Among Jewish, Karaite, Messianic, and other groups, the term
“Torah” has a very diverse set of meanings. Some consider Torah to be
synonymous with the “Pentateuch”, that is, the so-called “Five Books of
Moses”. Orthodox Jews include or otherwise consider the Torah to be
their rabbinic traditions. Some Karaites and certain others seem to go
as far to include the entirety of the TNK (“Old Testament”) as “Torah”,
while some Messianics claim the Calvinist 1647 Bible canon to be
“Torah”. Not only do these definitions exist, but many variations as
well, including those who accept other non-conventional works as
“Torah”, or those who only accept the Decalogue (ten commandments) as
“Torah”. Obviously, the term is defined very differently by many
people, so we need to look to the text to determine how it should
actually be understood and used.
The word “torah”, both in singular and in plural, is used throughout the Hebrew text, and is conventionally translated as “law”. It appears in multiple ways, for example:
Lev 7:37 – “This [is] the law (ha-torah) for ascent, for tribute, and for wrongdoing, and for guilt, and for fillings, and for slaughter of the peaces…”
Ex 18:20 – “And you shall cause to enlighten them with the enactments and the laws (ha-toroth), and you shall cause to know to them the way they shall walk in it, and the act which they shall do.”
Dt 30:10 – “that you are listening in voice of YAHUAH your Elohim, to guard His commandments and His enactments, the being written in scroll of this law (ha-torah), that you are returning to YAHUAH your Elohim in all of your heart and in all of your soul.”
Gen 26:5 – “…inasmuch which Abraham listened in My voice, and he guarded My keeping, My commandments, My enactments, and My laws (w-thorothay)…”
While “torah” is used generally in reference to single laws or small sets of laws throughout the commandments, such as with the Lev 7:37 example, the term’s usage that we are seeking to understand is most similar to the Dt 30:10 reference. Dt 30:10 refers to “the being written in scroll of this Torah”. When most people today speak of “Torah”, it is a reference to the full compilation of laws given to Israel to guard and do. As a result, seeking to understand how exactly this is defined will result in defining what is “law” and what is not, especially when considering that Dt 4:2, 12:32 forbids the addition or removal of commands.
The prophets tests of the Torah give us some indications regarding what is law and what is not. Dt 12:32 tells us we are not allowed to add to the commandments which “I [Moses] command to you”, nor shall we diminish from it. This is immediately followed by a prophets test, which tells us that signs and wonders are irrelevant in the case that the prophet is false, and false is indicated in Dt 13:5 as being “to cause to compel you from the way which YAHUAH your Elohim made command you to walk in it”. Clearly, “the way which YAHUAH your Elohim made command” needs to be defined for us in order to know what qualifies as deviation, or what qualifies as addition or subtraction. A prophet which comes after Moses (Dt 18:15-22), when actually verified to be legitimate, is to be listened to (Dt 18:19). However, this prophet could not be violating the commandment of Dt 4:2, 12:32, nor could he be prophesying to compel others from the existing commands (Dt 13:5). If that is the case, then prophets after Moses would not be able to give new commandments and enactments as law to the congregation, as this would be violating Dt 4:2, 12:32, and therefore would be violating Dt 13:5, since he would be thrusting one from obeying an already existing command to not add new commandments. An example of this is in Eze 44:20 when it adds the commandment for priests to “surely trim their heads”, which is a violation of Dt 4:2, 12:32-13:5, because that command is not found among the commands of Moses. Prophets after Moses are not permitted to create new commandments or diminish the existing ones, as required by the prophets tests.
A prophet could legitimately provide guidance from YAHUAH, such as saying the people need to return to the Torah or else curses will come upon them, or providing prophetic insight regarding who needs to be selected as king or priest, or which place should be selected for the resting of the Tabernacle, or even providing personal direction to important people regarding what they personally need to accomplish. However, a prophet cannot add or change commandments for the congregation. Therefore, we see that the prophets test draws an obvious line as to when the commandments of the Torah cease being given, and that would be when Moses finished delivering them in Deuteronomy.
