BALTIMORE HEBREW UNIVERSTIY

THE ROLE OF TORAH IN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

A FINAL PAPER SUBMITTED TO RABBI BARRY FREUNDEL FOR RLIT500: THE LITERATURE AND HISTORY OF ANCIENT JUDAISM

BY

FRED LESSANS

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

MAY 2002

The Role of Torah in Judaism and Christianity

Through the centuries, one of the major areas of

disagreement between the Jewish and Christian faiths has

been the issue of the nature and role of the Torah and Law

in the life of the believer. Christians are often viewed as

having deemphasized the importance of the Law for the

purpose of freeing both Jews and gentiles from the “yoke” of

the Jewish commandments. Jews, on the other hand, are often

viewed by Christians as having relegated the Torah to mere

legalistic observance in a system of “works-righteousness.”

Though there are clearly theological and philosophical

differences, the purpose of this paper is explore what the

barriers are and whether any bridges can be built.

From a historical perspective, it did not take long for the

barriers to be erected. By the end of the first century

2

C.E., the parting of ways had for all intentions occurred.

As Schiffman notes1, the Jewish – Christian schism had many

contributing factors involving a complex process. From the

vantage point of Christianity, the process was one of

increasing anti-Judaism, i.e., holding certain Jewish

leaders and eventually the whole Jewish people responsible

for the rejection of Jesus. What was early on an issue of

disputes with Pharisees, scribes and chief priests,

progressed to polemics against Jews and Judaism, “from the

notion of some Jews as enemies of Jesus to the demonization

of the Jewish people as a whole.”2

From the Jewish perspective, the reasons are more complex.

Fleusser states that the opposition against Jewish

Christians arose mainly on a social and national level.3 He

points out that in the early Rabbinic sources, until the end

of the second century, nothing is said against the person of

1 Lawrence H. Shiffman, From Text to Tradition (New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1991), 153.2 Ibid3 David Fleusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1988), 636.

3

Jesus or against the faith he had elicited.4 What is more a

decisive factor in this stage was the Bar-Kokhba War and the

inability of the Jewish Christians to accept Bar Kokhba as

the Messiah resulting in their de-facto expulsion from the

synagogue via the Birkath ha-Minim. And as Shiffman points

out, with the subsequent submerging of Jewish Christianity

by Gentile Christianity, the rabbis came to regard

Christianity as a completely separate and alien religious

group.5 It is only at this time, when Rabbinical Judaism

came into contact with the Gentile Christian Church, that

Gentile Christianity was perceived, not as a Jewish problem,

but as an expression of a false theological system, thus

making the rift complete.6

Perhaps at the heart of the rift, I would suggest, is the

issue of redemption and the role of Torah in the redemptive

process.

4 Ibid, 635.5 Shiffman, From Text to Tradition, 154.6 Fleusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 636.

4

The Function of Torah in Judaism

The word torah, taken from the Hebrew verb yarah, means to

throw or shoot, or point in a direction. It also means to

direct or teach. The literature it refers to is first the

Chumash7, than the whole Bible and thirdly any authoritative

teaching. Rabbinic interpretation of Exodus 34:27 posited

the existence of an oral as well as a written law and opened

the door for the “whole corpus of Jewish traditional law

from the Bible to the latest development of the halachah” to

come under the rubric of Torah.8

The function of Torah in Jewish life is manifold. Even

within the Bible itself it is evident that its place in the

community is far more than a set of regulations received by

Moses by which Israel was to order its religious and social

life. In the Psalms especially, the Torah is revered as a

sign of God’s loving watch care over Israel. Psalm 119

7 Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy, (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1991), 238 Encyclopedia Judaica ed. 1971, s.v. Torah.

5

refers to Torah as “complete and unblemished.” It

particularly extols the Torah as being full of wonderful

things (119:129), as bearing God’s grace (119:11), as a

delight (119:16) and as carrying with it the blessing of

God’s peace to those who love it (119:165). Because the

translation of the word torah to the Greek word, nomos and

from there to lex, both of which are translated law, Torah

has not always been so understood in certain circles.

However, such expressions of love and devotion should

counteract such misunderstood notions of the Law as a

taskmaster whose purpose is to command with nothing given in

return.

