Of course, but does that mean the Gentiles have to literally keep all the Torah? Do they have to be circumcised or worship at the temple? Keep the Feasts and sacrifices? Not wear a coat made of two types of cloth? Not eat pork? No, to have the Torah written on your heart means to keep the principles which inspired the Torah - to love God and love your neighbour.

> Gentiles like to say that they do not have to follow the Torah because
> they are not Israel, but they are very quick to want to be members of
> the New Covenant. They cannot have it both ways. Either they are
> full-fledged members of Israel, partakers of the New Covenant, and
> responsible to keep the whole Torah ... or else they are Gentiles, not
> participants in the New Covenant, and not required to keep the Torah.
>

So yes we have to keep the law of circumcision, but spiritually not literally, circumcision of the heart, not the flesh. We keep the Torah spiritually, not literally. We enter the rest God has prepared for us, but on "another day", not the seventh day (see Heb 4).

Ezekiel 36 says that when the New Covenant is made with Israel, the Lord will cause them to keep His "decrees" (36:27). Only one verse (that I have found) in the whole Torah specifically names something as a "decree," Leviticus 19:19:

"Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

Those who are in the New Covenant and have a new heart will not wear clothes of two different fabrics. What this means for Gentiles is hashed out in the New Testament writings and beyond the scope of my question. I just wanted to know why you think a Gentile can say "I am in the New Covenant" and how the New Covenant changes the obligation of Israel to follow the entire Torah?

This is very interesting. I can think of three responses, either (a) a Rom 2:28 response to say we are spiritually the new Israel and we keep the Torah spiritually (re: Rom 2:29 for being circumcised spiritually), or (b) Gentiles are bound by some pre-Abrahamic covenant, such as the Noahic covenant, see Acts 15/Gen 9 - some people argue that the agreement of Acts 15 is a re-wording of the covenant with Noah, or (c) from Gal 4:24 there is another covenant for the Gentiles, not the "New Covenant" referred to in the OT, but just another covenant which brings freedom.

Please go into more detail about your views.

Of your options, I choose (b) Gentiles are bound by some pre-Abrahamic covenant.

The Encyclopedia Judaica makes reference to this: "[Acts 15:20] is the only [of early extant references] that bears any systematic relationship to the set of religious laws which the Pentateuch makes obligatory upon resident aliens" ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12.1190).

God made a covenant with Noah and all mankind. All mankind is obligated to follow those laws. Modern Jews count seven of them, but that is not my concern right now. The Council in Acts 15 listed four of them ... the others were most likely implied. When Gentiles converted to Christianity, some Christians thought they needed to climb the ranks to full Jewish conversion. The Council decided that this is not correct based on the "then-current" events and the passage that is quoted (plus others could have been listed).

(a) is not correct. Paul does not use the phrase "spiritual circumcison." He says that Gentiles who keep the law will be regarded as "circumcised." This idea comes from the OT:

"The foreigners who join themselves to YHWH, to minister to Him, and to love the name of YHWH, to be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath and holds fast My covenant; even those I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." The Master YHWH, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, "Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered" (Isa 56:6-8).

This "regathering" deals with the world to come (the topic of Hebrews, Heb 2:5). Gentiles who keep the whole Torah (without being circumcised) will be treated like Jews in the world to come. Jews who do not keep the Torah will be treated worse-than-Gentiles in the world to come.

"I tell you, 'I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.' In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God" (Luke 13:27-29).

Those from the four directions are those Gentiles who keep the covenant in Isa 56:6-8 and those who are reckoned as circumcised in Rom 2.

(c) cannot be correct either. These covenants are not the Old and New covenants are usually taught. To prove to those that wish to be "under the law" that their view is false, he quotes from the Torah. We learn from this that those who "under the law" believe a heresy that has never been true. Those "under the law" are not holding on to some out-dated religion -- they are believing a false doctrine. Moses did not believe this "under the law" doctrine either -- according to Paul, the Torah proves that the "under the law" doctrine is false. The two "covenants" better represent two "inheritances." The Greek word for covenant also means "will," and that clearly seems to be the case here. The first "covenant" represents trying to keep the law in your flesh. This will fail. Those who hold this position will inherit death. (We know that this covenant cannot be the old covenant because the result of everyone under this covenant is to be "cast out" ... Moses was under the old covenant and he will not be cast out.) The second "covenant" represents those who trust God. Their inheritance is life. Abraham took part in this covenant, and we can infer that Moses did as well. They lived their lives by faith.

Now we must ask what about Jewish Christians. If Gentile Christians are only obligated to follow the covenant God made with Noah, then what about Jewish Christians? What are their obligations as far as the Torah? There is no indication in the NT that anything has changed as far as obligations go. Jesus said, "not one jot or tittle" will pass away from the Torah. He explains that this means that you should do and teach others to obey even the least of the commandments. Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were angry at Paul because they thought he taught Jews that they no longer needed to circumcise their children. In order to prove that this was false, Paul planned to provide the sacrifices for four Jewish-Christians to take the Nazarite vow. Why are they so upset about circumcision and why are they offering sacrifices?!!? Apparently, the Jews had this time did not think that the Torah had passed away or that they now only had to follow it "spiritually." Jewish-Christians are obligated to follow the whole Torah. Many Jewish Christians today forsake the commandments in the Torah because they are taught by Gentile Christians that it has been abolished or now they keep it spiritually ... but that is not Biblical. Regarding circumcision, as one example, "My covenant shall be in your flesh for an *everlasting* covenant" (Gen 17:13). To think that somehow this covenant was abolished or changed by Christ is unbiblical.

One interesting verse comes from Galatians. Paul strongly warns the Galatians, "every man who receives circumcision is under obligation to keep the whole Law" (Gal 5:3). Where does this obligation come from? From the OT, of course. A person who converts to Judaism through circumcision (at that time and today) is considered a full-fledged Jew. He is encouraged to forget that he ever was not a Jew and he is obligated to all the same things that native-born Jews are. The Galatians seem to be taking circumcision very lightly, as some way to earn favor in some group. Paul warns them that they will be obligated to follow the whole Torah if they convert, just like he and the other Jewish-Christians were.

I think that is all the time I have for now. Let me know what you think ... at least your first impression and comments. Thanks so much for taking my email seriously.

In Messiah,

I think the following points come to mind:

Firstly I am encouraged that you don't try to split up the Torah - for example saying that Christians just have to keep the Ten Commandments, or Christians just have to keep the moral part of the Torah, or Christians just have to keep the "health laws" in the Torah etc. I take it from your comments that you regard a covenant as an agreement and that therefore entering into a covenant means keeping the whole agreement. The Torah is a whole and it goes against the whole concept of God's covenant with Israel to split it into into "Ceremonial" and other parts, some of which remain and others are fulfilled.

Secondly there is certainly a tradition in the OT that followers of God don't have to keep the law to the letter, but rather keep the Spirit of the law - there are examples in Isaiah 1, Hos 6:6, 2 Ki 517-19 etc - so I also agree that it is wrong to simply characterise concepts such as Gal 4:25 as the Old Testament or the Covenant with Israel.

Three: clearly Jews in the New Testament continue to keep the law, however because most of the writings of the NT that go into doctrine are by Paul and his followers it is difficult to known exactly how they understood the law in relation to Jesus. For example what about sacrifices required in the law and the sacrifice of Christ?

