Questions about THE LAW from Christian Scriptures

1 Timothy 1:9 New International Version (NIV)

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

Is this talking about the civil law?

Also is this talking about oral law? 

But Deut. 27:26 

So what does this talk about?

Galatian 3:10

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

You have asked three different questions.  From my perspective the three passages are all about different aspects of the same thing.  The passage in Deuteronomy is foundational, and the other two are essentially derived from it.  The book of Deuteronomy is a recapitulation of everything in the four previous books of the Torah with primary emphasis of the experiences of the Israelites during the 40 years of wandering prior to entry into the land of Canaan.  As you should remember, the word Torah in Hebrew primarily means instruction, and the instructions found in the five books of the Torah include examples from history, commands, laws, statutes, and judgments.  Every time you see this law in the English translation of Deuteronomy or elsewhere, think this Torah, because that is the wording in the Hebrew text.  The phrase this Torah is ambiguous: it could refer to the combined instruction of all five books, just to the content of this particular context or book, or to a single instruction or ceremony.  However, since Deuteronomy is a recapitulation of the instructions from the entire Torah, this distinction is not particularly important.

Now, you cited just the last verse of chapter 27, but this verse is a summary of the preceding ten verses.  The entire context is Moses’ instructions for a covenant renewal ceremony for the entire people of Israel.  Moses gave these instructions before his death, but the people were to perform the ceremony after they had entered and taken possession of the land.  Chapters 27 and 28 contain a series of blessings and curses – curses for violating specific aspects of Torah and blessings for carefully following all aspects of Torah.  There is no hint in any of this context about an “oral law”.  The Ten Words (Ten Commandments according to Christian teaching) were written down and constitute a summary from which all else was dependent.  The commands, judgments, and statutes were applications to specific circumstances but consistent with the content of the Ten Words.

Galatians 3:10 contains a specific reference to Deut 27:26, which is a summary of the ten curses in the previous verses of that chapter.  All Israelites, and all people who attached themselves to Israel, were under obligation to carefully govern their lives in accordance with every aspect of Torah.  Failure to do so opened an individual to one or more of the curses listed in Deuteronomy chapters 27 and 28.  This is the major lesson provided by the ancient history of Israel.  Paul’s point in Galatians is that nobody obtains justification before God by doing the works found in Torah.  Such works are obligatory, a requirement, for everybody under God’s Sinai covenant with Israel.  Failure to do so brings a curse; careful obedience to the covenant may bring temporal blessings, as listed in Deut 28, but this is not the same as justification (i.e., being declared righteous by God).  But note carefully, the reference is to the old covenant made at Sinai not the New Covenant, which has somewhat different provisions.

You cited 1 Tim 1:9, but to grasp his point one needs to view the entire context (vss 1:3 – 11):

(3) As I urged you upon my departure from Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines (4) nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than the administration of God, which is by faith.  (5) But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.  (6) For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, (7) wanting to be teachers of the Torah, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.  (8) But we know that Torah is good, if one uses it lawfully, (9) realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murders, (10) immoral men, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, (11) according to the glorious gospel (ευαγγελιον = good news) of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Paul does not specifically identify the kind of individuals whom he is opposing, but the reference to strange doctrines, myths, and genealogies suggests that they were either Jews or gentile proselytes who were advocating adherence to some aspects of ancient Jewish tradition.  This might be considered an early version of the “oral law”, which was ultimately codified in the Talmud centuries later. 

According to a book I read recently, there were several versions of religious practice among the Jews during the time of Yeshua.  These different practices developed largely as a result of the Babylonian captivity.  At that time the majority of prominent Jews from Judea were taken captive, but the poor of the land and those in Galilee were not.  Those in Babylon developed a different set of traditions that they brought back with them 70 years later, but those who remained in Judea and Galilee continued following earlier traditions.  Yeshua grew up in Galilee and learned the practices of that region.  This difference can be seen in the Gospels when Yeshua rebukes the Pharisees in particular for adhering to traditions that nullify specific commands in Torah.  This, I think, is Paul’s objection to these men, whoever they were.

