• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Why it is Vital to Know that the Hebrew Word 'Torah' is NOT the Same as 'the Law'

Mark C

Mark C

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Most who have come to this site will at least have begun to suspect that we have been told a lot of lies about marriage. Like, "there can be only one." And, nowadays, they're supposedly 'equal,' and even interchangeable,

Do we believe those lies, wherever they came from historically, or are we willing to "search out the Truth," in Scripture, for ourselves?

It's certainly, "not too hard for you," but we do have to be willing to study, since even poor English renderings of the Bible have been crafted, whether the guilty parties actually knew it or not, to obscure His Written Truth. They put their 'traditions,' their biases, their misunderstandings in there, and called it "law."

And a BIG part of that started with what I contend may be the Biggest Lie in all history, that "Jesus did away with The Law," nailed it to the cross, and so on. Even a cursory actual reading will disprove that whopper.

But you can save yourself a lot of time and grief by understanding a simple Truth right up front: The Hebrew word 'torah,' which is used literally hundreds of times in Scripture, is usually translated incorrectly, to claim it merely means 'law'. It is much more, and is better rendered as, the "teaching and instruction" of our Creator, YHVH.

Why does it matter? Because men think they can "make law," and "change law," and especially, ignore it. But His instruction is for us, and, while it INCLUDES things like "statutes, judgments, and commandments," that are part of law, it is far, FAR more. When He came in the flesh, He often taught in 'parables,' which are clearly 'instruction' for us, but certainly not the same as 'law'.

And if men, or 'the Church,' can change "law" - then why not just change the "law" about marriage? How can anyone claim to believe that 'the law' can be "done away with," but that the same men who re-wrote "times and seasons," and changed His Word about everything ELSE, can't just do it for marriage, too? Why not two guys and a tranny?

They changed "how many," and why, and now they're changing 'what'. But His instruction about marriage remains just as valid and important as it always was. And THAT is a big part of why so many 'marriages' which IGNORE His instruction about them FAIL. And why societies fail, too.

If we don't understand why His Instruction means even more than mere "law" - and why INSTRUCTION remains even after, as Paul noted, the teacher Himself has departed, we can - and HAVE - been deceived.

His INSTRUCTION has never been "done away with." He "changes NOT." He is the "same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

And if - and He DID! - He wrote rules for marriage that allow, and sometimes may even REQUIRE, a man to have more than one wife, who the hell claims authority to over-ride that?

Understanding His Word concerning marriage begins with understanding the words.
 
For what it's worth, perhaps for your consideration, to me "teaching and instruction" carries a connotation of "strongly suggested", and "law" sounds closer to "immovable boundary". We are not all operating with the same knowledge and understanding of facts and word meanings, and maybe there is more background information that you didn't mention that could alter my perception, but to me "God's laws" sounds like the spiritual version of the laws of nature, which are also His laws and cannot be altered except by Him. It could be that other people would, in fact, be inclined to feel more comfortable disregarding "teachings" and modifying "instructions", much like a recipe is a guideline that can be deviated from, than they would changing "laws". In fact, if you are certain that "torah" means "teaching and instruction", then it makes even more sense to me how Paul could say that they may be deviated from without jeopardizing salvation.
 
NVIII said:
For what it's worth, perhaps for your consideration, to me "teaching and instruction" carries a connotation of "strongly suggested", and "law" sounds closer to "immovable boundary". We are not all operating with the same knowledge and understanding of facts and word meanings, and maybe there is more background information that you didn't mention that could alter my perception, but to me "God's laws" sounds like the spiritual version of the laws of nature, which are also His laws and cannot be altered except by Him. It could be that other people would, in fact, be inclined to feel more comfortable disregarding "teachings" and modifying "instructions", much like a recipe is a guideline that can be deviated from, than they would changing "laws". In fact, if you are certain that "torah" means "teaching and instruction", then it makes even more sense to me how Paul could say that they may be deviated from without jeopardizing salvation.
Click to expand...
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

A clear example of teaching and instruction.
 
NVIII said:
..maybe there is more background information that you didn't mention that could alter my perception, but to me "God's laws" sounds like the spiritual version of the laws of nature, which are also His laws and cannot be altered except by Him.
Click to expand...
Indeed there is; I have taught on this for years; there are essays on www.markniwot.com, many podcasts, etc.

But your sense is good, and I often note that the problem with the English word "law" is that physicists (and real scientists, not to be confused with the Bought-n-Paid-For variety) know far better what it should mean than lawyers:

A "Law of Nature" is ALWAYS reliable, and EVERY single test yields the same immutable result. Example: the Law of Gravity
and Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics (aka 'Entropy')
etc...

[But Einstein's THEORY of Relativity, and similar may, or may not, ultimately merit being labelled "laws" in that sense.]