As to when the commandments of the Torah begin to be given, a major hint is given to us in Numbers 15:22-23, which says: “And that you are erring and you are not doing all of these commandments which YAHUAH made word to Moses, all of which YAHUAH made command to you in hand of Moses, from the day which YAHUAH made command and beyond for your generations…” We can notice here that error and wrongdoing are implicitly being defined as what was made command “in hand of Moses”, as well as further implication being given regarding the timing of the origin and application of the Torah (from the day which YAHUAH made command and beyond…).
If wrongdoing is being defined as that which was commanded through Moses, then where does this start and where does it end? The first actual commandments for the congregation that we see begin to appear in Exodus 12, which includes the Passover and Unleavened commandments. This continues until the end of Deuteronomy.
When defining wrongdoing in this way, it would imply a different compilation of laws than would be defined by the term “Pentateuch”. Penta-, meaning five, refers to the supposed “Five Books of Moses”, which are considered Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In Genesis, we do not see Moses ever mentioned as delivering this material, and indeed, he was not yet born at the time those events were to have occurred. Furthermore, no indication is given that he was the transmitter of that book.
There is no explicit reference to Genesis as a whole at any point in the TNK. The first definitive reference to Adam, for example, is in 1 Chronicles, a presumably post-Babylonian captivity book (Dt 32:8 refers to “adam”, but it is not clear as to whether its use is as a name or as the word for “human”, which is how it is translated everywhere else in Ex – Dt). The “commandments given in hand of Moses” as the standard of obedience is referenced in Joshua 23:6, Judges 3:4, 1 Kings 2:3, etc, but once again, Moses is never mentioned in Genesis. The Garden of Eden and Noah, as another set of examples, we only see referenced explicitly in Ezekiel, Joel (Eden only), Isaiah, and 1 Chronicles (Noah only), but they never appear in the commands of Moses, nor do we see any sort of reference to the perceived commands associated with them. The only thing that is elucidated regarding the creation/etc in the actual commandments of Moses is that the world was created in six days with the seventh day rest (Ex 20:11), but no other details about that are given.
Determining whether Genesis is considered “law” or “Torah” is an important distinction to make, since it affects the determination of right and wrong. If Genesis was to be considered part of the “Law of Moses”, and considering Numbers 15:22-23 refers to “commandments which YAHUAH made word to Moses…”, surely if Genesis was delivered by Moses it would have been made evident in either the text of Genesis itself or in the clearly Mosaic works. It is not, and it is only by later tradition that Genesis is considered to be from Moses.
On the other hand, one should certainly note that there is an important set of references in the commands of Moses to the Abrahamic covenant, something which is presumed to be contained in Genesis 17. Lev 26:42 states, “and I shall remember My covenant with Jacob, and indeed, My covenant with Isaac, and indeed, My covenant with Abraham I shall remember, and I shall remember the land.” The terms of the Abrahamic covenant include rules regarding circumcision. However, much of these rules are cited again in the laws of Moses. The eighth day circumcision is commanded in Lev 12:3, and circumcision of slaves or those joining the congregation is arguably commanded in Ex 12:44,48. Enforcement of the circumcision laws are made apparent in Ex 4:25-26 as well. The Abrahamic covenant is very explicitly indicated to be of legitimacy and importance in the actual commands of Moses, and is arguably a driving force behind them. In this way, Genesis 17 is very much distinct from the rest of Genesis, being that the rest is never obviously referred to by Moses.
Practically speaking, however, the exclusion of much of Genesis as being considered “law” should not really affect much when dealing with matters of explicit command for the congregation. For example, in Genesis 9, there are commands given to Noah and his children, such as with increasing and not eating blood. Eating blood is prohibited in the Torah in Lev 3:17, and the blessing of Torah obedience in Lev 26:9 is that Israel shall be caused to be increased (though it does not appear as a command). Genesis 32:32 references how the Israelites have a tradition of not eating the sinew of the thigh, but it says nothing about this being a commandment, nor that it was given by YAHUAH or Moses, nor that it was a term of a covenant, so ultimately this is referenced as a tradition, not a law. This change of the way Genesis is treated largely should relate to changes of theological paradigm, rather than actual changes of presumed “command”.
