New Covenant has been given as Torah.

[eliyahu]

I was reading a book called Messianic Jewish Manifesto a few years ago and I came across something very interesting. In one part of the book, the author David Stern says that Hebrew 8:6 is mistranslated in most English translations. The KJV puts it as follows,

"6*But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Hebrews 8:6.

His Jewish New Testament translation puts it as follows.

"But now the work Yeshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant He mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises." Messianic Jews (Hebrews) 8:6.

"This passage would seem poor ore for my mining efforts. But upon examining the Greek text I noticed that the phrase "is enacted on" renders the word nenomothetetai, a compound of our friend nomos ("law, Torah") with the common verb tithemi ("to put, olace). If the subject matter of the Letter to a Group of Messianic Jews were, to say, Greek law, or the Roman Senate, it would be appropriate to translate this word as "enacted, established, legislated," that is, "put" or "place as law."
But in the letter to these Messianic Jews, the word nomos, which appears fourteen times, always means Torah specifically, never legislation in general. Moreover, the only other appearance of nenomothetetai in the New Testament is a few verses back, at Messianic Jews 7:11, where it can only refer to the giving of the Todah at Sinai (the related word nomothesia, "giving of the Torah," at Romans 9:4 is equally unambiguious). Therefore the Jewish New Testament renders Messianic Jews 8:6:

"But now the work Yeshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant He mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises." Messianic Jews (Hebrews) 8:6.

So the New Covenant has been "given as Torah," which implies that the Torah still exists and is to be observed in the present age- by all Jews and by all Gentiles, as we shall see. However, precisely what is demanded of "all Jews" and of "all Gentiles" is not quite so obvious. We will address that question in a limited way, but comprehensive treatment is beyond the scope of this book."
Messianic Jewish Manifesto, pg 133. David Stern.

What do you all think?

[Brother Les]

I am have trouble with the idea of 'Messianic Jews'....not even getting to your question....It was proper and Lawful to declare during the first century that there is and were 'Messianic Jews'...But after The Temple Worship Cultus was removed forever, there was no more a division or different distinction of 'Jews or Gentile'....There may be 'Messiahtains' (Christians)...but the tribel distinction is completely drop at the consemation of the Old Covenant Age, which was AD 70. The Torah has been Fulfilled and not to obsevered, because it 'binds' the believer to a 'works convenant that does not exist.

IMO

Brother Les

[eliyahu]

I am have trouble with the idea of 'Messianic Jews'....not even getting to your question....It was proper and Lawful to declare during the first century that there is and were 'Messianic Jews'...But after The Temple Worship Cultus was removed forever, there was no more a division or different distinction of 'Jews or Gentile'....There may be 'Messiahtains' (Christians)...but the tribel distinction is completely drop at the consemation of the Old Covenant Age, which was AD 70. The Torah has been Fulfilled and not to obsevered, because it 'binds' the believer to a 'works convenant that does not exist.

IMO

Brother Les

While I do not agree with any of the preterist things that you said, I will respond to your trouble with the term Messianic Jews. I submit that faith in Jesus does not make a Jew less Jewish. He is still a Jew and is in fact Spiritually Jewish, "who receives his praise (Praise in Hebrew is yadah, which is the root of yehuda, Judah, which is what the word "jew" is short for- Judean) from God" and not from men. The term "Christian" was originally applied to Jew and Gentile believers as a possibly disrespectful term in Antioch in Acts. However, history since that time, namely in the second and third century, has developed the term "Christian" to exclude Jewish Jews who worship Jesus. It had come to refer to Gentile believers alone. Jews have taken the term the same way since then. Most Jews consider another Jew who believes in Jesus to be a Christian and by defunct no longer a Jew. That idea is not Biblical. It is an historically antisemitic view.

Christians should not present a Messiah who demands that Jews abandon their heritage or culture. Jesus and the apostles did not do such and neither does any other Jew need to do such. That is, with the exeption of obviously anti-gospel practices and beliefs, which are not the majority in Judaism (in general) at all anyhow.

[eliyahu]

But why don't you try to answer my original Q? It seems that David Stern's words here are scandalously true. What of them?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But why don't you try to answer my original Q? It seems that David Stern's words here are scandalously true. What of them?
Hey Eliyahu,

I haven't forgotten about this thread - I've just been to busy answering your mega-post in that other thread! But I think you brought up an interesting argument here, and I will discuss it with you as soon as I get time.

Richard

[eliyahu]

What? Me? a meag-post? :eek: lol. I can wait.:pop2:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Eliyahu!

Now this is the kind of discussion I love. Digging deep into the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew to establish the truth of our doctrines.


I was reading a book called Messianic Jewish Manifesto a few years ago and I came across something very interesting. In one part of the book, the author David Stern says that Hebrew 8:6 is mistranslated in most English translations. The KJV puts it as follows,

"6*But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Hebrews 8:6.

His Jewish New Testament translation puts it as follows.

"But now the work Yeshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant He mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises." Messianic Jews (Hebrews) 8:6.

"This passage would seem poor ore for my mining efforts. But upon examining the Greek text I noticed that the phrase "is enacted on" renders the word nenomothetetai, a compound of our friend nomos ("law, Torah") with the common verb tithemi ("to put, olace). If the subject matter of the Letter to a Group of Messianic Jews were, to say, Greek law, or the Roman Senate, it would be appropriate to translate this word as "enacted, established, legislated," that is, "put" or "place as law."

But in the letter to these Messianic Jews, the word nomos, which appears fourteen times, always means Torah specifically, never legislation in general.



