Category: Uncategorized

Wine and the Bible

I grew up in a family that considered drinking wine or any alcoholic drink to be contrary to Scripture. Many churches teach this. Are they correct? Let’s consider the teachings of the Bible.

There are certainly passages that warn against the overuse of alcoholic drinks. “Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.” (Proverbs 20:1) “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.” (Ephesians 5:18) There are passages that seem to treat it more positively. “He makes grass grow for the cattle,… wine that gladdens the heart of man.” (Psalm 104:14-15) And Paul tells Timothy to “use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:23) Many interpreters consider these kinds of passages to be referring to unfermented wine, grape juice. So what does the Bible really teach about this?

When I went off to a Christian college (which prohibited drinking wine), I started to have second thoughts about this issue. The first passage that made me reconsider was in John 2, where Jesus changed water into wine. It seemed clear that the wine he made was considered much better than the wine they had drunk previously. It seemed hard to imagine that this superior wine was just grape juice. Luke points out in Luke 5:39 that no one prefers new wine to old wine. So it seemed likely that Jesus made the water into alcoholic wine.

Another thing to consider is that Jesus was accused of being a drunkard compared to John the Baptist. (Matthew 11:19) John, like Samson, was a lifelong Nazirite. (cp. Numbers 6) A Nazirite was not to cut his hair or eat or drink anything made from grapes. In the Matthew passage Jesus says that, in contrast to John, he came eating and drinking, and they called him a glutton and a drunkard. That was probably an extreme exaggeration, but there’s no way to square this passage with the idea that Jesus never drank fermented wine.

In a passage that we alluded to earlier, Jesus mentions both old wine and new wine. (Luke 5:36-39) In a parable (or metaphor) he says that no one puts new wine in old wineskins because the fermentation will destroy the wineskin. This parable has been widely misinterpreted as meaning that Jesus’ message corresponds to new wine, which should be put in new wineskins. It might be possible to understand it this way if the wineskin metaphor stood alone. But it doesn’t; it’s part of a double metaphor. The other part is that no one puts a new patch on an old garment, because as it stretches, it will tear the garment. With a little bit of thought we realize that if Jesus was identifying with new wine being put in new wineskins, he would also be identifying with a new patch being put on a new garment. But that is ludicrous! You don’t patch new garments. It’s clear that the point he’s making here is that the appropriate patch for an old garment is an old patch. New garments are irrelevant to patches. Hence, he is identifying his message with old wine (not new) that should be put in old wineskins. Jesus’ message is not a new religion, but a patching of the old garment of Judaism, revealed by God through Moses. We all realize that in most circumstances, “new” is better than “old”. But when the context is patching and wine, it’s clear that he’s identifying with the old.

If these passages aren’t convincing enough, a passage that should settle the issue with finality is Isaiah 25:6. “On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine– the best of meats and the finest of wines.” This is speaking of the future Messianic kingdom, and God’s banquet includes “aged wine”.

It’s clear that God considers fermented wine an appropriate drink for celebration. For many centuries Jews have typically drunk a glass or two of wine on Friday evening to celebrate the Sabbath. And this is entirely in line with Scripture. The teaching of the Bible is that it’s fine to drink wine. Just don’t drink so much that it affects your judgment or ability to function.

The churches that teach that the Bible prohibits drinking wine are clearly wrong. Maybe they’re just trying to be safe. But they’re teaching something that disagrees with the Bible, and they should reconsider.

Understanding Galatians

Paul’s letter to the Galatians has been greatly misunderstood throughout Christian history. It was one of his earliest letters, and the misunderstanding started as early as Acts 21. In this chapter Paul was visiting Jerusalem, where there were thousands of followers of Jesus, all zealous for the law that God gave through Moses. But for some reason they seemed to believe a false rumor that Paul was teaching contrary to the law. Paul went to a lot of trouble to show that he lived according to the law.

Why did these believers think that Paul opposed the law? It’s likely that they were familiar with Paul’s letter to the Galatians, which is easy to take that way if you’re not familiar with what Paul is talking about. An appropriate background consideration is Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 3, that Paul’s letters are confusing, and those who misunderstand them are likely to fall into “the error of lawless men.” This statement seems to be specifically a comment regarding Galatians.

