Tag law of moses

Did Paul call the Torah a “ministration of death”?

2Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

Paul is not equating God’s commandments with death. That would be absurd (though that is what most Dispensationalists suggest). Paul repeatedly states that we should keep the Torah.

Here is the solution: God divorced Israel (Jer 3:8) and God promised to betroth her to himself (Hose 2:19-20). However, it was completely against the law to take a wife back after she had married another, (Deut 24:1-4). Because Israel broke the old marriage covenant, the covenant itself had to be dissolved even though the terms of the covenant were still good! The terms are so good that they will actually be written on our hearts under the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-33).

Hence, the administration of death is not the bad nature of the commandments, but the fact that the Israelites broke the covenant which made it into a form of unalterable condemnation because of the divorce. Paul addresses the law of the husband in Romans 7 where he says:

Rom 7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another–to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

Jesus, Immanuel, the husband of divorced Israel, died and when he did, the Old Covenant (the first marriage contract which had become a ministration of death died with him). Now there can be a new glorious marriage contract in which the Torah (the same commandments) is actually written on the heart.

Ezek 36:26 “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Ezek 36:27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Problem solved! The ministration of death was the marriage covenant which they broke which left them in a perpetual state of hopelessness because their adulterous state could never be undone so long as their husband lived. Once Jesus died, then the old ministration of death (Old Covenant) was replaced with a more glorious covenant where the (same) commandments would be written on the heart.

I hear people continually saying that Yeshua gave us a higher standard than that what is already in the Torah. They say Yeshua gave us love and grace whereas the Torah was all about dos and don’ts. The story of the woman caught in adultery, in John 8, is one of the common proof texts that people to use to show that Yeshua didn’t demand woman’s execution and hence he exercised grace rather than law. When I heard the following explanation of that account from a Torah perspective, by Sarah Rush, I felt it worthy of sharing with you. Enjoy. – Douglas Hamp

Commentary by Sarah Rush

The number of biblical commandments being broken in the story of the adulteress is actually quite astounding. First, any woman caught in adultery would have been taken WITH THE GUILTY MAN with whom she was caught, and brought to the established judges, who generally were found at the city gates. These judges were set in place to hear and try cases such as these. If the accused woman was only *suspected* of being unfaithful, it was the HUSBAND who had to bring her for judgment, and he actually had to bring her before the temple priests in this case. But in this John chapter 8 situation, it is alleged that the woman was caught in the act by witnesses, so the judges at the gates would have been the proper authorities to hear the allegations. However, as mentioned, both the man and the woman would have been required for the accusation.

Next, the actual witness had to make the accusation, and at least two witnesses were required in order for the matter to be established. In the John 8 account, not only did they bypass the proper authorities for hearing such accusations, but no witnesses came forth to go on record as having actually observed the event.

The scribes and pharisees were correct in one thing – that the Mosaic law would have demanded that the woman be stoned to death – but that death sentence required that the accusation be submitted before the proper authorities, in the correct legal fashion, and that all legal criteria be met (both the man and the woman presented, witnesses established, that both be found guilty in such a court).

Because they opted instead to skip all of these steps and go directly to Yeshua, they have already nullified their attempted allegations. Aware of their intent, Yeshua answered them in the proper LEGAL fashion. He responds by requesting that the guiltless party be the first to cast the stone. He does this because in Deuteronomy 13, the Mosaic law tells us clearly that in cases where a guilty verdict would require the death penalty, it was the responsibility of the ACCUSING WITNESS to be the first person to cast the stone. Why would God enact such a bizarre decree? It is actually quite a genius maneuver. Because it was up to that witness to initiate the stoning process, thus making him or her responsible for taking the life of this person who has been found guilty, it puts the burden on the witness to ensure absolutely that their testimony has been truthful. If they have misrepresented the facts and corrupted the judgment in any way, they have made themselves guilty of bearing false witness and murdering, which are two of the ten commandments. This person would then bear blood guilt which the temple sacrifices would not cover.

So, when Yeshua offered the honors of casting the first stone, he was challenging these men to put their life on the line with their testimony against the woman. Being scribes and pharisees, they would have known the law well enough to realize that they could not cast a stone at her without being guilty of intentional / high-handed transgression. Yeshua said, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” He was CLEARLY referring to guilt in this accusation against this woman, not *in general*. How do I know this? It was the oldest men who dropped their rocks and retreated first – the men who knew the law BEST. They knew they’d been HAD.

Further, he asks the woman a bizarre question – he inquires about her accusers, and her condemnation. He is being 100% Torah-compliant here, asking who stands as an accuser against her, and whether she had been found guilty by the judges. She responds that no such person remains, to which Yeshua replies that he also does not condemn her. He says himself in several different places and ways (mostly in John) that he himself did not come to judge – and he proves that in this case of the alleged adulteress – and in a very specifically legal way!

Finally, it is curious to note that we never learn whether this woman was in fact guilty of adultery. No one asks her. I would propose to you that she very well might not have been, and that somehow she got swept up in the authorities’ attempt to trip Yeshua up with the law. If this is the case, she might have been guilty of violating Exodus 23:1-2, which says “You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice.” This might be why Yeshua concludes with her by saying, “Go, and sin no more” – not because she was an adulteress, but because she participated in a mob whose intent was to bring harm to others.