Stern is correct that "nomos" in Hebrews refers to Torah. But he presented a false dichotomy between Torah and secular legislation. Somehow he forgot that the NT dichotomy is between the "Torah" of the Spirit (Gospel) versus the "Torah" of the fleshly carnal commandments. It seems his "forgetfulness" was not restricted to Hebrews. We see it also in his translation of Romans 8:2
CJB Romans 8:2 Why? Because the Torah of the Spirit, which produces this life in union with Messiah Yeshua, has set me free from the "Torah" of sin and death.See that? The word "nomos" occurs twice in that sentence. He translated the first occurrence as Torah without any quotes, but added quotes to the second occurrence because he didn't like the negative association with sin and death. There is no basis in the Greek text for any addition of quotation marks. It appears Stern was attempting to prejudice the reader against receiving the second "nomos" as really meaning "Torah," as if Paul did not really mean it that way. In my view, this is a perversion of Paul's writings. It seems totally obvious that if nomos should ever be translated as "Torah" with quotes it would be the first instance, since Paul was contrasting the GOSPEL (that's the new thing, the "Torah of the Spirit") with the Old Law (the literal carnal Torah of the flesh with its bloody sacrifices, dietary laws, and all that).


Moreover, the only other appearance of nenomothetetai in the New Testament is a few verses back, at Messianic Jews 7:11, where it can only refer to the giving of the Todah at Sinai (the related word nomothesia, "giving of the Torah," at Romans 9:4 is equally unambiguious). Therefore the Jewish New Testament renders Messianic Jews 8:6:

"But now the work Yeshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant He mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises." Messianic Jews (Hebrews) 8:6.

So the New Covenant has been "given as Torah," which implies that the Torah still exists and is to be observed in the present age- by all Jews and by all Gentiles, as we shall see. However, precisely what is demanded of "all Jews" and of "all Gentiles" is not quite so obvious. We will address that question in a limited way, but comprehensive treatment is beyond the scope of this book."
Messianic Jewish Manifesto, pg 133. David Stern.

What do you all think?
Now we come to the fundamental error. Stern is correct that nenomothetetai means "giving of Torah" in Hebrews 7:11. But he completely misunderstood its meaning in Hebrew 8:6. The promise of the New Covenant is that God's "Torah" would be written on the hearts of believers. But what does God's Torah mean in this context? Stern implies it is the Old Covenant Torah as revealed in the first five books of the Bible. There is no justification for that assertion whatsoever. Hebrews 8:6 is speaking of the "Torah" of the New Covenant which is CONTRASTED with the carnal "Torah" of the Old Covenant that commanded circumcision, dietary laws, bloody sacrifices, and all that. The whole point of Hebrews is the contrast between that old "Torah" and the Gospel. We KNOW that Stern is wrong because God declares - in this very context - that the Old Torah was about to vanish altogether in Hebrews 8:13 (just seven verses later).

All Stern has done here is commit the classic fallacy of equivocation. He confused the issue by asserting that the "Torah written on the hearts" promised in Jeremiah 31:33 was the same "Torah" of fleshly commandments that was growing old and about to vanish away. There is no excuse for such sloppy exegesis.

Finally, his suggestion that Hebrews 8:6 "implies that the Torah still exists and is to be observed in the present age" is ludicrous. Even if the New Covenant were "given as Torah" that does not mean that the "Torah" of the New Covenant is the same as the "Torah" of the Old Covenant which would be impossible anyway since the text say that their was a "change" in the Torah (Heb 7:12), and that it was about to "vanish away."

I find Stern's translation incoherent and invalid.

Richard

[eliyahu]

Hi Richard,

The CJB Romans 8:6 placed quotes on the second Torah in order to make a distiction between the old covenant and the new, which is the context there in Romans. In His Jewish New Testament Commentary he writes

"... The second "torah" is written in lower case and put in quotation marks, because it is "sin's torah" (7:21-23 & N), in other words, not a God-given Torah at all but an anti-Torah. More specifically, it is the Mosaic law improperly understood and perverted by our old, sinful nature into a legalistic system of earning God's approval by our own works (3:20b & N).

The interpretation of vs 2 can be paraphrased and expanded (on the basis of 7:4&N) as follows:

"The Torah, as understood and applied through the Spirit, thereby giving life in union with the Messiah Yeshua, has set me free from the aspects of the Torah that stimulate me to sin (7:5-14), fill me with irremedial guilt (7:15-24) and condemn me to death."

You are vastly misunderstanding him and I. Please read again my original post. Theword "nomos" always should be translated as "torah" in Hebrews. That is what David Stern said. I don't know what "false dichotomy" you were refering to. Stern's dichotomy is between the Torah of the Spirit and the Torah that is "not a God-given Torah at all but an anti-Torah. More specifically, it is the Mosaic law improperly understood and perverted by our old, sinful nature into a legalistic system of earning God's approval by our own works (3:20b & N)."
He does not compare the torah of the Spirit with the law of Moses- as God gave it and intended it to be fulfilled. Jesus is the one who completely and accurately fulfilled the Law of Moses as God gave it. He did this throught the Torah of the Spirit (Ps 40:8, Heb 10:4-10)

[eliyahu]

What about Stern's translation of Heb 8:6? Can you prove him wrong? It says "the new covenant has been given as Torah." The same Greek wording was translated "received the law" in Heb 7:11 NASB, or in the CJB "given the Torah." You failed to answer the original Q.
Niether Stern nor I are saying that people need to eat Kosher, etc. But we are also not opposed to that. We are opposed to legalistic justification and religiosity as opposed to true faith Spirituality in Jesus.

[eliyahu]

You said "even if the new covenant were given as Torah..." Isn't that what Heb 8:6 says?

You then said that the new covt was not the same as the old and that the old one was to be "changed" and "vanish away." I have read most of Stern's commentary thoroughly and both he and I agree with those closing statements of yours. In the resurrected Christ the old covt has been changed so much that it can be said to have "vanished away" becuase Jesus is the new and living way to the presence of God, etc. He in his life, resurrection, his teachings, his spirit, his presence is the new covenant as Torah. He is in Himself the very "teaching, law, commandment" of God which is what "Torah" means. That is how Jesus is "the new covenant given as Torah."

[Brother Les]

In order for there to be no conflict with in what you call 'The New Covenant Torah. What is 'left' in and what is forever removed, from your view point, to make this a 'New Torah'? What has , to you, 'vanished away' and what 'stays' and why?

Brother Les

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Eliyahu,

It looks like this is going to be a challenging conversation. Let us pray that our Lord will give us a triple portion of His Spirit of Peace, Humility, and Precision in Biblical Hermeneutics!

