Did the Apostles Keep the Torah Law?

[Bubba_Switzler]

Like most Christians, I’ve taken it for granted that Paul declared the Torah to be dead.

But there is an interesting argument that the apostles kept the Torah Law and that it was only later that it fell out of practice as gentiles, who undoubtedly were not obligated to keep the Torah, came to dominate the Church.

For example:

hebrewroot.com/Articles/gal_2.htm

Probably Paul’s most direct statement on in support of this is Romans 3:31:

“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”

I’m not even sure what the official Catholic position is on this.

 

[thistle]

Like most Christians, I’ve taken it for granted that Paul declared the Torah to be dead.

But there is an interesting argument that the apostles kept the Torah Law and that it was only later that it fell out of practice as gentiles, who undoubtedly were not obligated to keep the Torah, came to dominate the Church.

For example:

hebrewroot.com/Articles/gal_2.htm

Probably Paul’s most direct statement on in support of this is Romans 3:31:

**“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”
**
I’m not even sure what the official Catholic position is on this.

I believe he is talking about the 10 Commandments which of course Jesus also told us to keep.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, it was the Natural Law, the 10 commandments. The ritualistic laws were consummated, as is evidenced by St. Paul chastising St. Peter for shunning the Gentiles during mealtimes, a purely Jewish ritual.

 

[Valke2]

What commadment required shunning gentiles at dinner? There are many commandments, aside from the big 10 that are not ritualistic laws.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I believe he is talking about the 10 Commandments which of course Jesus also told us to keep.

Clearly one can interpret Paul to be referring, in such cases, to the non-ritualistic laws, e.g. the 10 commandments. The problem is that nowhere does he make such a distinction. The distinction is inferred from the interpretation, thus you get a circulartity that serves to be self-consistent but which does not really answer the question.

Yes, it was the Natural Law, the 10 commandments. The ritualistic laws were consummated, as is evidenced by St. Paul chastising St. Peter for shunning the Gentiles during mealtimes, a purely Jewish ritual.

If you read the article you will see that there is another interpretation of that criticism, namely that Paul was chastising Peter for making the gentile Christians feel inferior for not being Jews.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What commadment required shunning gentiles at dinner?

This was a Jewish practice that arose from the various dietary prohibitions but also, perhaps more importantly, from the fact that gentiles regularly offered their meal to their gods (saying “grace”) before eating. Thus for a Jew to consume a meal with a gentile was to risk consuming food that had been offered to false gods, a big no-no.

There are many commandments, aside from the big 10 that are not ritualistic laws.

Yes, I think the problem is that there is no black/white line that can be easily drawn. There are certainly some Mosaic laws that are just plain bizzare, nobody knows why they are there. There are others that are so basic to human society that you find them in every religion. And then there are those that are simply Jewish solutions to human problems.

For example, the prohibition on homosexuality is not exactly a ritualistic law but neither is it a universal law (the Greeks got along fine without it).

 

[NotWorthy]

What commadment required shunning gentiles at dinner? There are many commandments, aside from the big 10 that are not ritualistic laws.

The Pharisees had imposed that no one could eat with un-clean people. (Good) Jews didn’t eat with Gentiles.

 

[Valke2]

The Pharisees had imposed that no one could eat with un-clean people. (Good) Jews didn’t eat with Gentiles.

what is the source for that? And is it a commandment? Which one

 

[NotWorthy]

what is the source for that? And is it a commandment? Which one

What is the source? I would assume the four Gospels. And from one I understand, the two greatest rabbis of the day, Hillel and Shamiel (?), were throwing rules around like a hot potato. But I don’t know what you called these rules, bindings perhaps?

 

[NotWorthy]

what is the source for that? And is it a commandment? Which one

Oh yeah, I remember. It was on the 3rd Tablet - the one that Moses dropped. I saw it on Mel Brook’s “History of the World - Part 1”.

"I have 15… oops… no, 10. Ten Commandments!"