Rather, the words of the psalmist indicate a genuine joy on

the part of the worshipper and a deep appreciation of the

privilege of obeying the law of God. It is evident that

even a cursory study of the Bible reveals Torah as not only

“letter” or “legalistic” observances but as the object of

6

genuine devotion - as the “driving power to do God’s will as

reflected in the deeds Judaism expects of its adherents.”9

The Torah in Rabbinic Judaism

According to Heschel, the Torah is used in two senses: the

supernal Torah, the existence of which preceded the creation

of the world, and the revealed Torah.10 Both of these

developments became much more pronounced and intensified in

the rabbinic writings. As to the former, this can be seen

in the Rabbinic idea that Torah was identified with pre-

existent, personified Wisdom of Proverbs 8.11 The wedding

of these two concepts is expressed in the apocryphal wisdom

of Ben Sirach:

Wisdom was created before all things and prudent understanding from eternity. The source of wisdom is God’s word in the highest heaven, and her ways are the eternal commandments.12

9 LouisJacobs, A Jewish Theology, (London: Behrman House, Inc., 1973),152. 10 Abraham Heschel, God In Search of Man, (New York: Farrar, Straus andGiroux, 1955), 262.11 Encyclopedia Judaica ed. 1971, s.v. Torah.12 Montefiore and Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology, (New York: Schocken Books, 1974), 169.

7

The Talmud gives another reason for the pre-existence of Torah:

“You will find in the ways of the All-present that He gives precedence to what is dear to Him. On that account He created Torah first, since it is dearer to Him than all else He made; as it is said, ‘The Lord possessed me as the beginning of His way, before His works, from of old’” (Sifre Deut. 37; 76a).

Likewise R. Joshua b. Levi said,

“When Moses went up to God, the angels said, ‘What hasa son of a woman to do among us?’ God said, “He has come to receive the Law.” Then they said, ‘the beautiful Torah, which you have hid away since creationand for 974 generations before creation, you do purposeto give it to one of flesh and blood?’” (Shab. 88b).

R. Akiva called the Torah “the precious instrument by which

the world was created” (Avot. 3:14). Although later

philosophical movements within Judaism tended to downplay

this idea, the Cabalists retained this notion in their

system, identifying the Torah with Hokhmah (God’s wisdom),

the second Sefirah, Tiferet (God’s beauty), the sixth, or

Malkhut (God’s kingdom), the tenth.13

Judah Halevi spoke of the Torah as preceding the world by

design, arguing that because God had the Torah in mind when 13 Encyclopedia Judaica ed. 1971, s.v. Torah.

8

He created the world, and “the first of thought is the end

of the work,” the Torah is said to have existed before the

world (Kuzari 3:73).14 Or again with Rabbi Shim’on who

said, “Come and see: the world above and the world below

are perfectly balanced; Israel below, the angels above. Of

the angels it is written: ‘He makes his angels spirits.’

But when they descend, they put on the garment of this

world. If they did not put on a garment befitting this

world, they could not endure in this world and the world

could not endure them. If this is so with the angels, how

much more so with Torah, who created them and all the

worlds, and for whose sake they exist.”15

Though not a representative of Rabbinic Judaism, Philo too

wrote of the pre-existence and role in creation of the word

of God (logos), and identified the word of God with the

Torah.16 His concept of the divine logos sought to bridge

the gap between man and God endowing the Torah with a

14 Ibid15 Daniel C. Matt, The Essential Kabbalah, (San Francisco: Harper, 19960, 135.16 Schiffman, Lawrence, From Text to Tradition, 95.

9

mystical life of its own that emanates from God yet is

partly detached from God. The logos was God in his rational

aspect but the logos also functioned as the head of the

hierarchy of intermediaries between the world and God.17

Along with pre-existence, the rabbis endowed the Torah with

another trait, that of personal identity. This was furthered

developed in the Zohar, which speaks of the Torah “calling

men day by day to herself in love… revealing her hidden

secrets only to those who love her…Thus the Torah reveals

herself momentarily in love to her lovers in order to awaken

fresh love in them.”18

In looking at the role of Torah as an agent of creation and

its growing personification under the authority of the

rabbis, the question arises - can we go so far as to say

that the Torah, as perceived by the rabbis, functions with

respect to its mediatory role in Judaism in a similar way to

17 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1993), 451.18 Daniel C. Matt, Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983), vol. II, 99a; see vol. III, 58a.