But His Instruction applies to them.

"Don't jump off a cliff, lest you suffer a curse," is one way to put it. The 'instruction' is His way of telling us 'how to walk' in accord with the way He made the universe.

I often tell the story of my first solo --

-- EDIT: Here is one link, from over a decade ago, originally:

When the 'school teacher' (Paul's metaphor) got out of the plane, and said, "take it around," and I soon made my first turn to final, I noticed that the right seat was empty for the first time in my life.

But - if I had forgotten my 'instruction,' and decided, "The LAW is done away with!" I would never have survived my first landing. The instruction stayed with me, and all the things I had learned ultimately lead to life.
 
Last edited:

Here's the original column/article I referenced above. Now that this thread has been moved from 'Marriage' - since that was specifically my clear intent - to the ghetto, it doesn't matter. Words do actually have pretty wide application...​


Gravity and ‘the Law’​


Posted on 28 May, 2010 by mark


The second letter from Peter warns (II Peter 3:15-16) that in Paul’s writings are “many things difficult to understand…which are often twisted by the unlearned and untaught…to their own destruction.” Perhaps the most graphic example of that twisting of Biblical teaching occurs with the claim that the “law” has somehow been “done away with”, or even “nailed to the cross”. In other words, we are supposedly no longer “under the law”.

There are so many errors, omissions, and “twistings” of verses taken out-of-context in such claims that many of us who begin to see what Jeremiah meant by saying we had “inherited lies” have difficulty knowing where to begin. For example, depending on the translation, the thing that has really been “nailed” to any tree or execution stake is the “handwriting”, or indictment against all of us for rebellion against Him, rather than the “law” itself. Similarly, there is MUCH discussion in the gospels about what the “law” really is. The Pharisees, who were called “hypocrites” by our Savior for this very reason, tried to teach that their halachah, or “oral traditions” for how we must “walk”, constituted “law”. Yahushua repeatedly pointed out that what they had done by their blindness was to “bind heavy burdens” on men — including things that He had not only not Written, but prohibited (Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, among others). Fallen men have continued to rewrite His commandments ever since.

When He said (Mark 7:7, Matt. 15:6-9, etc) that “by your traditions” you have made the “commandments of YHVH of no effect“, Yahushua was teaching that vital distinction — just as He did when He deliberately violated THEIR many man-made rules for the Sabbath, but NOT His own Word!

This distinction is vital, because by His perfect Sacrifice we are freed from the “CURSE of the Law” (for which the penalty for deliberate rebellion to Him was death), but not the Torah itself.

The Hebrew word “torah” is probably better translated as “teaching and instruction” than it is by the English word “law” anyway. Most people seem to think of a legalistic concept when they hear that word, which is part of the problem. But try this. When Paul uses the word “law” in those letters, replace it with the concept of God’s “instruction”, and see how much more sense it makes. And how much more consistent it is with ALL of Scripture!

But another way to understand this distinction is to observe that scientists may have a better handle on what Paul was teaching about not being “under the law” than lawyers seem to. A “law” to them is not a rule, enforced by policemen with guns, but a statement about the creation that is ALWAYS observed to be TRUE. The “Law of Gravity” is a good case-in-point. It has NEVER been observed to fail, whether one is talking about stars and planets, or Isaac Newton and the apple. Note the distinction between such a “Law”, and something described as a “theory”, which SEEMS plausible (like Relativity) and is subject to further study and observation. (The so-called “Theory of Evolution” is a bad joke in this context, since it persists in SPITE of contrary evidence — at least to the True Believers.)

As a private pilot, I find that a very simple parable serves to bring this point home — especially to those who have ever contemplated learning to fly. I know first-hand that joy of flight, and what it means to “slip the surly bonds of earth”. But does that mean I am somehow no longer “under the Law of Gravity”? Because our knowledge — of physics, of aerodynamics, of propulsion — has increased, does that mean that the “law has been done away with”? To paraphrase Paul – God forbid!

Even though the “schoolmaster” — or flight instructor — who taught me to fly is no longer in the right front seat when I take to the skies, I must not forget the lessons. YHVH’s “teaching and instruction” for how His creation works has not changed! And those who deceive themselves about the consequences of rebellion to His “laws” can certainly find that the “curse” associated with impact from a great height has not been done away with either. To know how to fly, in harmony with His “laws” of physics and aerodynamics, means to have even greater respect for such teaching and instruction, not to conclude that they no longer apply!

Gravity is still real. “Heaven and earth” still exist. It is our knowledge that has increased, not His Word that is diminished. And we still “reap what we sow”.
Do not be deceived. We are thankful to have a Kinsman-Redeemer, Who has paid the price for rebellion to His Word. But so long as heaven and earth still exist, not one yod or tiddle will pass from His “torah”, or “teaching and instruction”. And He gave us His “teachings and instruction” not to burden us, but to bless us.


