“The discussion of the law and believers in Messiah has been a topic of

discussion ever since Jesus showed up and many Jews and Gentiles
proclaimed him as the fulfillment of promise. This is a brilliant little book
showing Torah was not just about law but also about the prospect of
promise and the need for that Messiah. What Torah promised pointed
ultimately of the need for God working from within. That message rings
loud and clear in this book with an explanation to match.”
—Darrell L. Bock, Executive Director for Cultural Engagement,
Howard G. Hendricks Center for Christian Leadership and Cultural
Engagement; Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas
Theological Seminary

“Most Christians believe the apostle Paul’s assertion to Timothy that

‘all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable’ for disciples of the Lord
Jesus Christ. But how many Christians truly study the Old Testament in
their own devotions, or feel that they really understand the differences in—
and the relationship between—the Old and New Testaments? Reading
Moses, Seeing Jesus is a tremendous resource for anyone interested in
understanding the ‘whole counsel’ of Scripture, the fundamental purpose of
the Mosaic law, the power of the Messianic prophecies, and how to engage
in effective and fruitful Jewish evangelism and discipleship. I absolutely
loved this book and highly recommend it to pastors and lay people alike!”
—Joel C. Rosenberg, New York Times best-selling author, Bible teacher
and founder of The Joshua Fund

“Christians have discussed and debated for centuries the role of the law
now that Christ has come. The authors of this delightful and clear book
show that the Old Testament itself teaches that the law cannot save. Indeed,
a right reading of the Old Testament points to the Messiah as the one who
forgives sins, and thus Christians are oriented fundamentally to Jesus
instead of the law. Here we have a biblical-theological reading of the Old
Testament that is insightful and instructive, and readers will see the
wonderful unity of the whole Bible in this work. I warmly welcome this
contribution from Jewish believers in Jesus.”
—Thomas R. Schreiner, James R. Buchanan Harrison Professor of New
Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
 “Exegetically solid, theologically sound, contemporaneously relevant,
eminently readable—all these qualifiers are true and will prove to be
vindicated by its intended readership. Especially commendable—and that
lends it authenticity—is the fact that its authors are Israeli scholars who
embrace messianic faith that names Jesus of Nazareth as Savior and Lord.
This is a must!”
—Eugene H. Merrill, Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies
(Emeritus), Dallas Theological Seminary

“Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus is a book that will help Jews and
Gentiles alike understand what it means to be a Jewish believer in Jesus, or
Yeshua. Authors Seth Postell, Eitan Bar, and Erez Soref demonstrate from
Scripture that to embrace Yeshua is not to abandon the Jewish people or
Israel’s great heritage. On the contrary, to embrace Yeshua in faith is to
enter into the blessings of the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah long
ago. God has fulfilled his promises to his people Israel in the life, death, and
resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah. Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus shows in
a clear and compelling way that God has not rejected his chosen people but
continues to love them and seeks to bring them into fellowship with him.”
— Craig A. Evans, John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian
Origins, Houston Baptist University

“I give thanks to the Lord for the work of ONE FOR ISRAEL and Israel
College of the Bible. Their book Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus is a rich and
helpful resource for understanding the Torah both literarily and
theologically, demonstrating that, by divine design, Moses indeed spoke of
Yeshua (John 5:46).”
—L. Michael Morales, Professor of Biblical Studies, Greenville
Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC

“As a professor and student of the Bible, I found fresh insights in this
book that clarified the trajectory of the whole of Scripture. Highly
recommended!”
—George H. Guthrie, Professor of New Testament, Regent College,
Vancouver, BC
 “The one most confusing issue among Messianic Jews (and today, also
among many Gentiles believers) is the role of the Torah in the life of the
believer. In the movement there are many who claim to be ‘Torah
observant’ but fail to read the details of what was commanded by God
through Moses, and often as they claim to keep the Torah, they are actually
breaking the specific laws involved in keeping the Torah. In the end, while
they are preaching Torah, they practice grace. Thus the publication of
Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus is a welcome contribution to the discussion
that will clearly clarify all the issues from a solid biblical perspective and
help many believers reach a biblical balance on the role and purpose of the
Torah.”
—Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Founder and Director, Ariel Ministries

“We are often told that by traditional Jews that they don’t need Yeshua
because they have the Torah. Yet Yeshua told the Jewish leaders of his day
that, if they truly believed Moses, they would believe in him. How can this
be? The authors of this exciting new book, written with humility and clarity,
and based on solid academic research, explain just what Yeshua meant,
even demonstrating that the ultimate goal of the Torah is to point to him.
Your eyes will be opened as you read.”
—Michael L. Brown, President, FIRE School of Ministry,
author, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (5 vols.)

At a time when there is much confusion about the believer's relationship

to the Law of Moses, Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus brings clarity, and it
does so with light, not heat. What a helpful book for all followers of
Yeshua, but particularly for Messianic Jews. Authors Postell, Bar and Soref
maintain a high and respectful perspective of Torah while demonstrating its
continued role of pointing to the One of whom Moses wrote. If you want to
understand the significance of the Torah and its relationship to those who
are followers of Messiah, read this outstanding book. And while reading,
keep your Bible at hand, take notes, become enlightened and be
transformed.
Dr. Michael Rydelnik
Professor of Jewish Studies and Bible, Moody Bible Institute
 Syndicated Radio Host and Teacher, Open Line with Dr. Michael
Rydelnik
Author of The Messianic Hope and Co=Editor and contributor, The
Moody Bible Commentary
 Reading MOSES Seeing Jesus

EXPANDED SECOND EDITION

SETH D. POSTELL ■ EITAN BAR ■ EREZ
SOREF

ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

 Reading Moses, Seeing Jesus: How the Torah Fulfills
Its Purpose in Yeshua

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced

or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any other information
storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of ONE FOR
ISRAEL Ministry. Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible quotations are from the
ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by
Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission.
All rights reserved.

Published by
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

Copyright © 2017
Seth D. Postell, Eitan Bar, Erez Soref, and Michelle Shelfer

COVER & INTERIOR DESIGN: Ruth Winkler www.ruthwinkler.co.il

This book is lovingly dedicated to all people who have a zeal for God, but
not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2–4).

Preface
Our Unique Terminology
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Chapter 1 • The Torah Anticipates Lawbreaking

Chapter 2 • Failure of Faith Leads to Death

Chapter 3 • The Torah’s Remedy: the Messiah

Chapter 4 • The Creation Mandate

Chapter 5 • The Adam-Israel Connection

Chapter 6 • Poem One: God’s Response to the Fall

Chapter 7 • Poem Two: Jacob Blesses His Sons

Chapter 8 • Poem Three: Balaam’s Oracles

Chapter 9 • Functions of the Law

Chapter 10 • God’s Compromised Ideals

Chapter 11 • Moses’ Law Today?

Chapter 12 • Messianic Jewish Identity

Conclusion and Final Challenge

Bibliography
 We decided to write this short book because questions about the believer’s

relationship to the Torah (the five Books of Moses, or the Pentateuch) and its
commandments (the Law) are among the top five most frequently asked
questions on the ONE FOR ISRAEL FAQ list. Since Jesus kept the Law, are
believers (Jewish and Gentile) also obliged to keep the Law, or at least some
portions of it (Sabbath, the food laws, etc.)? What about the Oral Law (rabbinic
traditions)? How does the Torah point to the Messiah? How do we apply the

Law of Moses today? Though this book is based on at least a decade of

academic research, it is written with the non-academic reader in mind. Our goal
is to provide easy-to-understand answers to the questions related to the Torah,
and to do so in a manner thoroughly rooted in a careful reading of the biblical
text.

Dr. Seth Postell (PhD in Hebrew Bible) is the Academic Dean at ONE FOR
ISRAEL’s Bible College (Israel College of the Bible). Eitan Bar (DMin.) is
ONE FOR ISRAEL’s Director of Media and Evangelism. Dr. Erez Soref (PhD in

psychology) is the President of ONE FOR ISRAEL \ Israel College of the Bible.

Seth, Eitan, and Erez are all Jewish Israeli believers in Yeshua (Jesus).
We truly hope this little book will stimulate your thinking and challenge you

to deepen your appreciation for the person and work of Yeshua by meditating on
the Torah day and night (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:2–3).
 We as authors of this work are influenced by our Jewish surroundings, heritage,

and culture, leading us to use terms that may be unfamiliar to some of our readers. Our
intent is not to exclude or alienate, but simply to use the linguistic touchstones that
make sense in the context of who we are and how we think. In this work you will find

a focus on the Hebrew nuances of words from Scripture, references to historical

Jewish scholars and their writings (not necessarily biblical), and a general appeal to
read through Jewish eyes, as we reveal textual connections in the hopes that this will
deepen insight into the meaning of the story being told in the Torah.

We have tried to be very consistent in our use of the terms “Torah” and “Law.”
When we use the term “Torah,” we are referring to the five Books of Moses as a

whole (the Pentateuch). When we use the word “Law,” we are referring specifically to
the commandments given to Israel. The only exception is when we use quotations
from the English Standard Version (ESV). In some cases, the ESV uses “Law” (capital

L) to refer to the five Books of Moses as a whole (Matt. 5:17; 22:40; Luke 16:16;

2:24; Acts 13:15). In other cases, “Law” (capital L) is restricted to the commandments
of the Sinai covenant (Matt. 12:5; Luke 2:22, 24; Gal. 3:10) and sometimes “law”
(lowercase l) refers to the commandments of Sinai (Matt. 23:23; Acts 13:39; 15:5;
21:24; Rom. 2:12). In Romans 3:21, “Law” (capital L) refers to the five Books of
Moses and “law” (lowercase l) refers to the commandments of Sinai. The ESV is
clearly not consistent. Though we quote from the ESV, our understanding of these
terms will be quite clear by the context in which we quote the verse.
Law (capital L): the commandments of the Sinai Covenant.
Maimonides (Rambam): a twelfth-century Jewish philosopher who is
perhaps the most influential thinker and writer on the Talmud. (Not to be
confused with thirteenth-century scholar Torah scholar Ramban, or
Nachmanides.)
Oral Law: the rabbinic traditions.
Rashi: the most famous Jewish Bible commentator.
Talmud: a collection of ancient traditional, non-biblical Jewish writings
comprised of Oral Law and commentary on the Law of Moses.
Tanakh: The Hebrew Scriptures, also known as the Old Testament, made
up of the Torah, the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim).
Torah: the Pentateuch in its entirety—that is, the five Books of Moses.
Yeshua: The Jewish name for Jesus.
 We wish to thank a number of people for “birthing” this book. Special
thanks go to the following people who invested much time and thought in the

evolution of this book from the first to the current edition of the manuscript:
Jim Sibley, Esther Martin, Joseph Boone, Lynn Rosenberg, Jo Blower, David

Hecht, and Wes Taber. We also wish to thank several people who carefully
interacted with the content: Dominick Hernandez, Jeffery Seif, Jeffery
Cranford, Boaz Michael, Winn Crenshaw, Ron Seabrooke, Dave Brodsky, Ty

Flewelling, George Guthrie, Mitch Glaser, and Yoel Seton. We are especially
thankful to Michelle Shelfer, a truly gifted editor, who worked night and day to

make this expanded edition a reality. We also want to express our appreciation
for Jim Weaver, who made the publication of this book possible. Finally, we

want to express our gratitude to John Sailhamer, may his memory be blessed,
who demonstrated in the classroom and in writing that the Torah is fearfully
and wonderfully made!
 We open this book with the honest confession of three Israeli Jewish
followers of Yeshua (Jesus). Being Jewish is not easy! Being a Jewish follower

of Yeshua is even more difficult. As Jews, we have to deal with growing anti-
Semitism worldwide. As messianic Jews, we are often rejected by our own

families. Spiritual leaders in the Jewish community tell us that we are no longer
Jewish if we believe in “that man.” Within the body of Messiah we are often
misunderstood by our Gentile brothers and sisters who may not have a clue

about our acute identity struggles, struggles that Gentile believers typically do
not have to face.

The early church wrestled with identity issues from a completely different
perspective. Since the messianic faith was Jewish, the challenge came when

Gentiles were added to the early messianic community. The very first church
council (Acts 15) dealt with how Gentiles fit into an essentially Jewish faith and
culture. They concluded that Gentile believers do not have to keep the Law

(though many Gentile Christians today are sincerely wondering whether or not
their love for the Jewish Savior ought to be expressed by observing the Law).
But then what about Jewish believers in Yeshua today? Doesn’t Acts 15

assume that Jewish believers will continue keeping the Law?[1] Paul goes out of

his way in Acts 21:23–24 to prove once and for all that he lives “in observance
of the law.” Yeshua declares that “whoever relaxes one of the least of these
commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the
kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called

great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).[2] Our Messiah tells us to “do and
observe whatever they [the scribes and the Pharisees] tell you”—the Law along
with the rabbis’ oral interpretation of it (Matt. 23:2–3). Moses tells us the
commandments of the Law are eternal (see, e.g., Exod. 12:14, 17, 24; 27:21;

28:43; 29:9, 28; 30:21; 31:16).[3] Case closed! Jewish believers, in obedience to
our Rabbi Yeshua and our teacher Moses, and by following the example of
Paul, must obey the Law as good and faithful messianic Jews.
Though the logic of the previous paragraph is compelling, we are still faced

with a big interpretive dilemma. Why? Because as clear as those passages may
seem, other passages in the New Testament lead us to believe that we are no
longer “under the Law.” For instance, the apostle Paul tells us the Law was

added to earlier promises made by God, not to replace those promises, but
simply to guide us as a tutor who will lead us to the Messiah (see Gal. 3:1–24).

But now that the Messiah has come, we are “no longer under a guardian” (Gal.

3:25). In addition, Paul says, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in
questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a

Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to
Christ” (Col. 2:16–17). The writer of Hebrews makes very clear the fact that

Yeshua’s priesthood necessitates a change in the Law, since He is not a

descendant of Aaron, and not even from the priestly tribe of Levi: “For when
there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as

well” (Heb. 7:12). He goes on to tell us that the system of worship prescribed

by the Law is a copy and a shadow of better, more perfect things (Heb. 8:5;
10:1), the purpose of which is to point us to a better covenant, since the former

covenant “disappeared” (became obsolete) with the making of the new

covenant (Heb. 8:6–13).[4]

A first step toward some kind of consensus on this subject involves humbly

and honestly acknowledging that there would be no argument about the role of

the Law among believers if the issues were simple and straightforward. The fact
of the matter is that interpretation is not a science, though we typically try to

explain (and even explain away) statements in the Bible contrary to our
position. There will continue to be believers on both sides of this issue, who

struggle to understand why those on the other side do not see the “obvious

truth” in the matter.

We want to begin by expressing our genuine appreciation for healthy and

respectful disagreement. We realize that not everyone will agree with what we
have to say about the meaning of the Torah and the purpose of the Law in the

Torah. We would not have written this book if we believed that everything had

already been said on the matter. We believe this book offers a unique
contribution to the discussion.

Many people read the Torah through the lens of rabbinic Judaism, in which

the Torah is understood to be a law book: to follow the Torah is to keep the
commandments of the Sinai covenant. We disagree with this common
assumption. Rather, our thesis about the purpose of the Torah, Genesis through

Deuteronomy, is that it is an historical narrative, whose purpose is to lead Israel

through the broken Law and beyond, namely, to the Messiah who, Moses

assures his readers, will come in the last days. To be faithful followers of the
Torah, in our view, is to believe in Yeshua (see John 5:39-47)! We defend this

thesis by looking at several key passages in the Torah.

In chapter 1, we look at the Torah’s introduction (Gen. 1–11) and
conclusion (Deut. 29–34). By looking at the Torah’s beginning and ending, we

see that Moses prophesied Israel’s future breaking of the Law and subsequent
exile before they entered the Promised Land, suggesting that his primary
purpose for writing the Torah could not have been to lead Israel to, but rather
through the broken Law and beyond.

In chapter 2 we look at the account of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai
(Exod. 19:1 through Num. 10:10) situated between the Wilderness Narratives
leading to (Exod. 15:22–18:27), and then away from (Num. 10:11–36:13),

Mount Sinai. We see a direct relationship between the giving of the Law and a
breakdown of Israel’s faith, the result of which is death (Rom. 7:9–10). This
textual data provides yet more evidence that Moses’ purpose for writing the

Torah could not have been simply to lead us to the Law, but rather, through the
Law and beyond.
 In chapter 3, we demonstrate where the Torah is aiming, if not toward the
Law: it is aiming toward the Messiah. We look at passages that speak about
“the last days.” We argue that these passages reveal the ultimate goal for which

Moses wrote the Torah, namely, to bring us through Israel’s breaking of the
Law and to the Messiah in the last days.
Chapter 4 introduces the creation mandate, God’s pattern of blessing that

is played out in the story of Adam and Eve. We see Adam as God’s first and
prototypical king and priest, illuminating His creation purposes for humanity.
Chapter 5 takes us to the rivers of Babylon. Adam experiences the

consequences of his disobedience in the form of an eastward exile, which is a

prefiguring of Israel’s later exile. How can Adam/Israel overcome their
disobedience and be restored to God’s intended blessings?

Chapters 6 through 8 take us through three selected poetic speeches in the

Torah that reveal how the creation mandate will finally be restored through a
special individual from a specific lineage who will crush the head of his enemy.
Chapter 9 answers the question, “Why then the Law?” (Gal 3:19) by

bringing to light six prevailing functions of the Law: Law as tutor, shadow,
theology, love, wisdom, and prosecuting attorney.
Chapter 10 gives us a way of understanding the archaic, sometimes bizarre

laws that we encounter among the 613 commandments given at Mt. Sinai.
This brings us to chapter 11, where we encounter the impossibility of
keeping the Law of Moses. We look at how it became impossible to keep, and
how the rabbinical sages responded to this national identity crisis, giving
particular attention to the “Oral Law.”
In chapter 12 we look at what it means to be a messianic Jew, and our

relationship to the Law and to Jewish tradition. The conclusion summarizes our
findings and offer a final challenge to the reader.
Before we formally begin our study, let us state quite clearly the purpose of

this book. First, we wrote this book to provide an answer for questions about
the believer’s relationship to the Law. With the rapid growth of the messianic
movement since the early 1970s, more and more believers are realizing two

simple, yet profoundly world-shaking facts: Fact 1: Jesus is Jewish. Fact 2: We

cannot understand the New Testament without carefully studying the Old
Testament. These two discoveries have resulted in a growing number of

believers, both Jewish and Gentile, who struggle with questions about their
relationship to the Law.
Second, we wrote this book to show how Yeshua is the Torah’s goal. For
some people, a few verses in the New Testament suffice. “For if you believed

Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). “For Christ is
the end [goal] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom.
10:4). While we affirm the truth of these verses, we believe it is incumbent

upon every believer to examine the Scriptures daily to see how these things are
so (Acts 17:11). To say that Jesus is the goal of the Torah is one thing, to prove
it from the Torah is entirely another matter.
 There are only a handful of messianic prophecies in the Torah (Gen. 3:15;
49:8-12; Num. 24:7-9, 17–19; Deut. 18:15). If our conclusions about the

Torah’s goal were a matter of mathematics, we could easily conclude that the
Law is the purpose of the Torah, since references to the Messiah are few and far
between, while verses referring to the Law occupy roughly half of all the verses
in the Torah. However, from beginning to end a singular story is told in the

Torah, not just in a smattering of verses, but woven into its very fabric. Perhaps

by examining the narrative structure of the Torah with its many parallel story
lines and recurring themes we may see signposts pointing consistently and
undeniably toward the Messiah and our need for Him.
All are welcome here. We hope readers of this work will include those who
believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah, both Jewish and Gentile, and
those who do not share that belief, both Jewish and Gentile, and that for all
readers it will be a journey of discovery. It is our sincere expectation that by the

end of this book, you will have sufficient and satisfying evidence for
proclaiming with Phillip and with the writers of this book: “We have found him
of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the
son of Joseph” (John 1:45).
 Through New Testament Eyes

Paul states in Romans 10:4 that the Messiah is the goal of the Torah: “For

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”[5] In
John 5:46, Yeshua argues that since the religious leaders do not believe Moses,
they do not accept Him as the promised Messiah. “For if you believed Moses,
you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” Likewise, in Matthew 5:17 Yeshua

says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; [6] I

have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”[7] The author of Hebrews

argues that the Law was never a goal in and of itself, but rather it prescribed a
system of worship that was divinely intended to point people to the Messiah. He
writes about the tabernacle,

By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is

not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is
symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and

sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the

worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings,
 regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation (Heb.

9:8–10; see also 10:1).

The New Testament teaches that the Messiah is the goal and fulfillment of

the Torah as a whole, and the Law in particular. How did Yeshua, Paul and the
author of Hebrews come to such conclusions? Are their conclusions based on

the grammatical-historical interpretation of the Torah, [8] or can one only arrive at

such interpretations by reading the Torah through the lens of the New Testament
writings? These questions are particularly relevant when we consider that verses

about the Messiah in the Torah represent less than a half of one percent of all the
verses in the Torah! We believe the authors of the New Testament did not

impose added meaning on the Torah, but actually understood the original

meaning intended by Moses when he wrote the Torah (called “exegesis”). [9]

The Deeds of the Fathers Are a Sign to the Sons

If the ultimate purpose of the Torah is to provide Israel with the Law and to
motivate them to keep it, we should expect to find some indication of this aim in
its introduction and conclusion (Gen. 1–11; Deut. 29–34), since introductions

and conclusions in biblical literature typically contain the major themes and
purpose of entire books.
In order to understand the purpose and meaning of Genesis 1–11 and its

function as the introduction to the Torah, let’s look at a common literary feature
in the Genesis narratives. It is described by the rabbis as “ma’asei avot, siman
l’banim,” meaning “the deeds of the fathers are a sign to the sons.” Ma’asei

avot, siman l’banim means Moses wrote stories about the patriarchs not only to
tell us about the patriarchs (and about those who preceded them), but also to tell
us what would happen to the descendants of those patriarchs (i.e., the nation of
Israel) in the future. Though some scholars use this Hebrew phrase, others

identify this literary feature as narrative typology or literary analogy (an English
name we prefer to use). Though some may accuse us of deferring to allegorical
interpretations to reach our conclusions about the meaning of the stories in the

Torah, this is not the case. Literary analogy is a tangible, identifiable feature in
the text itself and was recognized by ancient and modern interpreters, Jewish
and Christian alike. There are also commonly accepted and recognized criteria

for making the claim that one text was intentionally written as an analogy, or
foreshadowing, of another text: (1) shared words and phrases (lexical parallels);

and (2) shared plot (thematic parallels).[10]

For example, the Torah’s description of Israel’s exodus in Genesis 43:1
through Exodus 12:38 repeats key words, phrases, and themes found elsewhere

only in Genesis 12:10–13:2. This suggests that Israel’s exodus is intentionally

described to remind the reader of what happened to Abram. In both accounts, we
find (1) “heavy famine” (Gen. 12:10; 43:1); (2) descent to Egypt (Gen. 12:10;

46:6); (3) a life threatening situation to the males but not to the females (Gen.
12:12; Exod. 1:16); (4) “captivity” in Pharaoh’s service (Gen. 12:15; Exod.
1:11); (5) plagues upon the Egyptians (Gen. 12:17; Exod. 7–12); (6) expulsion
from Egypt because of the plagues (Gen. 12:20; Exod. 12:33 ); and (7) the
departure from Egypt with great wealth (Gen. 12:16; 13:2; Exod. 12:35, 38).

The story of Abram and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt due to a great famine, God’s
striking of Pharaoh’s house with plagues, and their “exodus” from Egypt with

great riches (Gen. 12:10–13:2), reveals not only what happened to Abram and

Sarai, but also prefigures what will happen to Israel over 400 years later (Gen.
43:1 through Exod. 12:38).