Many of the problems relating to treating Genesis as “Torah” do not come from actual “commands” given in Genesis, but from the presumption of “implicit commands”. Gen 1:29, for example, has been argued (by some that seem to hold certain personal beliefs) to be a command prohibiting eating seedless fruit, GMOs, mushrooms, etc, since it says that “vegetation seeding seed” and “fruit of tree seeding seed” are given as food. However, yeast is obviously allowed to be eaten in the Torah (it is only prohibited during Unleavened or in certain offerings), dirt is commanded to be eaten in one case (Num 5:17-25), and meat is commanded to be eaten in the case of various sacrifices. If one was to have such an interpretation of Gen 1:29, such that it prohibited any other sort of food than what was mentioned in that verse, and in the case this was considered law, there would certainly be contradiction with the actual Torah, and even the rest of Genesis in some cases. Furthermore, there are other things such as honey, milk, and eggs that do not qualify as either of those mentioned in Gen 1:29, yet seem to be allowed by the Torah (and are certainly not explicitly prohibited).
Though this deviates somewhat into another subject matter, dealing with supposed “implicit commands” can result in many problems, and this is not just in the case of Genesis. With explicit commandments, we can see obviously that “you shall do _[this]_”, or “you shall not do _[this]_”, and clearly these are meant to be commandments that the congregation is to follow (when given by Moses). However, there is an extremely fine line between deriving an “implicit command” and adding a new commandment, which is explicitly prohibited by Dt 4:2, 12:32. One might derive that complaining against YAHUAH is prohibited, such as with accounts in Num 14, and this could be deemed an implicit command. In this regard, there is already an explicit commandment to fear YAHUAH in Lev 25:17, which would surely already account for this. Indeed, that is a notably different situation from one creating a command based upon an inference or assumption that ultimately has no textual support, such as the supposed GMO prohibition (which does not exist), the assertion that one must buy their workers eye and ear protection (being stretched out of the command to build a parapet on your newly built house), or the assertion that one cannot smoke (being derived entirely from personal belief). Furthermore, lack of mention certainly does not imply prohibition, as one could enforce a nearly infinite set of new commandments if this was the case (but it is obviously explicitly prohibited from being done, as referenced). There is an extremely fine line between legitimately inferring a presumed “implicit command” and outright creating an entirely new command. Simply because one perceives a vaguely worded Torah commandment as supporting their personal belief does not mean that their newly created personal command is legitimate. One needs to distinguish between actual commandments and between commandments that one personally might want to make, since the latter is prohibited from being law or Torah in Dt 4:2, 12:32.
In regard to the traditions of the elders: The Torah was denuded to be done (Dt 29:29), is near to us to do it (Dt 30:14), and contains the commandments and enactments which were written (Dt 30:10). If the Torah was denuded to be done, and is already near, then the argument that “one needs the traditions to know how to do things” is obviously invalid. Furthermore, the Torah is explicitly stated as being written, as referenced in Dt 30:10, and it indicates that the return of Israel to the land of Canaan is dependent upon their obedience to that which was written. These oral rabbinic traditions which were later compiled are certainly not Torah, and many times they amount to violations of the Torah (if for no other reason than being added commands).
In recognizing what defines the commandments of the Torah, we can readily see that new commandments after Moses are not legitimate by the standard of the prophets tests (Dt 12:32-13:5, etc). Likewise, we can recognize the references to “in hand of Moses” (Num 15:22-23), as well as the differentiation between the explicit commandment and between the incorrect additions through the presumed inferences of others. The relevance of the Abrahamic covenant is also made apparent, which we can refer to its account in Genesis 17. It is for these reasons that the article is entitled “The Four Books of the Law”, as the Torah appears to be intended to be comprised by the commandments given from Exodus through Deuteronomy, with the additional recognition of the Abrahamic covenant. It is certainly not the entire TNK or the entire 1647 canon, nor would it include supposed “implicit commands” or traditions from Genesis. The Torah is complete in its writing, and does not require rabbinic enactments to be done. Moses gives the beginning of the Torah and he gives the end of the Torah. The Torah cannot be changed further.
