My Questions About American Religion #6 - What should we know about the people who wrote the Bible?

Okay, sorry this one took so long to get to.  I needed some verification on a few things.

For the last 10 years or so I have been on this journey to understand the people who wrote the Bible. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one big one is that I don't think we give enough credit to how their frame of reference influenced what they said and how they said it. I will spend the rest of my life unraveling that reality, but suffice it to say that the Bible was not written by folks who lived or thought like 21st century Christians.

It was written by real people at a real time in a real place.  And that is significant. So, I have plunged myself into understanding the Jewish world of the 1st century.  And I'll be honest, I admire them - a lot. My good friends make fun of me. Not really gentile, not really Jewish.

What am I? Another label that we all joke with and laugh.  But it raises a question that I have gotten a lot. So are you saying that we should all become Jewish? Absolutely not. But not for the same reasons that I think most people would suggest.


Without question, I am deeply convicted that we (western Christians) have neglected our obligation to the Old Testament in general and specifically to Torah. And I would like to submit a perspective of what I see the Scripture actually doing.


God NEVER breaks His covenant. And Jesus reaffirms His intent to fulfill, not abolish the Torah. This would lead us to a couple of questions from the text.

First, Hebrews 7...

Paul, who wrote 15 of the 27 books of the new testament (if you give him Hebrews), wrote everything we have of his in Greek. Paul was not Greek, he was Hebrew. But he wrote in Greek to help a cross cultural context understand who Jesus is and how we relate to Him.

 Question: Where did Paul learn his Greek? And when expressing theological or biblical truths in Greek, where did he learn what words to use and how to use them? The obvious answer would be that he learned how to talk about God in Greek from the Septuagint (which is the greek version of the Old Testament and was written about 250 years before the time of Christ).

 On the surface, that doesn't sound all that profound. But dig a little deeper and we are going to see some huge ramifications that may very well push some hard buttons. If the Septuagint is the standard for expressing Hebrew thought in Greek, then it is not enough to do a Greek word study when we read the New Testament. We must also trace that word back to how it was used in the Septuagint and find its Hebrew equivalent because it is there that we understand what reality Paul or any other New Testament writer for that matter is trying to convey. And, when that concept doesn't exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, we often see Paul making words up. He often sticks words together that have never been done before because he is trying to convey an idea that has no basis or understanding in what he has previously studied.

 Quick example: Hebrews 7:18 says that there was an "annulment" of the preceding commands (the Law) because of its weakness and unprofitableness. Annulment is a strong word. In a legal sense, it means that the old Law (Torah) has been done away with. So, if the writer of Hebrews (we will say Paul) understands this Greek word from the Septuagint, then we need to see where it is used, and what is the Hebrew equivalent. The Greek word - "athetesis" - is only used one time in the Septuagint and that is found in 1 Samuel 24:11.

 A translation of the Septuagint says this: And behold, the skirt of thy mantle [is] in my hand, I cut off the skirt, and did not slay thee: know then and see to-day, there is no evil in my hand, nor impiety, nor rebellion; and I have not sinned against thee, yet thou layest snares for my soul to take it.

 The word for rebellion here is the same Greek word. And it translates the Hebrew word "pesha" which means rebellion or transgression.

 My thought: Paul is not trying to say that the New covenant "annuls" the Old covenant. From his understanding of how to communicate theological ideas from the only source for greek that would have given him that ability, he is saying that the Old Covenant created a rebellion that the new covenant can resolve through Christ. It does not, however, undo or annul what the old covenant does. It expands and unpacks it further.

Second Galatians 3...

Galatians 3:10 says that all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse. Is Paul saying here that if we give space in our lives to the Torah that we are putting ourselves under a curse?  No way!

Here is the part I wanted to confirm before writing this post..

There are 3 parts to Torah. The first part is the "Cultic" Laws.  This would be those laws governing religious practice. The second part is the "Moral" Laws. This would be all the laws governing moral practice - don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc.

Then there is a 3rd section to Torah. In Hebrew it is called miqsat ma'aseh haTorah. In English this is translated "works of the Law." This section is specifically those parts of the Law that make one Jewish. And this is the part that Paul says is not where our hope comes from.

By the way, one of the central conversations in the Jesus community should be which laws go where. Because while we are free from becoming Jewish, I would submit that we are still obligated to the moral law - no doubt. And probably the cultic parts of the Law as well. No where are we ever freed from those. But I don't have time to pull that apart in this post.

The first written record that I am aware of concerning the Works of the Law is called MMT and is found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is talmudic in nature which means that much of the content is interpretation and application more than direct quotation of Torah.  However, what it shows is that even though there is little written record, this existed easily within the first century religious conversation.

Now if we put this lens on and look at Paul's message, it changes things dramatically. Take a look at Acts 13 - Paul and Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch. When Paul preaches to the Jewish community there, the first message that he gives repaints all of Jewish history through the lens of Jesus.  And we would think that they would freak out.  But Acts 13:42 say in the ESV that as they left the synagogue, they begged Paul and Barnabas to come back and talk about this again at the next meeting.  And many of the devout Jewish leaders followed them and asked to hear more of that teaching.

So the next week, they come back and there are all kinds of Jews and gentiles present.  And the short version of Paul's message is this: because of Jesus, you gentiles are in too!!!  And then the Jewish people FREAK OUT!!

Jesus isn't the problem. That people don't have to be Jewish to be okay with God is the issue.  This is also what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2 - we are saved by grace through faith not by works so that no one can boast.

Paul's conversation is not about whether or not we can earn salvation. It is about whether or not one has to become Jewish before becoming a Christian. And by the way, that was the fundamental battle being fought in the church in Rome and through the book of Romans.

And by the way this is the central piece to Paul's message where ever he went.

Am I saying that someone can earn their salvation? No, I am saying that that isn't the conversation Paul is trying to have in Ephesians 2. And that is important.

The implications for this are vast and profound and I have taken way too little space to discuss a very large topic.  But here are some of the reasons why this matters...

First, I believe that every word of the Scripture is inspired - all of it. And to claim that we are "New Testament" Christians has an underlying connotation that we are not "Whole Bible" Christians.  While we may not mean that, we say it, we spend our time in the New Testament, and we don't spend much time at all grappling with the Old Testament, we just say "Well that was the Old Covenant." and run away from it.

Again, that would be a part of the larger story that we are telling by the little bits and pieces that people hear from us.

Second, I do not believe that you can truly understand Jesus without understanding the Old Testament. Not just Jesus in the OT, but understanding the OT as it is - part of the unfolding story of God's redemption of all things.

Third, we will never be able to understand the New Testament and what it means without understanding the Old Testament as it is used through out the the New.  IT IS ONE STORY! And whatever the New Testament says, it says as a consistent part of what has already been said.

So, no, we don't need to become Jewish, but perhaps there is something to be said for embracing Jewish thought and practice.  For me, it has taken the Bible and the Christian life from black and white to full HD color!