Four - Paul's writings for the Gentiles are conspicuous in their absence of references to the law. There are lots of places where Paul instructs the Gentile Christians in their behaviour and he almost never quotes the law as a guide for behaviour (I believe the exception in 1 Cor 9:9). He certainly does not appear to use the law in reference to religious or moral behaviour (1 Cor 7:19 etc), rather the simply employs his own authority to teach correct behaviour (e.g. 1 Cor 13, Phil 2, Gal 5 etc).

Looking up "covenant" in the concordance did indeed only find references to "New Covenant" in Hebrews, however the phrase "New Testament" in the KJV is translated as "new covenant" in 2 Cor 3 in the NIV, and in this the new covenant is contrasted to the old as the letter is to the Spirit, so the "old" covenant of the letter appears to be "fading away" - and this not simply for Gentiles but for Jews also.

So I don't see a clear argument for the Old Covenant remaining unchanged in the New Testament, although exactly what if any covenant covers the Gentiles in the NT appears to be an important cause of debate.

John

Thanks for your reply.

Firstly, I definitely agree that you cannot divide the Torah in "parts." It is very unscriptural.

Secondly, I disagree that in the OT the Israelites were not required to keep the letter but the spirit. By "spirit," do you mean "intent"? That's often the distinction people see in 2 Cor 3 ... but the word for "spirit" there is not "intent" but "breath, ghost, spirit" as in the Holy Spirit (more on this below). The Israelites were indeed instructed to keep the letter of the law. Passages like Isaiah 1, Hos 6:6, 2 Ki 517-19 etc, show God's priorities in the commandments. It is better to obey than sacrifice, but it is best to do both when God's commands it. It is better to love your neighbor and love your God than to celebrate God's holidays, but it is best to do both. The problems in the OT are with outward religion that it is empty on the inside. But whenever God's people get right on the inside, it always causes them to perform the letter of the commandments. The best example is Nehemiah 8:

"So on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. 3 He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law. ... 14 They found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to live in booths during the feast of the seventh month ... So the people went out and brought back branches and built themselves booths on their own roofs, in their courtyards, in the courts of the house of God and in the square by the Water Gate and the one by the Gate of Ephraim ... The whole company that had returned from exile built booths and lived in them. From the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Israelites had not celebrated it like this. And their joy was very great. Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God. They celebrated the feast for seven days, and on the eighth day, in accordance with the regulation, there was an assembly" (Neh 8:2-3, 14, 16-18).

I know that God did not say to them, "Your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them" (Isaiah 1:14). When a people oppress the poor, robs the widows, and hates justice ... then God hates their feasts. He would rather they love mercy than bring burnt offerings before him. Following the letter of some laws (like sacrifices) does not mean anything if you don't keep the letter of more important laws (like love your God and your neighbor). This does not mean that God did not want them to keep the whole law ... but since they weren't keeping the whole law, He wanted them to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God; in their outward obedience of "ceremonial" laws, they were not doing this.

Thirdly, the Jews in the NT did continue to keep the Torah. Even with sacrifices, they continued to see these as an important part of obedience to God. In Acts 21, we see that four Jewish Christians were nearing the completion of their Nazarite vow ... a completely voluntary vow with sacrificial offering at the end:

James: "You see, brother [Paul], how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are ZEALOUS for the TORAH. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to TURN AWAY FROM MOSES, telling them not to CIRCUMCISE THEIR CHILDREN or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is NO TRUTH IN THESE REPORTS about you, but that you yourself are living in OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW. As for the GENTILE BELIEVERS, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality" (Acts 21:20-25).

This passage seals it for me. The Jewish Christians had heard that Paul taught Jews that they no longer had to follow the Torah because of Christ's coming. All these Jewish Christians were zealous for the Torah. James knows that these accusations against Paul were false, and he instructed him to go through the purification rites with these four men to prove that he continued to be a Torah observant Jew. The confusion arose because Paul taught Gentiles to follow just the four things (the Noahide laws, perhaps). James brings this up to contrast it with the attitude of the Jews ... which is that they are all still obligated to follow the Torah, even sacrifices and circumcision.

Fourthly, you are observant to notice I Cor 9:9. If Gentiles are not supposed to follow the Torah, then it is very deceptive of Paul to quote a verse from the Torah as "proof" that these Christians are supposed to give him money. It sounds very much like Christian pastors who think that the "ceremonial laws" of the Torah have been abolished and then turn around and require their members to bring "tithes and offerings." (Tithes Biblically are of plants ... offerings are of animal sacrifices. But no one puts plants and animals in the collection plate. And these tithes do not go exclusively to the Levites, the widows, and the orphans ... this is where they are supposed to go.) I hope that Paul is not doing the same grossly-deceptive thing here.

As far as the Old Covenant fading away ... please note that both in 2 Cor 3 and Hebrews 8, the Old Covenant "IS fading away"; it had not at the time. Hebrews says that when Jeremiah wrote the words, "new covenant," he made the first "old." The Old Covenant did not fade away at the time of Jeremiah, nor did it fade away at the time of Paul and Hebrews ... it is still "fading away." But notice also the conditions of the new covenant. "I will put my Torah in their minds and write it on their hearts." Whether or not the new covenant has been made with Israel can be debated: I don't think it has. It is not the case that all Israel knows the Lord; it is not the case that all Israel has the Torah written on their hearts. It is not the case that Israel no longer needs a teacher. It is not the case that Israel no longer has any sins. When the terms of the new covenant are implemented, all Israel will obey in the entire Torah.

The "letter" and "Spirit" distinction have to do with power to obey and not with the commandments to be obeyed. In the "old covenant," the "letter" stands written on stone. As "good, whole, and just" as the Torah is, it cannot make you obey it. The problem with the old covenant is not a problem with the Torah; it's a problem with the people: "God found fault with the people" (Heb 8:8). The new covnenant is the same Torah but written on the heart. The result of this will be the fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:26-28.

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God."

The "Spirit" in Ezekiel 36:27 is the "Spirit" of the new covenant. But notice that the Spirit causes Israel to "follow [His] decrees and be careful to keep [His] laws." That's the difference: in the old covenant, you had to do it on your own ... in the new covenant, God gives His Spirit to cause Israel to obey the commandments of the Torah. The Torah truly will be written in Israel's heart and they will keep the letter of all the commandments.

Somehow in Christ, the Old Covenant begins fading away and the New Covenant begins to dawn. We see pale glimpses, like in I John: "The anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you" (2:27, Jeremiah 31:34). Jesus Himself told them to drink the cup of the new covenant. However, He did not drink it and He won't until the Kingdom and His return. That's when the conditions of the new covenant will be fully put in force. We see this in 1 John (written to Jewish Christians, see 2:2) also: "We know that when he appears, we shall be LIKE HIM, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). When Christ returns, Israel will be like the One who said: "I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart" (Psalm 40:8).

But none of this implies that the Torah has changed. It is the same Torah in the old covenant as in the new covenant.

Looking forward to your response.

>
> Firstly, I definitely agree that you cannot divide the Torah in "parts." It
> is very unscriptural.

Good.

