Back to Matthew 18

Okay, go here and here to see the previous posts on Matthew 18.15-17 also see the comments left by Lauren especially her post on her on-line journal that I linked to in the second post.

I've been wanting to go back to this passage and creatively reinterpret it, but I had been delaying because I couldn't really find another interpretation other than the mainstream interpretation. If that interpretation is accurate, as I posted before, I really reject that train of thought as not being a valid teaching of Jesus. However, having read Rabbi Greenberg's book on Homosexuality and his description of the Jewish view of the Bible has inspired me to follow Lauren's suggestion and to look for a different interpretation.

Having said all that, I feel like I need to be completely honest here. I still find verse 17 problematic as a teaching from Jesus. The use of the Greek word translated here as "church" (ekklesia) is used in all of the gospels only one other time also in Matthew (16.18) which is best understood as a comment from Jesus that a new community will be built upon Peter's declaration of Jesus as messiah. But if we read ekklesia in Matthew 18 as the specific community built around Peter you're still dealing with the Church, and you have the problem of Jesus giving advice on how to run the Church many years before it began.

Also, I have to admit that the reading of "gentiles and tax collectors" that I propose is unique to the meaning of gentiles and tax collectors as Jesus employs those terms, especially in Matthew. These terms are used in Matthew specifically to represent those who are wicked, evil or highly impure and should be avoided. So that, if Jesus did give this teaching about his coming community, it really could have no other meaning than to make the unrepentant outcasts. This seems to me to go against everything that Jesus represented in his life and other teachings...that is that God is found in the outcasts, forgiveness is unending (for instance the question from Peter in Matt 18) and other teachings of acceptance and love.

However, if we remove only verse 17 which is the only problem verse in this scenario (it mentions church and gentile/tax collector). The rest of the passage makes much more sense. Once the passage of condemnation is removed, the statement of wherever two or three are gathered connects directly to the number of witnesses needed as Jesus quotes Deuteronomy in 16 and the connection to the following question of forgiveness by Peter, flows nicely as well. All of this leads me, if I'm going to be honest, to continue to argue that verse 17 is added in by a later scribe seeking to justify their harsh treatment of dissenters (Christian scribes are notorious, btw, for amending texts to suit their theological needs).

But there is still a part of me that says that this is scripture, and should be treated with respect and, even so called "trouble passages" should be left in for a possible new interpretation. So I offer the following re-reading in an attempt to leave this verse in the text and still understand it within the larger framework of Jesus' teaching.

It must be pointed out that the passages of binding and loosing, and where two are gathered in the name of Jesus are specifically referencing forgiveness (or condemnation) of the offender's sin (see John 20.23). Jesus is telling the apostles that they have the authority to condemn or forgive anyone. As far as Jesus is concerned, their decisions are final. So, when immediately following this passage, Peter asks Jesus how often they should forgive, it seems likely that he is seeking further guidance on this teaching. Jesus' response is then a clarification on his earlier teaching--the clarification being to always forgive.

Therefore, the command to treat those Christians as "gentiles and tax collectors" seems to me not to encourage excommunication, but rather shows a status within the community. They should be regarded as weak in faith or as young Christians (see Romans 14) which their actions reveal them to be. To me it seems counter productive to keep people from the communion table, let alone fellowship with the community. It is, in a sense, declaring someone a non-Christian. It is a stance of unforgiveness, which goes against Jesus' clarification with Peter later on. Therefore to use this passage as a guideline for church discipline with some form of disassociation with the believer is actually, in my opinion, to loose the meaning of the passage.

A Jewish Reading of Scripture

I'm reading the book Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition by Rabbi Steven Greenberg. Rabbi Greenberg is an Orthodox Rabbi and he's also openly gay (he came out many years after his ordination and the first chapter is his story of dealing with the fact that he's gay). Because he's Orthodox he feels compelled to read the Torah as the word of God; because he's gay he has a problem dealing with those verses that condemn male homosexuality. If you're interested in a way of reading the text that both honors it and moves it beyond it's probable original intent this is a great book. But that's not what I'm writing about.

