The Dual Torah, Part I (Seminars in Restitutionist Primitivism, #1.1) / Seminars in Restitutionist Primitivism (ePub)

For centuries, the Church has insisted that salvation comes through faith in Jesus, not by observing the Law. But is this what the Scriptures actually say? In fact, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, which was to last forever, and that he came instead to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-19). And critically, it is never said anywhere in Scripture that Jesus fulfilled the Law for you, such that you would not have to observe the Law for yourself, which is precisely what the Church teaches—even as Jesus emphasized how every follower of his was to adhere to the Law, even in the smallest detail of the least of its commandments (Matt 7:21-23).

Still, preemptively denouncing anything to the contrary as 'legalism,' the Church has always taught that Paul proclaimed a 'Law-free' gospel. Why? Could it be that Paul's message has been sorely misunderstood? This volume argues that to grasp Paul's true intent, we must consider the rabbinic teaching that God gave Moses not only the Law written in stone but also a second Law to explain the first one. Down the generations, teacher was to pass down the second Law to student orally, which required all parties involved to memorize it by heart. That came to be named the Oral Law, which was not to be put down in writing so as to keep it out of Gentile hands.

This notion of the dual Torah—the Written Law of Moses and the Oral Law of the Pharisees—would have suffused Paul's mind as a Pharisee-in-training, such that his teachings on the Law for Gentiles ought to be understood in the light of this andcognate rabbinic concepts. When that is done assiduously, it becomes apparent that Paul never advocated a Law-free gospel. Rather, his message was always closely aligned with Jesus' emphasis on obeying the Law.

Incredible? Prepare to have your long held beliefs challenged as you explore the nuanced relationship between faith, works, and the Law in Paul's genuine letters as sketched out in this book which delves into the rabbinic context of and the rabbinic content in Paul's thoughts about the Law. The latter have made for a 2000-year-old puzzle of why Paul criticized the Law at every turn but, in gross self-contradiction, also praised it at other turns.

This work invites you to reconsider long-held assumptions about what Paul taught about the Law by examining those teachings as embedded in the rich matrix of rabbinic thought. You will be prompted to reconsider whether Paul ever advocated the Law's abrogation—which would have cleared contradicted Jesus. Do you have the gumption to explore this material, which may well pivot your perspective a full 180 degrees?