It’s important that we realize that both Galatians and Acts 15 are dealing with the same topic, and were probably written about the same time. That topic is the question of whether Gentile believers should convert to Judaism. A person converting to Judaism was required to do three things: become circumcised (if male), be immersed in a mikveh, and vow to follow the law. That’s why following the law is mentioned in Acts 15:5. Some Jewish believers obviously thought that Gentiles should convert. The apostles discussed the issue at length, and concluded that they shouldn’t. Instead, they gave the Gentiles four basic laws to start with. Then they implied that they should attend synagogue every Sabbath, and embrace God’s commands as they came to understand them. (15:21)

In Galatians Paul writes in no uncertain terms that Gentiles should not convert to Judaism (be circumcised). He calls this “another gospel” in 1:6-9. It’s clear from a plain reading of Acts and Romans that Paul tried to live according to God’s commands in the law, and he encouraged his readers to as well.

But in Galatians Paul uses a couple of phrases that are often taken to imply otherwise. One, “erga nomou”, is often translated “works of the law”, and the other, “upo nomou”, is often translated, “under the law.” Both of these translations are misleading. For one thing, neither of them has the definite article (“the”) in Greek. So it’s not at all clear that they refer to the law given through Moses. Paul used the word for “law” in several different senses.

The phrase “under law” seems to refer to the penalty of law, i.e. you sin — you die. This is contrasted with “under grace”, which is the condition of a believer after Jesus paid for sins with his death on the cross. Sin no longer leads to death. But that doesn’t mean that we should willingly sin. God expressed how he wants his followers to live, and we should obey him.

The other phrase, “erga nomou”, “works of law”, is, I think, best understood by Jewish scholar Dr. Mark Nanos. He explains it fully on his website, https://MarkNanos.com . He prefers to translate it as “rites of a custom”, and sees it as referring to Gentiles converting to Judaism, as that is what Paul is talking about in this letter. Paul points out that people are not saved by converting to Judaism but by Jesus’ death. He points out that converting would obligate a person to obey the entire law (5:3), which would be overwhelmingly difficult for someone not raised in Judaism. That is why the apostles gave Gentiles the option of embracing the law gradually.

In closing, I want to point out that in 1 Corinthians 7:19 Paul essentially said that it doesn’t matter whether you’re Jewish or Gentile, keeping God’s commands is what counts. That should be the desire of each one of us, to love God and obey him. (cp. 1 John 5:3)

The End of the Law

In Romans 10:4 it says that “Christ is the end of the law.” This is a decent translation. But many people have misunderstood it to mean that Christ is the termination of the law. If this was what Paul actually meant, it would contradict virtually all of Christ’s teaching during his ministry. For example, he states rather emphatically in Luke 16:17 that “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law.” He said many things like this. One of the best-known is Matthew 5:17 where he says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.” That seems pretty unambiguous.

The problem is that “end” can have different meanings. Consider the phrase, “The end justifies the means.” In this phrase, “end” means “goal” or “purpose”. This is actually a common meaning of the Greek word, “telos”, that we find here. An example is a similar verse in I Timothy 1:5, which in KJV reads, “Now the end of the commandment is charity…”. More recent translations tend to read, “The goal of this command is love…”, which captures the sense much better.

If we consider that Paul meant that the goal or purpose of the law is Christ, it opens up new insights. The reason that the law was given was to have people who obeyed it. Jesus was a person who kept it perfectly. In other contexts it states that he fulfilled it (e.g. Matthew 5:17), which means the same thing. If he had not kept it perfectly, he could not have been our sinless sacrifice.

Unfortunately, during the second century, the Fiscus Judaicus, a heavy tax on Jews or those who acted Jewishly, gave Gentile followers of Jesus a big incentive to reject all of God’s commands that looked Jewish. They distanced themselves from Judaism and from obedience to God in these ways and started calling themselves “Christians”. They were able to find phrases that Paul used that could be interpreted as countering the law of Moses. In other cases, they translated the passage so that it seemed to say that. (e.g. Mark 7:19, Galatians 2:14) It became Christian tradition that followers of Jesus were not to follow God’s commands given through Moses, even though there are many passages that teach otherwise.