Some people do find verses 8 and 9 difficult, and some people have used them as a basis for asserting that Torah is obsolete.  Paul’s point is this: Torah, and particularly the Ten Words, lists a set of absolute standards for personal conduct and attitudes.  Violation of any one of these standards makes a person guilty before both God and men and worthy of death.  We as ordinary humans would not know what constitutes sin in God’s eyes without these absolute standards.  That is the whole purpose of Torah.  Apart from absolute standards we naturally revert to a relative standard -- i.e., I am no worse than anyone else, or I am not as evil as Hitler was, or the like.  Absolute standards imply that all humans are responsible to the one who established those standards and will be judged on the basis of them.  Under the Sinai covenant the summary of the Torah was inscribed as the Ten Words on tablets of stone, but these standards remained external to every human.  Under the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34) the Torah is written on the heart of each person connected with this covenant through faith in Yeshua.  That is, Torah is within such a person, and so he knows God.  The godless need to know that they fall short of God’s standard and so are in need of redemption.  That ultimately is the function of the commandments presented to us in Torah.

Rosh haShanah or Yom T'ru'a

Questions:

Which is the actual date for Yom Teruah?

Is Tomorrow the day to blow Shofar?

Also Rosh Hashanah is not based on the Bible right?

I thought the 1st month of the year was in Spring.

People explain this is agricultural start plus maybe Messiah will come back and start a new era but I thought Rosh Hashanah is the Rabbai's invented calendar .

The name Rosh haShana does not occur in the Hebrew bible, but the timing for this celebration is specified in Lev 23:24-25 (Num 29:1-6), where it is called Yom T’ru’a (יום תרוע):

Speak to the sons of Israel saying, “In the seventh month on the first of the month, you shall have a rest, a reminder by תרוע, a holy convocation.  You shall not do any laborious work, but you shall present an offering by fire to YHWH.

The reference to the seventh month refers to the amount of time that has passed since Passover.  (According to Ex 12:2 and 13:3, 4, Passover was to be observed on the first day of Aviv, spring, and this was to be considered the beginning of months for Israel.)  No name for the month of יום תרוע is stated in this context, but as traditionally observed this is a two-day celebration that begins on the first of Tishrei.  Tishrei is a Babylonian or Akkadian name for the seventh month; in point of fact none of the Hebrew names used today are preserved in the Hebrew bible or have their origin from classical Hebrew roots.  It is entirely possible that the months were originally tracked from Aviv merely by number as are the days of the week, except for Shabbat, to this day. Additionally, Aviv still means spring, but it no longer used as a name for any month. 

The source of your confusion is understandable, and it is shared by many people.  After all, the text in Exodus specifically states that Aviv is to be the beginning of months for the people of Israel.  From our existing perspective, this statement should mean that Passover starts on new year’s day.  The standard explanation for this is that at some time or other the Jews developed both an ecclesiastical year and a civil year; so Passover was the start of the ecclesiastical year, and Rosh haShana is the start of the civil or agricultural year.  This is how you will find the months tabulated in reference material.

Month Number*		Hebrew month	Length	Gregorian
Ecclesiastical/ Biblical	Civil
1	7	Nisan	30	Mar-Apr
2	8	Iyar	29	Apr-May
3	9	Sivan	30	May-Jun
4	10	Tammuz	29	Jun-Jul
5	11	Av	30	Jul-Aug
6	12	Elul	29	Aug-Sep
7	1	Tishrei	30	Sep-Oct
8	2	Cheshvan (or Marcheshvan)	29/30	Oct-Nov
9	3	Kislev	30/29	Nov-Dec
10	4	Tevet	29	Dec-Jan
11	5	Shevat	30	Jan-Feb
12	6	Adar	29	Feb-Mar
Total			353, 354 or 355

Now, I do not know when the name of the present celebration was changed from יום תרוע to ראוש השנה, but there is another alternative in understanding the passage in Exodus 13.  Throughout the Hebrew bible, the day that YHWH brought the descendants of Israel up from Egypt was the event that defined them as a special people apart, reserved for YHWH.  On the basis of this understanding, the first of Aviv was the beginning of months and years for Israel as a people, like a birthday.  As such it does not really have anything to do with an ecclesiastical year or a civil year.  These designations all came much later.