He describes the Rabbinic view of scripture very succinctly, and the way they handle the Torah has always been something that I have greatly admired. So here is his description of Torah from a Jewish point of view:

"While [Judaism] refused to relegate scriptural passages into a distant and irrelevant past, it also refused to read the Torah as if it meant and has always meant only one thing. The Torah is black fire upon white fire, which bears specific and different meanings depending on the living-reading-observing community. In the first century the schools of Hillel and Shammai differed greatly on many issues and often had competely opposing interpretations. The rabbis claimed that 'both these and those are the words of the living God' (Babylonian Talmud Eruvin 13b). If two opposing understandings of Scripture can both be the word of God, there must be no final reading of any verse. All verses in the Torah are pregnant with multiple meanings, some on the surface, others more deeply hidden, and some yet unborn.

"Traditional reading demands that one approach the verses in Leviticaus as covenantal duty. That we ought to be committed in advance of our reading to uphold the verses in question is not to say that we know in advance what they actually forbid or require us to do. Even though they may have meant something particular in the past, they also speak today. As the psalmist teaches, the Torah is given 'today--if you will hearken to his voice' (Ps 95.7).

"Those unfamiliar with Jewish reading of Scripture may find the barage of questions...unusual. Questions are a hallmark of Jewish spirituality. They are a great cultural paradox in that they both destabilize and secure social norms. Questions tend to spread power around; they are a democratizing force. Comfort with questions conveys a fundamental trust in the good sense of people...

"It is for this reason that God loves it when we ask why. We celebrate challenging the Torah to make sense and above all to be a defensible expression of divine goodness. When we ask good questions, the Torah is given anew on Sinai at that very moment."

An Interesting Verse

In church this week, our pastor was arguing for an inclusive Christianity. While he probably wouldn't take it as far as I would, he did point out an interesting verse:

1 Timothy 4.10 (NASB95)
We have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Is Paul arguing for an inclusive Chrisitianity? Regardless of how you believe, God is the savior of all men?

The Good Samaritan

I have been thinking about the story of the good Samaritan lately. And the offensive nature of the story on first century Jewish ears cannot be under estimated. To make the good guy to be a Samaritan really has no equivalent in modern day society. These people were universally despised by every Jewish person, and the feeling was mutual. Both the Jews and the Samaritans made the claim to being the true descendants of Israel. Both would rather see the other people be wiped out and destroyed. In fact a few generations before Jesus, one of the leaders of the Jewish people went up to Samaria and Mt Gerizim and destroyed the whole darn thing. These people hated each other. This is truly loving your enemies, that's why it's so disturbing to the man trying to justify himself that the person who showed himself to be a true follower of God's commands was not a pious Jew, but a pious Samaritan. As I was thinking about it, I came up with the following modern twist to emphasize a possible secondary understanding....

Jesus was in a church one night teaching about the greatest commandment and loving your neighbor. Afterwards, a man on the board of the church Jesus was teaching at, came up to him and asked, "but who exactly is my neighbor?"

Jesus proceeded to tell him this story:

One night a Christian man was walking down the dark streets of the south side of Chicago by himself. It was raining and he couldn't see where he was going. Eventually he took a wrong turn and was jumped by a bunch of thugs who beat the crap out of him, took everything of value and left him for dead.

Not long after that, a preacher came by and saw the man half lying in the alley and half lying out. He was considering stopping to help, but just then his cell phone rang; the rain had made him late for his board meeting and they were calling to see where he was. "I'm on my way, just got delayed in the rain is all," the preacher said, and he quickly went off. He's probably dead anyway, he thought to himself to assuage his conscience, not much I can do for him now.

Just as the preacher turned the corner, a worship leader came walking down the same street. He too saw the man dying in the alleyway, he glanced at his watch and noticed that he was already late to practice. We've got a lot of new music to cover tonight, he thought to himself as he passed by, I really can't stay. I'll say a prayer for him, when I get to practice, and he continued on his way.

The worship leader was just out of sight as a fundamentalist Muslim man approached the alley. He saw the man left for dead, and quickly ran to his side. The Muslim noticed the man was wearing a cross, but that didn't stop him. He quickly got out his cell phone and called for an ambulance. When the ambulance finally arrived the Muslim was still there waiting with the victim. He found out where they were taking the man and quickly found his way there. He stayed the entire night in the waiting room of the ER waiting for news of the status of the stranger. When he found out that the victim was in critical condition, but would be alright, the Muslim left all the cash he had with the nurse to give to the man when he recovered and took down the address of the hospital so he could send more money later, and then went on his way.

