Y Not I

In searching out other blogs and other sources of inspiration to my thought process, I came upon a great post and blog by Derek Leman, leader of Hope of David Messianic Synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia. I went to Derek’s synagogue once when I first moved to the area and although I ended up in a different congregation really enjoyed the service and especially his message that evening.

The post that I read was about the Law, specifically about sub-dividing it into ceremonial, civil and moral. Some excellent thoughts about just what is morality. Does G-d define it, or does it define G-d. I would certainly say G-d defines it, and if He does, then who are we to question it, or try and determine what is a moral law, since that would just introduce our own bias.

What I thought was the most interesting was this part:

Note that subdividing the Law into three categories is historically the solution of Reformed Christianity and is not exactly the same as the Lutheran view, the Catholic view, or the widely held Dispensationalist view. The Dispensationalist view, which I will not discuss today, is that the entire Law is abolished. Usually Dispensationalists see the commandments of the New Testament as the New Law (the Law of Christ)–this despite the fact that the New Testament is a collection of biographies and letters, not a legal corpus!!

This is where I end up with a problem. Not being a student of theology, my views of Christian theology is a stew of all those views, which I bundle together and then try to dispute. To many that are educated and read them, I seem to be all over the place, even though to me I am focus like a laser beam on the Torah and it’s relevance. I need to be more aware and term my discussions either solely on the Torah view, or using one Christian theology view at a time.

The post ended with an excellent example though of a Law that is seemly gone based upon most of the Christian theologies, yet something that I would doubt Christians would encourage each other to ignore. From the post:

Are the Torah Laws Irrelevant in the New Covenant?
In the Dispensational view of the Torah, all of this covenant is now obsolete after the coming of Yeshua. Only commandments repeated in the New Testament are valid for Yeshua followers. Yet consider laws that are not repeated in the New Testament, but which very obviously continue to reflect God’s will, such as:

Exodus 21:33-34 If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.

This law concerns responsibility for the property of others. The New Testament does not address such situations. Does this mean that God’s commandment is invalid for Yeshua followers? Shouldn’t we be responsible for damage done to the property of others through our neglect?

That is the point I try and get to, to at least try and get people to look at Torah and think and pray over the fact that maybe G-d desires us to walk in the way He layed out, and always has, and despite what Rabbinic Jews have done to add extra burdens upon the Torah, that the Torah of G-d is still something that frees our lives, not create bondage, as many Christians might suggest.