Hi Richard,

The CJB Romans 8:6 placed quotes on the second Torah in order to make a distiction between the old covenant and the new, which is the context there in Romans. In His Jewish New Testament Commentary he writes

"... The second "torah" is written in lower case and put in quotation marks, because it is "sin's torah" (7:21-23 & N), in other words, not a God-given Torah at all but an anti-Torah. More specifically, it is the Mosaic law improperly understood and perverted by our old, sinful nature into a legalistic system of earning God's approval by our own works (3:20b & N).

Thanks Eliyahu. It is very helpful to have Stern's own explanantion for his translation. As I study his translation more, I realize that that we have erred in our approach to this whole topic. Stern uses the word "Torah" in a novel way that doesn't make sense to me. So we should have started with the definition of that word. Jumping into the middle without explaining what Stern meant by "Torah" seems to have led to much confusion.


The interpretation of vs 2 can be paraphrased and expanded (on the basis of 7:4&N) as follows:

"The Torah, as understood and applied through the Spirit, thereby giving life in union with the Messiah Yeshua, has set me free from the aspects of the Torah that stimulate me to sin (7:5-14), fill me with irremedial guilt (7:15-24) and condemn me to death."

You are vastly misunderstanding him and I. Please read again my original post. The word "nomos" always should be translated as "torah" in Hebrews. That is what David Stern said. I don't know what "false dichotomy" you were refering to. Stern's dichotomy is between the Torah of the Spirit and the Torah that is "not a God-given Torah at all but an anti-Torah. More specifically, it is the Mosaic law improperly understood and perverted by our old, sinful nature into a legalistic system of earning God's approval by our own works (3:20b & N)."
He does not compare the torah of the Spirit with the law of Moses- as God gave it and intended it to be fulfilled. Jesus is the one who completely and accurately fulfilled the Law of Moses as God gave it. He did this throught the Torah of the Spirit (Ps 40:8, Heb 10:4-10)
I think the confusion is not about the meaning of nomos as "torah" but about the meaning of "torah" itself. I agree with you and Stern that nomos in Hebrews means "Torah" - but you seem to have changed the meaning of "Torah" midway through the argument. In Hebrews, it means the first five books of the Bible, and/or the rules and regulations contained therein which include things like circumcision, bloody animal sacrifices, dietary laws, and the commands concerning the Levitical priesthood. But then it seems that Stern asserts that THAT TORAH - the Torah with its carnal commandments that is spoken of in Hebrews - "still exists and is to be observed in the present age- by all Jews and by all Gentiles." But we know that can't be true, right? So then Stern must be implying that the nomos/Torah of Hebrews is NOT the carnal system of bloody sacrfices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, and the Levitical priesthood. But we know that can't be true because that is the Torah that Hebrews was talking about.

So that's why I said that Stern equivocated over the meaning of "torah" and that his translation was "incoherent." I hope you are able to understand my confusion here. I'm sure we can come to a mutual understanding if we work together to define our terms. Maybe I missed something very important and obvious. I'm sorry for the confusion. I look forward to your correction.

You brother in Christ,

Richard

[eliyahu]

In order for there to be no conflict with in what you call 'The New Covenant Torah. What is 'left' in and what is forever removed, from your view point, to make this a 'New Torah'? What has , to you, 'vanished away' and what 'stays' and why?

Brother Les

Hi Less. Glad you have jumped in and stayed. :D I will give a shot at answering your q for me in my next post for you and Richard. But I am not the person arbitrarily calling the new covenant Torah. Apparently, Hebrews 8:6 plainly says it. What that means is the challenge we all would do well to tackle. Its meaning cannot contradict other scriptures. So I challenge you both to scrutinize your views of the torah in light of this passage. It seems to me that you both ought to reinterpret the new testament's teaching about the torah and its proper and full definition or you must prove Hebrews 8:6 to be saying something other than "the new covenant has been given as Torah."

[eliyahu]

In order for there to be no conflict with in what you call 'The New Covenant Torah. What is 'left' in and what is forever removed, from your view point, to make this a 'New Torah'? What has , to you, 'vanished away' and what 'stays' and why?

Brother Les

Hi Less. Glad you have jumped in and stayed. :D I will give a shot at answering your q for me in my next post for you and Richard. But I am not the person arbitrarily calling the new covenant Torah. Apparently, Hebrews 8:6 plainly says it. What that means is the challenge we all would do well to tackle. Its meaning cannot contradict other scriptures. So I challenge you both to scrutinize your views of the torah in light of this passage. :thumb: It seems to me that you both ought to reinterpret the new testament's teaching about the torah and its proper and full definition or you must prove Hebrews 8:6 to be saying something other than "the new covenant has been given as Torah."

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Less. Glad you have jumped in and stayed. :D I will give a shot at answering your q for me in my next post for you and Richard. But I am not the person arbitrarily calling the new covenant Torah. Apparently, Hebrews 8:6 plainly says it. What that means is the challenge we all would do well to tackle. Its meaning cannot contradict other scriptures. So I challenge you both to scrutinize your views of the torah in light of this passage. :thumb: It seems to me that you both ought to reinterpret the new testament's teaching about the torah and its proper and full definition or you must prove Hebrews 8:6 to be saying something other than "the new covenant has been given as Torah."
I have no trouble with Hebrews 8:6 saying that the New Covenant is given as a "torah" that is written on our hearts, because we know that is what the context says. Immediately after saying that the New Covenant was "established [given as "torah"] upon better promises" Hebrews quotes the prophecy of the Gospel Covenant in Jer 31:31ff where the meaning of "torah" is defined as the "torah" that will be written on the hearts of believers. So the meaning of "torah" in that verse is clear.

But here is the sticking point. I see nothing that connects the "torah" written on our hearts with the "Torah" defined as the first five books of the Bible or as the carnal commandments contained therein, such as circumcision, bloody animal sacrifices, dietary restriction, and the Levitical priesthood. In other words, the ONLY thing the "torah" in Jer 31:33 has in common with the "Torah" of the Levitical Priesthood seems to be that they were both given by God, and they are both called "torah." But God did not write the carnal commandments of the Levitical priesthood on the hearts of New Covenant believers.