Jesus looked at the board member and asked, "Who was the neighbor to the man left for dead?"
The board member answered, "The one who called the ambulance."
To which Jesus replied, "Then go and do as the Muslim did."

I'm telling this story like this because I want to get beyond the obvious teaching of the story (i.e. everyone is my neighbor) and instead get to a more subtle implication. I wonder if we can extrapolate a teaching that may be uncomfortable to our exclusivist Christian minds. If someone, who is not Christian, by their actions actually affirms the teachings of Christ (i.e. loving your neighbor), whether they realize it or not, doesn't that show that they are really followers of Christ.

This kind of flows from Paul's argument in Romans. Don't those who obey the Torah, even though they never received it, show that it is in all actuality written on their hearts? The implication being, who are we to say that anyone, regardless of their faith, is actually an enemy of God when they end up doing the very thing that God commands. Don't their actions show that their heart is actually in line with God's teachings and as such are a part of God's kingdom, whether they realize it or not?

Matthew 18 Continued

In a previous post, I asked a question about church discipline and the authenticity of Matthew 18 as a teaching of Jesus. To which Lauren beautifully and graciously responded here. Talking to Jaime about this and then reading Lauren's response has brought up some important issues for me, that I'm really trying to address. So allow me to clarify:

I am not saying that there is no call for correction within the church. I do have a problem with the overly systematic approach that many have taken when trying to correct someone. Lauren rightly points out, "I'd guess that one reason you...are sensitive to this idea of 'accountability' within the church is that we've seen too many examples wherein this process has been applied abusively, without love or grace." This is certainly true, and(sadly) has been my experience in every church that I have been a part of. I'm saying this as someone who has taken part in the judgmental attitude that has driven people away. And this is part of what I'm reacting to: my guilt for having been in environments where people have been ostracized for everything from being angry at a parent to dating someone outside the church. Some people's misdeeds were truly serious and some were minutiae, but few, in my opinion, were really grounds for completely removing a person from their church community. (Because of these experiences I may be overcompensating).

Part of the problem I have with a systematic one-size-fits-all approach is that rarely, if ever, are situations so similar that a system can be applied. Systems also remove the greatest catalyst for reconciliation: relationships. Often these corrections take place outside of Christ centered relationships. People say--and, I believe, honestly think--that the hurtful things that are being said in the discipline are done out of love and based on relationships. However, I suspect, that if you ask the person being disciplined, they would say the relationship really isn't there and it doesn't feel like love. I would argue that if the person doesn't feel loved, there's a good reason: they're not being loved.

We all tend to get out of joint when corrected (it's not always great for one's ego). Relationships and love make correction tolerable and, ultimately, the blessing it is meant to be. That's why it's such a pity that so many people in the church take the cold approach. Sins are pointed out because they can be and for no other reason. Intimacy isn't taken into account. Before confronting someone we should all ask ourselves if we really have the "relationship capital" to do so. Have I loved this person? Have I put the in the work required of a close relationship? Are we really friends or just acquaintances? We should also ask ourselves if this is the right time to point out a sin. Is it really necessary to bring this up right now? Is it a life and death issue or is it something they should be allowed to see in their own time. Allowing people to work at their own pace is something a lot of leaders give lip service to and then quickly disregard. Faith is a process, an evolution of the soul. It's not instant and complete the moment a person begins to trust in God. We can't expect the same level of good deeds from all people.

Lauren also points out, "that with just the slightest shift in your interpretive grid, you might be able to see this as a teaching in reconciliation rather than ex-communication." To this I have to concede and will attempt to do later on (in a different post). What I don't want to do is simply remove a passage from the Bible simply because I don't like that it's been used in sinful ways due to bad interpretation. I'm finishing up John Shelby Spong's The Sins of Scripture, and he ultimately just rejects Bible passages because they have been used sinfully. I don't like it. I appreciate many of his conclusions, but I don't like his method. I prefer finding a way to look at the passage in a non-sexist, non-demeaning, non-whatever sort of way if possible (admittedly of late I have lost focus on that). I also think Christians need to acknowledge the humanity of the people who wrote, compiled and handed down the Bible we have today, and be willing to challenge at least the traditional interpretations that have been given.

