Does a 'Fence' violate the Brit Chadashah? Ephesians 2:14-15

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Trimm on February 10, 2012 at 2:07pm

The Dead Sea Scrolls use a different word for wall than that which is used in the Aramaic of Eph. 2:14-15 and in the Talmud in tractate Avot.  The Dead Sea Scroll word has the nuance of a shoddy wall... if you understand the Dead Sea Scrolls, their beef was that the Pharisaic wall was not strong enough. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Trimm on February 10, 2012 at 2:31pm

14 For He is our peace, who made the two of them one, and loosed the hedge1689 which
stood in the middle,
15 And enmity, (by His flesh and also the Torah, because of commandments in His
commands) He abolished, that [from] the two of them He might create in Himself one
new man, and He made peace.

(Eph. 2:14-15 HRV)

1689 The phrase "and loosed the hedge" in the Aram. reads  sh'ra s'yaga and was used as a technical halachic term in Judaism.  Sh'ra was used to mean "loose" or "permit" (as in Mt. 18:18 and in various places in Rabbinic literature) The term s'yaga appears in the Mishna Avot 1:1 "make a hedge about the Torah". To "loose the hedge" would mean to permit activities that these hedge rules had effectually discouraged.



In the Damascus Document (which you refer to as the Zadokite Fragments) the author uses not the word s'yaga (Strong's 5473 but chutz (Strong's 2351).  The nuance of the word CHUTZ is that of a less durable wall than a S'YAGA.  The nuance of the word CHUTZ is that it implies a less sturdy wall that a S'YAGA (for example the wall of a house as opposed to the wall around an estate).  Wise, Abeg and Cook in the Dead Sea Scrolls a New Translation render CHUTZ as "shoddy wall".  If you study the Dead Sea Scrolls in depth you will find that the Essenes objected to the Pharisaic wall, not because they objected to the wall concept, but because they thaough the Pharisaic walls were not strong enough (see 4QMMT and even the Damascus Document for evidence that they had a STRICTER halacha with a STRONGER wall than the Pharisees..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yirmeyahu on February 10, 2012 at 3:22pm

Concrete block, Brick, plywood, drywall... a wall is something that keeps those wanting to enter out.  In the placing of a wall of any sort the good ones wanting to enter are kept out, and the one placing the wall does not enter either. 

Yeshua issued a solemn warning in regards to this matter:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter - Matthew 23:13

Also, I am not convinced that the Aramaic is inspired.  There may be some merit to claims of primacy over the Greek but not so much that we can except its wording as final authority.

You mention the term used 1689 is a technical halachic term.  Perhaps rather than being a proof of inspiration it means that a student of Rabbi Akiva is handling the texts concerning Adoneinu Yeshua.

If the Aramaic text were inspired the full canon would be present in the Aramaic canon.  YHWH did not arrange matters so that they transpired in that manner, so we simply cannot say those documents are the final word, above all when they reflect Rabbinic bias. 

James Trimm said:

(Eph. 2:14-15 HRV)

1689 The phrase "and loosed the hedge" in the Aram. reads  sh'ra s'yaga and was used as a technical halachic term in Judaism.  Sh'ra was used to mean "loose" or "permit" (as in Mt. 18:18 and in various places in Rabbinic literature) The term s'yaga appears in the Mishna Avot 1:1 "make a hedge about the Torah". To "loose the hedge" would mean to permit activities that these hedge rules had effectually discouraged.



In the Damascus Document (which you refer to as the Zadokite Fragments) the author uses not the word s'yaga (Strong's 5473 but chutz (Strong's 2351).  The nuance of the word CHUTZ is that of a less durable wall than a S'YAGA.  The nuance of the word CHUTZ is that it implies a less sturdy wall that a S'YAGA (for example the wall of a house as opposed to the wall around an estate).  Wise, Abeg and Cook in the Dead Sea Scrolls a New Translation render CHUTZ as "shoddy wall".  If you study the Dead Sea Scrolls in depth you will find that the Essenes objected to the Pharisaic wall, not because they objected to the wall concept, but because they thaough the Pharisaic walls were not strong enough (see 4QMMT and even the Damascus Document for evidence that they had a STRICTER halacha with a STRONGER wall than the Pharisees..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Trimm on February 10, 2012 at 4:52pm

In this case a fence or wall is set in place to protect the Torah from violation.