(From prior posting on Gr. 9/14/14)
The word “torah”, both in singular and in plural, is used throughout the Hebrew text, and is conventionally translated as “law”. It appears in multiple ways, for example:
Lev 7:37 – “This [is] the law (ha-torah) for ascent, for tribute, and for wrongdoing, and for guilt, and for fillings, and for slaughter of the peaces…”
Ex 18:20 – “And you shall cause to enlighten them with the enactments and the laws (ha-toroth), and you shall cause to know to them the way they shall walk in it, and the act which they shall do.”
Dt 30:10 – “that you are listening in voice of YAHUAH your Elohim, to guard His commandments and His enactments, the being written in scroll of this law (ha-torah), that you are returning to YAHUAH your Elohim in all of your heart and in all of your soul.”
Gen 26:5 – “…inasmuch which Abraham listened in My voice, and he guarded My keeping, My commandments, My enactments, and My laws (w-thorothay)…”
While “torah” is used generally in reference to single laws or small sets of laws throughout the commandments, such as with the Lev 7:37 example, the term’s usage that we are seeking to understand is most similar to the Dt 30:10 reference. Dt 30:10 refers to “the being written in scroll of this Torah”. When most people today speak of “Torah”, it is a reference to the full compilation of laws given to Israel to guard and do. As a result, seeking to understand how exactly this is defined will result in defining what is “law” and what is not, especially when considering that Dt 4:2, 12:32 forbids the addition or removal of commands.
The prophets tests of the Torah give us some indications regarding what is law and what is not. Dt 12:32 tells us we are not allowed to add to the commandments which “I [Moses] command to you”, nor shall we diminish from it. This is immediately followed by a prophets test, which tells us that signs and wonders are irrelevant in the case that the prophet is false, and false is indicated in Dt 13:5 as being “to cause to compel you from the way which YAHUAH your Elohim made command you to walk in it”. Clearly, “the way which YAHUAH your Elohim made command” needs to be defined for us in order to know what qualifies as deviation, or what qualifies as addition or subtraction. A prophet which comes after Moses (Dt 18:15-22), when actually verified to be legitimate, is to be listened to (Dt 18:19). However, this prophet could not be violating the commandment of Dt 4:2, 12:32, nor could he be prophesying to compel others from the existing commands (Dt 13:5). If that is the case, then prophets after Moses would not be able to give new commandments and enactments as law to the congregation, as this would be violating Dt 4:2, 12:32, and therefore would be violating Dt 13:5, since he would be thrusting one from obeying an already existing command to not add new commandments. An example of this is in Eze 44:20 when it adds the commandment for priests to “surely trim their heads”, which is a violation of Dt 4:2, 12:32-13:5, because that command is not found among the commands of Moses. Prophets after Moses are not permitted to create new commandments or diminish the existing ones, as required by the prophets tests.
A prophet could legitimately provide guidance from YAHUAH, such as saying the people need to return to the Torah or else curses will come upon them, or providing prophetic insight regarding who needs to be selected as king or priest, or which place should be selected for the resting of the Tabernacle, or even providing personal direction to important people regarding what they personally need to accomplish. However, a prophet cannot add or change commandments for the congregation. Therefore, we see that the prophets test draws an obvious line as to when the commandments of the Torah cease being given, and that would be when Moses finished delivering them in Deuteronomy.
As to when the commandments of the Torah begin to be given, a major hint is given to us in Numbers 15:22-23, which says: “And that you are erring and you are not doing all of these commandments which YAHUAH made word to Moses, all of which YAHUAH made command to you in hand of Moses, from the day which YAHUAH made command and beyond for your generations…” We can notice here that error and wrongdoing are implicitly being defined as what was made command “in hand of Moses”, as well as further implication being given regarding the timing of the origin and application of the Torah (from the day which YAHUAH made command and beyond…).