Another example of a literary analogy (ma’asei avot) is the story of Noah, a

figure who intentionally foreshadows Moses. While English readers of the Bible
know that God saved Noah and his family from a watery death by means of an

ark (tevah in Hebrew; Gen. 6:14), some may be surprised to learn that Moses

was also saved from a water death in an ark (tevah in Hebrew; Exod. 2:3, 5).
Though the ESV translates tevah in Exodus 2:3 and 5 as “basket,” this is clearly

an exception since every other time tevah is found in the Torah it means “ark”

(Gen. 6:14–16, 18–19; 7:1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17–18, 23; 8:1, 4, 6, 9–10, 13, 16, 19;
9:10, 18). Moreover, every other time the word “basket” appears in the ESV, a

different Hebrew word is used. In Genesis-Numbers, the Hebrew word for

basket is sal (Gen. 40:17; Exod. 29:3, 23, 32; Lev. 8:2, 26, 31; Num. 6:15, 17,
19), and in Deuteronomy the word is tene (Deut. 26:2, 4; 28:5, 17). Why would

Moses avoid the two proper Hebrew words for basket in favor of a word only

used elsewhere to refer to Noah’s ark if not to make an intentional link between
the two stories? This link appears all the more intentional when we consider that

in both stories the arks are waterproofed (Gen. 6:14; Exod. 2:3), and these arks

serve to protect the main characters from drowning. Remarkably, only Noah and
Moses receive architectural blueprints for redemptively significant structures

from God (Gen. 6:14–16; Exod. 25–31). Noah’s importance in God’s

redemptive purposes (Gen. 5:29) intentionally prefigures Moses’ role as Israel’s

redeemer (Exod. 3:10).

Just as Abram’s sojourn in Egypt and Noah’s rescue from the waters of death
are written as signs of later events, likewise, the story of Adam and Eve is

written with Israel’s future in mind.[11] In other words, by reading about Adam,

we can also know what will happen to Israel in the future. So, with Israel in
mind, we look at the general story line of the first three chapters of Genesis.

From Adam and Eve to Israel

In Genesis 1:28, God (1) blesses Adam and Eve and (2) tells them to be

fruitful and (3) tells them to subdue (conquer) the land.[12] Notice the major

elements of God’s promises to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3)—blessing, seed, and

land—contained in this verse. Later in Genesis, God’s promises to Abraham and

his descendants include all three aspects of this creation mandate: blessing,

seed, and the conquest of the land (Gen. 14:18–15:18; 26:2-4; 35:9–12; see also

Exod. 1:7; Num. 32:22, 29).

 In Genesis 2, God prepares a very special land (garden) for Adam and then
brings him into it. Adam’s continued enjoyment of this garden is contingent

upon the keeping of just a few commandments: “be fruitful,” “subdue the land,”

and “do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 1:28;
2:17). In Genesis 3, we are introduced to the serpent, an “inhabitant” of the

garden, who deceives Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve should have subdued the

serpent (Gen. 1:28), but instead are themselves subdued by the serpent, disobey
God’s commandment, and are subsequently exiled from the garden, eastward,

where their descendants eventually find themselves in Babylon (Gen. 11:2, 9).
Does this story sound familiar? Adam’s story becomes Israel’s story in

Joshua through Kings. God blesses Israel and makes them fruitful. He gives

them not a few, but 613 commandments. He brings them to the land of Canaan
in order to subdue it and to conquer its inhabitants. Their presence in the land is

contingent on keeping the Law. Like Adam, they break the commandments, and

are exiled eastward to Babylon.

If the ultimate purpose of Genesis 1–11 is to both encourage and to warn

Israel to keep the Law, it is difficult to see how this introduction achieves that

goal. Adam and Eve live in a perfect world. Their continued presence in the
garden is contingent on the keeping of only a few commandments, not 613

commandments. Under the best conditions this world has ever seen, Adam and

Eve break the only “do not” law they are given and consequently, die in exile. It
is not at all clear how the telling of the story of Adam and Eve’s failure to keep
one of only a few commandments in a perfect world is supposed to encourage

Israel to keep 613 commandments in a fallen world. Actually, it offers no

encouragement at all! And if we consider the principle of “deeds of the fathers

as a sign to the sons” (ma’asei avot, siman l’banim), Adam’s story never was

intended to warn Israel from following in Adam’s footsteps (i.e., a warning to

keep the Law). Rather, Adam’s story is intended to be a prophecy that Israel will

follow in Adam’s footsteps. “Israel, you will be just like Adam. You will enter
the land, be tempted by the Canaanites to follow their ways, you will break the

Law, and then you will be exiled!”[13]

The End Echoes the Beginning

When we look at the conclusion of the Torah (Deut. 29–34), we see exactly

the same perspective that we find in the introduction. Moses does not expect
Israel to keep the Law. Rather, he predicts Israel will break the Law and go into
exile.

In Moses’ forty years with Israel in the wilderness, he experiences Israel

breaking the Sinai covenant the moment it was made (Exod. 32), as well as
continuous complaining (Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 7–8; 17:3; Num. 11:1; 14:2, 27, 29,

36; 16:11; 17:5, 10), and unbelief (Num. 14:11; 20:12; Deut. 1:32; 9:23). These
experiences lead him to the conclusion that Israel’s enjoyment of the Land will
be short-lived. In the conclusion of the Torah, Moses prophesies that Israel will

assuredly repeat Adam’s story by breaking the Sinai covenant and being exiled.
 And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the
curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all

the nations where the LORD your God has driven you. (Deut. 30:1)

And the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, you are about to lie down

with your fathers. Then this people will rise and whore after the foreign
gods among them in the land that they are entering, and they will
forsake me and break my covenant that I have made with them. Then

my anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake
them and hide my face from them, and they will be devoured. And
many evils and troubles will come upon them, so that they will say in

that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not
among us?’ And I will surely hide my face in that day because of all the
evil that they have done, because they have turned to other gods. Now

therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in
their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people
of Israel. For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk

and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten
and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them,
and despise me and break my covenant. And when many evils and

troubles have come upon them, this song shall confront them as a
witness (for it will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring).

For I know what they are inclined to do even today, before I have
brought them into the land that I swore to give.” (Deut. 31:16–21)

He made him ride on the high places of the land, and he ate the
produce of the field, and he suckled him with honey out of the rock, and
oil out of the flinty rock. Curds from the herd, and milk from the flock,

with fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the very finest of the
wheat—and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape.
But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek; then

he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.
They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they
provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to

gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom
your fathers had never dreaded. You were unmindful of the Rock that
bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth. The LORD saw

it and spurned them, because of the provocation of his sons and his
daughters. And he said, “I will hide my face from them; I will see what
their end will be, for they are a perverse generation, children in whom

is no faithfulness. They have made me jealous with what is no god; they

have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous
 with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a
foolish nation. (Deut. 32:13–21)

The fact that Moses so clearly prophesies Israel’s disobedience and exile at
the end of the Torah strongly suggests that Adam’s story is written with Israel’s

future disobedience in mind.

Failure Is Assured

Some might object by pointing to the numerous times Moses calls Israel to
keep the Law. How do we reconcile Moses’ pleas to Israel to keep the Law on
the one hand, with his prophecies that Israel will not keep the Law on the other?

Perhaps an analogy to this tension between a call for obedience and the certainty
of disobedience can be found in Jeremiah. Jeremiah assumes Israel’s failure to
heed the prophet’s numerous warnings to keep the Law throughout the book

(Jer. 1:1–3). For instance, Jeremiah implores Israel to keep the Sabbath or else
Jerusalem will be burned (Jer. 17:21–22, 24, 27). But the book of Jeremiah also
makes it clear that Israel does not obey, and so we read about Jerusalem’s

destruction by fire at the end of the book (Jer. 52:13). Jeremiah’s consistent
warnings to keep the Law, found throughout the book and which are given prior
to the exile, coupled with Israel’s failure and exile at the end of the book, help

bring its message and its theology more clearly into focus. The ultimate purpose
of the book of Jeremiah is not to get Israel to keep the Law so they will not be
exiled. The ultimate purpose is to tell us how God will graciously save Israel in
spite of their disobedience, through the Messiah and the new covenant (Jer. 30–
33). It is in this light that we more clearly appreciate the Torah’s ultimate goal as

well. Israel is repeatedly told to keep the Law and is promised blessings for
obedience, but God graciously and unconditionally promises to bless Israel
through the coming Messiah in spite of the certainty of their failure.

Since the Torah’s introduction and conclusion take for granted, prophetically
speaking, Israel’s disobedience to the Law, it hardly makes sense to suggest that
the Torah’s purpose is to encourage Israel to keep the Law. The Torah’s ultimate

goal must be conceived, not in terms of bringing Israel to the Law, but rather in
terms of leading Israel through the broken Law, through the violated covenant,
and beyond.
 If the goal of the Torah is the Law, why does Moses strategically highlight

Israel’s unbelief and death after the giving of the Law? The apostle Paul writes,
“For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression”

(Rom. 4:15). In 2 Corinthians 3:6–7, he calls the Sinai covenant a “ministry of

death.” In Romans 10:3–8, Paul speaks of a righteousness based on the Law,
which is opposed to a righteousness based on faith.

How could Paul make such statements? The answer is straightforward: by

meditating on the Torah. The solution to understanding Paul’s use of the Torah

is to begin with a close reading of the Torah itself. Often, believers think they
can understand the Tanakh (i.e.,, the Hebrew Scriptures) only through the New

Testament writings. We believe this equation should be reversed: only when we

have given careful attention to the meaning of the Tanakh can we understand
the New Testament writings.
As we now look at the story of the giving of the Law (Exod. 19:1 through
Num. 10:10) in its larger literary context, we will point out two quite surprising

details in the text. First, Israel’s experience with God at Mount Sinai does not
achieve its stated purpose, namely, a response of faith. Second, Israel’s
transgression, after the Law is given, results in death.
 Trying to get our arms around a book the size of the Torah is not a simple
task. It is helpful to think of the Torah as one very big narrative, from the
creation of the universe to Moses’ death on Mount Nebo, comprised of six

major time periods or narrative sections:[14]

(1) The Primeval History (Gen. 1–11)

(2) The Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 12–50)

(3) The Exodus Narrative (Exod. 1:1–15:21)
(4) The Wilderness Narratives to (Exod. 15:22–18:27) and from

(Num. 10:11–36:13) Mount Sinai[15]

(5) The Sinai Narrative (Exod. 19:1 through Num. 10:10)
(6) Moses’ exposition of the Torah in the land of Moab (Deut. 1–34)

Righteous Faith and Faithless Grumbling

When we read through the Torah, we see that faith, though not mentioned

frequently, is mentioned strategically in terms of the structure of the Torah as a

whole.[16] In all but the first narrative section (Gen. 1–11), the phrase “to

believe” appears at key moments in the plot of the story.[17] Those key moments

tell us a great deal.

In arguably the single most important part of the Patriarchal Narrative, the

making of the Abrahamic covenant, we find the famous verse about Abraham’s

faith (Gen. 15:6) sandwiched between God’s promise of a seed (Gen. 15:1–5)
and of the land (Gen. 15:7–18). “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it

to him as righteousness.”

The following section, the Exodus Narrative (Exod. 1:1–15:21), begins and
ends with Israel’s faith. When Moses and Aaron first assemble the elders and

sons of Israel in Egypt to reveal God’s plan, we are told that the people

“believed” (Exod. 4:31) and bowed their heads and worshiped. Likewise, at the
end of the Exodus Narrative and before the whole assembly sings their song of

praise (Exod. 15), we see that the people’s reaction to the miraculous crossing
of the Red Sea is faith. “Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against

the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD

and in his servant Moses” (Exod. 14:31).

It is worth making a few comments about the next narrative section, the

Wilderness Narrative to Mount Sinai (Exod. 15:22–18:27), though we will

return to this section later to compare it with Israel’s journey away from Mount

Sinai. Here we see how Israel’s experiences with God in Egypt fail to make a

lasting impression. After God reveals His miraculous powers over the waters of
the Red Sea, Israel faithlessly complains about a lack of water (Exod. 15:22–

27). Though Israel’s complaining continues unabated until they reach Mount

Sinai (Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 7–8; 17:3), God patiently and graciously leads them
victoriously past the Amalekites into His thunderous presence. Faith is

surprisingly absent in this section, however.[18]

 The next reference to faith is found in the introduction to the fifth and
largest narrative section in the Torah, the Sinai Narrative (Exod. 19:1 through

Num. 10:10). The moment has come for the Law to be given; the Lord will
appear to the people in a new and dramatic way. And now we see that faith is

the response God Himself desires from Israel when they encounter Him on the
mountain: “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Behold, I am coming to you in a

thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also

believe you forever’” (Exod. 19:9).[19] Here God explains to Moses quite
explicitly the purpose for His dramatic appearance to Israel on Mount Sinai:

that the people may “believe.” Faith is what God expects from Israel as the
proper response to their Sinai experience.
We move forward in the story expecting to find Israel’s faith. We are quite

surprised to discover, however, the exact opposite: unbelief and death. In the
next major narrative section, the Wilderness Narrative from Mount Sinai to the
Promised Land (Num. 10:11–36:13), the people of Israel do not believe: “And
the LORD said to Moses, ‘How long will this people despise me? And how

long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among
them?’” (Num. 14:11). Then we are shocked to learn that even Moses and
Aaron are not granted access to the Promised Land because they do not believe:

“And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not believe in me,
to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not
bring this assembly into the land that I have given them’” (Num. 20:12).
 Israel’s lack of faith is so pivotal in the story line that Moses looks back on
the experience and tells us twice in Deuteronomy (the final narrative section of
the Torah) that Israel did not believe!

Yet in spite of this word you did not believe the LORD your God.

(Deut. 1:32)

And when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, “Go

up and take possession of the land that I have given you,” then you
rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God and did not
believe him or obey his voice. (Deut. 9:23)

The Lord clearly desires a faith response from His people. He acts on their
behalf so they will believe.

Remarkably, the words “faith” and “righteousness” are mentioned together

only twice in the whole Torah. In Genesis 15, we find “faith” and,
consequently, we find “righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). Sadly, in Deuteronomy 9,

there is “no faith” (Deut. 9:23), and, consequently, no “righteousness” (Deut.

9:4–6).[20]
Let’s stop and consider the implications of faith versus no faith in the Torah.

Before the giving of the Law, there is faith. In Exodus 19:9, at the introduction
of the Sinai Narrative, it is quite clear that faith is supposed to be Israel’s
response to God at Mount Sinai. Although we would expect Israel to respond to
God in faith once they have received the Law at Mount Sinai (i.e., faith under
the Law), no faith is forthcoming. In spite of Israel’s year-long experiences with
God at Mount Sinai, Israel does not believe. As a direct result, and in contrast

to the believing Abraham, they also do not have righteousness (Deut. 9:4–6).
Therefore, they are not permitted to enter into the Promised Land (Num. 14:11;
20:12; Deut. 1:32; 9:23).

Sinai: Before and After

What does Israel’s reception of the Law produce, if not faith? It is only

when we compare Israel’s Wilderness Narrative to Mount Sinai (before giving

of the Law) with Israel’s Wilderness Narrative from Mount Sinai (under the
Law) that we find the answer. Consider these two Wilderness Narratives, before

and after the Law is given, as bookends surrounding the giving of the Law.
There are numerous parallels between Israel’s journey through the
wilderness to Mount Sinai and their journey through the wilderness from Mount

Sinai to the Promised Land:

(1) Israel complains after a three-day journey (Exod. 15:22, 24; Num.
10:33; 11:1), and the complaining continues for the remainder of the
journey (Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 7–8; 17:3; Num. 14:2, 27, 29, 36; 16:11;
17:5, 10).

(2) Israel longs for the food of Egypt (Exod. 16:3; Num. 11:4–5).
(3) God provides manna and quail (Exod. 16:4–26; Num. 11:6–35).
 (4) The Sabbath command is violated (Exod. 16:27; Num. 15:32).
(5) Israel quarrels with Moses and asks why he brought them out of

Egypt (Exod. 17:2–3; Num. 20:3–5, 13).

(6) Israel questions the God who is among them (Exod. 17:7; Num.
11:20).
(7) Israel’s complaining occasions God’s provision of water from the

rock (Exod. 17:6; Num. 20:10–11).

(8) Israel battles against the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8–16; Num.

14:43–45).
(9) The people of Israel become so burdensome for Moses that he
must appoint leaders to help him bear the load (Exod. 18:18–22; Num.

11:14, 16).[21]

While Israel behaves in much the same way before and after the Law is
given, the consequences of their actions are strikingly different:

(1) Israel is victorious over the Amalekites before receiving the Law
at Mount Sinai, but is defeated by them after Israel receives the Law

(Exod. 17:13; Num. 14:43–45).

(2) Moses does not complain about his burdensome dealings with the
Israelites until Jethro points out the problem just prior to the giving of the
Law on Mount Sinai (Exod. 18:18–22). As soon as he leaves Mount
Sinai, however, when faced with the exact same problem, he asks God to

kill him (Num. 11:14–15).

(3) On their way to Mount Sinai, and just prior to the giving of the
Law, none of the Israelites are put to death when they sin against God
and/or against Moses. Many thousands, however, are put to death for the
exact same offences once they receive the Law. For example:

(a) Violating the Sabbath goes unpunished in Exodus 16. Sabbath

violators are put to death, however, after Israel receives the Law (Num.
15:36).
(b) Israel’s longing for the delicacies of Egypt goes unpunished
before the Law (Exod. 16). The Lord strikes down many Israelites with
a plague for this same sin after they receive the Law (Num. 11:33; see

also 14:37).
(c) The people claim that it would have been better to die in Egypt
before the Law (Exod. 16:2–3), but do not actually get their wish until
the Law is given (Num. 14:2, 21–23, 32, 35).
(d) Grumbling against Moses before the giving of the Law
occasions no punishment (Exod. 16). After the Law is given, however,

grumbling against Moses results in the death of about 15,000 people

(Num. 16:1–3, 32–35; 16:41–42, 49). And yet again, when the people
complain against the Lord and Moses, many are struck dead by fiery
serpents (Num. 21:4–9).
 Limitations of the Law

When we compare the before-the-Law picture of Israel with the under-the-

Law picture of Israel, the implications are quite clear. Thus Paul expresses his
understanding of the Torah in his New Testament writings when he articulates
that the giving of the Law results in divine wrath and death, as in Romans 4:15:
“For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression”
(Rom. 5:20. See also Rom. 7:10; 2 Cor. 3:6). Moses’ own perspective on the
giving of the Law at Mount Sinai is perfectly consistent with Paul’s
understanding of the Law in his letters.

Moses is not presenting righteousness through the Law as Israel’s key to

blessing and the enjoyment of the Promised Land: as we have seen, he
prophesies their disobedience to the Law, their exile, and the curses of the
covenant both in the introduction and conclusion of the Torah. “I want to bless
you with the gift of a very good land. By the way, you will be just like Adam.
You will disobey the Law, experience curses, and die in exile. Here is the Law. I

really hope you do better than I expect you will!”

Likewise, if Moses were presenting the Law as the key to Israel’s
righteousness, why would he highlight the vital connection between faith and
righteousness before the Law, and then tell the story of Israel’s breakdown of
faith and lack of righteousness once God gave the Law? This would be akin to
God saying, “I want to give you the same righteousness I gave Abraham when
he believed, before I gave the Law. By the way, when I gave Israel the Law,
they did not believe, and consequently I did not consider them righteous. Here
is the Law. Good luck!”
Instead, the Torah story leads the reader to question the effectiveness of the
Law for bringing Israel (and the nations) into the fullness of the unconditional
promises of the Abrahamic covenant (see Gen. 15). Since the blessings of the
Abrahamic covenant are unconditional, surely Israel’s hope to receive them

would not depend on obedience to the Law whose blessings are conditional,
particularly because Moses makes it clear that future disobedience is certain.
We have carefully compared the behavior of the Israelites on their way to
Mount Sinai, before receiving the Law, with their behavior on their way from

Mount Sinai. Having spent an entire year with God at Mount Sinai,[22] having
received the Law, the people’s behavior does not change. They continue to

complain and to rebel against God and against His servant Moses. It is in this
context that the exasperated Moses looks to a new source rather than the Law
for the solution to Israel’s problem: Moses looks to the giving of God’s Spirit.
“But Moses said to him [Joshua], ‘Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all
the LORD’S people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on
them’” (Num. 11:29). Moses does not say, “Would that all the LORD’S people
kept the Law.” Moses’ longing that all of Israel would receive God’s Spirit is

later picked up by the prophet Joel:

 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit
on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men
shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the
male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit (Joel

2:28–29 [Masoretic Text, 3:1–2], emphasis added).[23]

So far we have seen quite clearly that the Law cannot be the Torah’s
ultimate goal. If not the Law, then what—or who?
 We have looked at the story line of the Torah, and argued that the
introduction, conclusion, and body of the book do not support the commonly
held belief that the Torah is a law book. Though the story line most certainly

includes the giving of the Law, it also prophetically anticipates the breaking of
that Law. It is one thing to speak about a prophetic anticipation. However, it is
altogether another matter to suggest that the Messiah is the purpose of the
Torah’s story line, particularly when we take a moment to consider some
percentages.
How many verses in the Torah refer to the Messiah and how many verses in

the Torah refer to the Law? The percentages are staggering. There are about nine
prominent verses in the Torah that people commonly consider messianic
prophecies (Gen. 3:15; 49:8–12; Num. 24:17–19; Deut. 18:15), out of a total of

5,845 verses, or less than one fourth of one percent (0.15%). On the other hand,
there are roughly 3,605 verses dealing with commandments given to the people

of Israel.[24] This amounts to nearly 62% of all of the verses in the Torah! On
percentages alone, we would have to say that the Law is far more important than

the Messiah. The Law has to be the Torah’s goal!

 Quantity Versus Quality

Before we come to hasty conclusions about the Torah’s goal, let’s consider

an important principle in narrative literature: the principle of quality over

quantity. For instance, if we were to ask who is the hero the C. S. Lewis’s classic

narrative, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?, without hesitation, most
people would say Aslan. Why is Aslan the hero of the narrative? He only shows

up at the end of the book and most of the story line focuses on four children.

Aslan is barely a blip on the screen when it comes to the percentage of time C.
S. Lewis focuses on Peter, Edmund, Susan, and Lucy. How do we know Aslan is

the hero? We can say that Aslan is the hero of the narrative because of the
principle of quality, not quantity. Our equation does not depend on how much
Aslan appears in the story, but where he appears in the story and how he brings

the complications of the story’s plot to resolution. Aslan not only shows up in
qualitatively strategic places, but his character provides a resolution to the story
line.

We believe the messianism of the Torah might likewise be considered in

light of quality over quantity. Yes, the Law appears in 62% of the story, but as
we have seen, the story line anticipates that Israel will break the Law, and

thereby break the Sinai covenant. A major obstacle in the Torah’s plot is
disobedience to God’s Law and the consequences of the curses that come with
disobedience (exile and death). We see this problem at the beginning and at the
end of the Torah’s story (Gen. 3; Deut. 28). Yet God’s purpose for Israel and for
all of humanity is blessing, another theme that appears at the beginning and end

of the Torah (Gen. 1:28; Deut. 33). If disobedience to the Law is the obstacle for
receiving God’s blessing, what is the Torah’s remedy?

The End Game

There are clues that the Torah’s remedy, that is the means through which
God will accomplish His purposes to and through Israel, is the coming of the

Messiah-King in the last days. Moses clearly regards “the last days” as a matter
of great importance, since he uses the phrase four times in the Torah, and each is
structurally significant. On three occasions, the phrase appears at the heading of

very large prophetic poems: first, at the end of the Patriarchal Narratives (Gen.
49:1); second, when Balaam tries unsuccessfully to curse Israel at the transition
period from the old to the new generation of Israelites in the wilderness (Num.