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

what is the source for that? And is it a commandment? Which one

What is the source for the claim that Jews can’t share pork chops and cheesburgers with gentiles? Or what is the source for the claim that Jews can’t consume food that was offered to pagan gods? Some restrictions are in the written Torah, others the oral Torah.

 

[chosen_people]

What is the source for the claim that Jews can’t share pork chops and cheesburgers with gentiles? Or what is the source for the claim that Jews can’t consume food that was offered to pagan gods? Some restrictions are in the written Torah, others the oral Torah.

The oral law was “dynamically codified” in Talmudic discussions and later in the Shulkan Aruch. Oral laws were also defined and refined before receiving a written expression.

As to whether the Apostles kept the Law, Torah in its wider sense, the answer lies in the reasons behind the rejection of the Law by Christianity. Laws of course had existed even prior to the Jews. What was unique to the Jews was to evolve laws on a religious basis that did not deal only with man’s relationship to God but with man’s relationship to other men and the placing of those laws on a Divine religious basis.

The Law had to be passed down from father to son, the people involved had to understand the nuances between an ox that had behaved badly in the past as opposed to an unexpected act, or differentiate whether the ox was being kept without consideration or with consideration. In other words, it required a society with universal male literacy that was highly intelligent. This was fine as long as Torah was confined to the Jews. However Christianity wished for universality, to reach everyman, to reach the masses who were at this time invariably illiterate.

The solution demanded that Christianity reject Torah and the intellectual discussions of Judaism for a dogmatic religion with a set series of beliefs that could be learned by rote and by their acceptance make the person a Christian adherent. It required the building of a hierarchy that could develop, decide on and spread those dogmatic beliefs.

This of course did not happen at once. In as much as Christianity remained a sect of Judaism it could not reject Torah, the basis of the covenant. Therefore, it is quite likely that the apostles kept the law.

 

[Valke2]

What is the source? I would assume the four Gospels. And from one I understand, the two greatest rabbis of the day, Hillel and Shamiel (?), were throwing rules around like a hot potato. But I don’t know what you called these rules, bindings perhaps?

Well, you provided the allegation. I assume you have read it in the Gospels? I never heard of any commandment prohibiting jews from eating with gentiles. Hillel and Shamie often disagreed on points of law and in the majority of times, Hillel’s opinion was followed. He usually took the more liberal position. While I don’t know what if anything he had to say about eating with gentiles, it would be consistent with his teachings if he ruled that it would not be a problem.

 

[Valke2]

What is the source for the claim that Jews can’t share pork chops and cheesburgers with gentiles? Or what is the source for the claim that Jews can’t consume food that was offered to pagan gods? Some restrictions are in the written Torah, others the oral Torah.

Putting aside the inaccuracies of the examples (unless you meant to say that Jews can’t eat pork, as opposed to sharing it), whether it is oral torah which is now codified in the Talmud or other scripture, there would be a source. I know of halacha – jewish law-- that dicusses what and how to eat when gentiles are at the dinner table. I don’t know of any that prohibits eating with gentiles.

There are prohibitions against eating meat butched by a non-jew and other laws designed to ensure that the food we eat is kohsher.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, you provided the allegation. I assume you have read it in the Gospels? I never heard of any commandment prohibiting jews from eating with gentiles.

Then why did the Pharisees chastise Jesus for eating with sinners? Why were the Tax Collectors, for example, ostracized?

Hillel and Shamie often disagreed on points of law and in the majority of times, Hillel’s opinion was followed. He usually took the more liberal position. While I don’t know what if anything he had to say about eating with gentiles, it would be consistent with his teachings if he ruled that it would not be a problem.

 

[thistle]

The oral law was “dynamically codified” in Talmudic discussions and later in the Shulkan Aruch. Oral laws were also defined and refined before receiving a written expression.

As to whether the Apostles kept the Law, Torah in its wider sense, the answer lies in the reasons behind the rejection of the Law by Christianity. Laws of course had existed even prior to the Jews. What was unique to the Jews was to evolve laws on a religious basis that did not deal only with man’s relationship to God but with man’s relationship to other men and the placing of those laws on a Divine religious basis.

