u/ButterflyLanky1643

I've been thinking about Matthew 19 and what Jesus' teaching on divorce might tell us about Torah more broadly.

When the Pharisees point to Moses permitting divorce, Jesus responds:

>“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8)

What interests me isn't really the divorce question itself, but the distinction Jesus seems to make.

Jesus is God, then God himself is explaining that something legitimately permitted within Torah existed because of the condition of the people, while also saying that it did not reflect what God intended “from the beginning.”

That doesn't mean the Torah was wrong or unrighteous. A provision can be completely righteous for the circumstances in which God gives it.

But does a Torah provision being righteous and genuinely given by God necessarily mean that the particular arrangement it establishes is something God intends to remain permanently?

It seems like Matthew 19 gives us at least one example where those aren't necessarily the same thing.

So is “God included this provision in Torah” by itself enough to establish that God permanently intends that arrangement?

And if not, how does Scripture tell us which Torah provisions express God's permanent intention and which were given to address conditions that God does not intend to remain?

Something I'm trying to understand is why should "obeying God's law" automatically mean being under the Law of Moses.

God's commands haven't always been identical. Before the flood, plants were given for food (Genesis 1:29), while afterward Noah was permitted to eat animals (Genesis 9:3). Abraham obeyed God's commands (Genesis 26:5) long before the Mosaic covenant even existed.

Then the Law of Moses was given specifically to Israel and had a purpose in God's plan leading to the Messiah. Paul says the Law was "added...until the offspring should come" (Galatians 3:19), and identifies that offspring as Christ.

So if God has given different requirements under different circumstances and covenants, why should God's law specifically mean the Mosaic Law, especially when we are now under the New Covenant through Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13)?

The same question comes up with Romans 11. When Gentiles are grafted into Israel's olive tree, does that actually mean we become part of the twelve tribes and inherit the covenant given at Sinai? Or are we being grafted into God's people and the promises that go back to Abraham through faith in the Messiah?

The NT also clearly gives believers commands. Jesus tells his disciples to teach people to obey everything he commanded (Matthew 28:20), gives the command to love one another (John 13:34), and Paul speaks of the "law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21).

What I find especially interesting is 1 Corinthians 7:19. Paul says what matters is "keeping the commandments of God," while in the same sentence saying circumcision is nothing.

So why assume the Law of Moses specifically remains the standard that defines obedience to God under the New Covenant? Could "keeping the commandments of God" under the New Covenant mean obeying what God has commanded us through Christ, rather than automatically meaning the entire Mosaic covenant?

I’ve been trying to understand the Torah observant view of Acts 15 and wanted to get some thoughts on this.

In Acts 15:19-20 James gives the Gentiles four requirements: abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and blood.
Then Acts 15:21 says Moses has been preached in every city and is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.

I’ve seen people say this means the Gentiles were supposed to start with those 4 commands and then attend synagogue every Sabbath where they would gradually learn the rest of Torah.

My question is, where does the text actually say thats what James meant? If this was the plan, wouldn’t there basically need to be synagogues everywhere the gospel spread so Gentile believers could continue learning Torah?

Acts 15:28-29 also says to place “no greater burden” on them than those requirements, and then in Acts 21:25 James brings up the Gentiles again and basically repeats the same instructions. He doesnt seem to say they should now be keeping the rest of Torah.

I also wonder about Isaiah 66:17. I see this used alot as proof that the dietary laws are still in effect because it mentions eating swine’s flesh. But Isaiah specifically mentions swine, the mouse and the “abomination.” It doesnt go through all of the unclean animals from Leviticus 11.

So if mentioning swine proves the entire dietary law is still binding, couldn’t you also argue the opposite and say everything not specifically mentioned there must be fine? Obviously thats probably not what Isaiah means, but thats kind of my point. Are we reading the entire dietary law into the passage rather than letting the passage say what it actually says?

Not trying to argue in bad faith here, I’m genuinly curious what the strongest scriptural case is that Acts 15:21 means Gentiles were expected to attend synagogue and eventually take on the rest of Torah.