The above article appeared originally as this month’s column for Crucified Life Ministries.

 
I didn't mention this (primarily for length considerations) in the original article above, but teach it frequently, and it noted in other threads on BF as well, probably all now consigned to this ghetto.

There are Hebrew words that have the implication of what DOES fit for "law" specificallly:
'chuq' - aka "statute" (the plural is usually 'chukkim', perhaps with that q)

'mishpat' - aka "judgment"

'mitzva' (plural 'mitzvot') - aka "commandment"

A 'chuq' is usually understood to mean "just do this BECAUSE I TELL YOU," you don't have to understand why. (example: the Red Heifer). The modern parallel is to tell a young kid, "don't play in the street" even it you don't understand why it's a problem.

You will often see all three used in the same verse, as "keep My 'statutes, judgments, and commandments.'

The word "torah" clearly includes those, and is more.


PS> Back to the thread focus: He Wrote His "statutes, judgments, and commandments" for us as well, and included them in His INSTRUCTION ('torah') for us because of HOW HE MADE US TO BE.

He Wrote His instruction (torah) about marriage, which includes, but is not limited to, those other things, because "male and female He created" us. And His instruction gives us examples, too, both positive and negative.
 
But this thread is about MARRIAGE...

...whether some Fact Checkers- 'moderators' - like it or not.

And the point of this thread was simple, and I contend, undeniable, before it was consigned to the ghetto, for exactly that reason.

Furthermore, it is central to understanding marriage, As Written, and whether or NOT, a man who understands Scripture can take more than one wife:


Who makes the Rules? And Who - ALONE - can change them? Did He?


Can some self-proclaimed Universal Church, and those that accept its presumed "Authority," change what He Wrote and said He would NOT change, at their whim?


And if we don't even understand what the Word means, especially fundamental WORDS that He uses to describe His own Word, then how do you even know what hit you? Do you have a leg to stand on?

If "the Law" is what 'the Church' (and something they call the 'vicar of christ') say it is - nothing more, nothing less - and you accept that, then quit worrying about how many they'll let you have.

But if you dare to argue that, you need to know what the word that describes His Word means. And what He said about it.

Because if He is NOT 'the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow,' and did "do away with the Law" -
then you're SOL thinking polygyny is anything but heresy. And what Paul said in some letter is just as immaterial.
 
Mark C said:
But this thread is about MARRIAGE...

...whether some Fact Checkers- 'moderators' - like it or not.

And the point of this thread was simple, and I contend, undeniable, before it was consigned to the ghetto, for exactly that reason.

Furthermore, it is central to understanding marriage, As Written, and whether or NOT, a man who understands Scripture can take more than one wife:


Who makes the Rules? And Who - ALONE - can change them? Did He?


Can some self-proclaimed Universal Church, and those that accept its presumed "Authority," change what He Wrote and said He would NOT change, at their whim?


And if we don't even understand what the Word means, especially fundamental WORDS that He uses to describe His own Word, then how do you even know what hit you? Do you have a leg to stand on?

If "the Law" is what 'the Church' (and something they call the 'vicar of christ') say it is - nothing more, nothing less - and you accept that, then quit worrying about how many they'll let you have.

But if you dare to argue that, you need to know what the word that describes His Word means. And what He said about it.

Because if He is NOT 'the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow,' and did "do away with the Law" -
then you're SOL thinking polygyny is anything but heresy. And what Paul said in some letter is just as immaterial.
Click to expand...
Question who makes rules can be way more expanded that just "marriage topic".

Fundamentally its about sovereignty.
 
It occurs to me there is another clear example on this score that can be noted.

NVIII said:
We are not all operating with the same knowledge and understanding of facts and word meanings, and maybe there is more background information that you didn't mention that could alter my perception...
Click to expand...

The story of Joseph and his dreams arguably doesn't have a singe "statute, judgment, or commandment," in it (although several are REFERENCED, even if they weren't Written down by Moses until much later!) but has a LOT of instruction:

From dreams, and interpretation, to what it looks like for a guy like Judah to begin the process to "Man Up." The story of Judah and Tamar even bears a bit on marriage, and certainly debunks a lot of the Big Lie most of probably heard about the 'sin of Onan.' (Hint: it certainly wasn't masturbation!)

That was at least a small part of the theme in this week's Torah parsha and related midrash:

Meat - The "Lion has ROARED" - so, "who can BUT prophesy?"

Has anyone here ever been accused of being a 'prophet of doom,'' by the terminally-Woke? I contend that it's hard not to see that so many things are "coming to a head," at this time, from economic collapse, to invasion (not just the non-existent southern US border, but Europe has been largely...
biblicalfamilies.org biblicalfamilies.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top