>
> Secondly, I disagree that in the OT the Israelites were not required to keep
> the letter but the spirit. By "spirit," do you mean "intent"? That's often the
> distinction people see in 2 Cor 3 ... but the word for "spirit" there is not
> "intent" but "breath, ghost, spirit" as in the Holy Spirit (more on this
> below). The Israelites were indeed instructed to keep the letter of the law.
> Passages like Isaiah 1, Hos 6:6, 2 Ki 517-19 etc, show God's priorities in the
> commandments. It is better to obey than sacrifice, but it is best to do both
> when God's commands it. It is better to love your neighbor and love your God
> than to celebrate God's holidays, but it is best to do both. The problems in
> the OT are with outward religion that it is empty on the inside. But whenever
> God's people get right on the inside, it always causes them to perform the
> letter of the commandments. The best example is Nehemiah 8:
v

OK, I think this is slightly complicated. Yes, the Israelites were requires to keep the law - that is the point of the covenant, and there are plenty of passages which show that the law was never thought of as a bad thing.

There are three points however to be considered:

a) What is the law? is it the list of 613 commandments, or is it the stories recorded in the books of the law? If it is the 613 commandments, as we know there aren't enough of them to clarify how they are to be obeyed - how heavy is a "load" not to be carried on the Sabbath? etc Hence the tradition Jewish tradition of interpreting the law and deciding on points where it wasn't clear. Yet this tradition is one response to the ambiguity of the law - we interpret the law as a set of rules to be strictly followed and if it isn't clear enough then we add more rules so we can strictly follow it.

b) How do we know God's will? Is it through the law, through prophets or through our own conscience? The writings of the prophets are included in the OT and hence imply that they are required in addition to the law to know God's will, yet what does that make of the law? Does it indicate a different way of approaching the law - not as a list of instructions but as a way of life? The rules are indications or guides, but are not black and white rules - the principles of the law are more important than the details. There are examples of this which I quoted in my last e-mail - don't bow down to idols, but in some cases you can etc.

c) There are examples in the OT of God's will being opposed to the law - take the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham - or of humans arguing with God and causing him to change his mind - so we can't always take the "absolute" word of God as the final word, he exists in a relation to humans, we do not simply obey out of blind obedience.

>
> I know that God did not say to them, "Your appointed feasts my soul hates.
> They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them" (Isaiah 1:14).
> When a people oppress the poor, robs the widows, and hates justice ... then God
> hates their feasts. He would rather they love mercy than bring burnt offerings
> before him. Following the letter of some laws (like sacrifices) does not mean
> anything if you don't keep the letter of more important laws (like love your God
> and your neighbor). This does not mean that God did not want them to keep the
> whole law ... but since they weren't keeping the whole law, He wanted them to
> act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God; in their outward
> obedience of "ceremonial" laws, they were not doing this.
>

I agree that the sense of the prophets complaining about the keeping of the law is that it was the religious requirements but not the moral ones that were being followed, and that without a clean heart then religious practises are hyprocracy and unacceptable. There isn't a suggestion that God doesn't want the religious laws being kept, however there is the assumption that the law is really about a way of life, a type of people who follow God, rather than keeping a list of rules. This makes the idea of the law as essentially the stories of the books of the law rather than 613 rules more in keeping with the OT.

It is interesting that the idea of the New Covenant is about people wanting to keep the law - changing on the inside - as the Torah clearly states that the requirements of God can be kept - God isn't asking humans to do something which is impossible, yet this is partly the assumption of the New Covenant.

> Thirdly, the Jews in the NT did continue to keep the Torah. Even with
> sacrifices, they continued to see these as an important part of obedience to
> God. In Acts 21, we see that four Jewish Christians were nearing the completion
> of their Nazarite vow ... a completely voluntary vow with sacrificial offering
> at the end:
>

Yes - it is the case that the Jewish Christians in the NT kept the law, and were concerned about Paul's attitude to the law. However I think it is wrong to think that the Jewish Christians understood the truth about Jews and the law. In fact Paul had a much better understanding of the implications of Jesus in relation to the law, however he wasn't in charge of the Christians - those in Jerusalem were the leaders and Paul had to be careful not to offend them with his new understanding of the law.

>
> This passage seals it for me. The Jewish Christians had heard that Paul taught
> Jews that they no longer had to follow the Torah because of Christ's coming.
> All these Jewish Christians were zealous for the Torah. James knows that these
> accusations against Paul were false, and he instructed him to go through the
> purification rites with these four men to prove that he continued to be a Torah
> observant Jew. The confusion arose because Paul taught Gentiles to follow just
> the four things (the Noahide laws, perhaps). James brings this up to contrast
> it with the attitude of the Jews ... which is that they are all still obligated
> to follow the Torah, even sacrifices and circumcision.
>

Although Paul accepts Acts 15 as a compromise, it didn't keep to it. He makes it clear that meat sacrificed to idols is only a problem if you think it is - in reality it shows you have weak faith, he characterises the Jews who keep to the law as weak in faith, but acknowledges that if they think it is a sin to break the law then they should not do so. Paul's understanding of the law is that we have died to it - as as we are dead it has no hold on us. He almost never uses the law or the OT as a guide for Christian behaviour, but rather applies the meaning of Christ to ethical commands.

>
> As far as the Old Covenant fading away ... please note that both in 2 Cor 3 and
> Hebrews 8, the Old Covenant "IS fading away"; it had not at the time. Hebrews
> says that when Jeremiah wrote the words, "new covenant," he made the first
> "old." The Old Covenant did not fade away at the time of Jeremiah, nor did it
> fade away at the time of Paul and Hebrews ... it is still "fading away." But
> notice also the conditions of the new covenant. "I will put my Torah in their
> minds and write it on their hearts." Whether or not the new covenant has been
> made with Israel can be debated: I don't think it has. It is not the case that
> all Israel knows the Lord; it is not the case that all Israel has the Torah
> written on their hearts. It is not the case that Israel no longer needs a
> teacher. It is not the case that Israel no longer has any sins. When the terms
> of the new covenant are implemented, all Israel will obey in the entire Torah.
>

I think for Paul and Gentile Christians the meaning of the OT was re-interpreted away from applying to Israel and the Jews. Although it is true that the original words in the OT applied to the Jews, in the NT Paul and other writers take texts and apply them to Christians. The Jews no longer become God's people - through Christ everyone - Jew and Gentile - have entered into a special relationship with God.

This can particularly be seen in the gospels where the Jews are seen as children of Satan, and opposed to Christ.

> The "letter" and "Spirit" distinction have to do with power to obey and not with
> the commandments to be obeyed. In the "old covenant," the "letter" stands
> written on stone. As "good, whole, and just" as the Torah is, it cannot make
> you obey it. The problem with the old covenant is not a problem with the Torah;
> it's a problem with the people: "God found fault with the people" (Heb 8:8).
> The new covnenant is the same Torah but written on the heart. The result of
> this will be the fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:26-28.

As mentioned above, the original Torah doesn't see the commands as difficult to obey. However the law can be seen in two ways. For children we may give exact commands - you will eat all your food, you will go to bed at 8.00 etc - for adults we apply the principles behind those laws - you need to eat enough healthy food and get enough sleep - but we don't keep to a list of rules, it is childish. So as Jesus shows, the law is to be kept, but the principles of the law, not the literal detail - Jesus breaks the detail e.g. commanding a man to carry his bed on the Sabbath, but then even God is working on the Sabbath!

>
> "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you
> your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in
> you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. You will
> live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be
> your God."
>
[snip]
>
> But none of this implies that the Torah has changed. It is the same Torah in
> the old covenant as in the new covenant.

To clarify - I take it you believe there is a distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and that the Torah is still a requirement for the Jews, but the laws of Acts 15 only the requirements for the Gentiles?