While the people lived in Egypt, they became familiar with the agricultural cycle as it existed there.  That is the Nile flooded in mid to late summer.  The people of Egypt had no idea why the cycle of the Nile was so completely out of sync with all other countries in the region, but without the Nile inundation, agriculture in Egypt would have been impossible.  Farming in the land of Israel required completely different timing.  Since there was no great central river, the Israelite farmers were dependent on the rains, Which started around the month of Tishrei and could last until the month of Adar.  Thus planting for the following year had to start in Tishrei, and harvest for annual crops occurred from early to late spring.  Only the most hardy crops of grapes and fruit trees could survive the summer.  This may account for the development of Yom Tru'a becoming the start of the agricultural year.

What is a Cult? A Heretic?

INTRODUCTION

Languages are funny things.  Every human language includes words that convey meaning, forms that indicate relationships between words, and rules that define the proper method for joining words and larger blocks of information together to express a concept or an idea.  To the degree that two (or more) people share the same lexicon (combination of words and meanings) and other aspects of a particular language, the concept or idea that exists in the mind of one person can be communicated more or less intact to others.  However, to the degree that the structural aspects of a language differs between speaker and audience, the idea in the mind of the speaker will not be reconstructed accurately in the mind of the audience.  This is the source for misunderstandings between people.

This fact is complicated by the fact that languages in general are profoundly fragile.  The three aspects of a language mentioned above are all learned by each individual, and they change within each individual over the course of time.  As a young child, one is primarily influenced by parents, then by peers, and finally by a combination of teachers and peers.  Because no two people have exactly the same life history, no two people have exactly the same functional lexicon or grasp of the forms and structure of a common language.  This means that the potential for miscommunication, or more likely incomplete communication, is relatively high.  Added to this fact is the tendency for meaning and/or use of terms to change over time.  One example will suffice:

The term gay had a completely positive meaning and use 100 years ago.  To day this term is almost exclusively used as a reference to homosexuals or the homosexual community.  Use in its original sense has essentially ceased in order to prevent misunderstanding.

The two terms in the title have had a similar fate.  Today both are used as technical terms with a pejorative implication, and both are used popularly with a generally negative sense.  As in the case with gay, the current meaning and use of these terms is very different from those of the terms from which they were developed.

CULT, CULTIC, etc.

This word group has had a long developmental history in English.  As currently used in popular speech, it is invariably pejorative and expresses disapproval of group practice by someone who is not part of that group.   When the term is applied to a religious group or a form of religious expression, the term often implies the following:

·      A group whose practices are controlled or governed by the interpretations of a single individual or small governing body.

·        A group whose practices diverge from those considered normative by the speaker.

·      A group whose accepted religious texts either include additional texts other than those accepted as normative or exclude some of those texts accepted as normative by the speaker.

The author of The Kingdom of the Cults wrote the following: “A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more significant respects as to belief or practice, from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture.”  Now starting with these ideas, anyone could view any religious group whose forms and practices differ from what he/she approves as a cult with all of the negative implications that now go with that term.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, development of the term in English proceeded as follows:

Cult, which shares an origin with culture and cultivate, comes from the Latin cultus, a noun with meanings ranging from "tilling, cultivation" to "training or education" to "adoration." In English, cult has evolved a number of meanings following a fairly logical path. The earliest known uses of the word, recorded in the 17th century, broadly denoted "worship." From here cult came to refer to a specific branch of a religion or the rites and practices of that branch, as in "the cult of Dionysus." By the early 18th century, cult could refer to a non-religious admiration or devotion, such as to a person, idea, or fad ("the cult of success"). Finally, by the 19th century, the word came to be used of "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious."