If wrongdoing is being defined as that which was commanded through Moses, then where does this start and where does it end? The first actual commandments for the congregation that we see begin to appear in Exodus 12, which includes the Passover and Unleavened commandments. This continues until the end of Deuteronomy.
When defining wrongdoing in this way, it would imply a different compilation of laws than would be defined by the term “Pentateuch”. Penta-, meaning five, refers to the supposed “Five Books of Moses”, which are considered Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In Genesis, we do not see Moses ever mentioned as delivering this material, and indeed, he was not yet born at the time those events were to have occurred. Furthermore, no indication is given that he was the transmitter of that book.
There is no explicit reference to Genesis as a whole at any point in the TNK. The first definitive reference to Adam, for example, is in 1 Chronicles, a presumably post-Babylonian captivity book (Dt 32:8 refers to “adam”, but it is not clear as to whether its use is as a name or as the word for “human”, which is how it is translated everywhere else in Ex – Dt). The “commandments given in hand of Moses” as the standard of obedience is referenced in Joshua 23:6, Judges 3:4, 1 Kings 2:3, etc, but once again, Moses is never mentioned in Genesis. The Garden of Eden and Noah, as another set of examples, we only see referenced explicitly in Ezekiel, Joel (Eden only), Isaiah, and 1 Chronicles (Noah only), but they never appear in the commands of Moses, nor do we see any sort of reference to the perceived commands associated with them. The only thing that is elucidated regarding the creation/etc in the actual commandments of Moses is that the world was created in six days with the seventh day rest (Ex 20:11), but no other details about that are given.
Determining whether Genesis is considered “law” or “Torah” is an important distinction to make, since it affects the determination of right and wrong. If Genesis was to be considered part of the “Law of Moses”, and considering Numbers 15:22-23 refers to “commandments which YAHUAH made word to Moses…”, surely if Genesis was delivered by Moses it would have been made evident in either the text of Genesis itself or in the clearly Mosaic works. It is not, and it is only by later tradition that Genesis is considered to be from Moses.
On the other hand, one should certainly note that there is an important set of references in the commands of Moses to the Abrahamic covenant, something which is presumed to be contained in Genesis 17. Lev 26:42 states, “and I shall remember My covenant with Jacob, and indeed, My covenant with Isaac, and indeed, My covenant with Abraham I shall remember, and I shall remember the land.” The terms of the Abrahamic covenant include rules regarding circumcision. However, much of these rules are cited again in the laws of Moses. The eighth day circumcision is commanded in Lev 12:3, and circumcision of slaves or those joining the congregation is arguably commanded in Ex 12:44,48. Enforcement of the circumcision laws are made apparent in Ex 4:25-26 as well. The Abrahamic covenant is very explicitly indicated to be of legitimacy and importance in the actual commands of Moses, and is arguably a driving force behind them. In this way, Genesis 17 is very much distinct from the rest of Genesis, being that the rest is never obviously referred to by Moses.
Practically speaking, however, the exclusion of much of Genesis as being considered “law” should not really affect much when dealing with matters of explicit command for the congregation. For example, in Genesis 9, there are commands given to Noah and his children, such as with increasing and not eating blood. Eating blood is prohibited in the Torah in Lev 3:17, and the blessing of Torah obedience in Lev 26:9 is that Israel shall be caused to be increased (though it does not appear as a command). Genesis 32:32 references how the Israelites have a tradition of not eating the sinew of the thigh, but it says nothing about this being a commandment, nor that it was given by YAHUAH or Moses, nor that it was a term of a covenant, so ultimately this is referenced as a tradition, not a law. This change of the way Genesis is treated largely should relate to changes of theological paradigm, rather than actual changes of presumed “command”.