I think that (a) in the OT the Torah is set of stories and principles, not a legalistic framework, and this is how they are treated; (b) Jesus in particular shows the principles and stories of the law are our guide, not the literal details concerning uncleanliness, the sabbath etc, (c) the Christian Jews did not understand the radical implications of Jesus for the law, (d) Paul shows in his letters that we are dead to the law and the law (Torah) is not literally for Jews or Gentiles now Christ has given us life through faith, however he did not want to pick a fight with the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem and was careful to avoid a showdown.

Paul takes concepts from the OT such as the New Covenant to show he is being consistent with the true meaning of the law and the OT by seeing them through the eyes of faith, and not as legal requirements.

John

I find your view very disconcerting. Many people believe that Paul held the same positions as you say he did, and they provide the following story. (I do not agree with this reconstruction of history, but that is because I have a different view of Paul's teachings than you do.)

"Jesus had followers. He taught them for a year (some say three years). He instructed them very carefully on how to live and how to be true followers of the Biblical faith. Then He left and they set up a church. To this church was given the keys to the kingdom so that everything they permitted would be permitted in heaven and everything they forbid would be forbidden in heaven. He set Peter up in charge of this church. They build a community and begin taking the good news that Jesus taught them to the Gentiles.

There is a man who hated this group and tried to kill them. Then one day, this man (Paul) CLAIMS to have had a vision. None of the people on the road with him saw this vision, but in the vision he is told to preach this same gospel. He does not go and talk with the authority set up by Jesus; he even boasts that he works independently of Jesus' established authority. He goes into Arabia and then starts preaching some gospel different than the official authority set up by Jesus teaches. He disagrees with them, he rejects their authority, belittles them, and attacks them. He rebukes them for their hypocrisy. He does not have official letters from the authority that Jesus set up and says that instead he has direct authority from God because of some vision he had that no one can verify. He teaches that the Law has really been done away with, but when he is around these weak Jews (Jesus' established authority) he follows the Law and makes them THINK that he follows the Law and believes it is good, but inside he knows that he is spiritually better than all these weak people, the very people that Jesus chose to be His authority. The official authority makes a ruling about the minimum requirements for Gentiles to be allowed in the church, and Paul ignores it. Jesus gave them the authority to forbid and allow, but Paul believes that he has more authority because he had some vision that no one can verify.

Then, later in life, everyone in Asia Minor rejects Paul ... he says so himself (2 Timothy 1:15). One of these cities in Asia Minor is Ephesus. They had received this man warmly, but now for some reason they have apparently rejected him. They must recognize that his teachings were false. They must recognize that he has made up a religion different than that of Peter, John, and James, the authority Jesus set up to follow Him (different people give different reasons WHY he did this, but most scholars agree that he did). Jesus appears to John, one of His chosen followers, and tells him to send this message to Ephesus, one of the cities in Asia Minor that rejected Paul: "I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false" (Rev 2:2). Paul was one such false apostle.

(Check out http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/ chapters 6-8 for this position, or many of the articles on http://www.qumran.com.)

Once again, I do not agree with this reconstruction of history. If you believe that Paul rejects the authority that Jesus set up and said that this authority consists of Jews who are "weak in faith," then the logical conclusion would be to accept Jesus' true followers and reject this "self-made" apostle called Paul. When Paul disagrees with Peter, James and John, why do you assume Paul is right over the established authority? Also, James (one of these weak-in-fath Jews) wrote part of the NT. Martin Luther thought that could not be inspired because it contained teachings different than Paul's. Luther accepted Paul and rejected James. I don't think that is acceptable. Either we see Paul's teachings lining up with the established authority's teachings or we reject him as an apostate ... I don't see how we can reject the established authority in favor of someone else.

"Paul's understanding of the law is that we have died to it - as as we are dead it has no hold on us."

Here is the passage: Romans 7:1-6

"1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law),
that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but
if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she
shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the
law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body
of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from
the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the
Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we
were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the
letter."

It is unfortunate for us (as we try to understand Paul's view of the law) that all of Paul's teachings on the Law involve very complicated analogies (what the Jews call "midrash"). It often makes him hard to interpret. Your interpretation of this passage would go like this:

Premise 1. When a person dies, he is no longer bound by the law.
Premise 2. For example, take a woman who is married; if her husband dies, then she can marry someone else without it being adultery.
Premise 3. When we become Christians, we die through the death of Christ.
Conclusion. Therefore, we no longer have to follow the law (Jew or Gentile, since we are dead).

This is a very bad argument. For instance, premise 2 (the widow) has nothing to do with the premise 1 ("you don't have to follow the law when you are dead"); the woman is not dead. The Law does not allow her to lie, steal, and take YHWH's name in vain just because her husband died! That is absurd! She is still alive. She is still obligated to follow the Law.

So let's say that I am married and neither my wife nor I am a Christian. Then I become a Christian, so it's like I die. Then can I steal, kill, commit adultery, and take YHWH's name in vain? Can I cheat on my wife since I am dead and the law does not apply to me anymore? Of course not. Well, from the analogy above, maybe my wife can? Is she now free to marry someone else since I am a Christian? Of course not. If she has sex with me, that's just like having sex with a corpse ... that shouldn't be allowed either.

Well, let's say that my wife then becomes a Christian. She dies too. Now we are both dead. That means that we are no longer married. We do not have to file for divorce, since dead people don't have to file for divorce.

I hope you can see that Paul did not believe this to be his own argument (at least, let's hope not). If Paul really meant that once my spouse dies I don't have to follow the Law any more, than he was very confused.

I look forward to hearing your response to all this.

In my argument the Jews of Jesus time had a misconception about the law - that it was a set of literal instructions - and that this view, whilst an option, is not the best interpretation of the OT, not one the OT writers adopted, and not one Jesus or Paul adopted. Rather for them the law was a way of life and for Paul this evolved into a way of life best shown in the story of Jesus, not the stories of the books of the law.

Perhaps you could address in a little more detail the points I made in my previous e-mail, as I would be interested to hear what you have to say about this.

Regarding Paul's argument that we have died to the law, it is not the woman who is no longer bound by the law but the man who had died who is not bound.

John

It could be argued that the non-Christian Jews of the day misunderstood the law. It could also be argued that Jesus came to change that concept of the Law and taught His followers the correct view of the Law. But it cannot be argued that James, Peter, and John (the rock of the church and Jesus' appointed successors) were weak-in-faith and could not understand this. Peter, James, and John all wrote letters in the NT. James agrees with David in saying the Torah is "perfect" and "gives liberty"; John goes so far as to define "sin" as a "transgression against the Torah" and to say that only those who keep the commandments of God love God and have the right to eat of the tree of life. You tell me that these men, the founders of the Christian faith -- the authors of seven letters of the NT and one gospel -- did not understand the Torah!?!? If we have to choose between Paul and James, we must choose James. I personally do not think that we have to choose.

I agree that the Torah is a way of life and more than a checklist. But in this "way of life," one will set apart Friday-sunset to Saturday-sunset and do no work (whatever that implies). One will also use a lunar calendar instead of a pagan solar calendar to determine holidays. One will not eat any leaven from the fifteenth day of the first month through the twenty-first day of the first month. Even Paul taught Gentiles to keep the feasts: he and Luke kept the days of Unleavened Bread in Philippi -- the believers in Phillipi were Gentiles. (Keeping the days of Unleavened Bread also applies on a spiritual level ... holy living after Christ our Passover has been sacrificed ... but even Luke thought that there were certain days of the year called the Days of Unleavened Bread.)

