Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 10

Troki wonders why Christians do not feel compelled to obey the Mosaic Law:

Matthew 5:17, 18, 19, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So in Luke 16:17, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one tittle of the law to fail." These words are in direct opposition to the belief and the assertion of the Christians, that the law of Moses has been superseded by the coming of Jesus. Thus, circumcision is replaced by baptism, and the sanctity of the seventh day is deferred to the keeping of the first day of the week. With the same inexcusable freedom, many other Divine laws have been rejected by the Christians, only few having been retained, such as those regarding incest and moral enactments, respect to parents, love to our neighbour, charity to the poor, avoidance of theft, rapine, adultery, murder, shedding of blood, and some other crimes which reason enforces, and which other nations, who were without revelation, had acknowledged before the coming of Jesus.

One of the common Christian responses is that Jesus fulfilled the law instead of destroying it. This is akin to ending a mortgage contract. One can tear up the contract and experience foreclosure, or one can pay off the house in full, and fulfill the contract. One does not continue to pay the mortgage payments after the mortgage has been fulfilled. So too with the Law of Moses.

That previous argument might be a false analogy. There are no conditions in the Mosaic Law whereby someone's ability to fulfill them ceases their binding enforcement. For this argument, I will use the rabbinic technique of recognizing that the Torah and the mitzvot (commands) are two different things. The Torah is simply the Law of Moses. The mitzvot are the individual observances. Wearing fringes, not eating pork, and not lighting a fire on the Sabbath belong to the latter category.


In Midrash Vayikra Rabbah, all sacrifices except the thanksgiving offerings will be annulled, since there will be no need for them. In Midrash Schochar Tov, God will permit what is now forbidden. The Babylonian Talmud (Niddah 61b and Shabbat 151b) states that in the world to come, most of the mitzvot (commands of the Jewish law) will not be in force.

 “You shall keep the commandment, the decrees and the judgments which I command you today to do them,” the Talmud interprets: “today to do them, and not to do them tomorrow; today to do them, and tomorrow to receive their reward.”
-Tractate Eruvin 22a

"The mitzvot will be nullified in the world to come"
-Rav Yosef, Sanhedrin 90b

Here is an article written by an orthodox rabbi. His main point is that the Torah means the divine will, but the mitzvot means the specific commands. the former is eternal. The latter is not.

Therein lies the distinction between the term “mitzvot” and “laws of the Torah.” Mitzvah means “commandment,” implying the existence of an “other” [or, “someone outside of the commander”] who is being (and needs to be) commanded. Thus the term “mitzvah” relates to the pragmatic function of Torah: to impose a code of behavior upon an imperfect world—a world that is separate from, and at times even in conflict with, its Creator.

The word “mitzvah” also means “connection,” implying a higher function to the mitzvah: to connect the commanded mortal with the divine commander. But a connection, by definition, is the link between two otherwise separate entities; so the mitzvah as the agent of connection between G-d and man also implies a purpose extrinsic to the divine essence of Torah’s laws.

“The laws of the Torah,” on the other hand, is a reference to the divine will per se, unencumbered by purpose or objective. A commandment is not a commandment unless it is issued to another (or, an “other”), a connection is not a connection unless it is connecting another; in contrast, a “law” is an objective truth, independent of how (or even if) it is applied.

Similarly, the New Testament shows that Jewish believers in Jesus are allowed to eat with Gentiles, indicating that the strict sectarian laws are no longer in force. This is not an abolition of the Torah, but a reinterpretation of the mitzvot. Jesus did not come to abolish the divine will. He came to fulfill it. This is perfectly compatible with the teaching that the mitzvot during the time of the Tanakh have been abolished.