24:14); and third, at the end of the Torah as the prologue to the Song of Moses

(Deut. 31:29).[25] The fourth time the phrase occurs is in the context of a

prophecy, when Moses calls heaven and earth as witnesses (see Deut. 31:28;
32:1) to the fact that Israel will be exiled from the land because of disobedience,
but that in the midst of tribulation, Israel will return to the Lord in the last days

(Deut. 4:25–31).

Then Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather yourselves together,
that I may tell you what shall happen to you in the last days.” (Gen.
 49:1)

And now, behold, I am going to my people. Come, I will let you

know what this people will do to your people in the last days. (Num.
24:14)

When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in
the last days, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his

voice. (Deut. 4:30)

For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn
aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the last days

evil will befall you. (Deut. 31:29)[26]

In each case, the phrase appears at such important junctions in the Torah

story that, like the theme of faith, it must be considered a key for understanding

the theological purposes of the Torah as a whole. Another clue to the importance
of the last days is the opening word of the Torah itself: “In the beginning”—a

word that in Hebrew requires an “end.” The word in Hebrew for “last” in the

phrase “the last days,” is always used as the opposite of the word “beginning” in
the Hebrew Bible (Num. 24:20; Deut. 11:12). The Torah opens with a story

about the rise and fall of Adam in the “beginning of days.” The Torah’s

introductory story serves as a prologue to God’s ultimate plan to remedy

mankind’s greatest problem: our separation from God, caused by unbelief and
disobedience. This remedy will not come through the Law, but in spite of

Israel’s repeated disobedience to the Law. Instead, God will provide the only

sufficient remedy for sin through the Messiah-King in “the end of days” (see
Gen. 49:1, 8–12; Num. 24:14, 17–19).

In what follows, we look at the importance of the Messiah within the story

line of the Torah’s narrative.

In the Beginning Was the Story

The fact that the Torah begins with narrative rather than commandments
was, for the medieval rabbis, a problem in need of a solution. Rashi, the most

famous of all Jewish Bible commentators, begins his commentary on the Torah

by writing:

Rabbi Isaac said, “The Torah should have begun with ‘This month

shall be for you’ (Exod. 12:2), since this is the first commandment which

Israel was commanded to keep.” And what is the reason that it [the Torah]

opens with ‘In the beginning’?”[27]

 Rashi goes on to explain that the Torah begins with a story, from creation to
the exodus (Gen. 1–Exod. 12), in order to justify Israel’s dispossession of the

Canaanites from the Promised Land. Should the nations of the world accuse

Israel of stealing the land from the seven Canaanite nations, Israel’s defense
would be THE STORY: “The whole world belongs to the Holy One blessed be

He. He created it, and He gives it to whomever He sees fit.” The story is Israel’s

“alibi”: both her title deed to, and justification for the conquest of the land.
Though the story may provide a divine justification for Israel’s claim to the

Promised Land, this is merely a subcategory of a far grander and universal

purpose. It is our contention that the purpose of the story—a story that goes

beyond Exodus to include the rest of the Torah as well as the Former Prophets

(Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings),[28]—is to provide the biblical “alibi”
for the messianic hope, as well as the eschatology in the Hebrew Bible as a

whole.
Let’s set the stage for this rather bold assertion with a few thoughts about the

shaping and the nature of this story.

First, the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings),
opens with a single continuous historical narrative that starts with the creation of

the world and concludes with the exaltation of Jehoiachin son of David in the

Babylonian Exile (2 Kings 25:27–30). This narrative accounts for nearly half of

the entire Hebrew Bible in words.[29]

THE TANAKH IN WORDS

 Torah Prophets Writings
Torah and Former Latter Prophets and
Prophets Writings
(Genesis-2 Kings): (Isaiah-2 Chronicles):
211,012 words 214,164 words

Second, the conclusion of this story can be anticipated by the reader since its
plot is already foreshadowed in the introduction (Gen. 1–11). In rabbinic

literature this phenomenon falls under the category of ma’asei avot, siman
l’banim as discussed before, meaning “the deeds of the fathers are a sign to the

sons.”[30] In other words, the early chapters of this story, particularly the story of
what becomes of Adam and Eve, are there not simply to tell us about what

happened to Adam in the past but to tell what will happen to Israel in the future.
Adam’s story in Genesis 1–3 becomes Israel’s story in the books of Joshua all
the way through to 1-2 Kings (the gift of the garden/the land, the receiving of

the commandments, the failure to resist the temptations of the resident(s) of the
garden/the land, disobedience, and exile to the east).

Third, the prophetic nature of the Torah’s introduction is reinforced by

Moses’ predictions at the end of the Torah:

 And the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, you are about to lie down
with your fathers. Then this people will rise and whore after the foreign
gods among them in the land that they are entering, and they will

forsake me and break my covenant that I have made with them. Then

my anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake
them and hide my face from them, and they will be devoured. And
many evils and troubles will come upon them, so that they will say in

that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not

among us?’ And I will surely hide my face in that day because of all the
evil that they have done, because they have turned to other gods. Now

therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in
their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people

of Israel. For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk
and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten

and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them,

and despise me and break my covenant. And when many evils and
troubles have come upon them, this song shall confront them as a

witness (for it will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring).

For I know what they are inclined to do even today, before I have
brought them into the land that I swore to give.” (Deut. 31:16–21)
 Moses, the greatest of all the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, declares in no

uncertain terms that Israel, like their father Adam, will enter the Land, eat of its
fruit, break God’s commandments as expressed in the Sinai covenant, and be
driven into exile (see Deut. 4:25–28; 30:1).

When we consider these three points: the substantial narrative of Israel’s

disobedience and subsequent exile, the foreshadowing of a story theme in
Adam’s disobedience and subsequent exile, and Moses’ explicit predictions of

Israel’s disobedience and subsequent exile, a question forces itself upon us:
Since Israel’s disobedience and exile are anticipated and predicted by Moses in
the Torah, what’s the point of the story? Since Moses knew beforehand that

Israel will break the Sinai covenant and go into exile, and that is precisely what
happened in the Former Prophets, then the primary goal of the story is not to
encourage Israel’s obedience. What is the ultimate goal of the Torah, and the

entire Hebrew Bible for that matter, if Israel’s disobedience and exile are
assured? We believe that the best answer to that question may be summed up in
one word: “messianism.” The Messiah, as we will see, is the point of the story,

and the Messiah in the Torah story becomes the “buzz” of Israel’s later sacred
writings (the Latter Prophets and the Writings).

What Is Messianism?
 According to some Bible scholars, messianism is a rather marginal topic in

the Hebrew Bible.[31] The seemingly limited number of overt messianic

prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the Torah, may cause intellectual
dissonance with clear statements in the New Testament about the centrality of
the Messiah in the Tanakh. For instance, Yeshua makes the following rather bold

claim about the Torah: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There

is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you

believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not
believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:45–47). Other

statements in the New Testament claim unreservedly that the Messiah is a

central, if not the central theme of Moses and the Prophets.[32] As followers of
Yeshua who accept the authority and veracity of the New Testament, we honor
Yeshua’s claims about the Torah, though some might be hard-pressed to defend

them from the bema (the pulpit) with just the Torah in hand. We would claim
that messianism is a major theme in the Torah, and more, that it provides the
headwaters out of which messianism flows to the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

Let’s define the terms “messianism” and “Messiah” given the fact that these
terms are not used in the Torah—and very infrequently in the Hebrew Bible for
that matter—to describe the one about whom this chapter is written. The word

messiah (mashiach), “anointed one,” is used 39 times in the Tanakh, and on

some occasions, though rarely, is used as a technical term to refer to the one
whom later post-biblical writers call “the Messiah-King” (see, e.g., Ps. 2:2; Dan.
9:25–26).[33] In its non-technical sense, the term refers to the high priest (Lev.
4:3), to kings (1 Sam. 24:6), to prophets (Ps. 105:15), and to Cyrus (Isa. 45:1).
Here we use “Messiah” as an all-inclusive term for the individual through whom

God will ultimately reestablish His original purposes for creation in the last
days. At times, this multi-faceted figure is depicted as a king, other times as a
prophet, and in some places as a priest. In some passages, he is described as a

potentate, in others, a despised and rejected worm. In all cases, however, He is

the lynchpin of God’s plan to reestablish His blessed rule over a temporarily
curse-ridden creation. “Messiah” refers to the hero of this story, and

“messianism” is the term used to highlight those features that are pertinent to
His-Story.
 If we seek to read the Torah according to its literary genre, we would be

wise to search for the key themes of the story line—for the plot—in its opening
chapters, given the fact that opening chapters in biblical literature, the Tanakh

and New Testament alike, frequently introduce the key themes and ideas of the
books as a whole. As we shall see, Genesis 1:26–28 introduces the major

themes that are developed in the remainder of the Torah:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds

of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over
every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female

he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and
over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:26–28)

The typical pattern of the creation week is as follows: “And God said” +
“Let there be” + “And there was morning, and there was evening, an X day.”
However, there are two instances in the creation account that break one or more
of these features of predictable literary patterns of Genesis 1:1–2:3.
First, the pattern is broken with the creation of humankind on the sixth day,
as, instead of “Let there be” God uses words of divine deliberation: “Let us

make.” Second, the seventh day lacks both divine speech and an end. These
disruptions of the pattern are intentional, drawing our attention to themes that
will play an important role as the Torah’s story continues to unfold. The broken

pattern from “Let there be” to “Let us make”[34] on the sixth day draws the
reader’s attention to the theme of human rule over the land and everything in it,
a prominent feature of what is called the creation mandate.

God’s Threefold Promise

The creation mandate includes the three themes of Genesis 1:28 that make
up the promises contained in the Abrahamic covenant. These three themes form

the basis of God’s dealings with, and purposes for, the people of Israel, namely,
blessing, seed, and dominion over the land:

And God blessed [blessing] them. And God said to them, “Be

fruitful and multiply [seed] and fill the earth and subdue it [land], [35]

and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the
heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen.

1:28)
 Two aspects of the creation mandate are directly tied to the Abrahamic

covenant, which are generally masked by the English translations. First, the

man and woman are called to exercise dominion over the eretz, a word that may
be translated as earth or land, depending on the context. When eretz is

translated as “earth” one easily misses the fact that the creation mandate

includes one of the three major components of God’s threefold promise to

Abraham, and to Israel, the gift of the eretz (land). Secondly, the creation

mandate specifically includes a command to kavash the eretz. The typical

translation, “subdue the earth,” blurs the rather obvious connection to another

key component of the Abrahamic covenant, the conquest of the Promised Land

(kibbush ha’eretz). Later on in the Torah and the Former Prophets, this phrase is
used explicitly to refer to Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land (Num. 32:22,

29; Josh. 18:1). What is more, this same verb is used of King David’s conquest
of the nations in 2 Samuel 8:11, following on the heels of the making of the

Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7.

In short, blessing, seed, and land are the central themes of the story from
Genesis through 2 Kings. These themes also form the foundation for biblical

eschatology. God’s purpose in creation and in the election of Israel is to bless,

multiply, and establish His rule over the land through the seed of the woman
(Gen. 3:15).

Adam: God’s First King

 Having considered the creation mandate as the primary plot of the story,
let’s see how these three themes converge in Adam and Eve. Their story

anticipates Israel’s story and points to God’s creation purposes for humanity.
Adam—understood as humankind, male and female, made in the image of

God—is a king. The terminology used to describe rule and dominion in the
creation mandate is used elsewhere to describe the rule of kings, language that,

“coincidentally,” is also repeated in some well-known messianic prophecies.

The Hebrew word radah is the first of several dominion terms used in the
creation mandate. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man [adam] in our image,

after our likeness. And let them have dominion [radah] over the fish of the sea
and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth
and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’” (Gen. 1:26). This term
is used to describe Solomon’s rule over the Land in 1 Kings 5:4 [4:24 EVVs].

Remarkably, though not surprisingly, this verb also appears in three passages
that are traditionally regarded as messianic:

And one from Jacob shall May he have dominion [radah] The LORD sends forth from
exercise dominion [radah] and from sea to sea, and from the Zion your mighty scepter. Rule
destroy the survivors of cities!” River to the ends of the earth! [radah] in the midst of your
(Num. 24:19) (Ps. 72:8) [36] enemies! (Ps. 110:2)

God intends to establish His rule over creation through Adam and his seed.

Adam: God’s First Priest

 To appreciate Adam’s priestly role, we must first recognize the extent to
which creation-Eden imagery permeates the tabernacle. Scholars have long
noted many thematic and verbal parallels between the creation week and the

Tabernacle Narrative (Exod. 25–31, 35–40), some of which are worth noting

here.[37]

(1)As the creation week is divided into seven days (Gen. 1:5, 8,
13, 19, 23, 31; 2:1), so the blueprints of the tabernacle are given in

seven speeches (Exod. 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1; 12), and in both
cases, the seventh day and the seventh speech focus on the Sabbath. In
the former, the Sabbath is the climax of creation; in the latter, the

Sabbath is the sign of the covenant.

(2)The creation and the construction of the tabernacle conclude
with statements of completion (Gen. 2:2; Exod. 40:33b).
(3)Once creation/construction are completed, they are inspected

(Gen. 1:31a; Exod. 39:43a).

(4)The creation and tabernacle are blessed (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3;
Exod. 39:43b).

(5)“The Spirit” is vital to the creation/construction process (Gen.

1:2; Exod. 31:3; 35:31).
(6)The Creation Narrative and the Tabernacle Narrative both

include accounts of a “fall” (Gen. 3; Exod. 32). In addition to these

 literary parallels, both accounts include a high degree of terminology

unique to these narratives.[38]

Parallels between Creation and the Tabernacle

CREATION TABERNACLE
Statement of Completion Statement of Completion
And on the seventh day God So Moses finished [kalah] the
finished [kalah] his work work [malakha]. (Exod. 40:33b)
[malakah] that he had done, and
he rested on the seventh day
from all his work that he had
done. (Gen. 2:2)

Inspection Inspection
And God saw [v’yar] everything And Moses saw [v’yar] all the
[et kol] that he had made, and work [et kol], and behold
behold [hinneh], it was very [hinneh], they had done it; as the
good. (Gen. 1:31a) LORD had commanded, so had
they done it. (Exod. 39:43a)

Benediction Benediction
And God blessed them Then Moses blessed them
[v’yivarech otam]. (Gen. 1:22, [v’yivarech otam].” (Exod.
28; see 2:3) 39:43b)

Spirit of God Spirit of God

And the Spirit of God was And I have filled him with the
hovering over the face of the Spirit of God, with ability and
waters. (Gen. 1:2) intelligence, with knowledge and
all craftsmanship (Exod. 31:3).
 In addition to the many parallels between creation and the tabernacle, there

are also numerous links between the Garden of Eden and the tabernacle.[39]

(1)We are told that God “walks” [hithalekh] in the midst of the

garden. The form of this verb is also used to describe God’s activity in
the tabernacle (Gen. 3:8; Lev. 26:12; Deut. 23:14).
(2)God stations cherubim on the eastern entrance to the garden,
clearly parallel to the decorative cherubim whose presence on the veil

guard the eastern entrance into the Holy of Holies (Gen. 3:24; Exod.
26:31; Num. 3:38).
(3)The tree-like menorah in the sanctuary is likely intended to be a
replica of the tree of life in the midst of the garden (Gen. 2:9; Exod.
25:32–36).

(4)The precious metals that are mentioned in the Garden of Eden

Narrative are mentioned elsewhere in the Torah with reference to the
precious metals used in the construction of the tabernacle (Gen. 2:12;

Exod. 25:7; 28:9–14, 20; Num. 11:7).[40]

Once we recognize that Eden is portrayed as the prototypical creation-

sanctuary, Adam’s role as the prototypical priest over all creation comes to
light. First, we are told that Adam is placed in the garden to work and to watch
over it. This twofold commission over the garden is, in fact, the same twofold
commission given to the Levites, namely, to work and watch over the
tabernacle (Gen. 2:15; Num. 3:7–8).[41] Moreover, having sinned, God clothes
[hilbish] Adam’s nakedness with a tunic [kutonit], a phrase that is used most
frequently in the Tanakh to describe the clothing of the priests in the tabernacle
(Gen. 3:21; Exod. 29:8; 28:39–40), which, significantly, is intended to cover
their nakedness (Exod. 28:40–43).

Adam is the prototypical high priest over all creation, and all subsequent
divinely ordained high priesthoods trace their origins back to Adam in the
garden. Aaron’s annual task of passing beyond the images of the cherubim to
the place where God walks with His people (Lev. 16:2) serves as a reminder of
Adam’s once privileged position in Eden before the Fall (see Gen. 3:8, 24). The
connection between Adam’s original priesthood and the Aaronic high

priesthood is most notably highlighted by the prophet Ezekiel, who depicts the
king of Tyre in the likeness of Adam in the garden before his fall, adorned with
all the stones upon the high priestly garments:

You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was
your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper,

sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your

settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they
were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you;
you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of
fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you
 were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. (Ezek. 28:13–15)
[42]

Ezekiel’s allusions to Eden are unmistakable. Significant for our purposes is

the list of gemstones used to describe Adam’s covering. These are the very
stones that are used to adorn Israel’s high priest (Exod. 28:17–20; see also Rev.

21:19–20).
What are we to make of the parallels between the Creation Narrative and
the construction of the tabernacle, and between the garden of Eden and the
design of the tabernacle itself? In a recent publication, Michael Morales looks
at the lexical and thematic parallels between Genesis 1–3 and Israel’s story in
Exodus: from the parted seas (of creation/of the exodus) to the tabernacle of His

presence (Eden/tabernacle).[43] Morales highlights the parallels between the

Creation Narrative and the construction of the tabernacle (Gen. 1:1–2:3; Exod.
25–31, 35–40), and between the priestly ministry of Adam in Eden and the
priestly ministry of Aaron in the tabernacle (Gen. 2:4–3:24; Exodus-Numbers).
He argues convincingly that the land in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is depicted as the outer
courtyard to a cosmic temple, with the Garden of Eden serving at its Holy of

Holies (Gen. 2:4–9).[44] The effect of this depiction is clear: God places Adam in

the garden sanctuary as the high priest par excellence; the high priest in the
garden and king over all creation. Adam’s royal-priestly depiction clearly
anticipates God’s call on Israel collectively to be a royal priesthood (Exod.
19:6), and God’s call on Aaron individually to be the one who serves the God
who walks with His people beyond the cherubim.
Now we are ready to consider the royal-priestly Adam as a prefiguration
and sign of things to come (i.e., the deeds of the fathers are a sign to the sons),
both in terms of collective Israel as well as an individual who will arise from
Israel’s midst. What happens when Adam is not able to live up to the creation
mandate, and what does that say about Israel’s future? Does Adam’s/Israel’s

failure nullify God’s purposes of blessing through His creation mandate?

 Israel’s disobedience, according to the prophet Hosea, is in the likeness of
Adam’s disobedience. “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they
dealt faithlessly with me” (Hos. 6:7). Positively, adam (male and female) is
blessed for the purpose of filling the eretz (land) and conquering it (Gen. 1:28).

The description of Israel’s phenomenal growth in the land of Egypt draws a

direct link to the creation mandate: “But the people of Israel were fruitful and
increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land
was filled with them” (Exod. 1:7). It is clear enough that this growth can be none
other than a result of God’s promised blessing of Abraham’s seed (cf. Exod. 1:9;
Gen. 18:18; Num. 22:6). It is in Egypt that God takes a small family and turns

them into a people, He creates them to be a nation outside the land, just has He
created Adam outside the garden, ultimately to be brought into it. In fact, the
term used for bringing or placing Adam in the garden is specifically used in
Deuteronomy and in Joshua to describe God’s action of bringing Israel into the

Promised Land (Gen. 2:15; Deut. 12:10; Josh. 22:4).[45]

It is likely not a coincidence that the term used for subduing in the creation
mandate is later used to describe King David’s subjugation of the nations
(compare Gen. 1:28; 2 Sam. 8:11); and the terms for ruling over creation and its
animals are used to describe King Solomon’s rule (1 Kings 5:1, 4, 13 [EVVs
4:21, 24, 33]). Adam’s mandate, and subsequently Israel’s, is accomplished

vicariously through Israel’s reigning king (as can also be seen in Ps. 8:5–9
[EVVs 4–8]).
Adam’s continued habitation of the garden is contingent upon obedience to
God’s commandments. Obedience means life in the garden; disobedience means
death in exile (Gen. 2:16–17; 3:19, 23–24). Likewise, under the Sinai covenant
Israel’s habitation of the Promised Land is contingent upon obedience to God’s
commandments. Obedience means life in the land; disobedience means death in

exile (Deut. 30:15–20).[46]

Clever and Cursed

Once Adam is brought into the land, however, the mandate to conquer the
Land and rule over its inhabitants, and the commandment to choose life rather
than death, are thwarted by an inhabitant of the garden who is described as more

clever (arum) than the other creatures of creation (Gen. 3:1). Adam and Eve
quickly succumb to the tempter’s enticements. The serpent’s rebellion results in
its being cursed (Gen. 3:14). Likewise, Israel’s initially successful military
campaign to conquer the land and its inhabitants is quickly undermined by very
clever yet subsequently cursed inhabitants.

Now the serpent was more crafty [clever; But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard
ʿārûm] than any other beast of the field that what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai,
the LORD God had made. . . . The LORD they on their part acted with cunning
God said to the serpent, “Because you have [bᵉʿormāh] and went and made ready
done this, cursed are you above all livestock provisions and took worn-out sacks for their
 and above all beasts of the field; on your donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn
belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all and mended. . . . “Now therefore you are
the days of your life” (Gen. 3:1, 14) cursed, and some of you shall never be
anything but servants, cutters of wood and
drawers of water for the house of my God”
(Josh. 9:3–4, 23).

The result of Joshua’s covenant with these native inhabitants is the descent
into apostasy as Israel is enticed by their gods, and subsequent exile from the

Promised Land comes as punishment.[47] Thus Joshua, like Moses before him,
can say with assurance that Israel will break the covenant by serving other gods,
given the ongoing presence of the Canaanites in the Land (cf. Josh. 23:15–16;
Deut. 31:16–21). Given these clear predictions in the Torah and in Joshua, we
are not surprised to read in Judges about the terrible dangers awaiting Israel
because of the continued presence of the Canaanites:

Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And
he said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land
that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, ‘I will never break my

covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants
of this land; you shall break down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed

my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive
them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and
their gods shall be a snare to you” (Judg. 2:1–3).

By the Rivers of Babylon

 Returning to the story of Adam and Eve, we read that their disobedience
results in their being cast out of the garden—eastward—where they eventually
die in exile (Gen. 3:23–24; 5:5). Adam’s children continue their easterly exilic

movement away from the special garden-land until they eventually find
themselves in Babylon (Gen. 11:1–9). It is out of Babylon that God brings forth

an individual seed—a descendent of Adam and Eve, of Seth, of Noah, and of

Shem—back to the garden-land in order to conquer it, to rule over it and to

reestablish the blessing which was so tragically lost through Adam’s fall (Gen.
11:10–12:9). In short, God chose Abram to restore His blessed rule over creation

through the seed of the woman.

Israel’s story in the Former Prophets follows along these predictable lines.

Though God chooses an individual dynasty of kings through whom Israel will

ultimately fulfill Adam’s calling (the dynasty of David), its fulfillment is not to
be realized before Israel’s foreseen covenant disobedience and subsequent exile

—to Babylon of all places (2 Kings 25; see Deut. 4:26–30). Here we see that the
concluding verses of the Former Prophets serve as the sign to which the deeds of

the fathers (ma’asei avot) in Genesis 1–11 point. Just as Adam’s disobedience
brings him and his descendants to Babylon (Gen. 11:1–9), so Israel’s

disobedience brings her and her descendants to Babylon (2 Kings 25). What is
more, just as the tale of the “first Babylonian exile” in Genesis 11 concludes on a

hopeful focus on an individual seed (Abraham) through whom God will

reestablish His creation purposes, likewise the telling of the “second Babylonian
exile” concludes with a hopeful focus on an individual seed (Jehoiachin) through

whom God will ultimately reestablish His creation purposes (compare Gen.
12:1–3 and 2 Kings 25:27–30).