It is worth noting that no single term in either Greek or Hebrew corresponds to the Latin term cultus.

In the broadest sense, any religious expression that I don’t like might be popularly labeled today as the manifestation of a cult.  Now, Rav Shaul (Paul) actually did address this attitude specifically in Romans chapter 14.  There he addressed differing opinions regarding foods and ‘holy’ days.  His ultimate point was that each individual can judge only what is acceptable or unacceptable for himself, but he cannot make a such a judgment for others.  God is the ultimate judge for each individual, so one person judging another on the basis of preferred practices is inappropriate.

HERESY, HERETIC, etc.

As generally used today, these terms refer to an opinion, or one who advocates an opinion, that deviates from the norm accepted by some authoritative body (or the one speaking).  Identification of heresy or a heretic depends critically on the authoritative body that defines the standards.  For example, 100 years ago a radical mastectomy was the only acceptable medical procedure for treating breast cancer.  Any doctor that disagreed was a medical heretic and might lose his license to practice medicine.  Driver, one of the editors of the BDB Hebrew Lexicon, was defrocked and declared a heretic by the Presbyterian Church because he accepted the documentary hypothesis and rejected Calvinism.  Both examples correspond to the meaning and connotations of this word group as used today.  But it was not always so.

The term originated from a Greek root that is represented by three terms in the Greek scriptures:

αίρεσις   This term appears seven times in the Greek text of the New Covenant writings (Ac 5:17, 15:5, 24:5, 24:14, 26:5, 28:22, 1Co 11:19, Gal 5:20, 2 Pet 2:1), but it does not appear in the LXX.  In earlier Greek the term is used for that which is chosen; in the above passages it generally refers to those who have adopted a particular set of opinions associated with a particular sect or faction.  The term itself is not pejorative.

αιρετίζω  This verb for occurs only in Mat 12:18.  Here the usage is completely positive -- … behold this is my son whom I have chosen….  In the LXX this verb is used to translate the Hebrew root בחר, which is the common verbal root for choose.

αιρετικός  This is an adjective form that appears only in Tit 3:10; the term does not appear in the LXX and apparently does not have an exact classical Hebrew equivalent.  The usage in Titus refers to an individual who has chosen an opinion that causes division (i.e., a factions individual).  Delitzsch’s translation uses the participle form חולק, referring to a person whose opinion results in division.  This is the closest to the modern sense of heresy.

מין  The Hebrew Bible has no term corresponding to the modern sense of heresy, but there are a fair number of references to Jewish followers of Yeshua in the Talmud.  The term מין is consistently used in reference to such Jews.  This term literally means specie or kind; the implication is that Jewish followers of Yeshua are a different kind from us (Talmudic Jews), and so the reference is always pejorative.

SUMMARY

The meanings of terms in any language can trend to be very fluid over time.  Terms that were once generally positive may become negative, and vice versa.  A term that once was in common use may drop out of a language entirely and be replaced by a term from a completely different source.  When I was studying linguistics in graduate school, we spent a lot of time dealing with etymologies.  Unfortunately, etymology is often not determinative in the use of a particular term within a particular context or time period.  Any more I resort to etymologies only to evaluate historical development of meaning or when there is no other option available.  If a translator were to transliterate the terms cultus or αίρεσις into the corresponding English word, the meaning communicated today would be completely different from the meaning intended 2000 years ago.   

A Parable -- The Wisdom of a Poor Man is Despised

INTRODUCTION

The book of Ecclesiastes uses a combination of proverbs and parables (both called lvm in biblical Hebrew) to present its argument.  The following parable presents the argument that wisdom (practical skill in living) may be more powerful that force of arms, but the advantage to the individual depends on his status in his society.