Anyway, excommunication seems to me to be the opposite of Christ's teachings. At times people leave Jesus, and eventually he is abandoned completely, but it is never because he rejects them-- they reject him. I'm fine with letting people walk away, I'm not fine with pushing people out. If there is ever the threat of excommunication, it kills the encouragement to the best communication: confession. Why confess something if I'll just get harshly corrected or threatened with excommunication? Why be open and honest with where I am at if my walk with God will be constantly questioned? Why confess any deep-seated sin if my place within the community (that God intended to be the source of healing) is threatened? It seems to me the plain meaning of this passage is clear: a formula for excommunication. But I'm willing to reinterpret the passage positively if that is possible.

Accountability, Church Discipline and Jesus

Recently, a church in Texas has made the news because of the "controversial" way they handled a certain church discipline. Because I'm not familiar with the details of the situation, I'm not going to say anything specific about it, but it does bring up certain questions I've had about accountability and what the Bible says about it.

The standard passage used by churches to help define the method by which they perform official church discipline is Matthew 18.15-17. Essentially there are four steps:

• Correct the sinner privately, if that doesn't work:
  
• Correct the sinner with another person, if that doesn't work:
• Tell it to the church, if that doesn't work:
• "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (vs. 18)

When churches want to use this passage to defend their actions against a member, the first question I want to ask is this, "Does it strike you as odd that Jesus is talking about "Church" discipline years before the Church was ever in existence?" They usually don't mention that this teaching in Mathew is in a really wierd place right between Jesus' parable of the shepherd going out to find the one lost sheep and Peter's question about how often he should forgive someone (70 times 7; i.e. always). Suddenly, in between teachings of forgiveness and reconciliation is a teaching about how to kick someone out of a church? A church that doesn't exist? It seems to me that this passage was added later and should not be used as a teaching from Jesus himself.

(My wife is lecturing me right now about slippery slopes and all that, but I am tuning her out. Honey, you can't avoid something just because it's a slippery slope. And I don't know why you're using that phrase anyway because you hate it.)

Anyway.

Many people respond that the Church needs some way to hold people accountable for their actions. Does it really? The only reason (that I can think of) for this would be to maintain power and control. If you were to look at all the times in the bible the word "account" (i.e. give an account, be accountable, etc.) is used, never once does it mention people being forced to give an account to each other for their sin. Instead everyone has to give an account to God. It's really between the person and God. When it does talk about people giving account to each other, it is always confessional and always initiated by the sinner. It seems to me, from my experience at least, that people who want to initiate some form of accountability on someone else are usually the most judgmental and least loving. The powers that be use it to maintain a power structure which usually puts them at the head.

One last thing on the Matthew 18 passage: what does it mean for Jesus to tell his disciples to treat the unrepentant sinner as a gentile or tax collector? He was notorious for his association with the outcast (i.e. gentile and tax collecter) and not disassociating himself from them, but accepting them where they were! This statement is so out of character from everything else the gospels tell us about him, it makes me suspicious...any thoughts?

Does Culture Matter?

In the comments to the post on questioning scripture, Jaime brought up the issue of the hierarchy in the Jewish Bible. Questions were then asked about the Bible contradicting itself, how can that be if it's really God's word, etc. My quick answer would've been, yes it contradicts itself and yes it's God's word...I don't have a problem with that. Fortunately Jaime thinks about what she says more than I do and brought up the issue of culture. I think that this is an important question that we both have and so I thought I'd bring up here in an actual post.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Again, I think quite obviously it does, and there are many scribal errors that have permeated the text we have now. Some examples that Jaime gave:

• In 2 Sam 24, it is the anger of the Lord that incites David to count his men, and so brings a plague among the people of Israel (interestingly this is one of the passages where God repents and changes his mind...but that's a different post). In the parallel passage in 1 Chron 21, the Chronicler had a problem with God punishing Israel for something that was His idea, and makes Satan the bad guy.
  
• Gen 20.12 makes it clear that Abraham and Sarah are half-siblings, a marriage which is not allowed in the Torah.
  
• Just for fun, a large scribal error is in 1 Sam 11. At some point the scribe missed a whole paragraph that gives some background to this story. We have a copy of the paragraph in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSamA).
• Even in the same set of books though, there are differences, the most famous being with the Ten Commandments: Why are the Jews supposed to observe the Sabbath? Exodus 20: because God made the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Deut 5: because you were slaves in Egypt so give your slaves a rest. Which is the right one?
  