So this is the point we need to clear up Eliyahu. It seems to me that all the confusion is based on the word "torah" having different meanings. Even Stern ackowledged this when he translated "nomos" with two opposite connotations in a single verse (Rom 8:2).

Thanks for working with me on this bro!

Richard

[eliyahu]

I have no trouble with Hebrews 8:6 saying that the New Covenant is given as a "torah" that is written on our hearts, because we know that is what the context says. Immediately after saying that the New Covenant was "established [given as "torah"] upon better promises" Hebrews quotes the prophecy of the Gospel Covenant in Jer 31:31ff where the meaning of "torah" is defined as the "torah" that will be written on the hearts of believers. So the meaning of "torah" in that verse is clear.
Great. We are together here. I do not know Greek. But this translation seems to be explained sufficiently believable.


But here is the sticking point. I see nothing that connects the "torah" written on our hearts with the "Torah" defined as the first five books of the Bible or as the carnal commandments contained therein, such as circumcision, bloody animal sacrifices, dietary restriction, and the Levitical priesthood. In other words, the ONLY thing the "torah" in Jer 31:33 has in common with the "Torah" of the Levitical Priesthood seems to be that they were both given by God, and they are both called "torah." But God did not write the carnal commandments of the Levitical priesthood on the hearts of New Covenant believers.
I do see something that connects the two "torahs." They are the exact same word with the exact same meaning in Jeremiah. There is nothing to see in Jeremiah that that would lead someone to believe them to be two different things. It is simple language, not esoteric. Jeremiah said:

"31*Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32*not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33*but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. " Jer 31:31-34.

So we see the old covenant critiqued by Yahweh. Then we see the old covenant contrasted with the future new one. The problem with the old one was that "they broke" it. The Law would become an inward part of Israel's nature/heart under the terms of the new covenant, "written on their heart." This would effect a very real personal relationship with God in each Israelite: "they will all know me." It would also be after a time when God would "remember their sin no more." So the "Torah" is the law of Moses. It would be changed from outward service not necessarily from a changed heart of faith. It would result in a real relationship with God and not just religious education and doctrines. It would come after something happened to Israel causing God to forget their past sins. Once this new covenant was made, the law of Moses written on their hearts was radically changed. That law was not destroyed or removed, but radically "reformed."
"6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8 the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
"15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."Heb 9:6-10,15.

The Law of Moses was changed in regard to the issue of the sinful nature being eliminated and replaced with a holy nature. It was changed in reguard to its lack of power to establish a real Spiritual revelatory relationship with Yahweh. It was changed in its ability to make feel irremedial guilt of sin and its power to sever one from relationship with God. According to Heb 9:6-10 the outward ceremonial aspects of the Law were no longer "imposed" upon Israel because their purposes were completed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That was what effected the "reformation" of the Torah of Moses and made it into the "Torah of Messiah" Gal 6:2. the ceremonial laws were(not released from Israel because they were shadows of Jesus, which they also were. That was not given a a reason for their requirement being lifted.
According to Heb 9:15 "15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."[/, Jesus' death and resurrection freed Israel from their sins which were defined and revealed by the old covenant law. So When the [I]"new covenant was given as law" it was a new national constitution which brought: eternal forgiveness from sin, freedom from the power of sin in the flesh apart from the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4), and a real personal relationship with God.

So this is the point we need to clear up Eliyahu. It seems to me that all the confusion is based on the word "torah" having different meanings. Even Stern ackowledged this when he translated "nomos" with two opposite connotations in a single verse (Rom 8:2).

Yes, torah has two different meaning in Romans 8:2. But Stern was not making a universally applicable rule for the entire Bible. He was explaining the context of Romans 8 which contrasts the old covenant law with the new covenant torah "of the Spirit." Jer 31 does not do this and Stern does not try to make it do so. In fact, Heb 8:6 greatly contrasts the old covenant law with the "new covenant given as torah." That is what the entire verse is all about. The Torah of Moses has been transformed for the "better" and is now exclusively required of Israel with no more requirement of the now having been transformed by God old torah. It is the same torah but it has been changed, not replaced. It reminds me of the Transformer toys. They completely change from one thing into another but retain the same parts. The parts all rearange and change their funtion and even lose their original functions at times. :lol: I know its a silly analogy but it works.

[eliyahu]

That last paragraph was unclear. Romans 8 does impose two different meanings on the word Torah/law. Jeremiah does not give reason to do such. Most of Romans 8 is contrasting the old defunct version of the law applied in its (at the time) common perversion into a legalistic means to serve and please God out of the flesh with the new covenant "law of the Spirit." "The "torah of the spirit" is the now transformed Mosaic law properly apprehende by the power or the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer." -Stern paraphrased.

There was not an esoteric preterist rule of interpretaion of words that Paul used. Paul explained himself in his contexts.

[Brother Les]

When Did the Law End?


Last week we looked at the purpose of the Law. We saw that God gave the Law "because of transgressions." This means that God wanted to move sin into the specific category of flagrant violation of the expressed and clear will of God. Thus, the law was added to create transgressions - that is, to make sin clearly a specific act of rebellion against God.
So, God gave the Law to make man aware of the depths of his rebellion against Him. God didn't give the Law to make man aware of his disobedience so that he would cease it and begin to obey, but to show him he could not obey.

So, the purpose of the Law was negative - it made man aware of his sinfulness. Not only was the Law negative, it was also temporary. The Mosaic law came into effect at a certain point in history and was in effect only until a certain point:

Galatians 3:19 (NASB) Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made.

From Paul's words here, we see that the Law was to be in effect "...until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made." Who was the "seed"? It was Christ. Paul already told us that:

Galatians 3:16 (NASB) Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

Commenting on the phrase "Until the seed should come" - Adam Clark writes: "The law was to be in force till the advent of the Messiah. After that it was to cease."