The Torah’s Poems

So, then, it is entirely predictable that Israel will collectively fail to fulfill the

creation mandate under the Sinai covenant, and will be punished for
disobedience with exile. Again, following the pattern, it is only to be expected

that Israel’s ultimate fulfillment of the creation mandate will come through a
king from the tribe of Judah. In his groundbreaking work on the Deuteronomic

history (Deuteronomy-2 Kings), Martin Noth points out one of the key literary
devices by which the biblical author interprets Israel’s story, namely, through

large speeches, or poems.[48] John Sailhamer, likewise, highlights the significance

of large speeches in the Torah’s narrative, speeches that are poetic in genre and

appear at major junctions of the Torah story.[49]

POETIC SPEECHES IN THE TORAH STORY

God’s Response to the Fall (Gen. 3:14–19)

Jacob Blesses His Sons (Gen. 49)
The Song of Moses (Exod. 15)
The Oracles of Balaam (Num. 23–24)
The Song of Moses and Moses’ Final Blessing on Israel (Deut.
32–33) [50]
 The common language and repeated themes shared by most if not all the

poetic speeches in the Torah suggest that these poems do in fact provide both
literary and theological cohesiveness to the Torah story as a whole. Significantly,

three of the four[51] largest poetic speeches found in the Torah are identified as
events that will take place in the last days (Gen. 49:1; Num. 24:14; Deut. 31:29).

In the next three chapters we will discuss the following three poetic speeches
and their significance, not only for understanding the theology of the Torah, but

also in terms of the messianism of the Hebrew Bible:

God’s Response to the Fall (Gen. 3:14–19)
Jacob Blesses His Sons (Gen. 49:1–28)
The Oracles of Balaam (Num. 24:1–24)

Genesis 3:14–19

In order to appreciate Genesis 3 in general and Genesis 3:14–19 in particular,

let’s recall that Adam, who is portrayed as God’s son,[52] is mandated by God to
conquer the land and to rule over all its creatures. Given the fact that the Torah

story begins with “the beginning” of days, Adam’s story tells of humanity’s first
“king”—the king whose rule begins in the beginning of days, who is tempted by

the serpent, and who thereby fails to conquer the land and rule over it. He forfeits
this divinely ordained rule over the land, is cast into exile, and by virtue of his

banishment from the garden-sanctuary, loses his priesthood. It is only from the
frame of reference of Adam’s royal-priestly calling over creation that God’s

calling to Israel at Mount Sinai makes sense: “And you shall be to me a kingdom
of priests and a holy nation.” (Exod. 19:6, emphasis added). In Genesis 3:14–19,

God not only pronounces judgment upon the serpent, the woman, and the man,

but also lays out (in intentionally ambiguous terms) [53] His plan to restore the
kingship and the priesthood to humanity. God intends to reestablish His

dominion over creation through the seed of the woman!

The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on

your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I

will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall

bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:14–15)

In our attempts to understand this text in terms of messianism, let us first

answer three important questions:

(1)Is the serpent just a reptile?

(2)Is the seed of the woman a reference to a collective entity (Israel)

or an individual (the Messiah)?

(3)Who receives the more deadly blow—the seed of the woman or

the serpent?
 Garden-Variety Reptile?

Although the Torah, or the whole Hebrew Bible for that matter, never

explicitly identifies the serpent as the devil,[54] the text clearly portrays the

serpent as unique among all His other created beings (with the exception of

humans of course). The serpent is more clever than all other beasts of the field,
the evidence of which is demonstrated in its ability to talk, to reason, and even to

oppose God’s word. Moreover, though it’s clear enough from the text that the

serpent’s rebellion results in ongoing battles between the serpent’s seed and the

woman’s seed, the war will not come to an end until the serpent itself is dealt
with. In other words, the text suggests that the serpent outlives its seed. The New

Testament writers are quite justified in identifying the serpent as humanity’s

archenemy, the devil.

The Seed of the Woman: Collective Israel or Individual Messiah?

In order to interpret this text, it is crucial to note that the use of the word

“seed” is intentionally ambiguous in this passage. In the Hebrew language,

“seed” can be interpreted as a collective (descendants), but it can also be

interpreted as an individual (descendant). Genesis 3:15 forces a strategically

important question upon its readers, the answer to which can be found by

carefully reading the rest of the Torah story.

Is the seed who will crush the serpent’s head a collective group of people

(Israel), or is it an individual? To answer this question, let’s consider this passage

syntactically and contextually. Jack Collins, in his careful study on the

syntactical distinctions between the collective and individual use of the term

seed,[55] concludes that pronouns are crucial in determining whether seed is

collective or singular. Whenever seed refers to a collective entity, the pronouns

referring to it are always plural. For instance, we read in Genesis 15:13: “Then

the LORD said to Abram, ‘Know for certain that your offspring [seed] will be

sojourners in a land that is not theirs [plural pronoun] and will be servants there,

and they [plural pronoun] will be afflicted for four hundred years’” (emphasis

added). [56]
When seed, according to Collins, refers to an individual, its pronouns are

always singular: “And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also,

because he [singular pronoun] is your offspring [seed]” (Gen. 21:13, emphasis

added).[57] Here seed clearly refers to Ishmael, and thus the singular pronoun “he”
is used. Such is the case in Genesis 3:15 as well: “And I will put enmity between

you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he [singular pronoun]

shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him [singular pronoun] on the

heel” (emphasis added).

 Though Collins’s syntactical conclusions have been generally accepted, they

are not entirely conclusive. Particularly problematic to his theory is Genesis

22:17–18: “I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring

[seed] as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your

offspring [seed] shall possess the gate of his [singular pronoun] enemies, and in

your offspring [seed] shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you
have obeyed my voice” (emphasis added). Here the word seed is used three

times, the first of which is unambiguously plural: “offspring [seed] as the stars of

heaven.” The second time seed appears, however, it is used with a singular

pronoun: “And your offspring [seed] shall possess the gate of his [singular]
enemies.” We are faced with an interpretive challenge. Does the first instance of

seed, which is clearly collective, determine the meaning of the second pronoun,

“the gate of their [singular pronoun with a collective meaning] enemies”? Or can

we interpret the second and third instances in these verses to refer to a single

individual through whom the nations will find blessing?

Thankfully, there is evidence elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible that helps us in

interpreting this verse. Psalm 72 is a structurally significant Psalm in the Psalter,

serving as a conclusion to Books I and II of the Psalter.[58] Psalm 72 shares

significant parallels with Psalm 2, a psalm that is formally recognized by many

scholars, along with Psalm 1, as the introduction to Book I. Psalm 2 and 72 focus

on an exalted Davidic king whose rule extends to the ends of the earth (Ps. 2:8;

72:8). What is more, Psalm 72 contains several allusions to some of the Torah’s
poetic speeches,[59] suggesting that its author looked to this Messiah-King, as one

through whom the Torah’s key prophecies would find fulfillment. Helpfully,

Psalm 72:9 and 17 offer an inner-biblical interpretation of Genesis 22:17–18

with respect to the identity of the seed:

May desert tribes bow down before I will surely bless you, and I will surely
him, and his enemies lick the dust! . . . multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven
May his name endure forever. May his and as the sand that is on the seashore. And
name endure forever, his fame continue as your offspring shall possess the gate of his
long as the sun! May people be blessed in enemies, and in your offspring [seed] shall all
him, all nations call him blessed! (Ps. 72:9, the nations of the earth be blessed. (Gen.
17) 22:17–18)

It is quite clear that Psalm 72:17 is a nearly verbatim allusion to Genesis

22:18, and as such the psalmist looks at “his enemies” in the prior verse as

referring to an individual “seed” of Abraham, and thus interprets the seed

through whom all the nations will be blessed in Genesis 22:18 as an individual

king. This is our first clue that the seed of the woman is an individual: “he shall

bruise your head.”

Who or what is the serpent’s seed? Several clues in the story line of the Torah
suggest that the serpent’s seed does not refer to baby snakes, but rather to

opponents of the chosen seed of the woman. For example, in the very next

chapter we read of Cain, who finds himself cursed after opposing Abel (cf. Gen.

4:11; 3:14). Likewise, Ham’s perverted actions result in his son’s sharing of the
serpent’s fate as well: “Cursed be Canaan” (Gen. 9:25). Later on in Genesis 12:3,

we are told that all who curse Abraham (and his seed) will also share the
serpent’s fate: “And him who dishonors you I will curse.” According to the

Torah’s story line, therefore, the serpent’s seed are those who curse the chosen
seed, and thus share the serpent’s fate.

In the very next chapter, Adam’s firstborn kills Abel, and in response, God

gives Eve another seed. Remarkably, Eve’s commentary on God’s provision uses

terminology only found elsewhere in the entire Hebrew Bible in Genesis 3:15:

And Adam knew his wife [woman] I will put enmity between you and the
again, and she bore a son and called his name woman, and between your offspring [seed]
Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me and her offspring [seed]; he shall bruise your
another offspring [seed] instead of Abel, for head, and you shall bruise his heel. (Gen.
Cain killed him.” (Gen. 4:25, emphasis 3:15, emphasis added)
added)

The word “wife” in Genesis 4:25 is the same word for “woman” in Genesis

3:15. Moreover, Eve’s statement “God has appointed” uses the same verb for

“put” in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity.” Finally, Eve states that God has
appointed for her another “seed.” Eve’s allusions to Genesis 3:15 in Genesis 4:25

are quite clear in the Hebrew text. And it is equally clear that Eve has interpreted

the reference to “her seed” in Genesis 3:15 not in its collective sense, but as

speaking of an individual son who will defeat the serpent.

Who Receives the Worse Blow—the Seed or the Serpent?

For many people, the answer to this question is so clear that the question
itself is not worth asking. Truth be told, however, the question is a trap. The

answer to the question is not either/or but both/and. Some might protest: “Wait a
minute; a blow to the head is far more severe than a blow to the foot.” That
might be true enough if we are speaking of man versus man. But we are not. This

is man versus serpent. When a man wants to kill a serpent, of course he strikes

its head. But when a serpent wants to kill a man, it bites the foot, the truth of

which is made abundantly clear in Genesis 49:17: “Dan shall be a serpent in the
way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that his rider falls

backward.” Strangely enough, God’s judgment against the serpent includes a

prediction that the seed of the woman shall also suffer a fatal blow. Does this

mean, however, that the Torah story ends in tragedy—nobody wins, everyone
loses? Or does this mean that ultimate victory over the serpent will be achieved,

but at great expense? As we look at the two other poetic speeches regarding the

last days in the Torah, Genesis 49 and Numbers 24, we will see that the Torah

story has a happy ending. However, Genesis 3:15 not only prepares the reader
for predictions of the glories of the coming Messiah-King, but also paves the

way for appreciating the sufferings of the coming Messiah-King. God’s purposes

in Genesis 1:28 will come to fruition, but the reclamation of creation includes

great suffering and death.

One Seed of the Woman: Noah

We see that in a very real sense, Genesis 3:15 is the fountainhead of

messianism. Though Adam has abdicated both his kingship and priesthood over
creation, and though collective Israel will be like Adam, Genesis 3:15 anticipates

the coming of an individual seed of woman, a priest-king, another Adam, who

will ultimately defeat the serpent and his descendants, though not without a

terrible struggle. In order to complete our appreciation of the meaning of Genesis

3:15, let us briefly consider the story of Noah, another Adam and king-priest,

who is called to reestablish God’s creation purposes.

That the Torah’s author sees the seed of the woman as a future Adam-like
figure is evident in his presentation of Noah. This is most evident in the occasion

by which Noah (“rest” in Hebrew) is given his name. “And called his name Noah

[rest], saying, ‘Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring

us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands’” (Gen. 5:29). [60]

Clear allusions to the poetic speech of Genesis 3:14–19, particularly to Genesis

3:17–19, suggest that Noah is portrayed as a seed of the woman who will, at least

in a limited sense, restore the creation to its pre-fall conditions. How will Noah,

Mr. Rest, bring rest to creation? We will have occasion to answer that question in

a moment. But for now we must stop and ponder the figure Noah as the answer
to the Torah author’s expectations for the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. The seed

of the woman will be another Adam who will reverse Adam’s failures.

In terms of “the deeds of the father are a sign for the sons” (ma’asei avot),

we should expect to find many clear parallels between Noah and Adam, both in

terms of their victories, and sadly enough, in terms of their downfalls. First, we

see that like Adam before him, God also brings the animals to Noah as a

demonstration of his dominion over creation (Gen. 2:19; 7:9; cf. 1:28). Second,
once God brings Noah and his children safely through His judgment, Noah

receives a slightly revised form of the creation mandate and blessing.

And God blessed Noah and his sons And God blessed them. And God said to
and said to them, “Be fruitful and them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth
multiply and fill the earth. The fear of you and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish
and the dread of you shall be upon every of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and
beast of the earth and upon every bird of over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
the heavens, upon everything that creeps And God said, “Behold, I have given you every
on the ground and all the fish of the sea. plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the
Into your hand they are delivered. Every earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You
moving thing that lives shall be food for shall have them for food. And to every beast of
you. And as I gave you the green plants, I the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to
give you everything. But you shall not eat everything that creeps on the earth, everything
flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” that has the breath of life, I have given every
(Gen. 9:1–4) green plant for food.” And it was so. (Gen.
1:28–30)

Noah, like his father Adam, is blessed (blessing), commanded to fill the land

(seed), and is given authority over the creatures of creation (land). And in both

cases, the mandates are followed by dietary provisions as well as dietary

restrictions.

Not only is Noah like Adam in his dominion over the animals, and in his

creation mandate, but third, he is like him in his downfall. Note the similarities

between the Adam Fall Narrative and the Noah Fall Narrative: the planting of a

garden/vineyard (Gen. 2:8; 9:20), the taking of its fruit (Gen. 3:6; 9:21),
shameful nakedness (Gen. 3:7; 9:21), the knowing of something shameful (Gen.

3:7; 9:24) the covering up of nakedness (Gen. 3:7, 21; 9:23), and the

pronouncing of a curse involving subjugation (Gen. 3:14; 9:25). Sadly, Noah’s

fall shows that he is a seed of the woman, but not the seed of the woman. His
victory is partial, but not final, and thus the war between the seed of the woman
and the seed of the serpent, in this case the Canaanites (Gen. 9:25), will continue.

But now we must ask ourselves: In what sense did Noah bring rest from the

curse of Genesis 3? By building an ark? By surviving the flood? No! Noah’s

greatest achievement, in terms of the story, was not the building of the ark and

the surviving of the flood, but the fulfilling of a priestly role—by building an

altar and offering a sacrifice! This is most clearly marked by the poetic use of

Noah’s name, or forms of it, throughout the story. Noah (noach) will bring

comfort (nacham) to the land (Gen. 5:29). God regrets (nacham) that He made

man, but Noah (noach) finds favor (chen = noach spelled backwards) in God’s
eyes (Gen. 6:6–8). The ark rests (nuach) upon the mountain in the seventh month

(Gen. 8:4), but the dove does not find a resting place (manoach) for its foot

(Gen. 8:9). The climax of the narrative, however, is reached when Noah builds

an altar, sacrifices offerings to the Lord (Gen. 8:20), the aroma from which is

pleasing (nichoah = from the same root as Noah’s name) to the Lord (Gen. 8:21).

It is only at this point in the story that Noah’s actions do justice to the meaning of

his name, “to give rest (comfort) from the curse.” And so we read in Genesis

8:21:

And when the LORD smelled the pleasing [restful] aroma, the LORD

said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man,

for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever
again strike down every living creature as I have done.”
 There is one beyond Noah, a seed of the woman, the new Adam of Genesis

3:15, who will reestablish God’s purposes for creation, not merely by reigning as

a king, but also by functioning as a priest. The priest offers sacrifices to restore

peace and rest. The New Adam (the singular seed) will enjoy the glories of

victory (crushing the head) as well as having to pay the sacrifice of suffering and

death (being struck in the heel) to reclaim what was lost in Genesis 3. All

kingship and priesthood in the Tanakh ultimately finds its origins in one
figurehead: Adam. And all messianism in the Hebrew Bible, be it royal or

priestly, also finds its source in Adam.

Genesis 49:1–28

The importance of the coming seed of the woman, a New Adam, is most
apparent in the genealogies of Genesis. Very quickly the lines are divided, as the

author of the Torah blazes a genealogical trail from Adam, through Shem (Gen.

9:26–27), to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3), to Isaac (Gen. 22:17–18), to Jacob (Gen.

27:28–29), all the while separating the chosen from the not-chosen seed in order

to find Adam’s truest descendent. Oddly, the story of Judah and Tamar is rather

abruptly inserted into an otherwise seamless narrative about Jacob’s beloved son

Joseph (Gen. 38).[61] The point of this pause in the main narrative, both in terms
of the genealogical concerns in Genesis, and in terms of the Davidic line, is to

move from Adam, through Judah, to Perez (Gen. 38:29; see Ruth 4:18). [62]

Subtle clues in Perez’s birth narrative, in fact, depict Perez as another Jacob,

thereby making him the heir through whom the fullness of God’s promises to

Jacob in Genesis 25:23 and 27:28–29 will come:

When the time of her labor came, there were When her days to give birth were
twins in her womb. And when she was in labor, one completed, behold, there were twins
put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a in her womb. The first came out red,
scarlet thread on his hand, saying, “This one came all his body like a hairy cloak, so
out first.” But as he drew back his hand, behold, his they called his name Esau. Afterward
brother came out. And she said, “What a breach you his brother came out with his hand
have made for yourself!” Therefore his name was holding Esau’s heel, so his name was
called Perez. Afterward his brother came out with the called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years
scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called old when she bore them. (Gen.
Zerah. (Gen. 38:27–30, emphasis added.) 25:24–26, emphasis added.)

The birth narratives of Perez and Jacob are remarkably similar. Both tell of

twins who struggle in their mother’s womb. In both cases, the younger supplants

the older brother, the former by grabbing his brother’s heel, the latter by pushing

his brother aside. And in both narratives, the displaced brother is identified by

the color red, the former by his hair, the latter by the scarlet thread attached to his

hand.

Three Sons Step Aside

Having highlighted this important, yet frequently overlooked parallel

between Jacob and Perez, we are now ready to consider the significance of
Genesis 49 for the messianism of the Hebrew Bible, and of the Torah in

particular. To recall, Jacob’s poetic blessing is explicitly identified as a prophecy

about the last days in Genesis 49:1: “Then Jacob called his sons and said,

‘Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall happen to you in days

to come.’” Though identified as a blessing in Genesis 49:28, Jacob’s words about

Reuben, Simeon, and Levi in Genesis 49:2–7 do not, at first glance, appear to be

a blessing. Reuben is called out for sleeping with Bilhah (Gen. 35:22). Simeon

and Levi are destined to be scattered in Israel because of their cruel deception

and violent actions to the men of Shechem (Gen. 34:25–30). Jacob’s harsh words
to Reuben and Levi just prior to his death and burial contrast so starkly with

Moses’ words of blessing to Reuben (see Deut. 33:6) and Levi (see Deut. 33:8–

11) just prior to his death and burial that it begs the question: Why is Jacob so

harsh to the first three of his twelve sons?[63] The answer to this question has to

do with the purpose of Jacob’s blessing in the larger context of Genesis.

Genesis’s consistent focus on tracing the chosen line has led us from Adam,

through the seed of woman, to Abraham (Gen. 6:9; 11:10, 27), to Isaac (Gen.

25:19), and to Jacob (Gen. 37:2). And though all of Jacob’s twelve sons are the
chosen people (Gen. 49:28; Exod. 1:1–5; Deut. 33:1, 29), the story line drives us

on to a single seed, the New Adam, who will rule over the nations and defeat the

serpent and its seed. Thus, it’s not that Jacob is casting aside his first three sons

from the people of Israel, but rather that they are stepping aside to make way for

the King through whom they will also be blessed!

 Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck

of your enemies; your father’s sons shall bow down before you. Judah is
a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped

down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? The

scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between

his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of

the peoples. Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey’s colt to the

choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the

blood of grapes. His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth whiter than

milk. (Gen. 49:8–12)

Jacob’s blessing of Judah has been traditionally, and correctly, interpreted as

a messianic prophecy that the Messiah-King would come from the tribe of Judah.
[64]
But for our purposes, we must not overlook the ways in which Jacob’s

prediction of the king of the last days fits within the larger story line. First, it is
crucial to notice that Judah’s role as a tribe in the plan of God is to receive his

brothers’ allegiance: “your brothers shall praise you . . . your father’s sons shall

bow down before you” (v. 8). Jacob’s words concerning Judah—”your father’s

sons shall bow down before you”—are practically identical to Isaac’s words to

Jacob: “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your

brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who

curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!” (Gen. 27:29, emphasis

added).
 What is most striking about Isaac’s oracle concerning Jacob, “be lord over

your brothers…. May your mother’s sons bow down to you,” is the extent to

which the Jacob-Esau story contradicts the promise! First, Jacob only has a

single brother, thus “your brothers” and “your mother’s sons” simply do not fit.

Second, though Jacob is called to be the master of his brothers, in the story of
Jacob and Esau’s reunion, Jacob consistently refers to himself as “your servant”

and Esau as “my lord” (Gen. 32:4–5, 10, 18, 20; 33:5, 8, 13–15). Third, though

Isaac prophecies concerning Jacob that “your mother’s sons bow down to you,”

we are explicitly told that Jacob and his family are the ones that bow down to

Esau (Gen. 33:3, 6–7). Why does the author go to such great lengths to show that

Jacob’s relationship with Esau doesn’t line up with Isaac’s prediction? The

answer, it would appear, is that Isaac’s words, though spoken to Jacob, will

ultimately be fulfilled through Jacob’s seed, whom Jacob later identifies as the
king from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8). It is through this king that the blessings

and/or the curses of the Abrahamic covenant will come: “Cursed be everyone

who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you” (Gen. 27:29b; see

Num. 24:9b).

Birthright Blessings

A later biblical author notices and comments on the promises to Jacob in

Genesis 27:29 and its connection with the tribe of Judah in Genesis 49:8. In 1

Chronicles 5:1–2 we read:

 The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn,

but because he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the

sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he could not be enrolled as the

oldest son; though Judah became strong among his brothers and a chief

came from him, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph). (1 Chron. 5:1–2)

The Chronicler’s phraseology betrays his biblical sources. His comments

concerning Reuben are taken from Genesis 49:3–4. The reference to the

birthright blessings being given to Joseph are taken from Genesis 48:1–22;

49:22–26. What of the comment, “Though Judah became strong among his

brothers and a chief came from him”? Remarkably, the Hebrew form of this
phrase is found in only one other place in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 27:29 (“Be

lord over your brothers”). By alluding to Genesis 27:29, the writer of Chronicles

makes Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and Jacob’s prediction concerning Judah

explicit: peoples will serve Jacob, the nations will bow down to Jacob, Jacob will

be lord over his brothers, and blessings will come to Israel and the nations (see

Gen. 27:29) through Jacob’s greatest descendent.

Returning to the reference to the father’s sons bowing down to Judah (Gen.

49:8), one is also immediately struck by the similarity to the story of Joseph. In

fact, the whole point of the Joseph Narrative is to tell the story of how Joseph’s
eleven brothers will bow down to him as the divinely chosen ruler (Gen. 37:7–

10; 42:6; 43:26, 28; 48:12), much to their chagrin and in spite of their opposition.

What is the point, therefore, of telling the Joseph story if God’s purposes for
world redemption will ultimately come through Judah? Ma’asei avot, siman
l’banim: the deeds of the fathers are a sign for the sons. Joseph’s story is

intended to be an illustrative prophecy/story of future events. The story of

Joseph’s rise to power by rejection, suffering, and ultimate triumph is the

dramatized version of Jacob’s poetic oracle in Genesis 49:8–12.