The Law had to be passed down from father to son, the people involved had to understand the nuances between an ox that had behaved badly in the past as opposed to an unexpected act, or differentiate whether the ox was being kept without consideration or with consideration. In other words, it required a society with universal male literacy that was highly intelligent. This was fine as long as Torah was confined to the Jews. However Christianity wished for universality, to reach everyman, to reach the masses who were at this time invariably illiterate.

The solution demanded that Christianity reject Torah and the intellectual discussions of Judaism for a dogmatic religion with a set series of beliefs that could be learned by rote and by their acceptance make the person a Christian adherent. It required the building of a hierarchy that could develop, decide on and spread those dogmatic beliefs.

This of course did not happen at once. In as much as Christianity remained a sect of Judaism it could not reject Torah, the basis of the covenant. Therefore, it is quite likely that the apostles kept the law.

Christianity was not a sect of Judaism. It was the fulfillment of Judaism.

 

[Valke2]

Then why did the Pharisees chastise Jesus for eating with sinners? Why were the Tax Collectors, for example, ostracized?

Don’t know. I’m not that familiar with the story. Perhaps it is metaphorical? But we are talking about eating with gentiles, not eating with sinners. Plus tax collectors were especially despised. They usually had to bribe the Romans for the job and therefore had to raised taxes to a prohibitive level.

 

[NotWorthy]

Don’t know. I’m not that familiar with the story. Perhaps it is metaphorical? But we are talking about eating with gentiles, not eating with sinners.

I wasn’t aware that 1st century Judaism knew there was a difference between gentiles and sinners. It seem those of Pharisaic persuasion lumped the two together, although the Saduccess and Herodians were more tolerant.

Plus tax collectors were especially despised. They usually had to bribe the Romans for the job and therefore had to raised taxes to a prohibitive level.

Yes, I would imagine the average Jew felt betrayed by the tax collector, which probably made them the “lowest of the low”.

It’s our brothers that always hurt us the worst, which is why civil wars are both the bloodiest and the biggest oxymoron ever conceived… well, other than “military intelligence”.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Putting aside the inaccuracies of the examples (unless you meant to say that Jews can’t eat pork, as opposed to sharing it), whether it is oral torah which is now codified in the Talmud or other scripture, there would be a source. …There are prohibitions against eating meat butched by a non-jew and other laws designed to ensure that the food we eat is kohsher.

“Sharing” is a term meaning to eat with others. (We “share” a pizza means we both eat it.) So, yes, the first problem is one of the food itself. It is almost certain that food served by pagans would be non-kosher in one way or another. That alone is sufficient.

Further, I would not assume that the Talmud includes all of the oral law that was in practice during the Second Temple period simply because it was created in an entirely different situation. For example, there were many passages that were excised from the Talmud concerning Temple practices.

Finally, one can easily find examples of modern “oral” traditions that go beyond written traditions. For example, some hisidic shopowners will place change on the counter rather than following the usual custom of placing it in the customer’s hands. Is that in the Talmud? No. But the Talmud prohibits married men from touching women other than their wives, so they have developed this tradition.

Now the title question was whether the apostles kept the Torah Law, not the oral Law, but the two are never easy to distinguish since oral laws generally developed as a way to insure keeping the written law, as exegis on its application in everyday life. The very fact that the apostles struggled with such questions suggest that they had not abandoned the Torah Law. It may be simply that they began the process of developing their own oral law.

 

[Valke2]

Further, I would not assume that the Talmud includes all of the oral law that was in practice during the Second Temple period simply because it was created in an entirely different situation. For example, there were many passages that were excised from the Talmud concerning Temple practices.

I never heard of any passages of the Mishna – regarding the Temple or otherwise – that were excised.

Now the title question was whether the apostles kept the Torah Law, not the oral Law

Torah means instruction. It covers both oral and written, although we often use it as a shorthand for the written Torah.