10

Jesus’ role in the Christian faith? In order to frame this

question adequately, the differences in Judaism with respect

to the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of man must be

noted.

First, although Judaism and Christianity both teach that man

was created in the image of God and both teach that there is

sin, they differ in describing man’s created nature and its

relationship to sin. And this difference, in turn, leads to

a different understanding of man’s need for and God’s way of

redemption. Although there are roughly 20 words for sin in

the Tenach, the most common, hata, carries with it the

meaning, “to miss” or “to fail.”19 So, if the word torah

means to “shoot at” God’s will, the word hata means to fail

to hit it. The Hebraic concept of sin refers not primarily

to man’s condition, but as in specific failures and offenses

against God’s law.

19 Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. Sin.

11

The most important difference between rabbinic teaching

about the nature of sin and Christian thought is that in

rabbinic literature there is no doctrine of original sin.

The Encyclopedia Judaica states unequivocally, “The much

discussed question of whether there are any parallels to the

Christian doctrine of original sin in Rabbinic literature

can be disposed of by simply noting that there are no such

parallels.”20 Heschel maintains that the idea with which

Judaism starts is not the “realness of evil or the

sinfulness of man but rather the wonder of creation and the

ability of man to do the will of God.”21 Rabbi Akiva

asserts that from the first, man was placed under the yoke

of the commandment and was given permission to choose

between the way of life or death. This right was not

abrogated and remains within man’s power to this day.”22

Rabbinic writings disclose the belief that the propensity to

sin was intrinsic to the created nature of mankind and not

20 Ibid21 Heschel, God In Search of Man, 378.22 Ephriam Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press 1975), 227.

12

the result of a fall from a formerly uncorrupted state. R.

Berediah said, “In the hour when God was about to create the

first man, He saw that both righteous and wicked men would

issue from him” (Gen. R. Bereshit). Having to find a basis

for the doctrine in the text of the Bible, the Rabbis

deduced it in this way: “What means that which is written,

‘Then the Lord God formed man’ (Gen. 2:7), the word wajjitzer

(and He formed) being spelt with two letters j? The Holy

One blessed be He, created two impulses, one good and the

other evil” (Ber. 61a).23

The propensity to sin, known as the Yetzer Ra, or evil

inclination, is conceived in rabbinic thought as a deeply

seated tendency toward rebellion to God that rests in the

heart and imagination of people, and is manifested most

frequently in the areas of idolatry and lust. Asked from

what time the evil impulse exercised its power in the human

being – from the time of the embryo’s formation or its

emergence from the body, R. Judah responded, “From the time

23 Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud (New York: Schocken Books, 1949), 88.

13

of its formation.”24 However, since God creates only what

is good, the impulse, although it eventuates in wrongdoing,

is an essential equipment of man and, indeed, grants him the

opportunity of becoming a moral being. Without it there

would be no possibility of his doing evil and as a

consequence, goodness also would be meaningless.25

Without the burden of original sin and with sin conceived

primarily as transgression against God’s law, man therefore

has the ability to cope with evil and fulfill God’s will.

As Heschel reminds us, “If the nature of man were all we

had, then surely the outlook would be dim. But we also have

the aid of God, the commandment, the mitzvah…Sinai was

superimposed on the failure of Adam.26 In rabbinic thought

therefore, the Torah is seen as the remedy for sin and the

means by which the people of God are rescued from the Evil

Yetzer. Raba said: “Though God created the Yetzer ha-Ra,

He created the Law as an antidote against it.27 And again,

24 Ibid, 89.25 Ibid, 90.26 Hescehl, God in Search of Man, 374.27 Sifre, Deuteronomy, 45; Kiddushin 30b.

14

“The Torah is a safeguard, the Torah is an antidote.”28 And

finally “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, My

children, I have created the evil impulse, and I have

created the Torah as an antidote to it; if you occupy

yourselves with Torah you will not be delivered into its

power.”29

These teachings reveal several things: (1) the Torah stands

in a protecting role between man and the consequences of sin

proceeding from the Evil Yetzer, (2) the protection is

efficacious through the application of mitzvoth, i.e., the

occupation with Torah and the obligation to fulfill the

law,30 and (3) the Torah is the crucial factor in sin’s

remedy and man’s redemption.

