Thursday, 5 October 2017
One Law movements teach that the Gentiles and Jews in Yeshua have the same responsibility to the whole Torah; that there is no difference. Most, but not all, make an exception with regard to circumcision, but this is inconsistent with the rest of the teaching. Generally they misrepresent the teaching of the Church on the Law, perhaps out of ingorance. Usually they represent the Church as anti-law or antinomian. This is true with regard to some streams of the Church, but certainly is not true of historic Calvinist denominations (Reformed and Presbyterian), Anglicansm, and Methodists. Most of these streams realize that the Law must be applied as is fitting to the New Covenant order in which we now live. They made a distinction between ceremonial law, which is to no longer be kept since it was fulfilled in Jesus, and universal moral law. The truth, in my view, is as expressed in this book, that the distinction between moral and ceremonial law is too simple. There is a distinction between universal Torah that is for all people and Jewish specific law that is part of the calling of the Jewish people. This distiniction gors back to Rabbi Hillel, an older contemporary of Jesus. More exacting distinctions have to be made concerning universals, including principles for civil law, business law, and more. In addition, Jewish law has to be sorted by that which is so connected to Temple practice that it can no longer be practiced appropriately and that which is part of the Jewish pattern of national life (Sabbath, feasts, circumcision, avoiding pork and shellfish, etc.).
One Law teaching tends to obliterate the distinctive call of the Jewish people and in an inadvertent way (I do not believe it is usually intentional) ends up being a partial replacement theology.
Jewish Roots, Chapter Eleven: Aberrations