THE PARABLE (Ecc 9:13-16)

.yl;ae ayhi hl;/dg]W vm,V;h' tj'T' hm;k]j; ytiyair: hz,AμG' 13

Also this ­ I considered wisdom under the sun, and it was significant to me.

ytiyair: hz,AμG'  This expression links back to verse 9:11 as a second example of how people may not get the result that their actions or their personal merit deserve.

yl;ae ayhi hl;/dg]W     Literally: It was big to me.   The adjective could describe something that is physically big or something of great significance.

l/dG; Ël,m, h;yl,aeAab;W f[;m] HB; μyvin:a}w" hN;f'q] ry[i 14

.μylidoG] μyd“/xm] h;yl,[; hn;b;W Ht;ao bb's;w“

There was a small city with few men in it; but a great king came to it, surrounded it, and built a great siege works against it.

/tm;k]j;B] ry[ih;Ata, aWhAfL'miW μk;j; ˆKes]mi vyai Hb; ax;m;W 15

.aWhh' ˆKes]Mih' vyaih;Ata, rk'z; alo μd:a;w“

But a poor wise man was found in it in it, and he delivered the city by his shrewdness.  Yet nobody remembered that poor man.

Hb; ax;m;W The verb form is a 3ms qal perfect of axm, which is a transitive verb.  The above common translation is based on Hebrew usage in which a transitive verb with an indefinite subject is used in place of a passive form.  This usage is documented in several grammars and continues to exist in modern Hebrew, but normally the verb form is masculine plural, not singular.  If we retain the active sense of the verb, then the translation becomes 'But a poor man in it found a cunning (scheme).…'   This is the meaning that I think was intended.  One problem with this interpretation is that the words in the first clause do not follow normal word order.

μk;j; ˆKes]mi vyai This string consists of an ms noun followed by two ms adjectives.  Usually, when a noun is modified by two adjectives, the second will be joined to the first by a conjunction, so this is a relatively uncommon syntactical arrangement for Classical Hebrew.  The first adjective ˆKes]mi occurs only here in the Hebrew bible, but it is attested well in later Hebrew.  The LXX uses the term pevnhta, which refers to a person who must work for his daily bread ­ like a day laborer today.  μk;j; is  an adjective and normally translated ‘wise,’ but its range of use includes ‘shrewd, cunning.’  This understanding heightens the irony within the vignette: ‘A poor day laborer within the little city discovers some trick that delivers the city, but he is forgotten by the very people that were saved.’ 

hy:WzB] ˆKes]Mih' tm'k]h;w“ hr:WbG]mi hm;k]j; hb;/f ynia; yTir“m'a;w“ 16

.μy[im;v]ni μn;yae wyr:b;d“W

So I said, ‘Wisdom is better than might, but the wisdom of a poor man is despised, and nobody listens (attends) to his words.’

hr:WbG]mi hm;k]j; hb;/f Comparative construction – wisdom is better than might.

hy:WzB] ˆKes]Mih' tm'k]h;w“ Adversative vav.  hy:WzB] is a qal fs passive participle from hzB meaning 'be despised.'  The point within this context is that no matter how wise or skilled a person may be, his social standing within a group may determine whether his input is accepted or valued, even if that group has benefited from this wisdom.

DISCUSSION

Most people in the world today live in some sort of social hierarchy, and the relative degree of acknowledgement a person receives for his contribution to the whole is strongly influenced by his status within that hierarchy.  For example, when I worked for company that manufactured control systems for nuclear power plants, I was regularly asked to write articles for professional journals.  I did all the work, but the president, vice president, and chief engineers regularly took authorship credit.  My name was included at the end of the list only occasionally.  I ultimately was promoted to principal engineer within the company, but this practice continued until I retired.  After I retired, management asked me to continue assisting them with reports and technical analyses.  This arrangement persisted for about five years, but my name never appeared as author on any of the final reports that I produced.

This experience is directly analogous with the above parable.  When one is part of a hierarchy, everything done by an individual is credited to the top of the hierarchy.  If the results are good and beneficial, the top individuals within that of hierarchy typically take essentially all credit to themselves.  If the results are less than absolutely good, then the minions take the heat.