See Ezra and Nehemiah. When the returned exiles heard Ezra read from the Torah in the seventh month, they learned that God wanted them to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. So they all went out and built tabernacles and sat in them and listened to Ezra read. They did not respond, "That must refer to a spiritual way of life and not a checklist ... let's just sit here and think about the Spirit living inside of us and God 'tabernacling' among us in a spiritual sense." No -- they actually went out and built stuff in a literal way. When Moses saw the vision on Mt Sinai, he came down and they actually built stuff. They didn't just say, "Nice story ... how can I apply that to my life?" They really built a literal tabernacle.

"Yet this tradition is one response to the ambiguity of the law - we interpret the law as a set of rules to be strictly followed and if it isn't clear enough then we add more rules so we can strictly follow it."

Jesus told His Jewish followers to do everything the Pharisees taught. "You must obey them and do everything they tell you" (Matt 23:3). Jesus accepted that Pharisaic tradition was the acceptable way to follow the Torah. The Jewish followers, however, were not supposed to be "hypocrites" like the Pharisees were. A hypocrite is best defined by someone who teaches correct doctrine but does not follow it -- that was Jesus' view of the Pharisees. Many of Jesus' teachings are right in line with the Pharisaic traditions (in the Talmud). Here's a link that contains 14 similar teachings: http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3a.htm

"The rules are indications or guides, but are not black and white rules." I agree that the some of the rules are guides. But what about "Do not murder"? Isn't this a black-and-white rule? You ask how much of a load a person can carry on the Sabbath ... the Torah does not specify how much of a load. I think there is liberty there and the most important thing is the heart. But it is clear that you can't work on the Sabbath. It is also clear what day the Sabbath is. (We can debate about whether or not that day has changed, but we can't argue that in the OT it was a specific day.) These are not guides. These are black and white rules it seems to me. God told people how to build things and when to do things ... He really intended them to do it that way.

"The principles of the law are more important than the details." I agree with this too. But one of the principles is "no work on the Sabbath." One of the principles is "keep the days of unleavened bread."

"We can't always take the absolute word of God as the final word." I find this a troubling statement. God's word is the final word ... period.

The Torah says "no work on the Sabbath." Yet it also tells the priests to sacrifice four animals on the Sabbath. Isn't that work? Here we learn an important "principle" of the Torah. Worshipping God through sacrifice is more important than not doing physical labor on Sabbath. Now what about healing a man on the Sabbath? Or what about working for Habitat-for-Humanity on the Sabbath? These are physical labor. So, what do we do. Well, we find a good rule in Hosea. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (6:6). If sacrifices are required to be offered even on Sabbath, then how much more so is mercy required on the Sabbath? (This is the first rule of Hillel.) So, one of the principles of the Torah is that you can do physical labor if it involves showing mercy or if it involves sacrifice/worship, without being guilty of violating the Sabbath. Jesus gives this argument in Matthew 12:5-8 and a simliar argument in John 7:22-23. Jesus did not say to them:

"You legalists ... the Sabbath is not really a literal command. No, no, no ... you have misunderstood the whole thing all along. Really, you just pick a day -- any day -- and just feel good in your heart towards God. That's what really matters. The details don't matter. Really! Moses did not care about the details."

He used the same understanding of Scripture that they did, even using the same rules of Scriptural interpretation they used (the rules of Hillel) to show that healing on the Sabbath follows the details of the Torah. Now, can you go to a football game on the Sabbath? Does that count as mercy or sacrifice or anything that is more important than Sabbath? I would say no. What about going to church? That seems to be acceptable ... worship. What about helping a friend move? That depends on the circumstances. This is why we have the Holy Spirit; this is why we need the Torah written on our hearts. We will then know perfectly and completely how to apply the Torah in every situation. In the past, many people have erred on the legalistic side in their interpretations by making the details more important than the principles; this was wrong. But erring the other direction -- so that the "details" do not matter at all -- is also wrong. The church at Jerusalem realized that. The Christians there continued to take Nazirite vows and offer sacrifices. But they followed Jesus' teaching and made things right with their brother first. Then they came back and offered their sacrifice. The author of Hebrews realized this too when he said, "Let us ... have our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." The ritual cleansing was important, but more important was the spirital cleansing.

"The law is really about a way of life, a type of people who follow God, rather than keeping a list of rules."

I agree with this too. But when these people become the people God wants them to be, what happens?

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws" (Eze 36:26-27). The people who follow God will do the external requirements of the Torah. "Regarding Paul's argument that we have died to the law, it is not the woman who is no longer bound by the law but the man who had died who is not bound." Paul says, "If her husband dies, she is released from the law."

I would argue that "physical death" is not the same as "conversion to Christianity." The anaology works on two different levels.

On the literal level, the law has authority over a man as long as he is physically alive. If I become a Christian, I am still physically alive and the law still has authority over me.

On the spiritual level ... well, there's a big problem with understanding Paul's use of midrash. For example, Gal 4 says that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised because Abraham had two wives. 2 Cor 3 says that Paul is not using deception because his face is unveiled -- unlike Moses, who veiled his face ... which must mean that Moses was dishonest. The "spiritual level" (midrash) can never contradict the literal meaning.

Paul uses the principle "The law has authority over a living person as long as he is alive." If he uses it to prove that the law no longer has authority over someone who is still physically alive (someone who becomes a Christian), then he is grossly misusing the principle.

Paul was still alive; therefore, the law still had authority in Paul's life.

"God isn't asking humans to do something which is impossible, yet this is partly the assumption of the New Covenant."

I take it that your argument runs like this.

Premise 1. It was possible to keep the true Torah of the OT.
Premise 2. The NT assumes that it is not possible to keep the Torah of the Pharisees.
Conclusion. Therefore, the Torah of the Pharisees was not the true Torah of the OT.

I don't see that this argument works though. Paul says that because of the flesh he could not help but covet. No matter how we interpret that Torah, it is a sin to covet. So, the true Torah of the OT could not be followed seems to be Paul's point in Romans 7, not just that the Pharisees interpretation of it cannot be followed.

But I disagree that the NT assumes that the Torah is impossible to keep. Paul never makes this assumption. In the places where people think he is making this assumption, mostly Galatians, he is really not. Paul held the view that the Torah is impossible to keep WITHOUT FAITH. The righteousness that comes FROM FAITH says that same thing that Moses said about the Torah:

'Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" ... The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart' (Ro 10, Dt 30).

When a person has faith, he can keep the Torah. Until they have faith, people will always fail to keep the commandments like "Love God," Love your neighbor," and (Paul's example) "Do not covet." It seems that the people to whom Moses spoke had faith. Hebrews testifies to this as well: "By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days." The people who entered the land had faith, and that is why the laws were not impossible for them to keep. To a faithless person in the flesh, the Torah is impossible. But the little details of the external commandments are easy to keep externally. The impossible ones to keep without faith are "Love God" and "Love your neighbor" ... those kind are too hard to do in the flesh. Just because a law is hard to keep in the flesh does not mean that it is not part of God's true Torah. "It is the case that the Jewish Christians in the NT kept the law, and were concerned about Paul's attitude to the law."

This claim is not quite right and blurs and important distinction. The Jewish Christians heard that Paul taught that the law no longer applied. James knew that Paul did not teach this. James sees the important part of Paul's teaching the distinction between Jew and Gentiles. Jews follow the Torah whereas Gentiles follow the covenant with Noah. That's where all the confusion was, James thought. He wanted Paul to prove to the world that the reports about Paul's attitude were false. Paul went through with the rituals that James asked him to in order to show that he didn't really believe what the rumors said he believed about the law. This was not really Paul's attitude about the Torah.