There are important details in Genesis 49:8–12 that serve to bind Jacob’s

prediction into the larger story line. For instance, this king of the last days will

grab his enemies by the back of the neck (v. 8), or in other words, by the head!

Moreover, the obedience of the nations will be his (v. 10; see Gen. 27:29).

Triumph over enemies and dominion over the nations is a consistent and oft-
repeated theme in the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see Gen. 22:17;

24:60; Num. 24:18), and can only be fully appreciated in light of Adam’s

original creation mandate and the predictions of Genesis 3:15. The seed of the

woman, from the tribe of Judah, a king in the last days, will be the one to take

the serpent and his seed by the neck! He will be the one who will reestablish

Adam’s mandate.

Numbers 24:1–24

Just as Jacob’s poetic speech predicted the coming of the Messiah-King in

the last days, likewise Balaam’s oracles speak of the same king and the last days,

and as we shall see, the two poems share important similarities. Before we look
at Numbers 24, let us consider the Balaam Narrative in the larger context of the

Torah’s messianic story line, and not merely as random fragments of

disconnected prophecies.

Balaam: Good Guy or Bad Guy?

What are we to make of Balaam in Numbers 22–24? Whose side is he on?

On the one hand, he is presented as a Spirit-filled prophet who refuses to

compromise the word of God (Num. 22:18; 24:2). On the other hand, he is

depicted as a pagan diviner (Num. 24:1; Josh. 13:22) with less spiritual insight

than a donkey (Num. 22:34).[65] What is more, he is eventually put to death by

the sword because of his involvement with Israel’s prostitution at Peor (Num.

31:8, 16). Before we look at what Balaam says about the Messiah, we must first

figure out whether we should listen to him at all. After all, how can we trust the

words of a pagan diviner who speaks from both sides of his mouth?
Some rather obvious parallels between the stories of Balaam and his donkey

(Num. 22:22–35) and Balak and Balaam (Num. 22:36–24:25) show us that we

not only can, but must believe the message in spite of the messenger. In the

account of Balaam and his donkey, the spiritually blind Balaam unwittingly tries

to force his spiritually insightful donkey to circumvent the Messenger of the

Lord three times (Num. 22:28, 32, and 33). Likewise, in the account of Balak

and Balaam, the spiritually blind Balak tries to force the spiritually insightful

Balaam to curse Israel three times (Num. 23:7; 23:27; 24:10). In both accounts,

Balaam’s third attempt (to force his donkey/to curse Israel) culminates in a
divinely enabled “opening of the eyes” to behold things he had not seen before

(Num. 22:31; 24:4, 15, 17).

Then the LORD opened the eyes of The oracle of him who hears the
Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD words of God, who sees the vision of the
standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his Almighty, falling down with his eyes
hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. uncovered [opened]. (Num. 24:4)
(Num. 22:31)

These parallels provide the reader with a frame of reference for evaluating

Balaam’s oracles in light of his personal character. The blind and perilous

Balaam unwittingly fighting against the Messenger of the Lord in chapter 22

anticipates the blind and perilous Balak unwittingly fighting against God in

chapters 23–24. Likewise, the perceptive donkey refusing to circumvent the

Angel of the Lord in chapter 22 anticipates the perceptive Balaam refusing to

curse Israel in chapters 23–24. These parallels encourage us to accept the

message regardless of the messenger. How can such a dubious person speak forth

such spiritually significant oracles? In the same way that a typically brutish beast

is supernaturally enabled to see the Messenger of the Lord and to speak forth the

truth. If God can speak through a donkey he can do the same through a pagan

prophet. And if, like Balaam in chapter 22 and Balak in chapters 23–24, we fail

to heed the words of the donkey and the words of the prophet, we do so at our
own peril.

To Bless or To Curse?
 In order to fully appreciate Balaam’s poetic speeches, let’s read them in the

context of the larger story of the restoration of God’s creation purposes through

the seed of the woman, through Abraham and his descendant. Allusions to, and

citations of, other key texts in the Torah make it clear that the focus of Numbers

22–24 is the outworking of the promised blessings and curses of the Abrahamic

covenant, the culmination of which is the reign of Messiah-King in the last days

(Num. 24:14, 17–19). Balak’s statement to Balaam that, “He whom you bless is

blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed” (Num. 22:6; see v. 12; 24:9), draws

directly from God’s promises to bless those who bless Abraham and his seed and

to curse those who curse Abraham and his seed (see Gen. 12:3; 27:29).[66]

Noteworthy are the numerous references to the verbs “bless”[67] and “curse”[68]

throughout this section, the highlight of which is when Balaam learns the

unchangeable truth that it is pleasing in the Lord’s eyes to bless Israel (Num.
24:1). Moreover, the implicitly royal connotations of the Abrahamic covenant as

expressed in Genesis 27:29 (see below) and later amplified in Genesis 49:8–12

are, as in Jacob’s prophecy, explicitly tied to Israel’s king in Numbers 24.

Let peoples serve you, and Judah, your He crouched, he lay
nations bow down to you. Be lord brothers shall praise down like a lion and like a
over your brothers, and may your you; your hand shall lioness; who will rouse
mother’s sons bow down to you. be on the neck of your him up? Blessed are those
Cursed be everyone who curses enemies; your father’s who bless you, and cursed
you, and blessed be everyone who sons shall bow down are those who curse you.
blesses you! (Gen. 27:29) before you. (Gen. (Num. 24:9)
49:8)

How does Balaam’s Narrative tie the blessings and curses of the Abrahamic

covenant specifically to the Messiah?

 I See Him, but Not Now!

Numerical patterns are quite common in Scripture. In the case of the Balaam
Narrative three’s a charm. Earlier we looked at the parallels between Balaam and

his donkey and Balak and Balaam. In both stories, the third attempt to fight

against God’s will results in the opening of Balaam’s eyes to behold individuals

of supernatural significance. Several textual clues in the narrative suggest that

the author is intent on directing the reader’s attention to the “third attempt” (to

curse Israel) oracles in Numbers 24:

First, we are told that Balaam does not use enchantments as he had with the

previous oracles (Num. 24:1).

Second, the narrator states that Balaam is empowered by the Spirit of God, a

phenomenon attributed to only two other individuals in the Torah (compare

Num. 24:2 with Gen. 41:38 [Joseph] and Exod. 31:3; 35:31 [Bezalel]).

Third, we are told that, unlike the other oracles where Balaam sees only a

portion of the people of Israel, he sees all of Israel encamped tribe by tribe

(Num. 24:2; see 22:41; 23:13).

Fourth, we are told that Balaam utters these oracles with “open eyes” (Num.

24:3–4, 15).

Fifth, the “third attempt” oracles are identified as prophetic utterances (neum)
six times: vv. 3 (twice), 4, 15 (twice), 16; this term is used elsewhere in the Torah

only two times (Gen. 22:16; Num. 14:28).

 Why does the author go to such great lengths to draw attention to Balaam’s

third oracle? It seems the purpose is to emphasize the content of the vision

Balaam receives when his eyes are supernaturally opened. In chapter 22, Balaam

is supernaturally enabled to see the Messenger of the Lord. In chapter 24,

Balaam’s eyes are opened to see things that will take place in the “latter days,”

namely, the coming of the Messiah, the one through whom Adam’s dominion

over creation will once again be established; the one who will defeat the enemy

by crushing his head (see Gen. 3:15); the one who will dispossess his enemies

(see Gen. 22:17; 24:60).

And now, behold, I am going to my people. Come, I will let you

know what this people will do to your people in the latter days [the last

days]. . . . I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall

come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the

forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be

dispossessed; Seir also, his enemies, shall be dispossessed. Israel is

doing valiantly. And one from Jacob shall exercise dominion and

destroy the survivors of cities! (Num. 24:14, 17–19)

From “Them” to “Him”

Though the famous Jewish Bible commentator, Rashi, limits the messianism

of Balaam’s prophecy to Numbers 24:19, evidence suggests that all of Balaam’s

“third-attempt” oracles (Num. 24:7–9, 17–24) are messianic. First, note that
Balaam’s “third-attempt” oracles (including Num. 24:7–9) are remarkably

similar to Judah’s blessing in Genesis 49. Both places describe a royal figure (a

lion, a scepter) who will come in the last days.

Judah is a lion’s cub; from the He crouched, he lay down like a lion and like
prey, my son, you have gone up. He a lioness; who will rouse him up? Blessed are
stooped down; he crouched as a lion those who bless you, and cursed are those who
and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? curse you. . . . I see him, but not now; I behold
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his and a scepter shall rise out of Israel. (Num. 24:9a,
feet, until tribute comes to him. (Gen. 17a, emphasis added)
49:9–10, emphasis added)

These similarities strongly suggest that these passages refer to the same

individual, namely the Messiah.

Second, though some may argue against a messianic interpretation of

Numbers 24:8–9 since the wording of the text is so similar to Numbers 23:22,

24, a passage clearly referring to Israel as a whole, the grammatical, syntactical,

and contextual differences between these two passages suggest that Numbers

24:8–9 is not merely a repetition of Numbers 23:22, 24. Look at the difference:

God brings them out of Egypt and is for God brings him out of Egypt and is for
them like the horns of the wild ox. (Num. him like the horns of the wild ox. (Num.
23:22, emphasis added) 24:8a, emphasis added)

You will notice a difference in the pronouns used in Numbers 23:22: “them,”

and in 24:8: “him.” Are these merely stylistic differences or do they serve a
strategic purpose? To answer the question let’s take a look at the immediate

context in which these verses are found.

He has not beheld misfortune in How lovely are your tents, O Jacob, your
Jacob, nor has he seen trouble in encampments, O Israel! Like palm groves that
Israel. The LORD their God is with stretch afar, like gardens beside a river, like aloes
them, and the shout of a king is among that the LORD has planted, like cedar trees beside
them. God brings them out of Egypt the waters. Water shall flow from his buckets, and
and is for them like the horns of the his seed shall be in many waters; his king shall be
wild ox. For there is no enchantment higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be
against Jacob, no divination against exalted. God brings him out of Egypt and is for him
Israel; now it shall be said of Jacob and like the horns of the wild ox; he shall eat up the
Israel, “What has God wrought!” nations, his adversaries, and shall break their bones
Behold, a people! As a lioness it rises in pieces and pierce them through with his arrows.
up and as a lion it lifts itself; it does He crouched, he lay down like a lion and like a
not lie down until it has devoured the lioness; who will rouse him up? Blessed are those
prey and drunk the blood of the slain. who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you.
(Num. 23:21–24, emphasis added) (Num. 24:5–9, emphasis added)

When we take a closer look at Numbers 23:21–22 we notice that verse 21

refers to a king who is among the people of Israel, most likely the Lord in this

context.[69] Notice that “Jacob” and “Israel,” like “king,” are all singular nouns,

yet “Jacob” and “Israel” refer collectively to the whole people (they/them),

whereas “king” (he/him) does not. In order to make it clear to the reader that

Balaam is referring to Israel-Jacob and not to the king in the following verse, the

author must use a plural pronoun (“them”), even though the plural pronoun does

not agree in number with the singular “Israel/Jacob”: “God brings them [Israel]

out of Egypt.” This is obviously a reference to Israel’s exodus from Egypt.

Turning our attention to Numbers 24:7–8, we see that 24:7, like 23:21, also

refers to Israel’s king. “His [Israel’s] king shall be higher than Agag, and his [the

king’s] kingdom shall be exalted.” In this case, the king no longer refers to the
Lord, but to a future king who will arise out of the people of Israel.[70] When we

look at the continuation of Balaam’s oracle in 24:8, we can now appreciate the

significance in the shift of pronouns: “God brings him out of Egypt.” Why the

shift? In Numbers 23:22, the author uses to the plural pronoun “them” in order to

make it abundantly clear that he is referring to Israel’s historical exodus from

Egypt. By using the singular pronoun in Numbers 24:8, the author wants to make

it just as clear that he is no longer referring to Israel and to her past; rather, he is

referring to Israel’s future king, a king who will prevail over Israel’s enemies, a

king whose kingdom will be exalted (Num. 24:7). In Numbers 23:22, God

brought Israel (“them”) out of Egypt. In Numbers 24:8, however, God will bring

Israel’s king (“him”) out of Egypt!

Why does this interpretation of Numbers 24:8 make more sense? There are

three reasons. First, it is supported by the grammar and syntax of the verse itself.

Second, the whole point of the “third-attempt” oracles (Num. 24) is to point to

spiritual realities that Balaam cannot see in the earlier oracles. He now sees

reality through spiritually opened eyes (see Num. 24:3–4, 16–17). A repetition of
the description of Israel’s exodus in Numbers 24:8 is foreign to the overall flow

of the text. Although Balaam uses words quite similar to Numbers 23:22 to

describe what he sees in Numbers 24:8, the changes in wording point to a

previously unseen spiritual reality. In the earlier instance he could only see

Israel’s exodus from Egypt as a past event, but later he discovers harbingers of

the future king foreshadowed in Israel’s exodus (i.e., the deeds of the fathers are
a sign for the sons). Just as God brought Israel out of Egypt, so God will bring

Israel’s Messiah out of Egypt.

The third reason to consider that the first mention of collective Israel gives

way to a later mention of an individual king is that the identification of the “him”

in Numbers 24:8 with the coming Messiah and not Israel is confirmed in

Numbers 24:9 (“He crouched, he lay down like a lion and like a lioness; who

will rouse him up? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who

curse you.”), a nearly verbatim quotation of another messianic prophecy (Gen.

49:9): “Judah is a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He

stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him?” It is
through this king that the promises of blessing to the patriarchs and in the

mandate to Adam will be fully realized: “Blessed are those who bless you, and

cursed are those who curse you” (Num. 24:9b; see Gen. 27:29b; Ps. 72:17).

Having examined the evidence as seen in these three poetic speeches that the

Torah’s purpose is to point to a king who is the seed of the woman, from the tribe

of Judah, coming in the last days, we are still left wondering about the Law. How

we are to understand the Sinai covenant with its complex system of

commandments if the Law is not the goal of the Torah? Why are there are so

many verses about the Law in the Torah? What purpose does the Law serve?

Where does its value lie? How do we relate to it as inspired, authoritative

Scripture?
 In Galatians 3, Paul argues that long before the Law was given, God

planned to bless Israel and the nations through faith in the coming Messiah. He
then goes on to explain that those who rely on the works of the Law are under a

curse (Gal. 3:10–13). This leaves us with the following quandary: if the Law
(which results in a curse) came 430 years after a promise of blessing (Gal.
3:17–18), why in the world did God give the Law? Paul anticipates this

question when he asks, “Why then the Law?” (Gal. 3:19). Though Paul’s
answer is not an exhaustive treatise on the subject, he provides one of several

answers to this very important question. We also ask ourselves as both Jewish
and Gentile followers of the Messiah Yeshua today, “Why the Law, and what is

our relationship to it?” We will look at this question from the understanding that
the entire Torah continues to be authoritative Scripture for the believer—all of

it, including the Law.

Scripture gives us several functions of the Law: tutor, shadow, theology,
love, wisdom, and prosecuting attorney. Let’s look at each of these functions.

The Law as Tutor

 We have already noted that Paul regards the Law as something that came
hundreds of years after God’s promise to Abraham. Paul defines what he means
by Law in the context of his discussion; this definition is essential to the
argument. Paul speaks about Scripture in Galatians 3:8, and goes on to quote

Genesis 12:3. In Galatians 3:17, he says that the Law was added 430 years after
the promises were made to Abraham. Since the promises Paul mentions in
Galatians 3:8 are also part of the Torah (i.e., Gen. 12:3), the “Law” added 430
years later must refer to the laws of the Sinai covenant, the Law, and not to the

Torah as a whole.
When we fail to see the fact that Law here cannot refer to the Torah as a
whole, we run into all sorts of big theological problems, one of which is to
assume that since we are no longer under the Law (i.e., the Sinai covenant) we

are no longer under the authority of the Torah as Scripture. Paul not only refers

to the Torah (Gen. 12:3) as Scripture,[71] but also uses the Torah to prove his
theological point: namely, justification by faith through the Messiah is the heart

of the Torah’s theology, whereas the Law (the commandments of the Sinai
covenant) was added to the promise for a provisional purpose. For Paul, the

Law (including the Sinai covenant with its commandments) is part of a larger

story called the Torah, whose whole purpose is to lead us to faith in the
Messiah. As Scripture, every part of the Torah, including the Law, continues to

serve that purpose (see Gal. 3:22). So when we speak about the Law, we are
specifically referring to the Sinai covenant and its legal stipulations, that is, the
rules and regulations in operation until the making of the new covenant (see

Heb. 8:13).

According to Paul, the Law “was added because of transgressions, until the
offspring should come to whom the promise had been made” (Gal. 3:19). The

Law was put in place as our “guardian” or “tutor” until the Messiah came (Gal.

3:24); the implication is that we are no longer under the authority of the Law.
Where did Paul get this idea? From the Torah, of course! It is interesting to see

that the giving of the Law does not take place in one huge deposit of 613 laws.
Rather, we see that Israel’s relationship to God under the Sinai covenant is

dynamic—in the Torah story, when Israel sins, new laws are added.

Take, for example, the commandment about adding tassels to garments in

Numbers 15:37–41. God does not give this commandment to the people of

Israel when they are at Mount Sinai. Why not? Because Israel does not need it
yet. Rather, this commandment is given in response to the events of Numbers

13–14. Here we read that Israel is commanded to spy out (tor in Hebrew, a key

word throughout the Spy Narrative) the land (Num. 13:2), but fear gets the
better of them, and the ten spies sway the crowd to unbelief (Num. 14:11). The

judgment is swift, and that generation is condemned to death in the wilderness

because of their unfaithfulness (Num. 14:33). God uses a very harsh word for
“unfaithfulness” which actually means “whoredom,” that is, sexual

unfaithfulness (the Hebrew root of this word is zanah).

 Having sentenced the Israelites to death in the wilderness, Numbers 15
takes a surprising turn: “The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the

people of Israel and say to them, “When you come into the land you are to
inhabit, which I am giving you”’” (Num. 15:1–2). Immediately after God

condemns the first generation to death in the wilderness, He begins to provide

Israel with instructions for when they will come into the Land (God is good!).

The final law in this series of new laws is the commandment to wear tassels.
Why tassels? God explains the commandment using the unique words
borrowed from the previous story about Israel’s failure to take the land: “And it

shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the
LORD, to do them, not to follow after [tor in Hebrew] your own heart and your
own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after [zanah]” (Num. 15:39). By
using these specific words, it is clear that the commandment to wear tassels is a

response to Israel’s transgression in the previous story. Why the tassels? To

prevent you from doing what you just did at Kadesh-barnea. The obvious
implication is this: Had Israel not sinned in the previous narrative, they would

not need an external reminder not to sin again![72]

The commandment to wear tassels functions in much the same way as a
curfew for a rebellious teenager. If the teenager were more mature, he would

not need a curfew. Obviously, a loving father seeks ways to keep his child in
check. But when the child grows up to become a mature adult, the curfew (the
tutor) is no longer necessary. That is precisely Paul’s point in Galatians 3:19–
29. It is also his point in 1 Timothy:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,

understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the

lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy
and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for
murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality,

enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound

doctrine (1 Tim. 1:8–10; see also Matt. 19:8).

The Law, like a guardian or a tutor, was added because of Israel’s

transgression, in order to protect them from the dangers and consequences of

sin and unbelief, until the Messiah comes. Now that the Messiah has come and
made a new covenant, we (all followers of Yeshua) are no longer under the

authority of the tutor.

The Law as Shadow

Another function of the Law as Scripture is to point to things pertaining to

the Messiah and the new covenant. This truth is most clearly explained in the
Epistle to the Hebrews.

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high

priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty
 in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord
set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and
sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to

offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since

there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy
and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect

the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make
everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the
mountain” (Heb. 8:1–5; see also Exod. 25:40).

How did the author of Hebrews come to this conclusion? By reading the

Torah! On five occasions the Torah tells us the tabernacle is a copy (Exod. 25:9;
25:40; 26:30; 27:8; Num. 8:4). Though the Torah does not state explicitly that
the earthly tabernacle is a copy of heavenly realities, this truth is clearly implied
both in the Torah and elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. We are told, for

instance, that when the tabernacle is completed, God’s glory moves into the
Holy of Holies (Exod. 40:34–38; see Lev. 1:1; 1 Kings. 8:27). But this truth
creates a bit of a theological dilemma since Deuteronomy 4:39 also teaches that

the Lord God dwells not only on earth but also in heaven above. Similarly,
when God’s glory fills the temple Solomon has built (1 Kings. 8:11), the king
offers a prayer beseeching God “to hear in heaven your dwelling place” (1

Kings 8:39; see vv. 32, 34, 36, 45, 49; 2 Chron. 6:27). So where does God
actually dwell? In the tabernacle/temple? Yes! In heaven? Yes! As we
discovered in chapter 4, God is able to dwell in an earthly tent without ceasing
to be God over all (see John 1:14). Solomon’s prayer underscores the truth that

God’s true and lasting dwelling is not on earth since the tabernacle/temple can
be destroyed. Therefore, the earthly tabernacle/temple must only be a replica, a
copy, of the heavenly reality. Remarkably, Solomon even acknowledges that
true forgiveness for sins takes place, not in the earthly sanctuary, but in heaven

(1 Kings. 8:34, 36; 2 Chron. 6:27).

The Torah contains other clues suggesting that the tabernacle is only a copy
of true realities. Earlier we discussed the parallels between the Garden of Eden
and the tabernacle. For instance, the entrance to the Garden of Eden, like the
tabernacle, is on the east, and is guarded by cherubim (Gen. 3:24; Exod. 26:1,
31), with one huge difference. The cherubim guarding the entrance to the
tabernacle are copies; the cherubim guarding the garden are the real thing (see
Ezek. 10:20)!

Since the tabernacle is a copy of heavenly realities, it is divinely intended

and properly understood as a witness to heavenly (messianic) realities. In fact,
the author of Hebrews is quite clear on this point when he writes,

By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is

not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is

symbolic for the present age).[73] According to this arrangement, gifts

and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the
 worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings,

regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation (Heb.
9:8–10).

Keeping the food laws of Leviticus 11 is an essential component of what

people mean when they speak of “Torah observance” today. What people often

fail to see, however, and what the writer of Hebrews so perceptively observes,
is the connection between the food laws and the tabernacle. Leviticus 11 is part
of a larger section in Leviticus (Lev. 11–15) called the Laws of Purity, all of
which are tied to the purity of the tabernacle (Lev. 16). Beyond the fact that
there is no longer a functioning tabernacle/temple, followers of Yeshua now are
themselves the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16), the purity of which is no
longer contingent upon following the Laws of Purity in Leviticus 11–15, but

upon the final and perfect sacrifice of the Messiah Yeshua. Yeshua has fulfilled
all the Laws of Purity for us, including the food laws! For this reason, both Paul
and the writer of Hebrews are able to declare to Yeshua’s followers, both
Jewish and Gentile, that all foods are clean (Heb. 9:8–10; 13:9; 1 Tim. 4:1–5).
The continuous operation of the tabernacle with its sacrificial system, the
Levitical priesthood, the ceremonial washings, etc. (i.e., the Sinai covenant),

was specifically designed not to last. And as we meditate on the description of

the tabernacle and its significance as found in Scripture for all believers today,
its symbolism and built-in limitations are designed to point us to a better high
priest, a better sacrifice, and a better temple to which we now have direct access
in Yeshua.
Elsewhere we also see that even the feasts are specifically designed with the
Messiah in mind. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of
food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These
are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col.
2:16–17).