This list could go on and on. Is it all God's word? This, honestly, I'm a bit hesitant on. Right now, I'll say yes, because I believe in a dynamic God--a God who takes into account people where they are and what they believe or know. God addresses different cultures and different people, well....differently. Very few things in the Bible are set in stone. The problem is how do we know what is cultural and what is truth?

I'm against the death penalty, because I believe in a God of second chances and forgiveness...but the Torah certainly shows a God endorsing the death penalty for everything from adultery to children who disrespect their parents. I think of it as God dealing with people and where they're at in their societies and times . We (most everywhere in the world but the US and fundamentalist Muslim regimes) have moved into a society that acknowledges the worth of people's lives over an arcane sense of justice. Isn't this a better place to be?

What else is a case of God responding to the culture of the time? Could homosexuality be one of those things? Certainly the role of women in the Church; certainly slavery and animal sacrifice. I guess this is the question: What's cultural, what's not? What should we die for and what should we be willing to be merciful on? Any thoughts?

Questioning Scripture

This question has been on my mind for awhile now, and, no, it has nothing to do with the DaVinci Code.

The main question I have about scripture is that the Bible never defines itself. So, what is in and what is out is by its very nature a tradition (something which most evangelicals have a problem with). Therefore, if you want to hold the Bible as authoritative, the only source of truth and understanding of God, you must accept the following paradox: the Bible is never defined in the Bible and as such is unBiblical, or you have to accept the authority of tradition, which I do, but by its very nature could be wrong on somethings, and could be challenged by a new insight or understanding. My understanding, right now, is that what is "scripture" is a tradition, and any tradition should be revisited and examined anew.

Part of the problem I have with the traditional understanding of the passage in 2 Timothy is that the New Testament didn't exist, and would exist for a couple of hundred years after its writing. If you look at the context of the letter surrounding it, Paul is encouraging Timothy to hold to the Scripture which was taught to him from his youth. If anything this is the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, not the New Testament. This verse used by so many evangelicals to give authority to scripture actually undermines the authority of the New Testament!

But, in the end, I wonder if we need to redefine what we are referring to as "scripture." Not in the sense that it needs to be more narrowly defined (i.e. only the Gospels; or the Gospels and certain Pauline letters, etc.) but more broadly defined. For example, Jude quotes the Assumption of Moses and Ethiopic Enoch (both Pseudepigraphic books which we have today); should these be seen as some form of scripture, because they make up such a large portion of this book of the Bible?

Or can a Christian accept the teachings of Christ, but feel uncomfortable with the direction that Paul took it? So maybe that Christian loves the Gospels and maybe other books of the Bible, also studies some other writings contemporaneous with the Bible but rejects Paul's letters. Or someone loves the Church Fathers and studies them as she explores Christ's teachings and tries to live her life as they interpreted Jesus rather than how Paul interpreted Jesus.

We could take this to modern writers as well, couldn't we? Should the writings of C.S. Lewis be considered scripture? What about Calvin, Luther or some other Reformation leaders? What about the Pope's writings? Some of what John Paul II wrote seemed quite inspired to me.

Finally, what do we do with those who disagree with us? Is it possible that trying to deal with 5 Christians you might have 5 different scriptures? Is that really a problem? Can't we find some way to accept diversity among Christians? Is the issue of scripture really a hill to die on?

Anyway, these are some of the questions I have on the authority of scripture, some of them are thought out and some are just off the top of my head. Any thoughts/comments/arguments will be welcome provided all remains civil!

I was Evangelized!!!

Yes, my dear readers, I was evangelized for your sake. In a desperate attempt for material to write about (that's right--it's all for you) I sat down by one of the open air preachers this week. I know most of you would not require such sacrifices, I know you'd be crying out, "STOP! Write about your cute kids instead! For the love of all that is holy! This isn't necessary!" And I must admit it wasn't all for the sake of my meager readership. Part of the reason I decided to sit down was because one of my Jewish friends had walked by earlier on her way to our Hebrew class and was accosted by one of our classmates. Aparently, the preacher was his pastor. (You ever get one of those bad vibes about somebody the first time you see them and you don't know exactly why, except you decide to stay far away from them...that was this guy...and now I know why I got the bad vibes.)

