Tzitzit Reevaluation

In recent weeks I have been rethinking the commands of Numbers 15:37-41 and Deuteronomy 22:12.  I am aware that there are a few popular assertions about this command, such as the "we don't wear the same kind of garments" argument and the "we don't know the exact color of blue dye" argument, but I am writing to those who have gotten beyond that. 

When I first began to observe the Torah, my associate and I were aware of the commanded tzitzit/gedelim, so we made tassels with blue and placed them on what we perceived to be the four corners of button-up shirts (one at each corner: two at each top edge, two at each bottom edge).  A person we were meeting with at the time promptly discouraged us from doing that because it wasn't like how he did it, which was to wear them on his pants via tying around the beltloops. 

Since then, until now, I have been observing some variation of the beltloop practice.  On pants without beltloops, for example, I would use safety pins or otherwise sew the tassels on.  In regard to skirts (whether kilts for men or dresses for women), I would have suggested tassels at the four wings of the bottom. 

A few months back, however, I had a discussion with someone about this issue and he asked what garments I thought they should be applied to.  We referenced "covering the nakedness", but after thinking about it, I recognize there is no basis for this textually as applying to the tzitzit/gedelim command.  The commands of Num 15:37-41 and Dt 22:12 tell us to put them on "their clothes" and "your covering which you cover in her".  The term for "clothes" (b'gadiym) is used rather generally, and not just in reference to lower garments or anything of that sort.  Exodus 28:4, for example, gives a list of the priestly clothing, using the same term.  Not all of these garments are for "covering the nakedness", certainly.

How I have began to understand this is to apply it more generally.  My shirts and coats are clothing as well, not just my pants, so I have been sewing tassels on to the four corners of the bottom opening.  I might even consider something like a blanket to need tassels as well, since we are covering ourselves as such. 

I still do how I did before in regard to pants, but I no longer deem having a single garment with tassels on it as fulfilling the command fully.

The Need for Prophetic Verification and the Lens of the TNK/NT

It has been easy enough for some to recognize the need for a sign or verification before believing stories about modern day prophets, but for some reason, that doesn't tend to carry over in application to prophets who have already traditionally been accepted (i.e., the "N" of the TNK).

In both cases, these people are prophets who come after Moses, and we are expected to test them (and testing doesn't just mean to "see if they're 'pro-Torah'").

Certain ideas have been so deeply ingrained (or otherwise accepted without much thought) that we might not even readily recognize when such a prophet is teaching against the Torah. If we learned the Torah while presuming these prophets to be true, we likely accounted for their doctrine in our understanding of the Torah, so how exactly would we be truly testing them at that point? 

A big deviation of the Torah from the rest of the TNK is the emphasis on the Tent of Appointment, but that has not been easy to recognize for many due to the emphasis on these traditionally accepted and otherwise untested prophecies. The framework that many who believe in the Torah have operated out of is the framework of the TNK, which has resulted in unintentionally "mentally rewriting" the Torah to fit that.

What is "Torah"?

Is the Torah law, teaching, direction, just some good advice, or what? Ultimately, regardless of whatever frame someone tries to impose upon it, it is required to be done, and it is the basis for legal judgment in the system it establishes. Though it might arguably qualify for other categories as well, it would certainly fit the definition of "law".

While some have been taught to be opposed to His commandments when they are framed as "laws", and while some are more open to the Torah being presented as simply "teaching", this reframing should not serve to shroud how the Torah presents itself. The Torah itself is a non-amendable Law established by YHWH, even though some have yet to be open to accepting it as good and wise.

Priesthood of Incense and Melchizadek

The Law is quite clear that the descendants of Aaron are the only ones allowed to burn incense before YHWH:

"Reminder to sons of Israel, to purpose which man, alien, shall not near to fume incense to faces of YHWH, which he [is] not from seed of Aaron, and he shall not be as Korah..." - Num 16:40.
That being as it is, how could any other priesthood be perceived to take precedence over the Torah or otherwise be imposed on the Torah? Enforcing a "priesthood of Malkizedeq" (cited by one theologian in the NT) amounts to an attempt at finding a presumed loophole in the text, such as by citing psalms or using other works. By the standard of the actual Torah, there is no priesthood aside from Aaron and his descendants. Later prophets are forbidden to nullify the commandments, so an author claiming no inspiration would have no basis either.

Using the TNK or NT as the Torah

"We know the Torah allows ______, because someone in a later book did that and said it was ok." This is not a legitimate method of Torah exegesis. While it can certainly be helpful to see how others understood certain laws, their opinions or deeds alone do not determine what the Torah says. After all, we know that Israel was dispersed and scattered for their disobedience.

We should be testing these later prophets or later teachers by the Torah, rather than just assuming their accuracy and allowing their teachings to override what the Torah says. Later prophets are to be under the Torah, and they are to be tested by the Torah, rather than blindly believed. Being in the NK of the TNK or being in the NT does not automatically confirm them as valid. Canonization is only a tradition.

We Broke the Covenant

Even after Israel has broken the covenant, they will be allowed to return to Him, and the covenant will be remembered (Lev 26:40-45). It is furthermore prophesied that after this apostasy that they will return to obeying His Law, and through obedience they will be caused to possess Canaan and live in great blessing (Dt 30:1-10). This was already foreseen and already stated in the Law itself, and the solution to this is already given in the Law. We are to return to Him through obedience to the Law (Dt 30:10). These prophecies say nothing about any new belief system being necessitated or being allowed to come along and supplant what God commanded and required, but instead they state that His people will return to what He commanded, rather than rejecting and ignoring it.

Purifying Paganism

It seems weird that a theistic person would deliberately teach their children to worship a false god "for fun", saying that this false god is all knowing and will bless them every winter if they are "good". Of course, that's aside from all of the rest of the Norse and Roman religious connections, and aside from which deity that false god is representative of. It is very strange to me that one would knowingly deceive their children like that, especially on a matter of worshiping a being that one knows to not exist. 

In regard to the potential assertion that, "we don't observe those parts of the holiday, we only focus on ____", for what reason should we seek to "purify" a holiday which is clearly established in paganism while rejecting and ignoring the actual holidays that God established and commanded to be forever (Lev 23)?