II Peter 3 should have warned them about this trend. In verses 15-17 the author states that some of Paul’s epistles are hard to understand, and people that misunderstand them are liable to fall into the error of lawless men. Much of Christianity seems to have fallen into this error, in spite of passages like I John 5:3 that says that loving God entails obeying him and I Corinthians 7:19 that states that it doesn’t matter if you’re Jewish or Gentile, the main thing is keeping God’s commands. The Christian church, like the Prodigal Son, has been out feeding pigs since the second century. Let us pray that it wakes up and decides to return to the Father.

Paul vs. Nascent “Christianity”

We’ve seen that the “Christianity” that arose during the second century was very different in some ways from the Judaism that Jesus and his early followers taught. This new perspective seems to have arisen first in Rome, and Paul’s epistle to the Romans pushes back strongly against it. Paul had not been to Rome at this point, but he had heard about issues and attitudes that were affecting the group of Jesus-followers there. His epistle seems to be aimed primarily at Gentiles, to correct their attitudes toward Jews and Judaism.

In this epistle, Paul uses a phrase, “may genoito”, that means “absolutely not!”. It is the strongest possible negative. In this epistle it is used ten times, far more than in any of his other writings. And most or all these occurrences seem to be used to push back on this nascent Christianity. We will look at each of them here.

1,2: The first two usages are found early in chapter 3, in verses 4 and 6. “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’ But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, ‘If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?’ Why not say– as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say– ‘Let us do evil that good may result’? Their condemnation is deserved.” (Romans 3:1-8)

This new group of Christians was opposing and distancing themselves from Jews, while Paul was pointing out that Jews were God’s chosen people and possessed God’s revelation in their scriptures. The first use of “may genoito”, in verse 4, seems to be referencing the idea that Jews must become Christians in order to gain God’s favor. Paul strongly denies that.

2: The second use of the phrase in verse 6 seems to address the idea that once we are forgiven, it doesn’t matter what we do. God will not judge sin and disobedience. This is totally wrong.

3: The next occurrence is in 3:31. “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” This is a verse that seems to be ignored by most Christians. Yet it clearly expresses Paul’s position regarding the law of Moses. Faith in Jesus does not cancel God’s commands in the law, despite what Christian tradition came later to teach.

4: The next occurrence is in 6:2. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (6:1-2) It seems to address a similar issue to an earlier one, the idea that once we are forgiven, it doesn’t matter what we do. This is totally wrong, but seems to have been gaining traction in the Roman group.

5: The next use of this phrase is in 6:15. “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” It addresses a similar idea, that since believers are no longer under the penalty of law (you sin, you die), that it’s okay to sin, ignoring God’s commands. This idea has been embraced by virtually all of Christianity in the years since, and Paul denies it strongly.

6: The next use of the phrase is in 7:7. “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law.” Some of the 2nd-century church fathers taught that it was wrong to do some of the things that God commanded, like observing the 7th-day Sabbath. Here Paul denies that idea in no uncertain terms. Keeping the law is not sin; it is obeying God.

7: The next use of the phrase is in 7:13. “Did that which is good, then become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.” In this chapter Paul repeatedly uses positive words to describe the law: “holy” (v. 12), “spiritual” (v. 14), and “good” (v. 16). He closes the chapter by saying, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.” (v. 22) and “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law” (v. 25). But in verse 13 he points out that the purpose of the law is to define sin. Defining sin does not produce death. But recognizing sin, we should try hard to avoid it.

8: The next use is in 9:14. “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'” (9:14-15) God will save whom he wants to save. We can not necessarily identify who those will end up being. Many think that only Christians will be saved. But Paul states in 11:26 that all Israel will be saved.

9: The next use is in 11:1 where Paul addresses those who think that God has rejected Israel in favor of the “church”. Paul denies that strongly by saying, “I ask, then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.” There are many places in the scripture, especially the end of Jeremiah 31 and 33, where God promises he will never reject Israel. But this nascent Christianity thought that Jesus-followers had replaced Israel as God’s people. Paul had to set them straight on that error.

10: This is reinforced by the tenth use of the phrase in 11:11. “Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!” Israel stumbled by not recognizing Jesus as Messiah. But they didn’t stumble so as to fall, which is what the original Greek actually says. The following metaphor of an olive tree describes some Jews as branches that were “broken”, but not “broken off”, despite some errant translations. Jews are always God’s people. Gentile believers in Jesus have been grafted in among them and share the nourishing sap from the olive root.