So, the Law was in effect until "Christ came." Would you agree with that? Alright then, when exactly did the Law pass away? What are our options? Did the Law pass away at the: Birth of Christ; or at the Cross; or at Pentecost; or at the Parousia? We know that the Law did not cease at the birth of Christ. I know of no one who teaches that it did. There are many, though, who teach that the Law ended at the Cross. Is this correct? No! In 2 Corinthians, speaking of the Law, Paul writes:

2 Corinthians 3:11 (NASB) For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

This verse doesn't help much until you understand that "fades away" is present tense.

2 Corinthians 3:11 (YLT) for if that which is being made useless is through glory, much more that which is remaining is in glory.

Paul was writing this about 25 years after the Cross, and he says that the Law was then "passing away." The author of Hebrews also tells us that as of A.D. 67-68, the law was still in effect:

Hebrews 8:13 (NASB) When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

The law was still in effect, but it was "ready to disappear." In just a couple of years when the temple was destroyed, the Law disappeared:

Hebrews 9:8 (NASB) The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing,

As long as the temple was still standing, the Law was still in effect, and man did not have access to the presence of God. Now, since the Law was in effect until A.D. 70, we know that it did not end at the birth of Christ or at the Cross or at Pentecost.

Jesus Himself told us exactly when the Law would end:

Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.

When did Jesus say the Law would end? He says that the Law, all of the Law - the smallest letter or stroke - would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away.

The word "smallest letter" in form was like an apostrophe, not even a letter, not much bigger than a dot. The "stroke" is the little projecting part at the foot of a letter, the little line at each side of the foot of , for example, the letter "t." The message is clear. Not even the smallest part of the law will be abolished until heaven and earth passes away.

So, Jesus is saying that not a single item of the Law - the Old Testament - will ever be changed until heaven and earth pass away. Is that what Jesus said? Yes, it is, then one of two things is true; either we are under the Law - all of it, or heaven and earth have passed away.....



......The Law had no jurisdiction over any believer after Pentecost. The Jewish believers were free from the Law "through the body of Christ."

During the transition period, Old Testament Judaism was still a veritable religion, and the Jews were still "under the Law," because the old covenant was still in effect. However, Jewish and Gentile Christians were not "under the Law" (old covenant) but under the New Covenant" made in Christ's blood on the cross.

Alright, with that behind us, let's pick up where we left off last week. We want to continue to understand the purpose of the Law.

Galatians 3:22 (NASB) But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Now we can see how the law and the promise work in harmony to fulfill the purpose of God. The law puts us down under the curse; the promise lifts us up in Christ. We are left with no exit under the condemnation of the law, so that we might find our freedom only by faith in Christ.




This is part of a Sermon by David Curtis


Brother Les

[Trumpet]

Judaism was a shadow of heaven and earth. But when Jesus rose from the dead, it was over. Not in AD 70. That Temple was a useless pile of stone and wood. Even the shadow of heaven and earth as it related to the Old Covenant was over in 33 AD.

I still sin. Everyone still sins. Sin is made known by the law. The law is still here. You can say that you are not under the law, but I can give you billions of people that ARE still under the law. When Paul said that something was passing away, he was talking about the Old Covenant. That's not exactly synonymous with the law. The law is something that God or any person can use as a verifyable standard to look at to see if it has been violated.

It's very simple as long as it's not muddied by religion.

[Brother Les]

Trumpet posted
Judaism was a shadow of heaven and earth. But when Jesus rose from the dead, it was over. Not in AD 70. That Temple was a useless pile of stone and wood. Even the shadow of heaven and earth as it related to the Old Covenant was over in 33 AD.

That is not what Jesus or the Apostles said.....


Trumpet posted
I still sin. Everyone still sins. Sin is made known by the law. The law is still here. You can say that you are not under the law, but I can give you billions of people that ARE still under the law. When Paul said that something was passing away, he was talking about the Old Covenant. That's not exactly synonymous with the law. The law is something that God or any person can use as a verifyable standard to look at to see if it has been violated. It's very simple as long as it's not muddied by religion.

So your not a Christian?

Brother Les

[Trumpet]

Les,

Are you sinless? And please give the scriptures.

Don

[eliyahu]

Judaism was a shadow of heaven and earth. But when Jesus rose from the dead, it was over. Not in AD 70. That Temple was a useless pile of stone and wood. Even the shadow of heaven and earth as it related to the Old Covenant was over in 33 AD.I still sin. Everyone still sins. Sin is made known by the law. The law is still here. You can say that you are not under the law, but I can give you billions of people that ARE still under the law. When Paul said that something was passing away, he was talking about the Old Covenant. That's not exactly synonymous with the law. The law is something that God or any person can use as a verifyable standard to look at to see if it has been violated. It's very simple as long as it's not muddied by religion.I don't understand your first paragraph. But the rest of that was said quite well. The law and the old covenant aren't exactly one and the same. The old covenant was with Abraham and had nothing to do with the law of Moses. It involved justification and righteousness by faith. That faith was sealed through circumcision. 400+ years later the law was given. The promises still remained. Once Jesus died and rose again the law was "reformed" in various ways. The sacrificial system was fulfilled by Jesus on the cross and had become defunct. The kosher diet was annuled by Jesus' words. And decisions about the law's interpretaion were commited by Jesus to Peter and the twelve, "17*And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18*And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19*And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." at 16:17-19.* "Binding" and "loosing" were rabbinical phraseological terms* dealing with Rabbi's (pharisees) permiting and condemning matters in interpreting the law. "All" of the law is not yet "accomplished" or "fulfilled" Mat 5:18.

[Trumpet]

Hi Eliyahu,

I was referring to the preterists idea that heaven and earth passed away when the Old Covenant passed away. It has truth to it, but the real heaven and earth meaning can coincide in meaning in the same scriptures. This is one of my picks against preterism. Everything gets funneled into the first century, and they don't seem to see how the Spirit uses scripture in multiple fulfillments. Everything sort of has to fit in a nice tidy box, and that can have the effect of quenching the Spirit's ability to apply scripture to multiple circumstances, times, groups, and individuals. It's nothing that's going to take away someone's salvation, but it does stunt your growth, I believe.