Law in the New Testament

In commenting upon the role of Torah in life, Jacob Neusner

has this to say, “For Judaic tradition the way is absolutely

28 Leviticus Rabba, 35, 5.29 Kid. 30b30 Heschel, God in Search of Man, 361.

15

central…The purpose of revelation is to create a kingdom of

priests and a holy people. The foundation of that kingdom,

or sovereignty is the rule of God over the lives of men.”31

This could be equally stated by a Christian writer for the

goals of both Judaic tradition and Christian tradition are

comparable – the sanctification of man and the redemption of

the world. Yet there is this “great divide” as it pertains

to the role of Torah and its application in the life of Jews

and Christians. What is it attributed to? Why do

Christians view the Law differently?

Fleusser acknowledges that for Jesus there was “the

particular problem of his relationship to the law and its

precepts”32 but he goes on to say that this arises for every

believing Jew who takes his Judaism seriously. Like an

increasing number of scholars today, Fleusser understands

the Synoptic Gospels, if read through the eyes of their own

time, to portray a picture of Jesus as a “faithful, law-

31 Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism (Belmont: Dickenson Publishing Co., Inc. 1970), 25.32 David Fleusser, Jesus (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1997), 58.

16

observant Jew.”33 He goes on to say that Jesus is never

shown in conflict with the current practice of the law –

with the single exception of the plucking of grain on the

Sabbath, and concludes that what Jesus said, “had nothing to

do with a supposed abrogation of Judaic law, but is part of

a criticism directed at the Pharisees.34 The relationship

of Jesus to Torah is perhaps best expressed in Matthew’s

Gospel where he says, “Do not think I have come to abolish

the Law or the Prophets; but to fulfill them. I tell you

the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the

smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any

means disappear from the Law until everything is

accomplished” (Mt.5: 17-18). Although these verses appear in

the context of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God, Jesus

seems to be teaching that there is no abrogation of the

Torah.

So where then is the departure and supposed abrogation of

Jewish law in the New Testament? Certainly it lies, many

33 Ibid34 Ibid, 60.

17

would say, with Paul and his teaching on the law. Though an

analysis of Paul’s theology is beyond the scope of this

paper, a few things can be said. A cursory reading of his

epistles would give the impression that Paul is condemning

the Law. He speaks of the “law of sin” (Romans 7:23), and

the “law of death” (Romans 6:23). He speaks of Messiah as

the “end of the Law” (Romans 10:4) and “no longer being

under the Law” (Romans 6:14) and having “died to the Law”

(Romans 7:4).

However, his teaching could be understood in a different

light than it is traditionally viewed. Fleusser has

observed that Paul is very close to the spirit of Jesus

words in Mt. 5:17 when he declares, “do we then overthrow

the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we

uphold the Law” (Romans 3:31).35It could be argued that Paul

sees the Law as reflecting the eternal standards of God and

therefore irrevocable.36 He states that the Law is a “gift 35 Brad Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 66. Quoting from a private conversation with David Fleusser. See Fleusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 494-507.36 Dan Juster, Jewish Roots (Pennsylvania: Destiny Image Publications, 1997), 89.

18

of God” (Romans 3:2), that the Law is “holy” (Romans 7:12),

that the Law is “spiritual” (Romans 7:14) and that the Law

is “good” (Romans 7:16). What is one to make of these

seeming contradictions?

Again, the scope of this paper does not allow for an

adequate analysis, however it can be asserted that Paul

understands that the believing person’s relationship to the

Law has changed radically – not the Law itself. R. Kearsley

writes: “…Paul gives recognition to the Torah’s power both

to provoke disobedience and to produce condemnation…he also

announces a radical break with the law both as it concerns

the individual believer and the redemptive economy.”37 In

other words, Jesus does not change the Law’s relationship to

us, but our relationship to it, replacing the rabbinic idea

of Torah and mitzvot as a means to achieving righteousness

before God with faith in the “mitzvah” of Jesus. This is to

be understood, according to Paul, that acting on behalf of

Israel and all of us, Jesus does what Israel could not do,

37 R. Kearsley, Paul, the Law and the Covenant, (Mishkan 4, 1986), 5.

19

i.e., obey God and in doing so fulfill the Law. In doing

so, now Jesus, and not the Law stands between us and God as

living Torah.38 Paul’s Torah-centered theology was

“eclipsed with an understanding of the Messiah as the higher

purpose of Torah.39

Clearly, the above diverse perspectives on Torah are

foundational for Judaism and Christianity define themselves

largely on the basis of how they characterize Torah.40 Yet

given these diverse perspectives, can any bridges be built?