It’s worth noticing that the New Covenant, as described in Jeremiah 31, is made with Israel. Gentiles are only included because of their partnership with Israel. And one of the results of this New Covenant is that God’s law will be placed in all minds and written on all hearts. (Jeremiah 31:33) God’s law will be the standard of behavior in the Messianic kingdom, and should certainly be the standard of behavior for his followers today.

Not Under Law

Paul uses the phrase “under law” (hupo nomon) several times in his epistles. He often contrasts it with being “under grace.” He tells his readers that they are not under law but under grace. What does he mean by this?

Since the second century, when much of “Christianity” abandoned following God’s commandments in order to avoid paying the tax on Jews, many have interpreted the phrase to mean that followers of Jesus should no longer keep the laws God gave through Moses. That interpretation met their need to find “biblical” support for the idea, but it sharply contradicts many clear statements by both Jesus and Paul. That cannot possibly be Paul’s view on it.

It’s important to note that there is never a definite article in this phrase. It’s never ‘under THE law,” even though many translators render it that way. And the word “law” in Paul’s writing had quite a range of meanings. Paul contrasts the law of God, in which he delights, with the law of sin. (Romans 7:22-25)

One possible meaning for the phrase “under law” might be to distinguish Jews from Gentiles. When he tells his readers that they are not under law but under grace, he might be saying that they are not Jews but Gentiles. Unfortunately, this potential meaning seems to be undermined by an interesting passage in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22. In this passage Paul claims that he himself is not under law. But we know that Paul considered himself to be Jewish, even a Pharisee, all his life. (Acts 23:6) So he can’t be using the phrase to designate Jews.

In the very next verse (1 Cor. 9:21) Paul claims that he is not free from God’s law. This is a verse that many “Christian” interpreters like to ignore. But it fits with Paul’s affirmations of the law in 1 Corinthians 7:19; Romans 3:31, and many other places.

It seems best to understand Paul’s phrase, “under law”, to refer to being under the penalty of the law; if you sin, you die. Once a person trusts Jesus, he is not under this penalty. He is not under law (death for his sins) but under grace. This would fit Paul’s statement that he is not “under law”, as he has trusted in Jesus. It could also fit Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:4 that Jesus was born “under law”, since he was in a situation that if he sinned, he would die. But he didn’t sin, so he was the perfect sacrifice.

The phrase cannot possibly mean that the believer should ignore the instructions in the law. Jesus taught against that understanding many times, including Luke 16:17, where he says that “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” Paul himself teaches against that idea many times. In 1 Cor. 7:19 he basically says that it doesn’t matter if you’re Jewish or Gentile, keeping God’s commands is what counts. Let’s not try to avoid obeying God’s instructions, but rather find out how God wants us to live, and obey that out of our love for God.

Messiah’s Name

What was the name of the Messiah when he was here on earth? The Greek New Testament refers to him exclusively by the name, “Iesous”. This has commonly been transliterated into English by the word “Jesus”.

This is unusual for a few reasons. One is that neither Greek nor Hebrew has any letter that sounds like the English ‘j’. Why did they use that letter to transliterate so many names? It seems to have some relation to the idea that in German, the sound of ‘y’ is represented by the letter ‘j’. Since the Bible was translated into German before English, it seems that there must have been some influence.

In Greek the letter in question is an iota, the equivalent of our ‘i’. This Greek letter usually replaces the Hebrew yodh, the equivalent of our ‘y’.

We can learn a lot by observing the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which was done a couple of centuries B.C.E. There are two names in the Hebrew Bible that are transliterated as “Iesous”. One is the name “Yehoshua”, which we know as Joshua, the leader of Israel after Moses. He was originally known as Hoshea, but Moses renamed him Yehoshua. (Numbers 13:16) The Greek Septuagint transliterates his previous name as “Ause”, and his later name as “Iesous”. The meaning of Yehoshua is “Yah will save”. The Greek transliteration, “Iesous”, does not have any particular meaning in Greek except as a transliteration of a Hebrew name.

