Sometimes, your belief system has a fatal flaw. Sometimes, there’s a dilemma presented by your belief system that has no solution, because it exposes that flaw. Recently, if you pay any attention to Christian apologetics toward Muslims, you’ve probably heard about the “Islamic Dilemma”. In a nutshell, it shows a huge problem within Islam, that the Koran instructs Christians and Jews to judge Islam by the Bible, but then our Bible contradicts Islam. So the Muslim is in the position where if he believes the Koran, then Islam is false, since the Bible contradicts it, but then if he rejects what the Koran says about the Bible, then Islam is still false, since the Koran is supposed to be God’s perfect revelation. It’s a simple, elegent argument, and it’s been fun to watch various Islamic apologists try to wrestle with it and fail.
Well, from the title of this article, you probably know where I’m going with all this. I believe I’ve uncovered a Torah Observer’s Dilemma that is similar to the Islamic Dilemma. In fact, I believe there are several, but today I want to talk about one particular dilemma. To get our thinking started, let’s ask a few questions.
- Is there a biblical distinction within the Torah commandments between “moral law”, which applies to all people everywhere, and “ceremonial law”, which is not universal, but applies only to the people of Israel under the Sinai Covenant?
- Were the Laws given at Sinai all universal, moral codes for all people, or did some of them only apply to the nation of Israel at the time they were given, and not other nations that were around them?
- Is it proper to refer to the Law of Moses as “covenant regulations”, tying them only to a covenant and its members, or are they binding on unbelievers and outsiders as well?
For many, these will sound like pretty much the same question, expressed in different words. But if I’ve done my homework, many in the Torah movements will find that they want to answer them differently.
I am almost completely certain that the first question about different kinds of laws in the Torah will be answered in the negative by pretty much all Torah observers. It is common for them to argue that such distinctions are man-made traditions, imposed on the Law for the sole purpose of making it so we don’t have to obey what it says.
The second question, however, asks about the nations around Israel. Did some of the laws only apply to Israel as a nation, but not other nations? The third question is much like the second, but widens the context so that it can include our day, and the fact that we can refer to people of many nations, who are believers, as covenant members.
So, where’s the dilemma? It’s found in the fact that the principles within Torah observance theology do not allow them to answer all of these questions consistently. Look at the first question. There are two answers. Either the distinctions between different kinds of laws are biblical or they aren’t. No one disputes that at least some commandments in the Torah apply to all people, at least no believer disputes this. We all think murder is wrong, so we all think some of it applies to everyone.
If drawing a distinction between laws that are universal and laws that aren’t is a human tradition and unbiblical, as almost every Torah observer will say when addressing the first question, then they must all be universal or none of them can be. Since everyone in this debate agrees that some are universal, the logical consequence of believing there are no distinctions is to believe they are all universal.
But then, when we come to the other questions, we encounter the contradiction. Most who encounter Torah Observance theology from the outside are presented with the argument that if you believe in Jesus, you should obey him, right? And Jesus taught the Torah, so we should keep the Torah. But what does this leave out? The unbeliever. Is that person obligated to keep the whole Torah, or is he only obligated to some of it, or only when he becomes a believer? These questions are not addressed.
To be consistent, a Torah observer ought to answer that yes, an unbeliever is obligated to the whole Torah, even as an unbeliever. If he’s obligated not to murder, then he’s obligated to keep Passover. It’s all the same kind of Law.
Most of the time, though, I have found Torah movement teachers and apologists don’t really want to go down this road. They would much rather talk about how if you believe, you should obey. And really, they don’t have to go down this road often, since their efforts at converting people are almost entirely aimed at Christians, not unbelievers.
So what about the second question, about the nations? This presents the dilemma in a different light. It isn’t asking about how things are now. It’s asking about the time of the giving of the Law. At that time, were the other nations expected to keep the whole thing? This is the question that, I believe, exposes the dilemma that the Torah observer actually faces from all the questions.
Let’s think it through. If they say that all of the law was given with the intention that it be kept by all people everywhere, it makes nonsense out of many statements in the Torah. The feast of Passover, for example, is a memorial of when God sent the final plague on Egypt, but did not kill the firstborn of the people of Israel. Were the Egyptians who stayed in Egypt, and lost their firstborn, obligated to celebrate this feast, remembering God’s mercy? The dietary laws are specifically described as being given to create a distinction between Israel and their neighbors (Lev. 20:25). How does it create a distinction if those neighbors are also expected to keep those same laws? Much of the law is tied directly to the land inheritance of each tribe within the land Israel inhabited. How do these laws apply to other nations?
Add to this the simple fact that, when God judges other nations, it is always tied to things that we all agree are universal commands, like those against pride, idolatry, and shedding innocent blood, and it becomes apparent that not everything in the Law was meant for all the nations.
And this is the dilemma. How can we say both things, that all of God’s law is universal moral code for all people, and yet some of it was not intended for all people when it was given? While I have heard attempts to argue that verses that talk about “one law for the stranger and the native born” mean they are universal, every one of those verses refers to people who “dwell among you”, meaning the stranger in view is still within Israel, not in other nations. And these verses never say this about the whole Law, but are only about certain commandments.
In short, the Torah Observer’s dilemma is this: Was the Law that was given to Moses universally binding, or were some laws limited to members of the covenant? If you say it’s all universally binding, you run into numerous clear examples where it just isn’t, and you have to fight with Scripture there. If you acknowledge that some laws were only for covenant members, then you give up a key argument for Torah observance theology, and you can no longer accuse Christians who see distinctions between moral and ceremonial law as holding to a man-made tradition. Now you have to actually prove it.
Does this dilemma prove Torah observance theology is incoherent in the same way the Islamic dilemma works on Islam? I don’t think it’s quite that strong. I think there is an escape, but the Torah people aren’t going to like it. The escape is found in the previous paragraph. They don’t have to give up Torah observance itself. They just have to give up one of their favorite arguments for it. They have to give up the argument that the Torah is all universal, moral law. This would mean acknowledging that the Law really does have distinctions in types of laws, and that only some is moral law that applies to everyone.
They could still attempt to argue that ceremonial law applies to covenant members, and that believers are covenant members, and not be subject to this particular dilemma. But in all my study of this movement, I’ve never found anyone in what would be described as the modern Torah movement who believes this, though they often argue for this weaker position on the way to arguing for Torah observance.
So, anyone want to speak up? Anyone think there’s no problem? How do you answer my three questions at the start of the article, and how do you deal with the horns of this dilemma? Good luck finding answers out there from your teachers. They are pretty silent when it comes to reconciling how the Torah related to other nations and how they think it’s all universal today.