As followers of Yeshua, we want the Jewish people to see and to understand

the substance of these shadows. And though we are no longer under the
authority of the Sinai covenant and thus are no longer bound to keep the laws

concerning the feasts,[74] we still seek to find ways to flesh out these fuller
realities to the Jewish people. For those of us who are Jewish believers in
Yeshua, particularly in Israel, the celebration of the feast days (Shabbat,

Passover, Sukkot, etc.) affords us a great opportunity to show our people how
the Law points to Yeshua.
Before we move on to our next point, let us address a matter about the Law
that can easily be overlooked. The shadows in the Law continue to function as
divine Scripture that not only points to the Messiah, but also helps us to
understand Him. Without the Law, we would not understand the importance of
sacrifices, the need for an intercessor or redeemer, the presentation of Yeshua as

the Passover Lamb, and so on. Sadly, many followers of Yeshua feel they can
throw the shadows aside now that the realities have come. This attitude often
results in a failure to carefully study the Law as divinely inspired Scripture,
written for the purpose of pointing to Yeshua. By neglecting the shadows, the
realities are no longer properly understood, let alone appreciated. Let us not
find ourselves as believers “who do not know Joseph” (Exod. 1:8), and
consequently, “do not understand Yeshua”!

The Law as Theology

We have already looked at verses that clearly state that we are no longer

under the Law, that is, under the old covenant. Again, Law here is not to be
confused with the Torah as a whole, as we have seen in our discussion of
Galatians 3. But it is equally obvious that the whole of the Torah, including the
Law, continues to function as Scripture for the writers of the New Testament.
Peter, for example, encourages the believers to be holy since “He who called
you is holy” (1 Peter 1:15). How does Peter know God is holy? Because this is

what the Law teaches!

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your

former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in
all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy”
(1 Peter 1:14–16).

Here, Peter makes his point by citing Leviticus 11:44: “For I am the LORD
your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You
shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground.”
The irony of the citation is obvious in the context of our discussion, since Peter
is quoting the theological exhortation originally intended to motivate the people
of Israel not to defile themselves with unclean food. The writer of Hebrews has
made it quite clear that “food and drink and various washings, regulations for
the body” were “imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10). It is clear
that Peter’s point in the context is not to encourage his readers to follow the

food laws, but to “not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance”
(1 Peter 1:14).
So what are we to make of this? How can Peter derive unchanging
theological truths from a passage whose laws, though still functioning as
Scripture, are no longer binding upon his readers? The answer is
straightforward: although Yeshua’s non-Levitical priesthood requires a change

in the Law (Heb. 7:12), the Law reflects the character of a God who never
changes (Mal. 3:6). Though our expression of God’s holiness may be different
under the new covenant, God will always be holy (1 Peter 1:16; see Lev. 11:44–
45). Likewise, just as it has been revealed in the Law, God will always be one
(Mark 12:29; James 2:19; see also Deut. 6:4), and God will always be
compassionate and merciful (Luke 6:36; James 5:11; see also Exod. 34:6, etc.).
Since God does not change, and the Law is an expression of the character of

God, the Law continues to function as theology—as the revelation of the person
and character of God. We study and meditate on the Law in order to know more
about the God who gave it, the God who ultimately gave His Son!

The Law as Love

When Yeshua is asked about the greatest commandment, He sums it all up

in two:

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he

said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and

with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first
commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the
Prophets” (Matt. 22:36–40).

The heart of all the commandments is love: loving God and loving others.

Paul is clear on this point when he writes,

Owe no one anything except to love each other, for the one who
loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall
not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You
shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this

word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong
 to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:8–
10).

By meditating on the Law, we are reminded and challenged to live a life

dedicated to loving God and loving others. By loving God and others, we fulfill

the Law (see Matt. 5:17–48; James 2:10–12). This is not to say our love for
God and people is expressed in the same ways it was under the old covenant. In
some cases, our behavior as followers of Yeshua exceeds the written
requirements of the Law (see, e.g., Matt. 5:27–28, 33–37). In other cases, our
new covenant love is expressed in a manner that is contrary to the Law of
Moses. When the writer of Hebrews tells his Jewish readers, regardless of their
tribe, “To enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living

way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is through his flesh” (Heb.
10:19–20), we are obviously encouraged to love God by approaching Him in a
manner that was strictly prohibited under the Law. When Paul encourages his

Gentile (and Jewish) readers to celebrate the festival (Passover), “not with the
old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of

sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:8), he is clearly not concerned about the fact that
the Law strictly forbids uncircumcised Gentiles from celebrating this festival

(Exod. 12:48). Thus we see that loving God and people continues to be the
heart of new covenant behavior, and that by loving we fulfill the Law. Yet we

also see that our expression of love for God and people is not necessarily the

same as it is under the Law.

 The Law as Wisdom

As far as Paul is concerned, the Law (and the Torah as a whole) was written
for us! On two occasions Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, “You shall not muzzle

an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and applies it to the way we treat

ministers of the new covenant (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18). In his words:

Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say

the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle

an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is

concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for

our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher
thresh in hope of sharing in the crop (1 Cor. 9:8–10).

The Law was not written for the sake of oxen, but for our sake! Similarly

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:9–11:

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were

destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were

destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an

example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the

end of the ages has come.

 The tragic story of the fiery serpents was “written down for our instruction”

(see also Eph. 6:1–3). Wait a minute! Earlier we saw that Paul regarded the Law
as a tutor, set in place temporarily until the coming of Yeshua (Gal. 3:24).

Elsewhere Paul states quite emphatically that we are no longer under the Law

(Rom. 6:14; 7:1–4). So how can he say the laws were written for us, if we are
no longer under the Law? The answer to this question is found in Deuteronomy

4:5–6:

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God
commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are

entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will
be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples,

who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, “Surely this great
nation is a wise and understanding people.”

The Law is an expression of God’s great wisdom. In fact, the statutes and

rules are identified as “your wisdom and your understanding.” Paul’s

application of Deuteronomy 25:4 (“you shall not muzzle an ox”) to the way we

should treat ministers is a “wisdom application” based on qal vahomer.[75] If

God commanded us to be kind and generous to animals who are producing

physical food for us, how much kinder and more generous should we be to

ministers who provide spiritual nourishment for us? Paul looks to the story of
Israel’s grumbling in the wilderness for wisdom in the present age. The Torah is
clear that we should not grumble! When God tells the ancient Israelites to
“make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon

your house, if anyone should fall from it” (Deut. 22:8), we can draw forth

principles for making our homes, offices, and so on safe for those who are in
them. One obvious application of Deuteronomy 22:8 is the wisdom of

“childproofing” our homes when we know there will be small children crawling

around on the floors.[76] We meditate on the stories in the Torah as well as its

laws to gain wisdom for living.

The Law as Prosecuting Attorney

In addition to the other purposes of the Law, we also see that the Law was
divinely intended to testify against us.

Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant

of the LORD, “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the
ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a

witness against you” (Deut. 31:25–26).

The Law serves as a prosecuting attorney that testifies against us on a

personal as well as on a national level.

 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who

are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole

world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no

human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes

knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:19–20).

By meditating on the Law, we become aware of a problem that the Law

itself was not ultimately designed to fix. By meditating on the Law, we become

acutely aware of our need for lasting atonement, for the Messiah Yeshua.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from

the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the

righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the

glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a

propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show

God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed

over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time,

so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in
Jesus (Rom. 3:21–26).
 A controversial and oft-misunderstood passage of Scripture bears
examining here as an illustration of how the apostle Paul views his relationship

to the Law. In Acts 21:20–26 Paul goes to the temple to purify himself and four

men and to make an offering, according to the Law of Moses. Some suggest
that Paul’s animal sacrifice is proof that he was under the Law. However,

context is everything. It should be noted that ceremonial “purification” did not

necessarily involve atonement for personal sin. Women had to be “purified”

following the birth of a child (Lev. 12:2; Luke 2:22), even though the act of
bearing a child is not sinful. Paul’s act of “purification,” therefore, need not

suggest that he was seeking personal forgiveness by means of an animal

sacrifice.
What then is going on in these verses? Here was the problem: a report had

been circulated widely that Paul went about constantly teaching that Jews,
especially those who lived in Gentile lands, should “forsake” (apostasia, cf.

apostatize) Moses, meaning the Law. Paul is being accused of heresy. How can

the believers in Jerusalem demonstrate to an extremely religious population that

Paul is in fact an obedient Israelite, without entering into endless explanations,

arguments, and a possible uproar? They find the answer in the Nazarite vow.
No law will be violated if Paul joins in this dedication service, for the temple

and the authorized priesthood are both present. Indeed, much will be gained
from a silent public display of obedience. So Paul, as a gesture of goodwill,

agrees to their plan and rededicates himself to God along with the others. The
apostle Paul joins in a dedication service to dispel doubts and rumors for the

same reason he has Timothy circumcised: “because of the Jews who were in

those places” (Acts 16:3). As Paul himself says: “To the Jews I became as a
Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law

(though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law”
(1 Cor. 9:20).

Paul goes beyond stating he is not under the Law by arguing that his former
life under the Law was radically changed when he met Yeshua. He writes:

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I

have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of

the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;

as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law,

blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of
Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing

worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered

the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may
gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own

that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ,
the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know

him and the power of his resurrection (Phil. 3:4–10).

 We realize the Law is good, and holy, and beautiful. The Law, as part of the
Torah story as a whole, continues to function as inspired Scripture that teaches,

informs, and instructs (2 Tim. 3:16–17). We are aware that there are probably

more answers to the question why the Law? But these few should suffice to
show that just because we claim that Yeshua (rather than the Law) is the goal of

the Torah, we are not throwing the Law out the window as passé and useless.
We are rather putting it in the place God always intended for it to be from the

beginning: as a tutor, as a shadow, as theology, as love, as wisdom, and as a

testimony against us that all have fallen short of the glory of God and need to

look elsewhere for the solution to our inability to keep the Law.
 Dr. Laura Schlessinger is an observant Orthodox Jew and a US radio
personality who gives Torah-based advice to people who call in to her radio
show. The following response is an open letter to Laura Schlesinger—saturated
with sarcasm—that went viral on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. . . End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A

friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not

Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
 fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in

her period of menstrual uncleanliness—Leviticus 15: 19–24. The

problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take

offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a

pleasing odor for the Lord— Leviticus 1:9. The problem is, my

neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I

smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus

35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally

obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

abomination— Leviticus 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there

“degrees” of abomination?
7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading

glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-

room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair

around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by

 Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Leviticus 11:6–8 that touching the skin of a dead pig

makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester

blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really

necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10–16). Couldn’t we just burn

them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people

who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy

considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and
unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

This letter raises the question: though we know that the Law is spiritual
(Rom. 7:14), aren’t the laws in the Torah primitive? Well, in a sense, yes!

Let’s jump a few thousand years back to the time of the ancient Near East, a
culture and mindset completely foreign to ours today, whose social structures are
badly damaged by the Fall. Within this context, God raises up a new nation with
new laws to live by, in order to create a new culture for them. In doing so, He
adapts His expectations to a people whose attitudes and actions are subject to
influence by the pagan nations around them. These laws aren’t the permanent,
divine ideal for all peoples everywhere at all times. They are specific to that

people with their specific needs in that ancient era. As we saw earlier, the Old
Testament considers the Mosaic Law to be inferior, looking toward a future and

better covenant (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). It’s not that the Mosaic Law is bad and

therefore needs to be replaced. The Law is good (Rom. 7:12), but it is only a
less-than-ideal temporary measure. It is in fact a compromise on God’s part.

Take for example God’s ideal for marriage—a monogamous union joining

husband and wife as one flesh (Gen. 2:24). When God is dealing with Israel, a
nation of fallen humans affected by their surroundings in the ancient Near East,

God’s ideals are distorted and forgotten. Therefore, God is on the move to

restore His ideals through this small new nation. The laws of Moses are a first
step in that process.

Baby Steps

Let’s take a look at where God chooses to show up. Where? He chooses a

fallen culture of patriarchal structures, primogeniture, polygamy, warfare,

slavery, and other fallen human and social behaviors, which God allows
temporarily to exist because of the hardness of the human heart. As Jesus states

in Matthew 19:8, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to

divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” We could apply this

passage to all the “weird laws” in the Torah, such as those brought up by Dr.

Laura’s sardonic letter-writer. The bottom line is, God meets Israel where they
live. “Because of your hardness of heart” God through Moses permits slavery,

patriarchy, warfare and on and on. “But from the beginning it was not so.”

The laws of Moses are not ideal nor universal. The New Testament
acknowledges that God put up with inferior social and human behavior, that “in

his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” (Rom. 3:25). Previously,
“the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people

everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

God works with Israel’s human fallenness, while taking them with baby
steps toward His holy ideal. Therefore, the Sinai legislation makes moral

improvements without completely overriding the social structures of their

Ancient Near Eastern cultural context. At the same time God seeks to show
them a higher ideal. As one professor of biblical studies puts it, “If human

beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice,

then the ‘better way’ must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their

freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand.”[77]

Hebrews 7:18 states, “A former commandment is set aside because of its

weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect).”

God, loving and gracious as He is, brings about moral improvement and a

movement toward restoring the Genesis ideals. In fact, comparing Moses’ laws
with those of Israel’s ancient neighbors, we see dramatic moral improvements
over the barbarian practices of the other surrounding Near Eastern nations and

cultures.

So when we come across stories such as Joshua 10:22–27, where Joshua

hangs the corpses of five Canaanite kings on trees all day, we don’t have to

explain them away or justify them. Joshua’s actions remind us of the moral

condition of the culture of his time. They also remind us that God can use heroes
such as Joshua within their context and work out His redemptive purposes

despite their shortcomings.

An Example of Progress: Slavery

Taking a “bird’s eye view” of humanity’s progress across the timeline of the
Scriptures, we can see how the status of slaves, for example, gradually changes

from degradation to a restoration of human dignity.

In ancient Near Eastern culture, treatment of slaves is brutal and demeaning.

Slaves do not have the value of other human beings. They have no rights and are

subject to corporal punishment and are even put to death without regard for their
humanity.

Moses’ laws regarding slaves, while far from ideal, bring a big improvement

over the ancient Near Eastern culture: punishments are limited. There is a more
humanized attitude toward slaves. Runaway foreign slaves are given refuge in

Israel (Deut. 23:15-16), versus being put to death as they would be in the
surrounding cultures.[78] We should also point out that slavery in the Bible never
approximated American slavery, with its denial of full personhood.

The New Testament provides further improvement over Moses’ laws:

Christian slaves in the Roman Empire are considered equal to their masters in
the body of Christ (Gal. 3:28). Masters are to take care of their slaves, and slaves

are encouraged to seek freedom (1 Cor. 7:20–22).

God’s ideals are already in place at creation, but God accommodates Himself
to human hard-heartedness and the social structures of a fallen world. The
ancient Near East displays a deviation from these ideals. Incremental “baby

steps” are given to Old Testament Israel that tolerate certain moral deficiencies
while encouraging Israel to strive higher: toward a new and better ideal.
 Keeping the Law Is Impossible

What if Israel really wanted to continue observing the Law? Well, it is

simply impossible. There is no longer a priesthood, no temple, and no

sacrificial system—all of which comprise the heart and essence of the Law. We
cannot separate the Sinai covenant from the Law. The laws are merely an

outgrowth of the covenant; they cannot stand on their own, just as eating
mayonnaise and mustard is pointless without the rest of the sandwich. The Sinai
covenant was ratified by the shedding of blood (Exod. 24:8) and was

maintained by the blood of the sacrifices upon the altar (Exod. 30:10). Without
the sacrificial system we are unable to keep the Sinai covenant. Those who

want to can only pick out a few laws to keep that are not related to the temple,
the priesthood, or the sacrificial system. Moreover, while these laws continue to

speak to us as inspired Scripture, as we saw previously, many of them were

given to Israel 3,500 years ago in order to establish a nation in the context of
the ancient Near Eastern world. If we were to establish a new nation today, we
would give its people laws and rules (regarding traffic, family, taxes, torts,
rights, labor, etc.) according to their situation, lifestyle, era, and location.

However, many of Moses’ laws are practically impossible to keep in our day
and age, due to the current reality in which we live—for example, issues
concerning slavery or purification rituals are no longer relevant.
In modern terms, suggesting that Israel (or anyone for that matter) can be
justified and saved by keeping the Law is like giving someone an old laptop

without its motherboard or processor. Even though the laptop might be able to
perform a few functions such as typing on the keyboard, there is no point
without the key components of motherboard and processor. The key component
of the Sinai covenant is the blood of the covenant. Indeed, God has a new,

upgraded laptop to give us as a free gift, sufficient for all our needs!
Have you ever asked yourself, “What if there were a temple today? Would
Israel be able to keep the Sinai covenant and be saved by the Law?” The answer
is still no. First, the temple records, which included the priestly genealogies,

were all destroyed with the destruction of the Second Temple. Therefore, even
if there were a temple today, there is no way for us to be certain of who should

serve as priest. Second, we now have a new covenant: those who are in Yeshua

are a new creation. God’s new and more complete revelation allows the old to
pass away. In the new covenant, we are now the temple: “Do you not know that

you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16).

Confirmation in the Talmud

The Talmud is a collection of ancient traditional, non-biblical Jewish

writings comprised of oral law and commentary on the Law of Moses.

Although we do not accept the authority of the Talmud as a document inspired

by God, not only is it possible to learn a lot about the Second Temple period

from it, but we also can see that, perhaps without intending to, the sages of the
Talmud (ancient rabbis) corroborate the New Testament’s declaration that the

old covenant is no longer functioning. According to the Talmud, when the

Second Temple was still standing, the high priest would set himself apart for a
week prior to Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) to prepare himself

spiritually. During the Day of Atonement he would not sleep, but would make
sacrifices—for himself first, and then for the nation of Israel. Simultaneously,

the people of Israel would fast, pray, and repent of the national sins before God.

It was the blood on the altar that temporarily covered the national sins for
another year (Lev. 17:11).

Now we get to the interesting part. The Talmud says that at the end of that
day the high priest would wait for God’s “miraculous stamp of approval,”

indicating the acceptance of Israel’s atonement. How would God show His

approval? According to the Talmud, inside the temple there was a red fabric
(lashon shel ze’hurit). This piece of fabric would miraculously turn from red to

white as a sign to the nation that God had indeed accepted their sacrifice, and

that their sins would be covered for one more year. The sages write (see
Tractate Yoma 39b) that forty years prior to the destruction of the temple in

Jerusalem (around 30 CE, since the temple was destroyed in 70 CE), the red
fabric stopped turning white on the Day of Atonement.[79] The Talmud explains
that this caused much panic and distress among the priests.

From around the year 30 CE, according to the Talmud, God no longer

honored the Sinai covenant as the way to cover Israel’s sins. What happened to
the Sinai covenant? The answer is that the Law is now fulfilled in a new way—
not by something that will temporarily cover our sins for a year, but by

Someone who atones for our sins once and for all:

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and
offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me.” . . .
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body

of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:4–5, 10)

Jewish Identity Crisis

In the period following the destruction of the temple in AD 70, the Jewish

religious leadership faced a serious problem. Unlike the first Diaspora that
would last for seventy years according to God’s revelation through Jeremiah,
there was now no prophecy with a specific time limit that they could perceive.

How could the Jewish nation continue to exist without a temple, with God’s
rejection of their sacrificial system, and without the Messiah? The gravity of the
Jewish identity crisis of this moment in history cannot be overstated. Yet, the
words of the prophet Jeremiah should have alleviated their panic and distress:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make

a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not
like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant

that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this

is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will

write it on their hearts (Jer. 31:31–33).

What started as a spiritual revival around the Word of God in the days of
Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 8) grew to be a movement idealizing applicational

traditions: Pharisaic tradition was evolving into rabbinic Judaism. Declaring

man-made traditions to be the way, the truth and the life was not a new idea, as
we read in Isaiah 29:13: “This people draw near with their mouth and honor me
with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a

commandment taught by men.” Justification for giving such authority to these

human traditions was made by claiming they had actually been given to Moses
at Mount Sinai as the Oral Law. In the sixty-five-year formative period between

that critical year AD 70 and AD 135, Judaism became a religion whose

authority was invested in the rabbis, rather than in the divine revelation of the
ancient Hebrew Scriptures. The leaders of the Jewish world in that formative
period intentionally disconnected from the Bible. This might sound harsh, but it

is actually what the Talmud itself teaches. There is a famous and foundational
story in the Talmud, demonstrating the new authority claimed by the Pharisaic
leadership that took over the Jewish world. This story concerns an argument

between the famous rabbis Eliezer ben Hyrkanus and Joshua ben Hananiah
about “Akhnai’s Oven” (Baba Metzia 59b).
The argument has to do with a question raised by a man named Akhnai, a

baker who had an oven made of clay. His baking business was expanding, and
he enlarged it by cutting it to pieces and then joining the pieces with sand to
create a larger oven. The question he brought before the Sanhedrin was whether

the new oven is clean (kosher) or unclean (a key question for Akhnai in terms
of his business). The Talmud details that Rabbi Eliezer brought “all the answers
in the world” to prove the oven is indeed clean, but the majority of rabbis, from
another school of thought, do not accept his answers and claim it is not clean.

Rabbi Eliezer began trying to prove with supernatural signs that he was right—
a fig tree was miraculously plucked up by its roots and replanted on the other
side of the yard, the water in an aqueduct runs uphill, and so on. To all these,

the majority of rabbis refused to pay attention, and kept to the opposing
position. Finally, Rabbi Eliezer called out, “If I am right, the heavens will prove
it!” Then God spoke audibly from heaven (bat-kol), and said, “My son Eliezer
is correct”! Immediately, Rabbi Joshua, the leader opposing Rabbi Eliezer,
made one of the most significant declarations in the Talmud: “It is not in

Heaven!” (a phrase taken out of context from Deut. 30:12). By this, Rabbi
Joshua was saying that God no longer makes decisions in heaven; rather, the
rabbis make them on earth. Rabbi Joshua pronounced that God gave us (i.e., the
rabbis representing Israel) His word, and therefore now it is ours to interpret as

we please.[80]

The Talmud goes on to say that following all these happenings, Elijah the
prophet and Moses asked the Holy One, blessed be His name, “What just
happened?” God smiled and responded, “My sons have been victorious over
me,” meaning that God accepts the rabbis’ authority to be greater than that of
the Scriptures and greater even than Himself. Or, in Rabbi Joshua’s own words
at the end of this Talmudic passage, “The Torah itself is to be uncovered not by
prophets, nor even by God’s miracles or audible voice, but by man’s

interpretation and decision making.”

This Talmudic story sharply demonstrates the dramatic change that began to
take place in the Jewish world from that period, even until now—Jews are no
longer under the authority of God’s Word, but rather, under independent,
creative, and man-made interpretation and application. From that point on,
rabbinical tradition has been called the Oral Law, and is “canonized” in the

Talmud, which is comprised of the Mishna and Gemara. It is imperative to

understand the magnitude and breadth of the change that the Jewish world
underwent, when we come to talk about keeping or adhering to Jewish

tradition, which is sometimes erroneously referred to as Torah. Paul, in fact,

speaks of Israel’s zeal to establish a righteousness through man-made rules:

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they
may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God,

but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the

righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not
submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:1–4).

What Is Moses’ Seat?

Some of you might be wondering: Are you sure we should not follow the
Oral Law? After all, didn’t Yeshua Himself tell us to listen to the rabbis and
follow their laws in Matthew 23:2–3 which says, “The scribes and the Pharisees
sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you”?

