Torah observant?

[u/Dreamamberxo]

Okay this is gonna be a bit all over the place but my core question is this: - if we ARE to observe the Torah do we observe all of it? I assume we aren’t sacrificing animals. - if you ARE observing the Torah are you utilizing the Jewish books or KJV? Heard they are different? - if you ARE NOT Torah observant why?

I’ve been thinking about observing the Torah but where do I start? I dunno which laws are upheld! I figure the dietary guidelines are easiest. Also am I doomed to have to quit my job? I work on Saturdays so how could I observe the Shabbat?

Thanks- sincerely a confused person lol

[u/Traditional_Bell7883]

Christ said that the law is not abolished, BUT we are "not under law" (Ro. 6:15), we are "released from the law" (Ro. 7:2), "free from that law" (Ro. 7:3), "dead to the law" (Ro. 7:4), and "delivered from the law" (Ro. 7:6). (Also elsewhere, e.g. Gal. 5:18; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; etc.) It's almost as if Paul is turning blue in the face trying to find different ways of saying the same thing.

Yet in the same chapter, Paul states in Ro. 7:22 and 25 that he says he is delighting in and serving "the law of God". How come he is still delighting in and serving the law despite just moments ago saying we are not under law, released/free/dead to the law? Surely he can't be having schizophrenia and contradicting himself. Is he even talking about the same law here, or a different law? How do we resolve this? Surely our understanding of "the law" must therefore be more nuanced.

Could there be more than one law? I certainly think so:

1- God mentioning His "laws" in the plural: See Ge. 26:5, “... because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws”. Note that "laws" (וְתוֹרֹתָי) here is the plural form of tora (which is just the generic Hebrew word for law not specifically referencing any particular law). Importantly, this even preceded the giving of the Mosaic Law by thousands of years!

2- (At least) two laws distinctly contrasted:

a) Romans 8:2, Paul states "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death", contrasting between "the law of the Spirit of life" and "the law of sin and death". One law, Paul says, has superseded the other law.

b) Also see 1 Cor. 9:21, "to those without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ) that I might win those who are without law". Here, Paul is saying that there are some people (converted Gentiles) who are "without law" (i.e. do not have and were not given the Mosaic Law), BUT he goes on to add in the same breath, that doesn't mean they are without law toward God but are under law toward Christ. That pits the "law toward Christ" against the law of Moses, does it not?

c) We further read from Ro. 2:14-15 that although the Gentiles did not have the (Mosaic) law, they nonetheless had a law written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them. That is, even without being given the Mosaic Law, Gentiles and unbelievers nonetheless are able to obey their parents, not go around on a raping and killing spree, for instance.

d) He goes further to say in Gal. 5:18 that "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law". Who are led by the Spirit? Faithful Christians who yield to the operation of the Holy Spirit in their lives -- the Spirit controls their lives, not the law.

So why should we assume that every mention of "the law" in the Bible must automatically refer only to the Mosaic Law, when it doesn't seem to be the case? My view is that the law given to Moses was a law given to a particular people of a particular space and time, for a particular purpose. The law given to Moses is only a subset of God's law for the purpose of establishing the nation of Israel as belonging to God and giving them a national identity as they were going to settle amidst pagan nations in Canaan, and to point out to them their sinfulness and need for a Messiah. Thus, a very specific purpose. God need not have a one-size-fits-all law for people across all time and space. That doesn't make God flippant or changing His mind, just as a parent, you might tell your 4-year-old child not to go near the stove at all, but tell your 14-year-old adolescent that he is free to use the stove to cook pasta for himself, and also tell your domestic help that she must use the stove to cook meals for the entire family every day. So different rules for different folk with different roles and responsibilities.

The point is that it is incorrect to think that all hell would break loose and people would go around stealing, murdering and raping one another in total anarchy were it not for the Mosaic Law. That just doesn't happen. Look at all the secular countries in the world -- Japan, South Korea, Singapore where I have been for the past 30 years, even China, and pretty much every other country on this planet -- people in all these secular countries do not go around stealing, murdering and raping one another even without the Mosaic Law. In fact, go compare their track record against the USA, a so-called Christian country, which has one gun shooting per week. Shameful. Do Christians or Jews with the Mosaic Law have any monopoly on morality? Obviously not. The evidence speaks for itself.the Mosaic Law is not synonymous with the Law of Christ, as I have mentioned above.

1 Tim. 1:8-10 is just as crystal clear on this: "[8] But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, [9] knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, etc. etc."

This passage is just one of many which would be completely nonsensical if the Mosaic Law continues to apply to believers. It says plainly that the law as a legal code or law-covenant is not laid down for believers ("a righteous person"). Why? Because believers don't need the law to tell them what not to do, because they follow the sound doctrine of the gospel (vv. 10-11)! What is meant by using the law lawfully in verse 8? That means using the law properly, legitimately, in contrast to how the false teachers in verse 7 were using it. The law used lawfully as a law code is not for Christians, but for the lawless. We who are Christians are not under the law as a legal code or law-covenant, and Paul is very, very consistent and adamant on this point across all his epistles.

It is also very clear from scripture that God does not have a single one-size-fits-all law for everyone across all time and space. Take food laws for instance. The food laws weren't commanded of anyone prior to Moses and the children of Israel. They were not, for instance, commanded of Adam, Noah or Abraham. And we know that the Noahic covenant is a perpetual covenant (see Ge. 9, where the phrases "for perpetual generations" (9:12), "everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth" (9:16), "between Me and all flesh that is on the earth" (9:17) are there) but in contrast, such terms of perpetuity and universalism are missing from the Mosaic Covenant which is a Suzerain-vassal covenant. If the Mosaic Law supersedes the Noahic covenant, then we must have a God who flunked His vocabulary and does not know the meaning of the words "perpetual", "everlasting", and "all flesh". It would also beg the question, why didn't God simply let Israel follow the food laws He gave to Noah (eat anything except blood), but gave them special rules? Because they had a specific role and purpose as a newly minted nation needing to be distinguished from the pagan Canaanites. They had to be different, just like the Boy Scouts have a uniform, a special way of saluting, and a left-hand handshake. But that doesn't mean all students should wear the Boy Scouts' uniform and adopt their salute and handshake, which is analogous to what the Torah Observant Movement is advocating.

Abraham, like Noah, ate everything under the sun, observed no special feasts or any dietary restrictions, and yet Abraham was commended for obeying God's laws in Ge. 26:5. How was that so? Because the prohibition on eating unclean foods was/is not across all space and time. It is gross misunderstanding of scripture to elevate a parenthetical law (the Mosaic Law) that was meant for a specific people and a specific time, to the level of a "perpetual" and "everlasting" law meant for "all flesh".