For Christianity, the question continues to reverberate:

Was the Jewish Torah fulfilled by Jesus in such a way as to

undermine its practical meaning? The answer must be a

resounding “no.” Heschel notes, that “in the modern

Christian community the power of Marcionism is much more

alive and widespread than is generally realized…”41 That is

to say, that there is an opposition between the Hebrew Bible

and the Gospels as a result of having received a derivative 38 Alan Shore, The Torah of God: A Look at Law in Judaism and Christianity, Issues, Vol.6: 2, 8.39 Brad Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian. 27.40 Ibid, 62.41 Ibid.61 quoting Heschel, The Insecurity of Freedom.

20

view of Judaism as a religious system of legalism with a

salvation by works infrastructure.42 Without reading the

ancient literature Israel’s sages have left behind,

Christians will certainly be at a disadvantage to understand

Judaic tradition and will continue to be subject to the

anti-Judaism/Torah observance that characterized much of the

early Gentile church. Christians must study Judaism for its

own sake.

On the other hand, Judaism must understand that the “law

does not create in us the motivation to love and to fear

God, nor is it capable of endowing us with the power to

overcome evil and to resist temptation, nor with the loyalty

to fulfill its precepts.”43 “For to reduce Judaism to law…

is to pervert its essence and to kill its spirit.”44 And

“without faith, inwardness and the power of appreciation,

the law is meaningless.”45

42 Fleusser, David. “A new Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 469-93.43 Heschel, God In Search of Man, 338.44 Ibid, 338.45 Ibid, 339.

21

Perhaps there is something that each can learn from the

other. In the words of Rabbi David Wolpe, “Both Jewish and

Christian scholars must transcend the boundaries of their

own communities; the former to examine Jesus’ life, and the

latter to immerse themselves in the texts that illuminate

the world of Jesus and his audience.”46 Only then will we

possibly realize that how much more unites us than divides

us.

46 Brad Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), XV.

22

WORKS CITED

Cohen, Abraham. 1949. Everyman’s Talmud. New York: Schocken

Books.

Encyclopedia Judaica ed. 1971 s.v. Sin, Torah

Ferguson, Everett. 1993. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Michigan: Eerdmans

Publishing Company.

Flusser, David. 1997. Jesus. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Flusser, David. 1988. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: The Magnes

Press.

Heschel, Abraham. 1955. God in Search of Man. New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux.

Jacobs, Louis. 1973. A Jewish Theology. New Jersey: BehrmanHouse, Inc.

Juster, Dan. 1995. Jewish Roots. Pennsylvania: Destiny Image Publishers.

Kearsley, R. 1986. Paul, the Law and the Covenant. Mishkan 4.

Matt, Daniel. 1996. The Essential Kabbalah. San Francisco: Harper.

Matt, Daniel. 1983 Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment. New Jersey: Paulist Press.

23

Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H. 1974. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken

Books.

Neusner, Jacob. 1970. The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism.Belmont:

Dickenson Publishing Co., Inc.

Schiffman, Lawrence. 1991. From Text to Tradition. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing

House, Inc.

Young, Brad. 1997. Paul the Jewish Theologian. Massachusetts: Hendrickson

Publishers.

Young, Brad. 1995. Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Massachusetts: Hendrickson

Publishers

Urbach, Ephriam. 1975. The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs. Jerusalem: Magnes

PressNeusser, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity

Wylen, The Jews in the Time of Jesus

Sandmel, The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity

Geza, Jesus the Jew

Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism

Charlesworth, Jesus’ Jewishness

Maccoby, Early Rabbinic Writings

Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs

24