It is not wise to build a comprehensive and wide-reaching theology upon a

single verse, especially one taken out of context. At this point in Matthew’s
Gospel, Yeshua is speaking before the new covenant has been established. After
all, if Yeshua wanted us to follow the rabbis (Pharisees and scribes), He would
mention it somewhere else in the Gospels. Neither do the apostles teach us to
follow the rabbis. Yeshua demonstrates in His own life the exact opposite of
this. He does not wash His hands according to the tradition of the Second
Temple period (Matt. 15:1–9). Elsewhere He clearly states: “You have a fine
way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!”
(Mark 7:9). The idea that God despises man-made religious traditions as a
means to gain His favor is not new. We see it throughout the Bible (Isa. 29:13).
Therefore, if Yeshua is suggesting in a single verse that we must obey the
rabbis, He forgot to inform us which rabbinical sect to follow (e.g., the house of

Shammai or the house of Hillel), for they represented opposing interpretations

of the Law in Yeshua’s day. Furthermore, Yeshua would be in direct
contradiction with the prophets and even with His own teaching in the same
chapter, as we will see!
So, what is Yeshua talking about in this verse? Does “Moses’ seat” refer to
rabbinic authority as some have argued? No! Rather, “Moses’ seat” refers to the

physical place in the synagogue where the Scriptures are read.

If we were living in the Second Temple period in Israel, we would not have
our own copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, nor would there be any bookstores or
internet. How would we, as Second Temple period Jews, become exposed to the
Hebrew Scriptures? There is only one way. We would have to go to a
synagogue. It is at the synagogue—from “Moses’ seat”—that the Hebrew
Scriptures are read. Support for this interpretation can be found in a village

north of the Sea of Galilee called Chorazin (just ninety minutes from our Bible
College). In an ancient synagogue dating from the fourth century,
archaeologists have discovered something called “Moses’ seat,” a seat in the
synagogue where the Hebrew Scriptures were read aloud. Though the
inscriptions at this site are from a later period, it is safe to assume this custom
did not suddenly appear out of the blue in the fourth century. This is also

affirmed by the Talmud Department of Bar-Ilan University.[81]

When Yeshua tells the people of Israel to listen to the scribes and Pharisees
when they read from Moses’ seat, He means it in a literal way. And why is it so

important to Yeshua that the people of Israel listen to the Scriptures being read?
Yeshua knows that the Scriptures all point to Him: “For if you believed Moses,
you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). Moses’ seat in the
synagogue was the only place from which a Jewish person in the Second
Temple period could hear Moses and the Prophets bear testimony concerning
the Messiah: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me

from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deut.
18:15). Yeshua wants the people of Israel to listen to Moses, because Moses
points to Him.
Earlier we claimed that Yeshua would have been contradicting Himself if
He were in fact requiring us to obey the rabbis (Pharisees and scribes). In
exactly the same chapter (Matt. 23), He accuses the Pharisees and scribes of
being “hypocrites” (v. 13), “child[ren] of hell” (v. 15), “blind guides” (v. 16),

“blind fools” (v. 17), “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (v. 28), “serpents” and
“a brood of vipers” (v. 33), and murderers (v. 35). Do we seriously think
Yeshua commands us to follow them? Yeshua clearly states that they are
respecting man-made traditions over God’s word! (Matt. 15:9, quoting Isa.
29:13). When Yeshua says, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,
so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do” (Matt.
23:2–3, emphasis added), He is referring to those man-made traditions they
promote in the name of God (later called the Oral Law). Matthew 23 in its
entirety shows us that Yeshua opposes man-made religion and traditions as a

way to reach God. Additionally, if Yeshua were telling us to obey the scribes
and Pharisees we would have an even bigger dilemma. For the Oral Law
directly contradicts the teachings of Yeshua. The Talmud teaches not only that
Yeshua is a false prophet, but also that when supposedly contacted after His
death through sorcery, Yeshua is asked about His fate. Yeshua allegedly replies
that He is suffering in hell, “in boiling excrement” (Gittin 57). It simply makes

no sense that Yeshua would ask us to give any credence to such teachings!

Flesh Versus Spirit

There is a further conceptual problem in the claim that Yeshua commands

us to obey the traditions of men as a way of life. Yeshua speaks with razor-
sharp precision: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born
of the Spirit is spirit. . . . It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh [human acts or
traditions] is no help at all” (John 3:6; 6:63). If we are going to worship and
serve God in Spirit, we cannot be reconciled to God or please Him through
man-made traditions. For “God is Spirit, and those who worship him must
worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). While there is nothing wrong in
wearing a kippa (yarmulke), or laying tefillin, or separating meat from milk
(rabbinic kosher), this cannot change our hearts, earn points with God, or help
us to better love other people. Modern Judaism looks to the rabbinic traditions
as the way to please God and be considered righteous before Him. In this sense,

we can see how these traditions remove Yeshua from His God-ordained place:
the One who makes us righteous before God. Therefore, for all believers, Jew
and Gentile, mandatory obedience to the rabbinic traditions does not represent
the faith of our fathers, but a rejection of Yeshua, our Messiah.
Following man-made laws or rabbinic traditions as believers not only
misses the point of the Torah, but also confuses both believers and non-

believers. We cannot become “more Jewish” or draw nearer to God by

following human traditions. If we think we can, then we are seeing the purpose
of the Torah through rabbinic Judaism’s eyes and not through Yeshua’s eyes.
This is exactly why Paul questions the Jews and Gentiles of Galatia: “Are you
so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the

flesh?” (Gal. 3:3). [82] The Galatians, just like the sages of rabbinic Judaism, do

not understand the purpose of the Law.

Where Does the Oral Law Come From?

 The concept of a God-given Oral Law is a myth. An Oral Law was never
given to Moses at Mount Sinai; it is 100 percent man-made, and one can even
claim that it a significant part of Israel’s blindness and hardness of heart toward
Yeshua to this day (Rom. 11:25). As long as people try to work out their own
salvation by keeping man-made traditions, they fail to understand their need for
the Savior. The Oral Law has been the main reason Yeshua is a prohibited,

unknown person to Israel to this very day. But God can always be counted on to
turn bitter into sweet! Though the Oral Law persisted during the last two
thousand years as an apologetic against faith in Yeshua, this same Oral Law
also served as an instrument in preserving Israel as a distinct nation. This is
analogous to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, whereby God used Egypt’s loathing of
the Hebrews as a protective incubator to multiply the nation and to keep it from

assimilating with the Egyptians.[83]

Let us delve deeper. As mentioned earlier, after the destruction of the

Second Temple, without a functioning priesthood, altar, or sacrifices, the sages
were desperate to find a way through which they could retain authority and thus

hold the Jewish world together, but without Yeshua. They needed a Judaism
that could continue to function without the temple and without the Messiah they

had rejected. In other words, they had to establish their authority over the
Jewish people, and the way to do it was to establish rabbinic traditions as the

new law. This law gave the learned rabbis the authority and control over all
religious and social aspects of the people of Israel, while annihilating any other
Jewish tradition of the day (Sadducees, messianic, etc.). In order to convince
the people of Israel of the authenticity of this modus operandi, the rabbis

claimed that the Oral Law was actually given to Moses on Mount Sinai. For

example, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides claims at the beginning of his

introduction to the Mishnah (Tractate Avot 1:1) that Moses knows the entire

Oral Law by heart, and that he imparts it to the wise men and to all the people.
This sounds nice, but the truth is, as recorded four times in the Torah (Lev.

24:12; Num. 9:8; 15:34; 27:5), Moses himself does not know how to give an
answer with regard to the commandments. In each of these instances, Moses

refers the question to God and waits for His answer.

This indicates, despite Maimonides’ claim, that Moses does not receive an
Oral Law with a complete and detailed explanation on how to implement all the

written laws in the Torah. The Scriptures clearly show that God’s covenant with
the people of Israel at Sinai is based only upon the written Law, which He

commands Moses to write. In Exodus 34:27, God commands Moses: “Write

these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with

you and with Israel.” No other law is mentioned, neither any Oral Law of

unwritten tradition that was supposedly transmitted by word of mouth.

Yet the sages make the claim that the Oral Law was indeed part of God’s

impartation at Sinai. They come up with a new drash (a commentary or

interpretation) on Exodus 34:27. The rabbis claim that when God says, “in

accordance with these words” (al-pi), it actually means “on the lips” (lefi), that
is, the Oral Law. However, this theory of an Oral Law comes from an

intentionally twisted interpretation of a Hebrew phrase, as we have seen

previously in the discussion about Akhnai’s oven. The most natural translation

of this phrase in its context is “in accordance with,” a translation that is

supported by all other similar occurrences in the Torah (Gen. 43:7; Lev. 27:18;
Num. 26:56; Deut. 17:10–11). This interpretation is also supported by all

modern English translations of this passage, whether Christian or Jewish: “And

the Lord said to Moses: write down these commandments, for in accordance

with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel.”[84]

The Authority of the Book

No doubt, the Talmud is an impressive compilation of human knowledge

and wisdom, but there is no historical or biblical basis whatsoever for the idea

that the Oral Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The contrary is true. If

an Oral Law was given to Moses by God, you would expect to read about it
throughout the Hebrew Bible. But neither God nor Moses ever mentions the

term Oral Law, nor do we see evidence of it in Scripture. Not even Joshua ben
Nun, whom God appoints as Moses’ successor, gives us any indication of an

unwritten law. God says to Joshua,

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you
shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do
 according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way
prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Josh. 1:8)

God tells Joshua he should do everything written in the Book of the Law.

God gives no indication of an Oral Law passed on to Joshua from Moses. The
case is the same with Ezra the scribe, and any prophet or king in the Hebrew

Scriptures: no one ever mentions that term or implies the existence of such a
God-given Oral Law. If an Oral Law did exist, it was not a part of God’s

covenant with Israel. None of the biblical writers expressed any interest in or

desire to know or to obey any sort of Oral Law. In other words, based on what
is actually written in the Hebrew Scriptures, an Oral Law that was given to

Moses by God on Mount Sinai never existed. The term Oral Law actually
appears for the very first time approximately 1,500 years after the time of

Moses!
Interestingly, the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls and the Jewish Apocrypha

(200–100 BCE) never mention or even imply the existence of a God-given Oral

Law. The Cyrus Cylinder (sixth century BCE) that describes the Jews of
Babylon and their lifestyle not only fails to mention any existence of a God-

given “Oral Law,” but actually sheds light in the other direction. According to
Irving Finkel, a prominent authority on the Cyrus Cylinder, Jewish identity was

internal only, without any external religious markers. Another convincing proof

comes from Ethiopia. According to their own traditions, the Jews of Ethiopia
returned to Israel after thousands of years in exile, and from relative isolation.
These Ethiopian Jews did not recognize the authority of the rabbis. They did

not recognize the rabbinic traditions, and they had never heard of the rabbis’
invention of the Oral Law. The Oral Law was never given to Moses on Mount

Sinai. It was invented by the sages in order for Judaism to continue to exist

under their exclusive authority, without the temple and without the Messiah
whom they had rejected.

This same agenda affects any believers who try to root their identity in man-
made traditions. Identity should not be based in deeds or traditions. Our identity

as believers, whether Jew or Gentile, must be rooted in Yeshua Himself (Phil.

3:20). Tradition is not the problem in and of itself, but it should never dominate
our walk with the Lord (see Phil. 3:4–8).

By now, you have probably realized that there is no such thing as “Torah
observant,” since most of the commandments are impossible to keep even if we

wanted to try. The commandments chosen to be observed are cherry picked,

with most being ignored, and only a few followed. If somebody tells you they

are Torah observant, try randomly picking a few commandments to see if they

truly observe them or not. For example, like Dr. Laura’s correspondent, you
might ask:

• Do you keep your diet 100% animal-fat free, in accordance with

Leviticus 3:17?

• Do you stone your children if they curse you, in accordance with

Leviticus 20:9?
 • Do you refrain from shaving your facial hair, in accordance with
Leviticus 19:27?

• Do you support the killing of gays and lesbians, in accordance with

Leviticus 20:13?
• During Shabbat, do you refrain from driving, barbecuing, turning on

your lights, or using heating during the winter, in accordance with Exodus
35:3?

• Do you only wear only one kind of fabric at a time, in accordance

with Deuteronomy 22:11?

• Do you refrain from purchasing fruit in the supermarket, as their

suppliers do not wait until the fifth year of production to begin selling in
accordance with Leviticus 19:23-25?

These are only seven examples out of hundreds of Sinai commandments.

And remember, if we are still under the authority of the Sinai covenant as

followers of Yeshua, we cannot just keep some commandments, we must keep

them all: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become
guilty of all of it” (James 2:10).

Some in the Hebrew roots movement appeal to John 14:15 to support their
position that Yeshua’s followers are obligated to keep the Law: “If you love me,

you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15; see 14:21, 23–24). There is
absolutely nothing in the immediate context, however, which would lead one to

conclude that “my commandments” refers to the Law. Biblical interpretation

relies heavily on context, and the immediate context here clarifies the specific

commandments to which Yeshua refers: “This is my commandment, that you

love one another as I have loved you. . . . .These things I command you, so that

you will love one another” (John 15:12, 17). [85]

 Now that we have articulated our understanding of the Torah’s goal and the

origins of the Oral Law, a very important question remains: Is there a need for
distinct messianic Jewish identity in the Church? If we answer yes to this
question, two other questions follow. First, how does the Law relate to messianic
Jewish identity? Second, how do the traditions of our people relate to messianic

Jewish identity? Providing comprehensive answers to these questions would

require more than even a series of books could deliver. At the same time, these

questions demand answers.

Israel Rejected?

“Israel” is one of the most uniting themes in the Bible, mentioned more than
2,500 times. Israel is obviously an important topic to God. Israel’s continued

existence is guaranteed in the Tanakh,[86] and God’s unwavering commitment to

His promises concerning Israel is assured in the New Testament.[87] God did not

send Yeshua to the world to abolish a distinct Jewish identity, but to “confirm
the promises given to the patriarchs” (Rom. 15:8).

Israel’s ongoing existence is a certainty; moreover, a physically identifiable

remnant of Jewish believers in Yeshua is a theological imperative. Paul makes

this quite clear in Romans 11:1–6:

 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself

am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of

Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not
know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against

Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your
altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply

to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed

the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by
grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise

grace would no longer be grace (Rom. 11:1–6).

Paul forces himself to ask a question that causes him revulsion. “I ask, then,

has God rejected his people? By no means!” How can God reject Israel? For

Paul, that would be like God rejecting His own character, since the “gifts and the
calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). But what proof can Paul offer that
God has not rejected Israel, particularly since so many Israelites in his day had

rejected God and His Messiah? Paul offers three proofs.

The first is himself: “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,
a member of the tribe of Benjamin.” If God still accepts Paul, an Israelite, than

clearly He did not reject Israel.

For the second, Paul appeals to the Scripture: “Do you not know what the
Scripture says?” Paul’s point is simple. If Christians come to the conclusion that

God has rejected Israel, they obviously do not know the Scriptures.
 For the third, Paul points to the remnant of Jewish believers in Yeshua as
proof that God has not rejected Israel. “So too at the present time there is a

remnant, chosen by grace” (11:5). As long as there are Jewish believers in

Yeshua, there is tangible proof that God has not rejected Israel. An ongoing,
tangible remnant of Jewish followers of Yeshua is an essential expression of
God’s perfect faithfulness.

What Is a Jew?

Before we can provide a definition of a messianic Jew, we must first define

who is a Jew. The answer to this question is clearly not tied to the Law for the
simple fact that most Jews in the world, including Jews in Israel, are not
religious—that is, they do not keep those aspects of the Law that are still

possible to keep without the temple. What makes a secular Jew a Jew? The
answer is easy: ancestry. A Jew is someone who is a physical descendant of

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[88] Therefore, anyone who is of physical descent

from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and a follower of Yeshua is part of the remnant
concerning which Paul testified (i.e., a messianic Jew).

Does following the Law and the Jewish traditions make a Jewish follower of
Yeshua more Jewish? Perhaps we can answer the question by asking another
question: Does eating Chinese food make a Chinese person more Chinese? The
answer is clear: No! Keeping the Law and the Jewish traditions does not make a

Jewish believer more Jewish. A Jewish follower of Yeshua is Jewish because of

his or her physical ancestors, and this physical heritage and identity provides
tangible testimony to the church that God has not rejected Israel.
A reader may easily take our argument farther than we intend. We (the

authors) are Jewish; we worship on Saturday; we celebrate the biblical feasts;

we enjoy kabbalat Shabbat;[89] we recite the shema[90] in our messianic

congregation; and we raise our children in the knowledge of being a part of our

people, Israel. It is important to explain the reasons why we do these things. We

do not celebrate the feasts or follow some of the traditions of our people out of a

sense of obligation either to the Sinai covenant or to the rabbis.

Messianic Jewish Identity and the Law and Traditions

The book of Hebrews, as we have seen, is quite clear that the new covenant

is a new, not a renewed covenant. Some argue that the circumcised heart in

Deuteronomy 30:6 provides divine enablement to keep the Sinai covenant.

Likewise, others argue that the new covenant in Jeremiah is a renewed covenant

whereby God writes the Law of the Sinai covenant in the hearts of His people.

There are a number of reasons we believe these conclusions are problematic.

First, Moses intentionally alludes to Israel’s experience at Mount Sinai in

Deuteronomy 30 in order to contrast this future “commandment” with the earlier

one.

For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard

for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say,
 “Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear

it and do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who

will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do
it?” But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart,

so that you can do it (Deut. 30:11–14).

“Who will ascend to heaven” is an allusion to Moses going up Mount Sinai

to receive the Ten Commandments. “Who will go over the sea for us” is an

allusion to Moses bringing the Israelites across the Red Sea to receive the Law.
“That we may hear it and do it” is clearly an allusion to Israel’s vow at Mount

Sinai that they would keep the Law (Exod. 24:7). “Neither is it far off” is an

allusion to the people who stood at a distance when Moses went up to receive
the commandments at Mount Sinai (Exod. 20:18, 21; 24:1). In other words, this

passage anticipates a commandment (covenant) that will be completely different

from the commandment of Mount Sinai. This commandment will be internalized

(in your mouth and in your heart), that is, written on the circumcised heart

(Deut. 30:6), unlike the commandments of Mount Sinai, which are inscribed on

stone.
Remarkably, an ancient Jewish, Aramaic paraphrase of this passage

understands this to be a reference to the coming of the prophet like Moses

(spoken of in Deut. 18:15, 18–19; 34:10): “The Torah is not in the heavens,
saying, ‘O that we had one like Moses the prophet who would go up to heaven

and take it for us, that he might make us hear the commandments so that we
would do them’” (Deut. 30:12; Targum Neofiti, English translation, Accordance
Bible Software). Paul’s citation of this passage, likewise, contrasts this

commandment (a righteousness by faith in the Messiah Yeshua) with the

righteousness that comes through the Law (Rom. 10:4–10). Paul’s comments on
Deuteronomy 30 make it very clear that the apostle does not understand it to be

a renewal of the Sinai covenant, but a different covenant altogether.

Second, those who argue that Jeremiah’s new covenant is a renewed

covenant based on the phrase, “I will put my law within them,” reading the word

“law” to refer to Torah, must contend not only with the clear words of the
prophet: “not like the covenant that I made with their fathers,” (Jer. 31:32), but

also with the unmistakably clear teachings of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “In

speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete” (Heb. 8:13).
Yeshua’s priestly service requires a new covenant—a completely new

covenant—a covenant that provides true and eternal cleansing from impurity

and sin in the heavenly temple, the provision of which is simply not possible
under the Sinai covenant.

The first reason we live our lives in close interaction with the Law and with

our traditions is because we are Jewish believers in Yeshua who live among our
people in the land of Israel, where Law and tradition shape the everyday lives of

our culture and society. By close interaction, we mean that we must critically

engage with our traditions, and at times we must reject traditions that go against
the Scriptures. At the same time, we are reminded of the testimony of the apostle
Paul who insisted time and time again that he “had done nothing against our

people or the customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17; see Acts 25:8, 10). As Paul
argues, the Messiah “became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s

truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs” (Rom.

15:8). We live as servants among our people in order to confirm the promises to
our fathers.

The second reason we live in close interaction with the Law and our
traditions is in order to make the Messiah Yeshua real and understandable to our

people. Our people will not understand who Yeshua is in the context of
Christmas trees and Easter bunnies. They do, however, value Sabbath rest,
Passover redemption, the solemnity of the Day of Atonement, and the beauty of

kindled lights. In this context, Yeshua no longer appears like Joseph disguised as
an Egyptian, but as Joseph, revealed as our brother.
Moreover, not only do the feasts of God point to the Messiah Yeshua, but

many of these feasts and holidays also look back to tangible expressions of
God’s dealings with our people. Passover is our independence day. Sabbath is
our reminder that we are no longer slaves in Egypt. Purim is a reminder that the

Hamans of this world cannot prevail. We as Jews celebrate the feasts and
holidays as a remembrance of God’s goodness to our people in the past; in
addition, we celebrate these days as tokens of what God will do for our people in

the future.
 There is no one-size-fits-all messianic Jewish identity. Each Jewish believer
lives before the Lord and must live out their faith in a manner that
communicates to a dying world, both Jewish and Gentile, that Yeshua is the

Messiah. The messianic Jewish world is, in fact, a microcosm of the Jewish
world as a whole, with all its complex diversity. May God give us grace and
wisdom to seek out ways to shine the light of the Messiah to our people, and to

the watching world!

 “For the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah, who offers
righteousness to everyone who trusts,” is how the Complete Jewish Bible puts

Romans 10:4. We have looked at the Torah from various angles to show how its
theology is thoroughly messianic and clearly points to the new covenant. We

have seen how the Torah story already anticipates a broken Sinai covenant, and
looks beyond the thundering mountain to the glorious promises of blessing
through the Messiah who will come “in the last days.” Since the Torah’s goal is

to lead us through Sinai’s broken covenant and to the Messiah in the last days,
we have been forced to redefine “Torah observance” as it is typically

understood. True Torah observance for the believer today is not to live under
the authority of the Law (or the Oral Law), but to believe in Yeshua; for if we
believe Moses, we will most certainly believe in Yeshua (John 5:46). We have

also looked at the Law—the commandments of the Sinai covenant—and argued

that it continues to function as inspired Scripture. The Law witnesses against
us, points us to Yeshua, teaches us about God, offers us wisdom and insight,
deepens our understanding of the person and work of Yeshua, and challenges us
to love God and our neighbor. We have seen how followers of Messiah Yeshua

are in the truest sense faithful disciples of Moses, who fulfill the requirements of
the Law by believing God and loving people (1 John 3:23).
 Finally, we leave you with a challenge: Be consumed with Yeshua, not with
laws and traditions! Why? There are two reasons. First, because Moses wrote
the Torah to lead us to Yeshua and the new covenant. “Now Moses was faithful
in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken

later” (Heb. 3:5). Second, because lasting change comes only through Yeshua,
and not through laws or traditions. Yeshua’s commandments deal not only with
the externals; they go deep into our hearts and cause us to change from the
inside, through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. With Yeshua, murder is

not limited to a physical slaying—it is a matter of the heart; adultery is not

limited to a physical union—it is a matter of the heart. Yeshua calls and
empowers us through His Spirit to control our anger, to shun lust, and to love
our enemies, all of which would be impossible without outside help. You see,

following traditions or concentrating on what and how to do (or not do) external
things only embitters us to those around us and causes us to turn against those

who do not agree with us.

As we continue to meditate on the riches of the Torah, may we, like David,
desire its teachings more “than gold, even much fine gold.” May it be to us

“sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb” (Ps. 19:10). As we
read the Torah may our eyes be opened to its singular story, whose goal is to

restore a lost blessing to humanity through Yeshua, the Messiah-King whose

new covenant frees us to “owe no one anything, except to love each other, for
the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Rom. 13:8).
 If you were blessed by this book, Please RATE our
book on Amazon.com
 Alexander, Desmond T. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An

Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

Academic, 2012.

Bahnsen, Greg L., ed. Five Views on Law and Gospel, Counterpoints:
Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.
Brown, Michael L. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 5. San

Francisco, CA: Purple Pomegranate Productions, 2009.

Clements, R. E. God and Temple. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Dempster, Stephen G. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the

Hebrew Bible, New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2003.

Gruber, Daniel. Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic

Authority. Hanover, NH: Elijah, 1999.