Matt 5:18, which you quoted, is as plain as the nose on my face.....to me...and probably you. I don't want to speak for them, because I'm not well versed in their thought, but those that think "heaven and earth" are synonymous with the Old Covenant, feel that the law is over because the Old Covenant passed away in Jesus' day. But as far as I'm concerned, this Holy Bible that I am using may not be exactly worded perfectly as compared to the original copies, (which no longer exist), but it's close enough for the Spirit of God to use, and the Law that was given has never been changed, and will have effect until the creation has no more sin. And since heaven and earth are forever, so is the law. It just will have no effect when sin is gone. (I'm sorry, but as you can see, I am not professionally educated in the things of God, nor do I follow anything but what I believe that the Spirit shows me is truth. Sometimes I make mistakes....Yikes!!!)



God bless Don

[eliyahu]

Trumpet, that makes sense now. It seems liek you and I are similiar in our assessment of preterism. You put it weel... "a tiny little box." One of mt teaxhers from Bible school, Bob Gladstone, said that often times future prophecy was comparable to a rock skipping in water. It contacts and splashes a few times before it makes the final splash. Each splash is just a smaller forshadowing and progression toward the final one. What you said about the is why I say that preterists interpret the Bible backwards. They begin all of their theology in the NT. They start from a few isolated verses in the NT and superimpose their application of it over the whole Bible. God intends the Bible to be interpreted in the order He gave it. Doesn't this make perfect sense? :confused2: Why does anyone think it should be understood starting from the back of the book?

[Brother Les]

Les,

Are you sinless? And please give the scriptures.

Don


What is 'sin' (to you) in this New Covenant Age?


If you think that you can 'sin', then you are not right with God...If you think that you have 'free license to do 'everything' that you want...You very well might not be right with God...and there by not 'of' The New Creation.
You ask for verses? I have found three with not even trying. I will do your leg work for you...

Brother Les

[Brother Les]

Trumpet, Eliuahu,

To "Preterists', the study of eschatology (the study of 'last things') is just a part of the Religious understanding of Scripture. 'We' may seem to have only a couple of diminsions, but that is only perseption. In the course of 'opening' our eyes of understanding to the events of The Old Covenant (Sinai) 'Last Days'....many more questions of 'what else' have 'I' may misunderstand in Scripture? To learn to discard the Western Hellenistic mindset and to read and think as those who wrote and lived 'The Bible', which is an Eastern Oriental Hebraic way of life. There is a big difference. The Bible is all 'Literal'. The big question is,What is 'Literal Physical' and what is 'Literal Spiritual and metephoric. You paint a so call 'Preterist' with one color or 'paradiym', because that is the only 'paradiym', that you see. Preterists' do stand out in the eschatology forums, but 'we' are not one diminsional.

Blessings
Brother Les

[joel]

What is 'sin' (to you) in this New Covenant Age?


If you think that you can 'sin', then you are not right with God...If you think that you have 'free license to do 'everything' that you want...You very well might not be right with God...and there by not 'of' The New Creation.
You ask for verses? I have found three with not even trying. I will do your leg work for you...

Brother Les

"if you think you can "sin", then you are not right with God......."
Please clarify this statement.

Joel

[eliyahu]

Trumpet, Eliuahu,

To "Preterists', the study of eschatology (the study of 'last things') is just a part of the Religious understanding of Scripture. 'We' may seem to have only a couple of diminsions, but that is only perseption. In the course of 'opening' our eyes of understanding to the events of The Old Covenant (Sinai) 'Last Days'....many more questions of 'what else' have 'I' may misunderstand in Scripture? To learn to discard the Western Hellenistic mindset and to read and think as those who wrote and lived 'The Bible', which is an Eastern Oriental Hebraic way of life. There is a big difference. The Bible is all 'Literal'. The big question is,What is 'Literal Physical' and what is 'Literal Spiritual and metephoric. You paint a so call 'Preterist' with one color or 'paradiym', because that is the only 'paradiym', that you see. Preterists' do stand out in the eschatology forums, but 'we' are not one diminsional.

Blessings
Brother Les

Brother Les, I am sorry if I came across as broadly judging people with preterist views. While I am in vast disagreement with much of preterist eschatology, I love and respect them. In fact one man who has helped me out in many ways a lot is a die hard preterist himself. I have read numerous eschatology books, numerous commentaries and so forth. I have only read one full length book strictly espousing preterism. It was called "The Israel Of God" I believe. I have read other books by preterists. I also read a great book called "Revelation, The Four Views." It was a parallel commentary on Revelation showing each verse's commentary in 4 columns. Each column was one major eschatological school of thought with one being preterism. I, among many others, do not see preterism as "Hebraic" at all. By that term I mean "in the vein of the old testament's" theology and eschatology. I understand that you see it as "Hebraic."
I am personally a person who has given himself over to study the scriptures in their Jewish contexts more that most people I have ever met. I do not have a "Hellenistic/western" mindset, or a "Greek" mind. I was even personally and publically applauded by a well known Jewish (not Messianic at all) prophetic leader in the church for over 40 years as having an Hebraic approach in interpreting scripture. He was heavily involved with reaching out to and making bridges to the New York City's orthodox Jewish community. I am quite familiar with the differences between the modern western mind and the ancient Hebrew prophets' mind.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So this is the point we need to clear up Eliyahu. It seems to me that all the confusion is based on the word "torah" having different meanings. Even Stern ackowledged this when he translated "nomos" with two opposite connotations in a single verse (Rom 8:2).

Yes, torah has two different meaning in Romans 8:2. But Stern was not making a universally applicable rule for the entire Bible. He was explaining the context of Romans 8 which contrasts the old covenant law with the new covenant torah "of the Spirit." Jer 31 does not do this and Stern does not try to make it do so. In fact, Heb 8:6 greatly contrasts the old covenant law with the "new covenant given as torah." That is what the entire verse is all about. The Torah of Moses has been transformed for the "better" and is now exclusively required of Israel with no more requirement of the now having been transformed by God old torah. It is the same torah but it has been changed, not replaced. It reminds me of the Transformer toys. They completely change from one thing into another but retain the same parts. The parts all rearange and change their funtion and even lose their original functions at times. :lol: I know its a silly analogy but it works.
How can it be the "same" torah if it is a different "torah?" You yourself admit that the "entire verse" of Hebrews 8:6 is meant to "greatly contrast" the two "torahs." Now call me simple minded, but I do not understand how we can "contrast" something with itself! Now I understand that you are saying that the Torah "transformed" but if that is true, then why use the same word? It makes it seem like you are teaching that we must all obey the carnal Torah of bloody sacrifices,, dietary resstricions, a Levitical priesthood and all that.