Now, you say that these rumors were true ... Paul really did believe that Jewish Christians should not circumcise their children or live according to their customs. Yet he went through a ritual process to prove that this was false. Why? Because he was a hypocrite? Some people actually believe this. Charles Ryrie says that Paul was just a middle-of-the-road Christian. M.A. DeHaan wrote a book called the Five Blunders od Paul and included this episode ... he lied to the church in Jerusalem and played the hypocrite. Is that your view too? Why was it so important to James that these claims about Paul be false? Why was it so important to Paul to go through this ritual (that he thought should not be followed) so that everyone would think they were false? You would have to provide a VERY good answer to these questions before I believe that Paul's actions in Acts constitute a blunder.

"Those in Jerusalem were the leaders and Paul had to be careful not to offend them with his new understanding of the law."

I find this claim disturbing. Do you really think that Paul was a hypocrite in Acts 21 and lied to Jesus' appointed successors? Do you think that is okay? If Paul and Jesus really did not agree with James on this issue, then he should have stood up and taught the true teachings of Jesus to the crowd!

"Although Paul accepts Acts 15 as a compromise, he didn't keep to it."

If this is true, then Paul is a false apostle. The church had been given the authority to allow and forbid things in heaven, and Paul did not accept that authority. If this is true, then he will be held responsible for causing all the Corinthians to disobey the commandments that are bound and loosed in heaven.

"We don't keep to a list of rules, it is childish."

John says that those who love God keep His commandments. Was John being childish? Was Moses a mere child that he needed these rules, but you and I are somehow more spiritual than Moses so we can set our bedtimes? I hate to say it again, but this is a disconcerting view. A guy in the Corinthian church -- a believer -- was sleeping with his step-mom! Why isn't that okay? If that guy is more spiritual than Moses, he should be allowed to set his own bedtime, that is define his own sexual relationships. Why not?

We reach a point in our relationship with our parents when we can set our own rules. We never reach that point in our relationship with God.

"Jesus breaks the detail (commanding a man to carry his bed on the Sabbath)."

The Torah never specifies that you cannot carry a mat on the Sabbath. Just because a man healed of his sickness was allowed to carry his mat on the Sabbath does not mean that all Jews can go to football games or mow the yard or put in overtime on the Sabbath.

"To clarify - I take it you believe there is a distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and that the Torah is still a requirement for the Jews, but the laws of Acts 15 only the requirements for the Gentiles?"

Yes, this is James' position spelled out in Acts 21. This implies more than just this, but it seems we have a lot more to discuss before we can get to that.

"He did not want to pick a fight with the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem and was careful to avoid a showdown."

This view is very unacceptable. On this view, Paul was a hypocrite and a liar. He should have been bold, but he sought to please men. Though he claimed over and over that he did not try to please men or cover his face with a veil (dishonesty), he really did. He really choked at this moment. And the author of Acts does not even bother to tells us that this was a huge blunder of Paul! You might think that Paul's actions (lying to Jesus' followers) were acceptable! These leaders are the true followers of Jesus. Paul claims to have had a vision, he shows up on the scene and completely rejects their authority, he completely rejects Jesus' teachings on the Torah (that not even ONE LETTER would pass away from the Torah) ... this seems very suspicious.

"For Paul this evolved into a way of life best shown in the story of Jesus."

Paul does not cite any examples from Jesus' life. He does not seem to have known anything about the real Jesus of Nazareth. This seems to be a strike against him. Only with one event, the Last Supper, does he have any familiarity. Jesus' life is one of perfect obedience to the details of the Torah. He was very knowledgeable in Pharisaic tradition and He taught His followers to obey that tradition. He never dismisses their interpretations but works within the framework of rules of interpretation and tradition. Jesus agreed with common Jewish tradition as far as which commandment was most important ("Love God"), but He expressed a view that fits with the Pharisees that the next important commandment was "Love your neighbor" and the Golden Rule. Hillel (a Pharisee from two generations earlier) had formulated the same rule as summing up the whole Torah.

It seems that you have two options. Accept Jesus' followers (James, Peter, John, &c.) or accept Paul. I think that this is an easy choice. I'm glad that I do not have to make it. I believe that Paul did not bold-face lie to Jesus' followers in Jerusalem but that he really obeyed the Law his whole life and taught other Jews to do the same.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

In Messiah,

Regarding my eariler posting, I still feel you haven't addressed the fact that even in the OT there are situations which allow the law to be broken, such as 2 Ki 5:19, and other places where God's requirements are against what is commonly regarded as moral such as Gen 22:2. This shows that the law is essentially the stories of the books of the law, not a series of commandments. There are also a number of places where people argue with God, such as Gen 18:16-33, which again shows that God wants people to think for themselves, not just carry out orders.

Regarding Jesus and the Jews, the Gospel of John shows Jesus clearly did not see himself as part of the existing Jewish tradition, but rather opposed the religious leaders of his time. In the Gospel of John Jesus always uses "command" to refer to his own teachings, as opposed to "law" which refers to the Jewish commands. Run through the references in a concordance and you will see how "pro" the law Jesus is in John.

You appear to sometimes take the approach that we can go through the 613 commands of the Torah and decide which ones still apply to us. This cannot be correct. A moral code does not allow us to pick and choose which commands we follow - the whole point of a moral code is that it allows us to make these judgements, so you must already have a moral code to pick out which commands from the Torah to obey. You argue that the command against murder is still valid - but how do you make this judgement? You must have a prior moral code to decide the murder commandment is still valid, and the one against boiling a goat in its mother's milk not valid.

I will address your other points below.

• It could be argued that the non-Christian Jews of the day misunderstood the law. It could also be argued that Jesus came to change that concept of the Law and taught His followers the correct view of the Law. But it cannot be argued that James, Peter, and John (the rock of the church and Jesus' appointed successors) were weak-in-faith and could not understand this. Peter, James, and John all wrote letters in the NT. James agrees with David in saying the Torah is "perfect" and "gives liberty"; John goes so far as to define "sin" as a "transgression against the Torah" and to say that only those who keep the commandments of God love God and have the right to eat of the tree of life. You tell me that these men, the founders of the Christian faith -- the authors of seven letters of the NT and one gospel -- did not understand the Torah!?!? If we have to choose between Paul and James, we must choose James. I personally do not think that we have to choose.

My position is that Judaism at the time of Christ was badly mistaken about the meaning of the law. Paul and Jesus had the correct understanding, the other disciples (as far as we can tell) we less clear about the meaning of the law.

• I agree that the Torah is a way of life and more than a checklist. But in this "way of life," one will set apart Friday-sunset to Saturday-sunset and do no work (whatever that implies). One will also use a lunar calendar instead of a pagan solar calendar to determine holidays. One will not eat any leaven from the fifteenth day of the first month through the twenty-first day of the first month. Even Paul taught Gentiles to keep the feasts: he and Luke kept the days of Unleavened Bread in Philippi -- the believers in Phillipi were Gentiles. (Keeping the days of Unleavened Bread also applies on a spiritual level ... holy living after Christ our Passover has been sacrificed ... but even Luke thought that there were certain days of the year called the Days of Unleavened Bread.)