The other Hebrew name that is transliterated by “Iesous” in the Septuagint is “Yeshua”, translated in most English Bibles as “Jeshua”. This is the name of several people mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah. It appears to be a shortened form of “Yehoshua”. The short form carries the meaning of “he saves”.

Since the Jesus of the New Testament lived in a culture that was Hebrew-speaking (or possibly Aramaic), he would have gone by his Hebrew name, rather than a Greek one. This is consistent with the account in Matthew 1, where an angel tells Joseph that “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins”. (Matthew 1:21) This only makes sense if they were speaking Hebrew and discussing the name “Yeshua” or “Yehoshua”, since they are both derived from the verb “to save”.

It seems clear that the name given to the man who was to be the Messiah was either Yeshua or Yehoshua. Unfortunately, some religious groups have started calling him “Yahshua” or “Yahusha” in order to try to include the name of God in his name. There is no evidence whatsoever for a name like this; it is entirely made up.

The Hebrews did include God’s name in people’s names; but they didn’t do it like that. They included the word “El” in names like Nathaniel. When they wanted to include the name of Yah, they would sometimes insert it at the end, in the form “-yahu”, as in “Yirmeyahu” (Jeremiah). Other times they would insert it at the beginning, in the form “Yeho-“, as in “Yehoshaphat” (Jehoshaphat) or “Yehoshua”.

It’s clear that the name of Messiah was either Yeshua or Yehoshua, probably the shorter form. It was never “Yahshua”, or anything like that. It’s a serious error to be making up names for Messiah, and we should avoid doing it at all costs.

The Mezuzah

In a passage of central importance for Jews, in Deuteronomy 6, it says this, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” Based on this passage, Jews often place a small box containing a bit of scripture on their doorpost. This “mezuzah” helps to remind them of God and his word. When they enter or exit the house, they touch the mezuzah and kiss their finger to express their love for God and his word.

I think that this is a habit that would be beneficial for followers of Jesus, too. It would remind them of God often during the day. Jesus said that the greatest command was to love God. By touching the mezuzah, you can express your love for God and remind yourself of God’s presence throughout the day.

You can find mezuzot (the plural of mezuzah) at most sellers of Judaica. Just do an online search for Judaica or mezuzah, and you shouldn’t have any trouble finding one. Attach it to your doorframe about head-high and you’ll be on your way. You still need to get into the habit of acknowledging it, but over time you should get used to it. Start finding one today.

I’m Not Elijah

I’m not Elijah, but I see my role as being similar. In Malachi 4, at the very end of the last prophetic book, we read, “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” It’s not clear what he means by the fathers and the children. But one understanding is that the fathers are Jews, people of Israel, and the children are Gentile followers of Jesus, often called “Christians”. These two groups have been in opposition to each other for two millenia. I don’t believe that God wants that to happen, as the New Testament presents them as being separate but interrelated. Ephesians presents them as composing “one new man”, while Romans describes them as branches of the same olive tree.

In writing my book, and this blog, I hope to help both Jews and Christians see that the other has a lot more in common with them than they thought. Jesus and his disciples taught Judaism, and didn’t say anything that Jews should object to, except for his claim to be Messiah. As to the truth of that, we’ll see when Messiah comes who he turns out to be. But there are a lot of statements in Tanak that match the life and death of Jesus.

As for Christians, they need to understand that Jews are God’s chosen people, and there are many promises in the prophets that God will never go back on his choice of them. It’s true that Jews have frequently ignored God’s commands throughout history, and faced exile and worse. But Christians abandoned God’s commands by the second century, and they imagine that that’s what Paul teaches, even though he says many things that affirm Torah.

Jews have preserved God’s Torah while Christians have preserved the identity of God’s Messiah. They both are incorrect about some key issues, but as they come to accept one another and consider the diverse viewpoints, the truth will become more obvious, and God will be more pleased with their perspectives.

Bringing Jews and Christians together, or at least their viewpoints, is the entire reason why I am writing. As the hearts of the fathers and the children turn toward each other, I will be happy. And I believe God will be too.

Bringing the Church Back to Jesus

I mentioned in the last blog entry that pastors are often the hardest to convince of the teachings of Jesus regarding Israel and the Law of Moses because they’ve been trained in Christian tradition and the interpretations of the New Testament that requires. But perhaps you’re a church leader who has been able to recognize what Jesus and the apostles teach about obeying God’s commands. The purpose of this entry is to make some suggestions about how to do that.