Many of the problems relating to treating Genesis as “Torah” do not come from actual “commands” given in Genesis, but from the presumption of “implicit commands”. Gen 1:29, for example, has been argued (by some that seem to hold certain personal beliefs) to be a command prohibiting eating seedless fruit, GMOs, mushrooms, etc, since it says that “vegetation seeding seed” and “fruit of tree seeding seed” are given as food. However, yeast is obviously allowed to be eaten in the Torah (it is only prohibited during Unleavened or in certain offerings), dirt is commanded to be eaten in one case (Num 5:17-25), and meat is commanded to be eaten in the case of various sacrifices. If one was to have such an interpretation of Gen 1:29, such that it prohibited any other sort of food than what was mentioned in that verse, and in the case this was considered law, there would certainly be contradiction with the actual Torah, and even the rest of Genesis in some cases. Furthermore, there are other things such as honey, milk, and eggs that do not qualify as either of those mentioned in Gen 1:29, yet seem to be allowed by the Torah (and are certainly not explicitly prohibited).
Though this deviates somewhat into another subject matter, dealing with supposed “implicit commands” can result in many problems, and this is not just in the case of Genesis. With explicit commandments, we can see obviously that “you shall do _[this]_”, or “you shall not do _[this]_”, and clearly these are meant to be commandments that the congregation is to follow (when given by Moses). However, there is an extremely fine line between deriving an “implicit command” and adding a new commandment, which is explicitly prohibited by Dt 4:2, 12:32. One might derive that complaining against YAHUAH is prohibited, such as with accounts in Num 14, and this could be deemed an implicit command. In this regard, there is already an explicit commandment to fear YAHUAH in Lev 25:17, which would surely already account for this. Indeed, that is a notably different situation from one creating a command based upon an inference or assumption that ultimately has no textual support, such as the supposed GMO prohibition (which does not exist), the assertion that one must buy their workers eye and ear protection (being stretched out of the command to build a parapet on your newly built house), or the assertion that one cannot smoke (being derived entirely from personal belief). Furthermore, lack of mention certainly does not imply prohibition, as one could enforce a nearly infinite set of new commandments if this was the case (but it is obviously explicitly prohibited from being done, as referenced). There is an extremely fine line between legitimately inferring a presumed “implicit command” and outright creating an entirely new command. Simply because one perceives a vaguely worded Torah commandment as supporting their personal belief does not mean that their newly created personal command is legitimate. One needs to distinguish between actual commandments and between commandments that one personally might want to make, since the latter is prohibited from being law or Torah in Dt 4:2, 12:32.
In regard to the traditions of the elders: The Torah was denuded to be done (Dt 29:29), is near to us to do it (Dt 30:14), and contains the commandments and enactments which were written (Dt 30:10). If the Torah was denuded to be done, and is already near, then the argument that “one needs the traditions to know how to do things” is obviously invalid. Furthermore, the Torah is explicitly stated as being written, as referenced in Dt 30:10, and it indicates that the return of Israel to the land of Canaan is dependent upon their obedience to that which was written. These oral rabbinic traditions which were later compiled are certainly not Torah, and many times they amount to violations of the Torah (if for no other reason than being added commands).
In recognizing what defines the commandments of the Torah, we can readily see that new commandments after Moses are not legitimate by the standard of the prophets tests (Dt 12:32-13:5, etc). Likewise, we can recognize the references to “in hand of Moses” (Num 15:22-23), as well as the differentiation between the explicit commandment and between the incorrect additions through the presumed inferences of others. The relevance of the Abrahamic covenant is also made apparent, which we can refer to its account in Genesis 17. It is for these reasons that the article is entitled “The Four Books of the Law”, as the Torah appears to be intended to be comprised by the commandments given from Exodus through Deuteronomy, with the additional recognition of the Abrahamic covenant. It is certainly not the entire TNK or the entire 1647 canon, nor would it include supposed “implicit commands” or traditions from Genesis. The Torah is complete in its writing, and does not require rabbinic enactments to be done. Moses gives the beginning of the Torah and he gives the end of the Torah. The Torah cannot be changed further.
(From prior posting on Gr. 9/14/14)