It can't be argued that Paul felt Gentiles should keep parts of the Torah, Rom 14:1-8; Col 2:13-19 etc show that Paul was against keeping the Torah. However he wanted to encourage good relations between Gentile and Jewish Christians, "do not cause anyone to stumble" - the whole passage in 1 Cor 10:27-33 shows his attitude.

• See Ezra and Nehemiah. When the returned exiles heard Ezra read from the Torah in the seventh month, they learned that God wanted them to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. So they all went out and built tabernacles and sat in them and listened to Ezra read. They did not respond, "That must refer to a spiritual way of life and not a checklist ... let's just sit here and think about the Spirit living inside of us and God 'tabernacling' among us in a spiritual sense." No -- they actually went out and built stuff in a literal way. When Moses saw the vision on Mt Sinai, he came down and they actually built stuff. They didn't just say, "Nice story ... how can I apply that to my life?" They really built a literal tabernacle.

Again, you are seeing the law as a list of commands. The Jews at that time felt the best expression of obeying God was building literal tabernacles - this was part of the religious context of the times. The law as a way of life means learning from God what he wants you to do, not finding a list of religious practises to follow.

• "Yet this tradition is one response to the ambiguity of the law - we interpret the law as a set of rules to be strictly followed and if it isn't clear enough then we add more rules so we can strictly follow it."
• Jesus told His Jewish followers to do everything the Pharisees taught. "You must obey them and do everything they tell you" (Matt 23:3). Jesus accepted that Pharisaic tradition was the acceptable way to follow the Torah. The Jewish followers, however, were not supposed to be "hypocrites" like the Pharisees were. A hypocrite is best defined by someone who teaches correct doctrine but does not follow it -- that was Jesus' view of the Pharisees. Many of Jesus' teachings are right in line with the Pharisaic traditions (in the Talmud). Here's a link that contains 14 similar teachings: www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3a.htm

Matt 23:3 appears to carry a trace of sarcasm. Did Jesus do everything the Pharisees said? Did he obey their every word? Read the rest of Matt 23!

• "The rules are indications or guides, but are not black and white rules." I agree that the some of the rules are guides. But what about "Do not murder"? Isn't this a black-and-white rule? You ask how much of a load a person can carry on the Sabbath ... the Torah does not specify how much of a load. I think there is liberty there and the most important thing is the heart. But it is clear that you can't work on the Sabbath. It is also clear what day the Sabbath is. (We can debate about whether or not that day has changed, but we can't argue that in the OT it was a specific day.) These are not guides. These are black and white rules it seems to me. God told people how to build things and when to do things ... He really intended them to do it that way.

How do you know which are black and white rules and which you can interpret? Isn't that itself interpretation?

• "The principles of the law are more important than the details." I agree with this too. But one of the principles is "no work on the Sabbath." One of the principles is "keep the days of unleavened bread."

These aren't principles.

• "We can't always take the absolute word of God as the final word."
• I find this a troubling statement. God's word is the final word ... period.

People in the Bible didn't, why should we?

• The Torah says "no work on the Sabbath." Yet it also tells the priests to sacrifice four animals on the Sabbath. Isn't that work? Here we learn an important "principle" of the Torah. Worshipping God through sacrifice is more important than not doing physical labor on Sabbath. Now what about healing a man on the Sabbath? Or what about working for Habitat-for-Humanity on the Sabbath? These are physical labor. So, what do we do. Well, we find a good rule in Hosea. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" (6:6). If sacrifices are required to be offered even on Sabbath, then how much more so is mercy required on the Sabbath? (This is the first rule of Hillel.) So, one of the principles of the Torah is that you can do physical labor if it involves showing mercy or if it involves sacrifice/worship, without being guilty of violating the Sabbath. Jesus gives this argument in Matthew 12:5-8 and a simliar argument in John 7:22-23. Jesus did not say to them:

• "You legalists ... the Sabbath is not really a literal command. No, no, no ... you have misunderstood the whole thing all along. Really, you just pick a day -- any day -- and just feel good in your heart towards God. That's what really matters. The details don't matter. Really! Moses did not care about the details."

See John 5:17 - Jesus' parables were all about rejecting the separation of the law - see Matt 13 - the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

• He used the same understanding of Scripture that they did, even using the same rules of Scriptural interpretation they used (the rules of Hillel) to show that healing on the Sabbath follows the details of the Torah. Now, can you go to a football game on the Sabbath? Does that count as mercy or sacrifice or anything that is more important than Sabbath? I would say no. What about going to church? That seems to be acceptable ... worship. What about helping a friend move? That depends on the circumstances. This is why we have the Holy Spirit; this is why we need the Torah written on our hearts. We will then know perfectly and completely how to apply the Torah in every situation. In the past, many people have erred on the legalistic side in their interpretations by making the details more important than the principles; this was wrong. But erring the other direction -- so that the "details" do not matter at all -- is also wrong. The church at Jerusalem realized that. The Christians there continued to take Nazirite vows and offer sacrifices. But they followed Jesus' teaching and made things right with their brother first. Then they came back and offered their sacrifice. The author of Hebrews realized this too when he said, "Let us ... have our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." The ritual cleansing was important, but more important was the spirital cleansing.

• "The law is really about a way of life, a type of people who follow God, rather than keeping a list of rules."
• I agree with this too. But when these people become the people God wants them to be, what happens?
• "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws" (Eze 36:26-27).
• The people who follow God will do the external requirements of the Torah.

• "Regarding Paul's argument that we have died to the law, it is not the woman who is no longer bound by the law but the man who had died who is not bound." Paul says, "If her husband dies, she is released from the law."
• I would argue that "physical death" is not the same as "conversion to Christianity." The anaology works on two different levels.
• On the literal level, the law has authority over a man as long as he is physically alive. If I become a Christian, I am still physically alive and the law still has authority over me.
• On the spiritual level ... well, there's a big problem with understanding Paul's use of midrash. For example, Gal 4 says that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised because Abraham had two wives. 2 Cor 3 says that Paul is not using deception because his face is unveiled -- unlike Moses, who veiled his face ... which must mean that Moses was dishonest. The "spiritual level" (midrash) can never contradict the literal meaning.
• Paul uses the principle "The law has authority over a living person as long as he is alive." If he uses it to prove that the law no longer has authority over someone who is still physically alive (someone who becomes a Christian), then he is grossly misusing the principle.
• Paul was still alive; therefore, the law still had authority in Paul's life.

• "God isn't asking humans to do something which is impossible, yet this is partly the assumption of the New Covenant."
• I take it that your argument runs like this.
• Premise 1. It was possible to keep the true Torah of the OT.
• Premise 2. The NT assumes that it is not possible to keep the Torah of the Pharisees.
• Conclusion. Therefore, the Torah of the Pharisees was not the true Torah of the OT.
• I don't see that this argument works though. Paul says that because of the flesh he could not help but covet. No matter how we interpret that Torah, it is a sin to covet. So, the true Torah of the OT could not be followed seems to be Paul's point in Romans 7, not just that the Pharisees interpretation of it cannot be followed.

Are you saying the Torah of the Pharisees was the true Torah of the OT? I agree that for Paul he certainly feels the law cannot be kept - there are a number of passages where he says or implies this (e.g. Gal 3:10-11).