Chances are that your primary church service is on Sunday morning. A good place to start might be to add another service on Saturday. It might be a challenge to convince church leaders who need to approve such a step. I would suggest that you get them a copy of my book, “Following Christ”, and maybe have a group discussion of it.

If you’re able to start a Saturday service, don’t make it Saturday evening. You want it to be during the Sabbath all year ’round. The Sabbath ends at sunset on Saturday, and in the winter that comes pretty early. So you want your service to be in the morning or early afternoon. Over time this service should become the primary service, so plan toward that result.

Another step to take is to be a good example of Torah-observance. As you discover new things in the Torah to observe, integrate them into your lifestyle. If it seems appropriate, mention them to others, either in sermons, conversations, or on social media. There are people who will be likely to follow your example.

Another thing you can do is to preach on passages that affirm following Torah, such as Matthew 5:17-19, Romans 2, I Corinthians 7:17-20, I John 5:2-3, Acts 21:17-24, Psalm 1, Isaiah 56, and Ezekiel 36:24-28. You could also preach on the passages that are misinterpreted, and show how they should be understood.

Over time you can draw attention to the biblical festivals of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and possibly Purim and Hanukkah. There are a lot of things that you can do to bring your church back within the scope of following Christ’s example and obeying God’s instructions.

Hard to Convince

As I explain in my book, I’m convinced that the New Testament teaches that Jesus and his disciples stayed entirely within Judaism, that they taught and practiced the instructions of God as found in the Torah. Gentile followers of Jesus, as described in Acts 15, were not to convert to Judaism, and were not required to embrace all the practices taught in Torah all at once. But as they came to understand God’s instructions, they were encouraged to start following them. To be obedient to God, they would follow the instructions God gave his people, Israel.

Late in the first century, after 70 A.D., Rome levied a hefty tax on Jews, the Fiscus Judaicus. To determine who should pay it, they observed who acted Jewishly, who observed the Sabbath and festivals, and did other things that looked Jewish. Many Gentile followers of Jesus reacted against this tax, and stopped doing Jewish (biblical) things so they wouldn’t get taxed. They distanced themselves from Judaism, chose a different holy day, stopped avoiding meats that the Bible prohibited, stopped observing the biblical festivals, and started calling themselves “Christians” to distinguish themselves from Jews. Thus, by the second century, most of what became Christianity had deviated from the teachings of Jesus and his early followers in their relation to Jews and Judaism, and had abandoned the Law that God had given through Moses.

I’m convinced that this perspective is true to the New Testament and to history. It helps us understand why Christians have persecuted Jews through the centuries. Unfortunately, second-century “Christians” were able to find much in the writings of Paul that they could interpret as being anti-Torah, even though Paul, like Jesus, said many things that affirmed Torah.

Also unfortunately, it seems like the hardest people to convince of this perspective are professional “Christians”, pastors, missionaries, and professors. These people are dependent on their denominations for their livelihoods, so they’re going to be very hesitant to entertain any ideas that conflict with the Christian traditions that have been drilled into them in seminary. Occasionally one can be found who is willing to put the teaching of the New Testament above Christian tradition, and actually examine the teachings of Paul and the other apostles. But it takes a lot of courage to do so.

It seems evident that a plain reading of the New Testament supports the normativity of the Torah for followers of Jesus. Jesus insisted (Matthew 5:17-19) that until heaven and earth pass away, not a jot or tittle will pass from the Law until everything happens. Paul went out of his way in Acts 21 to demonstrate to the believers in Jerusalem that he lived according to the Law. And in his epistles, especially Romans, he affirms the Torah over and over again. Jesus taught that the greatest command in the Law was to love God, and John and others repeatedly stated that love for God is shown by obeying him.

It seems clear that a reading of the New Testament that is unaffected by Christian tradition would affirm positive views of Israel as God’s people and the Torah as his commands. But for 1900 years most of Christianity has deviated from the teaching of Jesus and his early followers on these issues. My prayer is that Christianity, like the prodigal son, will get tired of feeding pigs and will decide to return to the Father.