For example if the Torah says "be in by midnight" the fence might be "be in my eleven."  The idea is to create a buffer zone around the Torah so as to avoid inadvertent violations.  

Yeshua embraced the concept.  If the Torah says not to murder" then Yeshua days not to even be angry with your brother (Matt. 5:21-26) for if you are not angry with him, you are unlikely to murder him.  That is placing a fence around the Torah. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 10, 2012 at 5:33pm

The context of Damascus Document is that the Pharisees were teaching evil commandments which were separating people from God.  this is the wall they built. Pharisees taught that divorce is okay even if nothing has ben done wrong by the spouse.  they also taught it was okay to have sex with your niece. both Paul's Letter to the Ephesians and the Damascus Document are condemning evil teachings, because evil teachings separate you from God or in other words evil teachins create a wall between people and God.  its not about strictness or lack thereof.  Its about rejecting evil whether it be too strict or too lenient.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 10, 2012 at 7:07pm

I accept Pirke as Scripture, and my understanding is that making a fence does not refer to adding extra commandments, but rather refers to protecting the Torah.  A better way of understanding it might be this: i currently own land right now.  Luckily my land has been staked/fenced.  the staking does not change anything about what the truth is; it merely is coming into better awareness of what are the boundary lines.  so i take the saying make a fence for Torah as teaching us to enhance our awareness of the boundaries of Torah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Solomon Avar on February 11, 2012 at 10:00am

Yeshua embraced the concept.  If the Torah says not to murder" then Yeshua days not to even be angry with your brother (Matt. 5:21-26) for if you are not angry with him, you are unlikely to murder him.  That is placing a fence around the Torah.

WRONG.
He did NOT embrace the concept. He outlined different punishments for different sins, one punishment for certain words, another punishments for harsher insults, etc. Insults are forbidden to begin with, it's not a fence at all!
You call yourself a teacher ? Did you even read the passage in question ?

James Trimm said:

In this case a fence or wall is set in place to protect the Torah from violation.

For example if the Torah says "be in by midnight" the fence might be "be in my eleven."  The idea is to create a buffer zone around the Torah so as to avoid inadvertent violations.  

Yeshua embraced the concept.  If the Torah says not to murder" then Yeshua days not to even be angry with your brother (Matt. 5:21-26) for if you are not angry with him, you are unlikely to murder him.  That is placing a fence around the Torah. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 11, 2012 at 2:22pm

it was always a sin to hate people.  Messiah was teaching us that the commandment to love one's neighbor is broken when we hate them.  He was not making an extra commandment as a help for us to obey.  He was teaching what is disobedience and what is obedience.  If we hate someone, we are guilty of murder, as hate is one step below murder. nothing is closer to murder in severity of evil than hate is.  in a torah theocracy, I would even advocate for the death penalty for someone who you can prove hates another, since it is essentially murder.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Solomon Avar on February 12, 2012 at 8:17am

as hate is one step below murder. nothing is closer to murder in severity of evil than hate is.  in a torah theocracy, I would even advocate for the death penalty for someone who you can prove hates another, since it is essentially murder.

So you admit hate is NOT the same as murder, and you attempt to equate them just shows how different they are.
Either way, we don't have to guess, if you bother to read the canonical Bible sometime you'll find there are separate punishments for insults and murder. You disparage and ignore God's word when you say people who hate need to die, especially when you yourself have sanctified hate and from past statements find hate acceptable. You'd be the first to die under your own rule.

Onieu bahn Duid said:

it was always a sin to hate people.  Messiah was teaching us that the commandment to love one's neighbor is broken when we hate them.  He was not making an extra commandment as a help for us to obey.  He was teaching what is disobedience and what is obedience.  If we hate someone, we are guilty of murder, as hate is one step below murder. nothing is closer to murder in severity of evil than hate is.  in a torah theocracy, I would even advocate for the death penalty for someone who you can prove hates another, since it is essentially murder.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yirmeyahu on February 12, 2012 at 1:02pm

First of all I would say that in concept the "fence" is not bad in and of itself, but in practice the "fence" can be disastrous.  Much of modern Orthodox Jewry scorns those who follow Messiah and don't adhere to all the fences and takanoth and gezeroth which are just man's creation.  They will not allow themselves to consider nor accept their Messiah in part because he doesn't force his disciples to ritually wash their hands.  What could be worse than this confusion?

I also grant that in principal Yeshua did make the Law of Moses stricter when he said that not only may we not kill, we must not even hate.

