s God had made for her. Sabbath didn’t define God’s action, God’s action defined Sabbath. God was now presently restoring his people in and through Yeshua, which made the definition of Sabbath now dependant upon Yeshua instead of Torah. And Yeshua showed in word and deed that what Sabbath represented, he had embodied in its fullest sense. Thus, to embrace Yeshua in light of these new circumstances was to do what normal Sabbath observance could not do but which it had meant to do.

The final analysis then: Yeshua was reforming Israel around himself, claiming to be doing all the things the normal Jewish symbols had meant to do, and so subverted those symbols, but in the process fulfilled them. Sabbath, for instance, was the release from captivity--both the captivity of sin and the captivity of gentile rulers who made them "work" as slaves because of that sin. It signified the rest of creation that would never come while sin still held rule over it instead of creation ruling sin.²² If Yeshua has indeed freed us from sin and the consequences of sin, then it means creation is being restored or put back into its intended order (rest) and Torah’s 7th day no longer has the meaning it once had in Torah. But if the seventh day still has this meaning, then Yeshua has not freed Israel from sin and its result and we are still captives waiting for the day when Yahweh will redeem us from our trespasses and begin restoring creation. In other words, those who look to Yeshua as the means and method of Sabbath magnify Yeshua to the position he claimed. Those who depend still on Torah Sabbath mock Yeshua and what he said he stood for, and thus, if Yeshua is true, mock the Father who was a witness to his claim.

But before we end, there is one more issue that remains to be explored: absolutes. Torah provided the Jewish people with a method for determining absolute guidelines to follow both ethically and morally in their lives. If anyone wanted to know if homosexual relations were good or not, they could simply turn to a command²³ to find their basis in its acceptance or rejection. So what is the equivalent for the Christian who no longer follows Torah since it has been made obsolete? How can we know if something is right or wrong, good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, without making an arbitrary decision?

Interestingly enough, this problem is only a phenomenon of Protestantism. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox have Church and Tradition that are as authoritative as any scripture (and thus Torah itself). Therefore, if there is question or doubt, one seeks the pronouncement from the Magisterial Authority. But Protestantism with its insistence on Sola Scriptura has cut itself off from the authority of Church and Tradition that informed the lives of the faithful in subjects or areas untouched by scripture itself. Having lost that authority, Protestantism is now faced with scripture alone. So it is common to accept Torah observance of some form or other (usually in the form of universals) to regain this absolute. But when we do so, we are back where we were before. Yeshua made Torah obsolete. What it stands for no longer approves the way to Yahweh, but rejects it. So what is the alternative?

There are two. Yeshua himself and thereafter his people who are his body, wherein the Spirit is working to lead his people into all truth.²⁴ So we can begin with the gospels. Inside the gospels are the words and actions of Yeshua according to which the Kingdom is based. The rest of the New Testament simply takes from this and expands on it by the Spirit. For those seeking an absolute authority on which to stand in one respect or another, the Sermon the Mount is one example of a short, re-interpreted Torah for the new Israel. For a larger, deeper base, the life and words of Christ in the gospels are referred to, and thereafter the life and words of those who followed him as recorded in the New Testament epistles. These are enough to inform a Christian’s life in all good things, for the Kingdom of Yahweh, and for the restoration of creation. This is what the early church fathers spoke of as the Regula Fidei.²⁵ The abundance therein is great. Perhaps not in the way Torah was, but in a more fundamental, more powerful way-the way of Yeshua, the way of the Kingdom, the way of the people of the Most High God.

• Digest
  • slaveofone's Digest
  • Imaginated's Digest
  • Mit The Destroyer's Digest
• Bias
• Imaginarium
  • Poetry
  • Photography
  • Movies
  • Digital Art
  • Stories
• Twisted Minds
  • slaveofone's Bio
  • Imaginated's Bio
  • Mit The Destroyer's Bio
• Resources

Echo Of Eden^© 2005-2007

• -made on GNU/Linux^®
• -Gimp
• -Inkscape
• -Jedit