Anyway, since the preacher guy had totally offended my friend she barraged me with a ton of questions about Christianity and what Jesus taught, so I thought I should go listen to the guy. And as street preachers go, he was offensive, but he ain't no Brother Jed. Brother Jed has his daughters walk around with signs reading "Faggots burn in Hell," (get it--faggots...burn...) "Jesus is your Judge," and other friendly, loving things to say. This guy just stood there and shouted at people all day. . . amateur.

One thing he did bring with him was his own team of crowd minglers. They would walk the crowd and ask people what they thought of the guy, what he was saying, etc. Eventually, they would get to the point of asking if you knew Jesus as your "Personal Lord and Savior." If you said you were a Christian, as I did twice, they would ask if you could pin point a date, an exact moment when you became a Christian. Seeing where the conversation was headed I said, "yes,"and pointed to my adult baptism when I was 19. (I really wasn't in the mood to point out to the people that praying to receive Christ as your personal savior is not really a biblical idea. The magic get out of hell prayer isn't what salvation is about, that salvation is a life lived for God, serving Him with what you do for others, not your belief and words.)

For the guy that is in my class (let's call him J), the conversation was a little less strange than the first fellow, since I had a little bit of familiarity with the man, but it ended with the following conversation, which I had to share:

J: So, Ben, what's your major?
Me: Jewish Studies
J: With a confused look on his face, starts to open mouth to ask, "Why is a Christian majoring in Jewish Studies"
B Seeking to avoid said question: What's yours, J?
J: Hebrew.
B: Why are you majoring in Hebrew?
J: I feel like I know the New Testament pretty well and I wanted to study the Old Testament. I'll be going to get my M. Div when I graduate, so I thought I should take something that will keep my interest and be useful.
B: You know, J, If you don't know the Old Testament, I guarantee you don't really know the New Testament at all.
J: Confused look on his face
B: Well, it was good talking to you! I gotta go catch my bus! See ya in class tomorrow.

To J's credit, he still had the guts to invite me to his Church's student group that meets on campus. I did the polite, "I'll think about it (i.e. no thanks)" answer. And got out of there with my life intact.

It could have been worse, really. But I've already been told I'm going to hell and have AIDS--what else can they do to me? Really if you're have a terminal illness and you're going to hell, there's only one thing worse--becoming a psychotically judgmental street preacher.

I really hope my current writer's block will end soon, because I really don't want to become that.

Dude, That's so Old Testament

Over the past couple of weeks I've run into people and churches using "Old Testament" as a derogatory term and/or as a way to write off parts of the Bible they don't want to deal with.

A couple of guys from my church were talking about someone who hasn't been around for awhile and one of the guys said, "He's so Old Testament." My first reaction was, "What the heck does that mean?" The second was "You'd probably consider me Old Testament!" Of course, I didn't say either of those because a) I don't know them that well and b) I'm a coward.

I also ran into a church's web site that described large worship gatherings with singing, etc as relics of the Old Testament Temple service and should be avoided. They also said (and they weren't the first people I've heard this from) that since Jesus only endorsed two commandments (Love God and love your neighbor) the other 611 commandments in the Torah/Pentateuch/5 Books of Moses are inapplicable. Obviously to someone majoring in Jewish Studies and going on to Grad school studying Hebrew, to throw out the Torah is a bit. . . shall we say. . . troubling.

Ironically, the Talmud has a story that gives nearly the exact same teaching as Jesus did, from a forerunner to the rabbis who lived around the same time as Jesus. The story goes something like this: A Gentile came to Hillel and said, "I'll convert if you can teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel agrees to the terms and says, "That which is hateful to you, do not do that to your neighbor (i.e. love your neighbor as yourself) The rest is commentary. Go and study." For the Rabbis (and I'd like to point out that the Pharisees of Jesus' time agreed with him according to the New Testament) this law was only the beginning not the end. I propose Jesus meant this very same thing, because he came "not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it."

I know the Torah is scary, there are parts that don't seem to make much sense to someone in the 21st century, but it is still there. And, at the risk of being labelled "Old Testament" there's more to the Old Testament than prophecies pointing to Jesus, pithy proverbs and psalms that Christians don't use because they're too busy singing about being "madly in love" with God. There. I'm finished. Thank you.