The point which I think that Rabbi Trimm didn't understand is that Yeshua is the Son of YHWH, YHWH's Prophet and the Messiah.   Just because he does something does not mean that anyone can do it.  This point should be obvious.

For a man to tamper with YHWH's Law, no matter how good intentioned he might be, can have effects which he, being a human and therefore quite short sighted, cannot foretell.  Human beings need to recognize their weaknesses and accept that only G-d can make strengthen or loosen laws.  Yeshua severely rebuked the Pharisees for precisely this reason, saying:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. - Matt 23:4


This passage indicates that in Yeshuas impeccable estimation the Pharisees were in the habit of pronouncing heavy burdens of their own authority and placing them on men.

Consider the following notice from the  Talmud:  



we should not impose a restriction upon the community unless the majority of the community will be able to stand it.   Babylonian Talmud Baba Kama 79B

This reveals the entirely man made origin of  and merely human logic at work in the Rabbinic methodology.   We seee that the Rabbis are carefully considering the consequences of their restrictions.  Nothing wrong with that, but it definitely shows  that in many cases the Rabbis were only making there own laws and not passing on laws that they recieved from YHWH, although that is certainly the spin they put on it.   That many such of these laws were of their own invention accords with Matthew 23:4.

The fact is that this observation ( "we should not impose a restriction upon the community unless the majority of the community will be able to stand it")  would never have been included if the Rabbis were only relaying God's decrees because if God gave the decree it must needs  be considered that is just and no reasoning it over should take place.

So here is a simple proof that the Rabbis aren't being truthful if they say everything they say is only a repeating of that which they recieved from YHWH.

The way of Messiah would be to recognize they are fallible humans, and admit that the restriction they were imposing was of human origin.  No student is better than his Master, and the Master is Messiah.  Is it any wonder Rabbinic Judaism still has the wrong theology?  They refuse to listen to Messiah.

The Rabbinic modus operandi was, and still is, to pass off their own ideas as commands of God.  The following will be familiar to all:

"Blessed are You Adonai Eloheinu who has sanctified us with the commandments and commanded us to :  "  +  rabbinic decision here.

I don't know if the hand washing "commandment" is considered a fence to absolutely prevent any possible contamination from foods eaten, but Yeshua clearly said that that is a tradition of men, not the commandment of God. As believers we accept this as fact and know without doubt that it is so.  

Orthodox Jews recite the following blessing:
Blessed are you, Hashem our G-d King of the universe Who has sanctified us with His commandments, and has commanded us concerning the washing of hands.
 
Is it not obvious?  Yeshua said the washing of hands is a tradition of men.  The Rabbis tell those who listen to them that it is a commandment from YHWH.  Who should you trust?  YESHUA!  So logically it follows that the rabbis tell an untruth and distort the Word of God.

 

I don't see anything wrong with blessing YHWH for giving us commandments, but to bless him in connection with a commandment invented by a son of a lump of clay is incongruous and incorrect.

The Talmud itself says:

A Tanna (Teacher) taught:  The Tannaim (teachers) bring destruction upon the world (does 70 a.d. ring a bell?).  
How can it occur to you to say that they bring destruction upon the world?!  
Rabina said:  Because they decide points of Law from their teachings. - Babylonian Talmud Sotah 21B.


So three problems arise from man-made traditions masquerading as commands of YHWH:
1)  attributing to YHWH that which is human and fallible in origin
2)  not observing guidelines given in the Written Word in order to keep Tradition
3)  negatively judging those unwilling to keep the fence

My point in all this is that the Pharisees and the Talmud tend to obfuscate that which is good in the Oral Law and mix it with all sorts of stuff that shouldn't be included with it.  


That being the case it is only logical to reevaluate Matthew 23:2-3

ב הַסּוֹפְרִים וְהַפְּרוּשִׁים יֹשְׁבִים עַל־כִּסֵּא מֹשֶׁה׃
ג לָכֵן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמְרוּ אֲלֵיכֶם לִשְׁמֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אַ כְּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ כִּי הֵם אֹמְרִים וְאֵינָם עֹשִׂים׃

The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat down upon the seat of Moshe;  therefore all that they tell you to observe you observe (simple statement of fact) and do (again, simple statement, not a command);  however don't do according to their deeds because they say but don't do. (This last part is definitely a command.)