Kaiser, Walter C. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan, 1995.
Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. “Ezekiel, Daniel,” Commentary on the
Old Testament, vol. 9. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline

Theology, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2009.
 Morales, L. Michael. Tabernacle Prefigured: Cosmic Mountain
Ideology in Genesis and in Exodus. Leuven: Peeters, 2012.
Postell, Seth D. Adam as Israel. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.
Rydelnik, Michael. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really

Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Nashville, TN: B&H,

2010.
Rydelnik, Michael, ed. The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy.
Chicago, IL: Moody, forthcoming.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-

Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
________. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition
and Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Satterthwaite, Philip E., Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham,

eds. The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic

Texts. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1995.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical

Law. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010.

________. The Law and Its Fulfllment: A Pauline Theology of Law.

Grand Rapids, IL: Baker Books, 1993.

Todd, James M. III. Sinai and the Saints: Reading Old Covenant

Laws for the New Covenant Community. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2017.
 Van Seters, John. “Author or Redactor?,” Journal of Hebrew

Scriptures 7, no. 9 (2007): 1–23.

________. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in

Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The

“Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
2004.

Zahn, Theodor. Die Anbetung Jesu im Zeitalter der Apostel. Leipzig:

A. Deichert, 1910.

[1]
Any argument from silence in favor of obligatory messianic Jewish Law observance must not
ignore Peter’s clear, rather shocking confession in Acts 15:10: “Now, therefore, why are you putting God
to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to
bear?” (All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the English Standard Version
[ESV].)
[2]
Yeshua actually explains what Matthew 5:17–20 means in the rest of the chapter. It is clear that
people were accusing Yeshua and His followers of abolishing the Law. But, true followers of Yeshua have
standards that go beyond the written demands of the Law; He raised the bar higher! For example,
Messiah’s followers will keep the commandment prohibiting adultery, because they will not even allow
themselves to look lustfully at a woman. It is quite evident by Yeshua’s teachings on adultery that Yeshua
did not relax the commandments of the Law.
[3]
It should be noted that the word typically translated “eternal” (olam) is sometimes used to express
a lengthy, though limited, period of time. A good example of this is found in Jeremiah 25:9. God says that
He will make the Land of Israel an “eternal desolation.” Yet in Jeremiah 29:10, God promises to bring His
people back to the Land seventy years later. In this case, olam refers to a period of seventy years.
Therefore, one cannot argue that the Law must be kept eternally simply because of the phrase “eternal
statute.”
[4]
What does the author of Hebrews mean by “becoming obsolete and growing old” and “ready to
vanish away” in Hebrews 8:13? Though some have taken the timing of the actual “vanishing away” of the
old covenant to be future to the time of the writing of Hebrews, this does not appear to be the author’s
point. The author is likely referring to the implications of the word “new” at the time when Jeremiah the
Prophet wrote, “I will make a new covenant.” When Jeremiah called the covenant a “new covenant” (Jer.
31:31) on the eve of the destruction of the first temple, he was saying that the “old covenant” was already
becoming obsolete and “ready to vanish away” in his day. This suggests that the “old covenant” became
obsolete and vanished when the new covenant was made. We have purposely written “disappeared” and
“obsolete” because that is precisely the point being made in the text: when the new covenant was made
through the shedding of Messiah’s blood, the old covenant disappeared and became obsolete.
[5]
There is some debate whether or not the word telos should be translated as the end of the Law (i.e.,
for establishing righteousness) or the goal (i.e., the intended destination of the Law). Though the context
appears to support the former interpretation, both interpretations have merit.
[6]
In the context, Yeshua is referring to the Torah as a whole, and not just to the Law. This is clearly
the case because of the way in which He places “the Law” side by side with “the Prophets.”
[7]
Some in the Hebrew roots movement attempt to back-translate the Greek into Yeshua’s mother-
tongue in order to understand, not the verbal meaning of the Greek text, but the “real” meaning behind the
Greek text. By appealing to this logic, some would argue that Yeshua did not come to “fulfill” the Torah,
but to “interpret it properly.” There are two very serious flaws with this school of thought. First, it is
notoriously difficult to back-translate Koine Greek into Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Any and every back-
translation will always remain at the level of conjecture. A second flaw resulting from the first has to do
with the authority of the biblical text. When our understanding of the biblical text rests in a conjectural
back-translation, the authority of God’s word no longer rests in the biblical text, but in the scholars who
provide the back-translation. The Gospel of John clearly teaches that God gave His Spirit to the disciples
after Yeshua’s ascension to teach them “all things and bring to [their] remembrance all that [He] said to
[them]” (John 14:26; see 2:22; 12:16; 20:9). Because the disciples were uniquely anointed by God’s Spirit
to preserve Yeshua’s teachings, their translation of Yeshua’s words into Greek was inspired, and therefore
completely authoritative and reliable for faith and practice.
[8]
That is, the literal interpretation of the meaning intended by the original author.
[9]
Exegesis is the process of interpretation whereby the reader seeks after the grammatical-historical
meaning of a text, more specifically, the meaning intended by the text’s historical author.
[10]
We also make use of a third criterion, namely, the history of interpretation. In other words, it is
extremely helpful to find others in the history of interpretation who recognize how one story foreshadows
another, or how one story is written in the light of an earlier story.
[11]
As recorded in the biblical text.
[12]
The Hebrew word for land, eretz, most commonly translated in Genesis 1:28 as “world,” is most
frequently translated as “land” in the English translations of the Torah. For example, eretz is used 845
times in the Torah; 159 times the ESV translates the word as “earth,” 642 times as “land.”
[13]
Someone might object to our position by arguing the absurdity of God giving the Law to Israel if
He knew they would break it before He gave it. This same argument, however, just as easily applies to
God’s commandments to Adam and Eve in the garden. Of course God knew Adam and Eve would break
His commandments before He gave them. Likewise, God knew Israel would worship a golden calf before
He brought them out of Egypt. God’s gracious plan to save the world did not begin when humankind
disobeyed. Rather, God planned to redeem the world by means of the Lamb before the foundation of the
world (Rev. 13:8).
[14]
Our division of the Torah into larger narrative sections is generally recognized and based on
tangible features in the literary structure of the Torah.
[15]
Though the Wilderness Narratives to and from Mount Sinai represent, in one sense, two different
narrative sections, their role as the literary framework for the Sinai Narrative compels us to consider their
purpose as a unity.
[16]
John H. Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 59–62.
[17]
Though “faith” is not mentioned in the Primeval Narrative (Gen. 1–11), Moses does highlight the
fact that Enoch and Noah “walked with God” (Gen. 5:22, 24; 6:9). This faith-walk is later used to describe
the life of Abraham (Gen. 13:17; 17:1; 24:40). Enoch and Noah’s “walk” with God rescues them from
death (though only temporarily in Noah’s case), and provides an occasion to highlight Noah’s
righteousness (Gen. 6:9).
[18]
The absence of the “faith” theme in the Wilderness Narrative to Sinai (Exod. 15:22–18:27)
appears to be strategic since it raises a question in the mind of the reader: “Where is an expression of
faith?” What we find instead is complaining, and plenty of it (Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 7–8; 17:3).
[19]
Though this passage specifically refers to believing in Moses, the larger context makes clear that
Israel demonstrated faith in God by believing and obeying what Moses said about God (see Exod. 4:1, 9,
31; especially 14:31).
 [20]
No wonder Paul quotes the first part of Deuteronomy 9:4 in Romans 10:6 (“do not say in your
heart”) when comparing the righteousness based on the Law with the righteousness based on faith: “For
Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the
commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, ‘Do not say in your heart . .
.’” (Rom. 10:5–6). By quoting Deuteronomy 9:4, Paul expects his reader to see that Israel’s lack of
righteousness under the Law is the result of their lack of faith!
[21]
John H. Sailhamer, Meaning of the Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009),
366.
[22]
See Exodus 19:1; Numbers 10:11.
[23]
The Torah’s story line clearly anticipates the importance of the giving of God’s Spirit in Acts 2.
[24]
This figure is not intended to be exhaustive, but taken from a tally of all the verses in the
following passages: Exodus 12 (the Passover), Exodus 16 (the Sabbath), Exodus 20–23, 25–31, 35–40;
Leviticus 1:1–Deuteronomy 28:68.
[25]
Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, 35–37.
[26]
The ESV uses a translation other than “the last days” in each of the four verses. Because the
phrase is exactly the same in the Hebrew in all four verses, we have changed the translation to “the last
days,” and have highlighted the change in italics. It is worth mentioning that our translation is a literal
translation.
[27]
Miqraot Gedoloth (translation from Hebrew by the authors.)
[28]
For the purposes of clarity for those not familiar with the order of the Hebrew Bible, the order of
the Hebrew Bible differs from the ordering of the Protestant Christian canon. The Hebrew canon is
divided into three major sections based on the acronym “Tanakh,” the Torah, the Prophets, and the
Writings. The Prophets, moreover, are divided into the Former Prophets (Joshua–Kings), and the Latter
Prophets (Isaiah-Malachi). One significant justification for using this tri-partite arrangement in our study
comes from Yeshua Himself. Yeshua argues that the religious leaders would be held accountable for the
blood of all the righteous martyrs from Abel (Gen. 4:8–16.) to Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:21; see Matt. 23:35;
Luke 11:51). Such a statement only makes sense when one thinks of the Hebrew Bible as beginning in the
Torah and ending in Chronicles (i.e., Yeshua holds them accountable to the totality of revelation as
expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures). Elsewhere, Yeshua provides the disciples with an exposition of the
Messianic hope of the Scriptures, namely, Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). At the very
least, we can say that Yeshua’s presentation suggests he understood the Scriptures in terms of three
sections, though we might be further inclined to argue that Yeshua not only viewed the Hebrew Bible in
terms of three sections, but that he conceived the third section in terms of Psalms-Chronicles. In that case,
the term “Psalms” in Luke 24:44 may be used as a title for the entire third section of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
[29]
Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 39.
[30]
See Gen.Rab. 48.7; Ramban’s Commentary on Genesis 12:6. For example, Abram’s sojourn in
Egypt, which includes a famine in the land, the taking of Sarai into Pharaoh’s service, the plagues on
Pharaoh’s house, Abram’s departure with abundant gold, silver, and cattle, are clearly a “sign” to his sons,
who likewise begin their sojourn in Egypt because of a famine, are taken into Pharaoh’s service, set free
through plagues, and depart with abundant gold, silver, and cattle. Abram’s exodus from Egypt serves to
foreshadow Israel’s exodus from Egypt.
[31]
See, for example, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 182; Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, revised ed.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 264–65. In Osborne’s words, “Fee and Stuart argue that
less than 2 percent of the Old Testament prophecy is messianic, less than 5 percent relates to the new
covenant age and less than 1 percent concerns events still future to us. . . . Of course, this figure depends
largely on exegetical decisions as to which so-called messianic prophecies were originally intended
messianically. Nevertheless, the percentage either way would be relatively low.”
[32]
See, for example, Luke 24:25–27, 44; John 1:45; Acts 3:18; 24:14; 26:22, 27; 28:23; Rev. 19:10.
 [33]
See Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope (Nashville: B & H, 2010), 2.
[34]
Although Rashi argues that God is speaking with the angels, the fact remains that angels are
nowhere referenced in the first chapter of Genesis. God and the Spirit of God (Gen. 1:1–2) are, however,
present in Genesis 1. Properly speaking, God is not alone in the creation account. Support for the unity
and plurality of God (“Let us make . . . in our image”) is found when we notice verse 27. There we find a
unity and plurality in man: “in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Man
(singular), properly speaking, is represented by male and female (plural), a unity in plurality. Remarkably,
this same feature is reflected grammatically in the reference to the plurality of the One True God in
Genesis 1:1–2. The verb used to describe God in Genesis 1:1 is grammatically masculine: “In the
beginning, God created [masculine singular verb] the heavens and the earth.” The verb used to describe
the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 is feminine: “And the Spirit of God was hovering [feminine singular verb]
over the face of the waters.” We are not arguing that God is ontologically both a male and a female.
Rather, we are arguing that the unity in plurality of the One Creator is described with both masculine and
feminine verbs, and this unity and plurality is reflected in the creation of humankind in the image of God.
[35]
True to the emphasis on the number seven in the creation account, “the land” is mentioned seven
times in the creation mandate (Gen. 1:26–30).
[36]
See Zechariah 9:10b, another well-known Messianic prophecy whose words are nearly identical
with Psalm 72:8.
[37]
See, for example, Shimon Bakon, "Creation, Tabernacle and Sabbath," Jewish Bible Quarterly
25, no. 2 (April 1, 1997): 79–85; Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of
Selected Texts (Oxford: Oneworld, 1998), 12; Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of
Ex 25–40,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 375–87; Morales, Tabernacle Pre-
Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus (Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 2012).
[38]
The word for “lights” in Genesis 1:14–16 is only used elsewhere in the Torah to describe the
Menorah (Exod. 25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14, 28; 39:37; Lev. 24:2; Num. 4:9, 16). The process of “separation,”
so vital to creation (e.g., light from darkness, water from water, night and day) is also vital to the priestly
legislation (Gen. 1:4, 6–7, 14, 18; Exod. 26:33; Lev. 1:17; 5:8; 10:10; 11:47; 20:24–26; Num. 8:14; 16:9,
21). The specific form of the verb for “yield seed” in Genesis 1:11 is used elsewhere only in Leviticus
12:2. The distinction of the animals “according to their kind” in Genesis 1:6–7, is elsewhere only used
with respect the classification of clean and unclean animals in the Torah (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25; 6:20;
7:14; Lev. 11:14–16, 19, 22, 29; Deut. 14:13–15, 18). The Hebrew root for the word “expanse” is only
used elsewhere in the Torah with respect to the tabernacle and its service (Gen. 1:6–8, 14–15, 17, 20;
Exod. 39:3; Num. 16:39). Finally, the focus on dietary provisions/restrictions in Genesis 1:29–30 is
essential to the Mosaic Law (see Lev. 11; Deut. 14).
[39]
For the classic treatment of the links between the garden and the tabernacle, see Gordon J.
Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” I Studied Inscriptions before the Flood,
edited by Richard Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4 (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399–404. The following list of parallels draws heavily upon Wenham’s
work.
[40]
It is clear enough that the prophets, by describing the future temple in terms of a renewed Eden,
also regard the garden of Eden as the prototypical temple of creation from which all other sanctuaries are
patterned (compare for instance, the river flowing out of Eden with the river flowing forth from the
eschatological temple: Genesis 2:10–14; Ezek. 47).
[41]
Andrew J. Schmutzer, “The Creation Mandate to ‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’: A Crux of Thematic
Repetition in Genesis 1–11,” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2005), 348. He writes, “Just
as Eden is God’s garden-sanctuary, the prototypical temple, so the terms ‘keeping and guarding’ . . . are
used for priests who ‘serve’ God in the temple and ‘guard’ it from all unclean things.”
[42]
Though this passage has typically been understood as a reference to the fall of Satan, the
depiction of this high priestly figure in Eden is more likely an allusion to Adam, given the fact that
Genesis 2–3 portrays Adam, and not the serpent, as a priest. C. F. Keil and Delitzsch F., “Ezekiel, Daniel,”
Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 9 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 410, write, “Ezekiel here
compares the situation of the prince of Tyre with that of the first man in Paradise; and then, in verses 15
and 16, draws a comparison between his fall and the fall of Adam.”
[43]
Morales, Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 51–120.
[44]
Morales, Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 73–90.
[45]
The geographical location of the garden, like the Promised Land, is marked by the rivers
surrounding it (Gen. 2:10–14; 15:18).
[46]
The terminology used to describe Israel’s choices and the consequences of disobedience in
Deuteronomy 30:15–20 is an intentional allusion to Adam’s choices and the consequences of disobedience
in Genesis 2–3: life and death, good and evil, blessing and curse.
[47]
The numerous references to the commands of Deuteronomy 7:1–4 (not to make a covenant with
the Canaanites lest they tempt Israel to follow other gods) in Joshua 9 (see vv. 15, 24), strongly suggest
that the author sees Joshua’s covenant with the Gibeonites as the beginning of the end of Israel’s
successful campaign to conquer the Promised Land; and more importantly, to fulfill the creation mandate
in Adam’s stead (see Deut. 11:16).
[48]
Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981) 5. By
saying that the speeches are a “literary device” we are by no means denying the historicity of these
speeches. Rather, we are suggesting that the location of these speeches in key moments in Israel’s history
as told in the Former Prophets and the common-repeated themes contained therein strongly suggest that
these speeches not only bring connectivity to Israel’s history but also sense and meaning.
[49]
John Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 36.
[50]
Other poetic speeches not included in this list are the following: Genesis 2:23; 9:25–27; 12:1–3;
24:60; 27:28–29; Exodus 17:16; Numbers 21:17–18, 27–30.
[51]
The fourth poem is found in Exodus 15:1–21, and is known as the Song at the Sea.
[52]
God, by virtue of His place at the head of the list of Adam’s genealogies, implicitly portrays
Adam as the son of God through whom God intends to rule over creation (see Gen. 5:1–4). If Adam is
Seth’s father, and Seth is Enosh’s father, who is Adam’s father? The answer is clearly—God!
[53]
John Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 56, commenting on
Genesis 3:15, writes, “Verse 15 still contains a puzzling yet important ambiguity: Who is the ‘seed’ of the
woman? It seems obvious that the purpose of this verse has not been to answer that question but rather to
raise it. The remainder of the book is the author’s answer.”
[54]
The New Testament, however, does identify the serpent as the devil (Rev. 12:9; 20:2; Rom. 16:20
is very likely an allusion to Gen. 3:15).
[55]
Jack Collins, “A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural,”
Tyndale Bulletin 48.1 (1997), 139–49.
[56]
Other examples of the word “seed” used with plural pronouns include Genesis 17:7–10; 48:11–
12.
[57]
Other examples include 1 Samuel 1:11; 2 Samuel 7:12–15.
[58]
Book I (Ps. 1–41), Book II (Ps. 42–72).
[59]
Compare Psalm 72:8 with Numbers 24:19 and Zechariah 9:10–11; Psalm 72:9 with Genesis 3:14;
and Psalm 72:11 with Genesis 27:29.
[60]
The Hebrew word for “relief” shares two of the same Hebrew consonants with the word “rest,”
and is clearly used as an intentional word play on Noah’s name.
[61]
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987) 363,
writes, “At first blush, chap. 38 seems to have nothing to do with the Joseph story. If it were omitted, the
narrative would progress from 37:36 to 39:1 very smoothly. It does not appear to be necessary for
understanding chaps. 39–50.”
 [62]
Ruth is of vital importance in connecting the messianism of the Torah to the House of David.
David is not only of the Tribe of Judah, he is also a descendant of Perez.
[63]
Simeon does not appear in the Blessing of Moses.
[64]
See, for example, Targum Onkelos; M. Sanhedrin 98.72; Genesis Rabba 98.8; Midrash Bereishit
97.13; Rashi; Ramban.
[65]
His brutishness is even reflected in his name, Balaam son of Beor, his father's name apparently a
pun on the Hebrew word for "fool" (see Prov. 30:2).
[66]
Clearly related to the blessings and curses of the Abrahamic covenant is the promise of numerous
descendants, the fact of which causes Balak to fear and to call for reinforcements (Num. 22:3–6; cf. Exod.
1:12). The theme of abundant descendants is central to the Torah's theology (compare Exod. 1:7, 9, 10, 12
with Gen. 1:28; 9:7; 17:2; 18:18; 22:17; 26:4, 24; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4).
[67]
Numbers 22:6, 12; 23:11, 20, 25; 24:1, 9, 10.
[68]
Numbers 22:6, 11, 12, 17; 23:7, 8, 11, 13, 25, 27; 24:9, 10.
[69]
See Philip J. Budd, Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 268; R.
Dennis Cole, Numbers, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 413.
[70]
“A star shall come out of Jacob, a scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Num. 24:17) is in all likelihood
intended to clarify and explain the rather enigmatic poetry in Numbers 24:7: “Water shall flow from his
buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters.” What does “water shall flow from his [Israel’s] buckets”
mean? Numbers 24:17 explains it: a king will come forth from the people of Israel (compare Num. 24:7,
17 in the LXX [Septuagint]).
[71]
“And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel
beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed’” (Gal. 3:8).
[72]
There are other examples of specific commandments being added because of Israel’s
transgression. One obvious example would be the appointment of the Levites as a response to the golden
calf (Exod. 32:26–29). Who functioned as Levites up until this point? Most likely it was the firstborn
males from all the tribes, as a fulfillment of Israel’s calling to be a kingdom of priests (see Num. 3:12).
The transgression brings with it specific restrictions that were not in place beforehand.
[73]
The “present age” does not refer to the time of the writer of Hebrews since the author is writing
about the tabernacle, not the temple. The “present age” refers to the age in which the tabernacle was in
existence.
[74]
Leviticus 23 is filled with sacrificial prescriptions for the feast days. Even if we wanted to keep
these laws, we could not, since there is no longer a temple.
[75]
Qal vahomer is a rabbinic interpretive method that makes an argument from lesser to greater,
such as in Matthew 6:30: "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, . . . will he not much more clothe
you?"
[76]
This is precisely how it seems most “Law” was given in the Ancient Near East (as, e.g.,
Hammurabi). It was not given as civil law per se, but rather, as the set of rulings of a wise king. These
rulings were copied over and over again as guidelines for wise rulings. Hence, their application became
practical for subsequent generations. Thus, sometimes when the New Testament writer quotes the OT, he
does not change the meaning as it might appear, but is perhaps quoting it to draw attention to the principle
behind it.
[77]
Alden Thompson, Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988),
33.
[78]
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2011), 63.
[79]
See also Rosh HaShanah 31b and 32a. There are also similar references in the Mishna and in the
Yerushalmi.
 [80]
We see a good example of interpreting “as we please” with another of Rabbi Joshua's famous
sayings: “Turn aside after a multitude,” by which he means that the majority rules. He is quoting Exodus
23:2 in the exact opposite sense of what that verse actually means, as can clearly be seen by reading the
whole verse: “You shall not fall in with the many (or turn aside after a multitude) to do evil, . . . so as to
pervert justice.”

[81]
Prof. Hananel Mack of Bar-Ilan University’s Talmudic Department, in his paper, “The Seat of
Moses,” affirms that the New Testament’s “Seat of Moses” is referring to the physical seat from which
Scriptures were read inside the synagogue. He bases this both on modern archaeological findings and on
the ancient rabbinic commentary, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 7b.
[82]
Some suggest Paul’s letter to the Galatians is directed only to a Gentile audience, in that the
Galatian churches were comprised of Gentiles alone. However, we believe this not to be the case for four
reasons: (1) According to 1 Peter 1:1 there were clearly Jews in the Galatian church. (2) According to
Josephus (Joseph ben Mattityahu 37–100 CE) there were Jews in the city of Galatia. (3) Paul and
Barnabas preached “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). Acts does not record a single
incident of Paul’s preaching to the Jewish people when at least some did not respond positively. The same
pattern continues in the cities of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe as well.
[83]
Though God turns the bitter into sweet, we should not use this as an excuse to ignore our mandate
to proclaim the gospel to the Jew first.
[84]
The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, 1985.
[85]
Other commandments given by Yeshua in the immediate context include John 14:1, 11, 27; 15:4,
7, 9; 16:24.
[86]
“Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the
stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD of hosts is his name: ‘If this
fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being
a nation before me forever’” (Jer. 31:35–36).
[87]
“As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved
for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28–29).
[88]
Rabbinic Judaism traces Jewish identity through the mother, though the Torah casts some
ambivalence on the identity of the son of an Israelite woman (see Lev. 24:11). During the Holocaust,
anyone who had at least one Jewish grandparent was considered Jewish enough to be murdered along with
the rest of the Jewish people. Therefore, the modern state of Israel allows anyone with one Jewish
grandparent to obtain citizenship under the Law of Return.
[89]
Traditional Friday evening ceremony and meal that welcomes the Sabbath.
[90]
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut. 6:4).