I think your words will remain obscure until you clearly and unambiguously define exactly what you mean by the Old Covenant Torah (Torah #1) and the New Covenant "Torah" (Torah #2).

The confusion in this conversation seems to be based entirely on the equivocation on the word "torah." I still don't know what you mean by it.

Richard

[eliyahu]

I have been explaining what I mean by torah#1 and #2. I can't be much clearer in my posts. Maybe another man can. One author, Marvin Wilson, said this:

"Paul was subordinate to the law of Christ as being in and of Himself a new Torah- new not in the sense that he contravened the old but that He revealed its true character, or put in in a new light. Christ was central to all of Paul's teaching, preaching, and living (Gal 2:20-21, Phil 1:21). For Paul, not simply the words of Jesus constituted the New Torah; rather, it was the totality of His life, death, and resurrection, The Living Person, who constituted the New Torah." Marvin R. Wilson, Our Father Abraham, Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. pp28-29.

I know this is not the fullest answer but it is quite to the point. The above statement is what the apostles and Paul had in mind when they quoted from the law as authority. Or when they spoke of us believers fulfilling the law.

If you really believe that the Holy Spirit superimposes new interpretations on old testament scriptures that are different or even contradictory from the original meaning than you are at an interprative impasse. You can then interpret the OT in any way which you personally feel that the Spirit is leading, reguardless of what the rest of the Bible may say. This effectively throws out any serious questioning of your beliefs with critical analysis. If something in the OT contradicts your view, you simply re-interpret its meaning to fit your interpretation of the NT. How can you be reasoned with if you always have an "out" that covers any and all of preterism's questionable foundations?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But here is the sticking point. I see nothing that connects the "torah" written on our hearts with the "Torah" defined as the first five books of the Bible or as the carnal commandments contained therein, such as circumcision, bloody animal sacrifices, dietary restriction, and the Levitical priesthood. In other words, the ONLY thing the "torah" in Jer 31:33 has in common with the "Torah" of the Levitical Priesthood seems to be that they were both given by God, and they are both called "torah." But God did not write the carnal commandments of the Levitical priesthood on the hearts of New Covenant believers.

I do see something that connects the two "torahs." They are the exact same word with the exact same meaning in Jeremiah. There is nothing to see in Jeremiah that that would lead someone to believe them to be two different things. It is simple language, not esoteric. Jeremiah said:

"31*Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32*not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33*but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. " Jer 31:31-34.

So we see the old covenant critiqued by Yahweh. Then we see the old covenant contrasted with the future new one.

Hey there Eliyahu,


I had to jump back to this previous post to pick up on a point that was not fully addressed, since it seems to be a leading cause of the confusion we are experiencing here. It seems you simply asserted that the meaning of "torah" in Jer 31:33 had "the exact same meaning" as "the Torah of the Levitical Priesthood" without actually presenting any evidence to support your claim. This is a fundamental error becuase the word "torah" in Jer 31:3 is obviously being contrasted with the old "Torah" written on "stones" as you also noted. Now things that are contrasted are not the same. So thre is no reason to assume that the "torah" of Jer 31:33 is identical to the "Torah" of the Levitical Priesthood. On the contrary, a proper exegesis requires that we consider the full range of meanings of the word "torah" in this verse. Here is a brief overview:
תורה towrah {to-raw'} or תרה torah {to-raw'} from 03384; TWOT - 910d; n f AV - law 219; 219 1) law, direction, instruction 1a) instruction, direction (human or divine) 1a1) body of prophetic teaching 1a2) instruction in Messianic age 1a3) body of priestly direction or instruction 1a4) body of legal directives 1b) law 1b1) law of the burnt offering 1b2) of special law, codes of law 1c) custom, manner 1d) the Deuteronomic or Mosaic Law
See that? The "Mosaic Law" is only one of many possible meanings of "torah." Your assertion that it means "The Mosaic Law" in Jer 31:33 must be substantiated by evidence before it can be accepted.


The problem with the old one was that "they broke" it. The Law would become an inward part of Israel's nature/heart under the terms of the new covenant, "written on their heart." This would effect a very real personal relationship with God in each Israelite: "they will all know me." It would also be after a time when God would "remember their sin no more." So the "Torah" is the law of Moses. It would be changed from outward service not necessarily from a changed heart of faith.

Where did that "So" come from? The word "so" is supposed to indicate a conclusion drawn from some logic or evidence. But you didn't say anything that proves (or even suggests) that the New Covenant "Torah" was identical to the "Law of Moses."


It would result in a real relationship with God and not just religious education and doctrines. It would come after something happened to Israel causing God to forget their past sins. Once this new covenant was made, the law of Moses written on their hearts was radically changed. That law was not destroyed or removed, but radically "reformed."

Two points:

1) You have not yet given any reason to believe that the "torah" of Jer 31:33 means "Mosaic Law" as opposed to all the other possible meanings of that word.

2) To say that something remains the "same thing" after is was "radically reformed" is very problematic. The whole point of this conversation began with my assertion that the NT teaches against Christians keeping the Old Torah in its unchanged form that inlcuded all those carnal commands of bloody animal sacrifices, circumcision, dietary laws and the Levitical priesthood. So if you now admit that all those things passed away when the Law was changed, it seems we have arrived at agreement about my initial assertion.


The Law of Moses was changed in regard to the issue of the sinful nature being eliminated and replaced with a holy nature. It was changed in reguard to its lack of power to establish a real Spiritual revelatory relationship with Yahweh. It was changed in its ability to make feel irremedial guilt of sin and its power to sever one from relationship with God. According to Heb 9:6-10 the outward ceremonial aspects of the Law were no longer "imposed" upon Israel because their purposes were completed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That was what effected the "reformation" of the Torah of Moses and made it into the "Torah of Messiah" Gal 6:2.