So, to state a coherent view of fences: if you want to set a fence go ahead, and keep it.  It is not like a member of the body of Messiah, however, to look down on those who do not keep that fence, because ultimately that fence is most likely of human origin.  If you do look down on those that don't observe the fence,  you are keeping the "fence" and building a wall which is in violation of Ephesian 2:14-15.  Furthermore we should be cognizant that in practice it is the fence that prevents a unbelieving Jew from believing.  He is more afraid of upsetting a compromised tradition of the elders and unwilling to accept his Messiah.

Paul rebuked Peter for just such a thing. Galatians 2:11 - 14

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yirmeyahu on February 12, 2012 at 1:10pm

Regarding the logic that Rabbi Trimm used to say that Yeshua endorsed fences because he strengthened the commandment "thou shalt not kill":

In the Sermon on the Mount Matthew chaps 5-7 something very important is happening.  Yeshua begins the perfecting/full-filling of the Law given to Moshe on Sinai.  He would finish that task on the torture stake. Lets focus on the beginning of the perfecting of the Law.  

The Sermon on the Mount occurs in Matthew only, as in Luke the account is described as occuring on a plain (Luke 6:17)  Also, in Luke 6, Yeshua calls his 12 disciples before the Sermon, whereas in Matthew he is listed as selecting them after the Sermon in chapter 10. Far from trying to introduce doubts about the veracity of the Gospel accounts, by telling you this I am trying to get you to ponder what the significance of such an obvious discrepancy might be.  

Answer:  Matthew is the Gospel to the Israelites and Jews who knew the Tanach and so the chronology and details of that Gospel are tailored to give the Israelite/Jewish reader a more complete picture of Messiah that the other Gospels.  This presentation of Messiah  on the  Mountain is arrayed so as to evoke in the mind of the Israelite/Jewish reader the encounter with YHWH that Moshe had on Sinai/Horeb.  The giving of the 10 commandments was preceded by a Prologue (Ex 19:3-6):

Moses went up to God, and the יהוה called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself. Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.

The 10 Beatitudes are followed by a Epilogue (Matthew 5:13-16) which corresponds to the Old Testament Prologue:

You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.  nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the menorah, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.


Thus we see the continuity between the Tanach and NT.  In both cases the Law is at issue, at Sinai the Letter, on the mount in Matthew 5-7, the Spirit is poured into the Law so that we keep the Spirit of the Law and not merely the letter as the Pharisees were likely to do, in order to be seen by men.


Yeshua is taking the 613 laws and adding a human element to them in order to transform them from the realm of arid externalism and "tell me what is incumbant upon me" which led a keeper of the law to resemble a whitewashed sepulchre to a realm where Yeshua teaches us to be the sort of humans that YHWH wants us to be while keeping the Torah of Moshe.

Come and See:
On Sinai YHWH gave Moses 10 commandments:  Yeshua gave 10 Beatitudes.  The word Ashrei (happy - blessed ) occurs nine times -  and rejoice occurs once - 10 total beatitudes.  These are not positive or negative commandments but rather perfect all previous given commandments by instructing humans to have soft and fleshy hearts and to be spiritual pilgrims. 

The counsel offered by Yeshua would be invaluable for those who accepted him in navigating the difficulties of dealing with those who did not accept him to whom these beatitudes might as well have been pronounced in Chinese, being completely foreign to their religious philosophy.  Beyond that, his advice informs the interpretation of the Law of Moshe (e.g. the laws of adultery and murder becoming more strict ).

He was offering teachings that result in the Law given to Moshe being filled with and be kept in the Spirit of YHWH, and not according to the letter of the Law.  It is inconceivable that one who loves his neighbor will kill him or even hate him.  That is the education Yeshua offers us.  He is aiming to teach us about love.  He definitely is not giving rabbinic imagination a blank check so that they could add hundreds more laws to a book of human origin as Mr. Trimm would imply.

Yeshua was not pointing to or sanctioning to further externalism and further commandments.   Rather the Sermon on the Mount was the antithesis to an external legalism that swallowed the camel while straining the gnat; that produced proselytes who resembled whitewashed sepulchres.  Yeshua was exhorting to internal laws of humility, meekness, kindness and love inorder to inform the interpretation of the commandments from Sinai.  To say it was a blank check with which more external (i.e. traditions of men) laws is incorrect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 13, 2012 at 7:43am

hatred is the desire to murder. its worse to carry out desires.  hatred is NOT insulting, solomon

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page