• But I disagree that the NT assumes that the Torah is impossible to keep. Paul never makes this assumption. In the places where people think he is making this assumption, mostly Galatians, he is really not. Paul held the view that the Torah is impossible to keep WITHOUT FAITH. The righteousness that comes FROM FAITH says that same thing that Moses said about the Torah:
• 'Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" ... The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart' (Ro 10, Dt 30).
• When a person has faith, he can keep the Torah. Until they have faith, people will always fail to keep the commandments like "Love God," Love your neighbor," and (Paul's example) "Do not covet." It seems that the people to whom Moses spoke had faith. Hebrews testifies to this as well: "By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days." The people who entered the land had faith, and that is why the laws were not impossible for them to keep. To a faithless person in the flesh, the Torah is impossible. But the little details of the external commandments are easy to keep externally. The impossible ones to keep without faith are "Love God" and "Love your neighbor" ... those kind are too hard to do in the flesh. Just because a law is hard to keep in the flesh does not mean that it is not part of God's true Torah.

No, although Paul is against keeping the Torah without the Spirit, he is also against keeping it with the Spirit - he says there is now no divide between Jew and Gentile, for example "he made the two one and has destroyed the barrier... by abolishing in his flesh the law" (Eph 2:14-15). The whole point of the law was to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles, hence all the regulations about eating special food. Both Jesus and Paul understood this was the key point of the Torah which God was now giving a new meaning to - hence both Jesus and Paul mix with those "outside" the law - either Gentiles (Paul) or sinners (Jesus).

• "It is the case that the Jewish Christians in the NT kept the law, and were concerned about Paul's attitude to the law."

• This claim is not quite right and blurs and important distinction. The Jewish Christians heard that Paul taught that the law no longer applied. James knew that Paul did not teach this. James sees the important part of Paul's teaching the distinction between Jew and Gentiles. Jews follow the Torah whereas Gentiles follow the covenant with Noah. That's where all the confusion was, James thought. He wanted Paul to prove to the world that the reports about Paul's attitude were false. Paul went through with the rituals that James asked him to in order to show that he didn't really believe what the rumors said he believed about the law. This was not really Paul's attitude about the Torah.
• Now, you say that these rumors were true ... Paul really did believe that Jewish Christians should not circumcise their children or live according to their customs. Yet he went through a ritual process to prove that this was false. Why? Because he was a hypocrite? Some people actually believe this. Charles Ryrie says that Paul was just a middle-of-the-road Christian. M.A. DeHaan wrote a book called the Five Blunders od Paul and included this episode ... he lied to the church in Jerusalem and played the hypocrite. Is that your view too? Why was it so important to James that these claims about Paul be false? Why was it so important to Paul to go through this ritual (that he thought should not be followed) so that everyone would think they were false? You would have to provide a VERY good answer to these questions before I believe that Paul's actions in Acts constitute a blunder.

However this isn't a "Paul" thing - early in Acts Peter is commanded by God to break the Torah by eating unclean food (Acts 10:9-23).

• "Those in Jerusalem were the leaders and Paul had to be careful not to offend them with his new understanding of the law."
• I find this claim disturbing. Do you really think that Paul was a hypocrite in Acts 21 and lied to Jesus' appointed successors? Do you think that is okay? If Paul and Jesus really did not agree with James on this issue, then he should have stood up and taught the true teachings of Jesus to the crowd!
• "Although Paul accepts Acts 15 as a compromise, he didn't keep to it."
• If this is true, then Paul is a false apostle. The church had been given the authority to allow and forbid things in heaven, and Paul did not accept that authority. If this is true, then he will be held responsible for causing all the Corinthians to disobey the commandments that are bound and loosed in heaven.

• "We don't keep to a list of rules, it is childish."
• John says that those who love God keep His commandments. Was John being childish? Was Moses a mere child that he needed these rules, but you and I are somehow more spiritual than Moses so we can set our bedtimes? I hate to say it again, but this is a disconcerting view. A guy in the Corinthian church -- a believer -- was sleeping with his step-mom! Why isn't that okay? If that guy is more spiritual than Moses, he should be allowed to set his own bedtime, that is define his own sexual relationships. Why not?

• We reach a point in our relationship with our parents when we can set our own rules. We never reach that point in our relationship with God.

Why didn't God just stop at creation with the animals if he didn't want beings who would exercise our own judgement and follow our own conscience?

• "Jesus breaks the detail (commanding a man to carry his bed on the Sabbath)."
• The Torah never specifies that you cannot carry a mat on the Sabbath. Just because a man healed of his sickness was allowed to carry his mat on the Sabbath does not mean that all Jews can go to football games or mow the yard or put in overtime on the Sabbath.

This just shows the absurdity of having 613 instructions to follow to obey God. That whole way of viewing religion is fundamentally flawed.

• "To clarify - I take it you believe there is a distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and that the Torah is still a requirement for the Jews, but the laws of Acts 15 only the requirements for the Gentiles?"
• Yes, this is James' position spelled out in Acts 21. This implies more than just this, but it seems we have a lot more to discuss before we can get to that.
• "He did not want to pick a fight with the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem and was careful to avoid a showdown."
• This view is very unacceptable. On this view, Paul was a hypocrite and a liar. He should have been bold, but he sought to please men. Though he claimed over and over that he did not try to please men or cover his face with a veil (dishonesty), he really did. He really choked at this moment. And the author of Acts does not even bother to tells us that this was a huge blunder of Paul! You might think that Paul's actions (lying to Jesus' followers) were acceptable! These leaders are the true followers of Jesus. Paul claims to have had a vision, he shows up on the scene and completely rejects their authority, he completely rejects Jesus' teachings on the Torah (that not even ONE LETTER would pass away from the Torah) ... this seems very suspicious.

Jesus' parables show the text of Matt 5:17 needs to be read very carefully - the point Jesus was making in his life and through his parables was that the division of the law was gone - the law was evolving into a new form, if you like, or you may wish to look again at the significance of "... until everything is accomplished" (Matt 5:18), whatever you chose, Jesus is about to begin a sermon in which he replaces the authority of Moses with his own authority ("you have heard it said... but I tell you...")

• "For Paul this evolved into a way of life best shown in the story of Jesus."
• Paul does not cite any examples from Jesus' life. He does not seem to have known anything about the real Jesus of Nazareth. This seems to be a strike against him. Only with one event, the Last Supper, does he have any familiarity. Jesus' life is one of perfect obedience to the details of the Torah. He was very knowledgeable in Pharisaic tradition and He taught His followers to obey that tradition. He never dismisses their interpretations but works within the framework of rules of interpretation and tradition. Jesus agreed with common Jewish tradition as far as which commandment was most important ("Love God"), but He expressed a view that fits with the Pharisees that the next important commandment was "Love your neighbor" and the Golden Rule. Hillel (a Pharisee from two generations earlier) had formulated the same rule as summing up the whole Torah.

It seems difficult to believe Paul knew nothing of Jesus' life as you suggest. There are a number of Jesus' teachings and phrases that appear in Paul's writings. In any case, the facts speak for themselves that the two both shared the same values.

• It seems that you have two options. Accept Jesus' followers (James, Peter, John, &c.) or accept Paul. I think that this is an easy choice. I'm glad that I do not have to make it. I believe that Paul did not bold-face lie to Jesus' followers in Jerusalem but that he really obeyed the Law his whole life and taught other Jews to do the same.

You should at least include John on the side of Paul - the Gospel of John makes the same points as Paul. There isn't a huge divide between the two groups, however the disciples didn't have the clarity of vision that Paul and Jesus had regarding the law, and it would not have been fair of Paul to turn a difference of perspective into a major split.