This seems to be the fundamental source of our confusion. The "Torah of Moses" is not the "Torah of Moses" if it no longer "imposes" various "aspects" of the Torah of Moses! A "law" that is not "imposed" is not a "law" at all.

Again, I see nothing in the text that indicates the "Torah of Christ" is associated in any way with the detailed carnal commandments of the "Mosaic Torah." The word "torah" has a wide range of meanings, and the most obvious when applied to the "Torah of Christ" is the "Teaching of Christ" or "Instruction of Christ."

So my question is this: If the New Covenant "Torah" is so very radically different than that Old Covenant Torah, why confuse the issue by using the same word?

Richard

[eliyahu]

The word Torah in Jer 31:33 is obviously refering to the law of Moses because that is the one "which they brake." So when God said that He would write His "Torah on their hearts" we must conclude that the previously mentioned Torah is being spoken of. The difference noted is its location being now on their hearts as opposed to stones. It would no longer be broken by Israel as the original one was regularly broken. It would bring about a personal relationship for each Israelite with God as the prophets had. There is nothing in Jeremiah 31 that indicates that the new covenant Torah is a fresh, new and different one. All of the information given in Jer 31 deals with Israel's changing relationship toward the Law of Moses in the future. This is, apparently from the text, what makes the new covenant "new."

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the new covenant's Torah was expalained by Jer 31 to be a completely new and different one from the Mosaic one. Citing Paul's writings in Romans to prove this would be terrible exegesis. Paul's writings weren't to be taken into account when Jeremiah was penned and originally received.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The word Torah in Jer 31:33 is obviously refering to the law of Moses because that is the one "which they brake." So when God said that He would write His "Torah on their hearts" we must conclude that the previously mentioned Torah is being spoken of. The difference noted is its location being now on their hearts as opposed to stones. It would no longer be broken by Israel as the original one was regularly broken. It would bring about a personal relationship for each Israelite with God as the prophets had. There is nothing in Jeremiah 31 that indicates that the new covenant Torah is a fresh, new and different one. All of the information given in Jer 31 deals with Israel's changing relationship toward the Law of Moses in the future. This is, apparently from the text, what makes the new covenant "new."

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the new covenant's Torah was expalained by Jer 31 to be a completely new and different one from the Mosaic one. Citing Paul's writings in Romans to prove this would be terrible exegesis. Paul's writings weren't to be taken into account when Jeremiah was penned and originally received.
Good morning Eliyahu,

Let's focus on the words "not like" which God used when He contrasted the New Covenant "torah" with the Old Covenant Mosaic Torah:

Jeremiah 31:31-32 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

God explicitly declared that the New Covenant "torah" would be DIFFERENT than the Old Covenant Mosaic Torah. Looking more closely at the nature of that difference, we see that God used the negative particle "LO" followed by K'BRIT which is the word BRIT (covenant) prefixed by a Kaph, which is used to signified likeness or similiarity. Here are the first three definitions listed by Holiday in his classic Hebrew dictionary:
[Kaph prefix] particle of comparison, like: —
1. expresses identity:
2. agreement in measure: a) as much as:
3. agreement in kind: in the same way as, of the same sort as:


We find the same form of LO K' elsewhere in Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 10:14-16 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. 15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish. 16 The portion of Jacob [GOD] is not like them [LO K'ELAH]: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name. See that? The word's LO K'ELAH are being used to contrast the nature of God as Creator with the nature of men as creatures. I believe that there is a similar quality or degree of difference between the two "torahs" of Jer 31. This is what God is saying in Jeremiah 31:32 - He would make a the New Covenant "torah" that was NOT the same as the Old Torah; it would not even be the same "kind" of Torah. So there you go. There is nothing in Jer 31 that indicates the New Covenant would be the same as the Old Covenant. On the contrary, the text very explictly declares they would be different.

As for the "terrible exegesis" that would follow by using the NT to interpret the OT - you have me completely mystified. The entire New Testament is a revelation from God about the meaning of "New Covenant" prophesied in Jeremiah 31. This is the New Covenant that Christ proclaim in Matthew 26:

Matthew 26:27-28 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins. I see the Bible as a Divine Unity from Genesis to Revelation, revealed straight from the Mind of God. He has clearly taught us to reinterpret the Old Testament in light of the New. For example, no one could prove that Isaiah 7:14 was really talking about a true virgin (as opposed to "young woman") who would be the mother of Messiah if not for Matthew 1:23. And no one would be able to prove that David was prophesying of Christ in Psalms 16 and 22 if we were not told so by Peter and Paul in the NT. If your definition of "terrible exegesis" were true, there would be no Christian exegesis at all.

And finally, I must ask again what you mean when you say that the "Mosaic Torah" is the "Law" that God wrote on our hearts? You admit the Torah has changed and we don't have to keep its carnal commandments. Yet you assert it is still the "Torah of Moses." That doesn't make any sense to me at all. If the Law has changed to such a degree that we don't need to obey it, why say it is the same? A law that need not be obeyed is no law at all, correct?

Richard

[eric]

"God explicitly declared that the New Covenant "torah" would be DIFFERENT than the Old Covenant Mosaic Torah."

It is quite interesting how the Christian mind always jumps to this conclusion. God did NOT specifically declare that the Torah written on the heart would be ANOTHER Torah. There is none other. His word is eternal and He tells us this time and again.

"He has clearly taught us to reinterpret the Old Testament in light of the New."
Huh? That's not what I see in scripture! I think you mean that's what Luther and the early church fathers taught. We see time and again where Yeshua and Paul reference Torah for teaching the gospel! Lets remember that Paul, the so called champion for freedom, tells us that the Torah is spiritual!

We know that "ALL scripture is useful for...training in righteousness." Well when that was written all there was was Torah! Yet we are so anxious to throw out the "law" because we have been taught from day one that it is at odds with grace.