FFOZ Blogs

 Teaching Team

Part 1) "One Law" in Context

Co-authored by Aaron Eby and Toby Janicki

First Fruits of Zion is dedicated to teaching Gentiles to keep as much of the Torah as they are able. We strongly encourage both Jews and Gentiles to take hold of their biblical heritage, to commemorate and observe God's appointed times, and to eat according the menu the Torah provides.

However, we teach that Gentile believers are not held accountable to certain commandments of Torah in the same way as Jewish believers. Even though we want to see all of God's people embrace these commandments, we do not believe that Gentiles can be held liable to a standard of obligation to them.

The reason that we teach this distinction is clear and simple: the Apostles did not hold Gentiles accountable to those aspects of Torah in the same way as Jews. We cannot go beyond the example and rulings that they provided. At the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15, the Apostles rejected the notion that Gentiles are required to be circumcised, become Jewish, and therefore keep the entire Torah. Instead, the Apostles gave them four essential prohibitions and directed them to the synagogue, where they would have the opportunity to learn the Torah in its proper context. Although these four prohibitions are a starting point and do not represent the entirety of a Gentile's ideal observance, the ruling demonstrates that the Apostles did not consider Gentiles to be obligated to all of the commandments to which Jewish people are obligated.

The "One Law" Objection

In a few places, the Torah speaks of "one law for the native and for the stranger." At first glance, verses like these seem to contradict the position stated above, indicating that the Torah obligations should be the same for both Jews and Gentiles.

We used to claim that Jews and Gentiles were both equally obligated to the full yoke of the Torah. One source of evidence that we used to support this position was the assortment of passages from the Torah that speak of "one law." But a thorough investigation of these passages will show that they do not support our prior position.

In this study, we will take a look at these verses and their application from a literal, contextual, sola-scriptura view. Then, we will explore how the interpretation of these verses had changed by the time of the first century. We will make an effort to understand them in the theological context of the first generation of believers.

The Historical, Grammatical, Contextual Approach

First we will examine each of the instances in which "one law" or similar language appears from a historical, grammatical, and contextual approach.

The first example of this type of language appears in the instructions regarding the Passover sacrifice:

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. No foreigner or hired servant may eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. If a stranger [ger, גֵּר] shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law [torah achat, תּוֹרָה אַחַת] for the native and for the stranger [ger, גֵּר] who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:43-49; emphasis added)

When the last verse is read alone (verse 49), it may give the impression that all of the Torah's commands apply equally for both the ger and for the native. It is tempting to remove that verse from its context and read "one law" as if it refers to the entire scope of the Torah. However, in the context of the Passover sacrifice we can see that it is not meant in this way. Exodus 12 was not speaking about all of the laws of the Torah. In fact, at the time that this commandment was given, Israel had not even left Egypt yet, nor had God given the laws at Mount Sinai, nor had Moses descended the mountain with the tablets.

This verse simply explains that if the ger (non-Israelite) desired to participate in making a Passover lamb sacrifice, he must follow the same procedure as the native born Israelite. In the Hebrew Bible, the word torah has multiple meanings. In certain cases, the word is used to refer collectively to all of the laws in the Pentateuch. In other cases, it can denote only a subsection of laws or a single law. For example:

Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law [torah, תּוֹרָה] of the burnt offering. The burnt offering shall be on the hearth on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it. (Leviticus 6:9; emphasis added)

Exodus 12 uses the term Torah in a similar sense to Leviticus 6. A parallel passage regarding the "second Passover" confirms this. A special Passover sacrifice may be offered in the second month in the event that it could not have been offered at its proper time:

And if a stranger sojourns among you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its rule, so shall he do. You shall have one statute [chukkah achat, חֻקָּה אַחַת], both for the sojourner [ger, גֵּר] and for the native. (Numbers 9:14; emphasis added)

In this case, the same idea communicated by torah (law) in Exodus 12 is now described as a chukkah ("statute"), which does not ordinarily apply to the whole body of commandments. Thus, we can see that in Exodus, "one law" is Passover-specific. What, then, does this passage teach us about the obligation of the ger?

Biblical commentator Nahum Sarna explains that the stranger "was not required to celebrate the Passover; but if he desired to do so, and thus identify himself and his family with the national experience of Israel, he had to first submit to circumcision."(1) The stranger is permitted to participate in the Passover sacrifice, but, unlike the native born Israelite, he is in no way obligated to do so.

Jacob Milgrom comments:

The ger is under no obligation to observe the festivals. The paschal sacrifice is explicitly declared voluntary for the ger: whereas an Israelite abstains from the sacrifice on pain of karet, the ger may observe it provided he is circumcised.(2)

As we can see, "one law" does not imply equal obligation. The ger can participate in a Passover sacrifice if he wants to, but the Israelite absolutely must do so. The ger could opt out of the Passover but would still be considered part of the community. The one law that applies to both of them is the single torah requiring both to be circumcised in order to eat the Passover sacrifice. Therefore, we find that in Exodus 12, "one law" applies only to the Passover sacrifice, and does not require Gentiles to participate.

The next example of the phrase "one law" underscores this interpretation:

The guilt offering is just like the sin offering; there is one law [torah achat, תּוֹרָה אַחַת] for them. The priest who makes atonement with it shall have it. (Leviticus 7:7; emphasis added)

Here, the usage of the phrase "one law" precludes any possibility that the phrase means the Torah as a whole. Instead, we are to understand that the specific sacrificial procedures are the same in both cases.

Numbers 15 uses similar terminology. Once more, the context is the sacrificial service:

And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute [chukkah achat, חֻקָּה אַחַת] for you and for the stranger [ger, גֵּר] who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner [ger, גֵּר] shall be alike before the LORD. One law [torah achat, תּוֹרָה אַחַת] and one rule [mishpat echad, מִשְׁפָּט אֶחָד] shall be for you and for the stranger [ger, גֵּר] who sojourns with you. (Numbers 15:14-16; emphasis added)

And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who makes a mistake, when he sins unintentionally, to make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. You shall have one law [torah achat, תּוֹרָה אַחַת] for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger [ger, גֵּר] who sojourns among them. (Numbers 15:28-29; emphasis added)

Here, the application is similar to previous cases. In the first passage, if the ger wishes to offer a sacrifice, he must do it in the Torah prescribed manner just as the Israelite would. In the second passage, the same ritual procedure regarding a sin offering applies to both the ger and the native born. The phrases "one statute" (chukkah achat) and "one rule" (mishpat echad) further substantiate that "one law" is meant in a specific way rather than to the Torah as a whole.

The remaining example of "one law" language can be found in Leviticus 24:

Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule [mishpat echad, מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד] for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 24:21-22; emphasis added)

Unlike all of the other "one law" passages cited above, this verse is not in a sacrificial context. This passage does actually not speak of "one torah"; instead, it indicates that there must be "one judgment," referring to the judicial procedure and sentence to be meted out by the court for a crime. This stands in contrast to other judicial systems in the Ancient Near East, where outsiders would not be given the same sentence, judicial process, rights, or legal protection as natives if they are victims or perpetrators of civil crimes.(3)

Contextual Approach Summary

When we read and apply the passages that speak of "one law" in their original context, it becomes apparent that they do not mean that the entire Torah should apply identically to both Jews and Gentiles. A historical, grammatical, contextual method of interpretation reveals that each passage deals only with the injunctions at hand--mostly sacrificial in nature--and cannot be applied to the whole Torah. Milgrom applies this approach, noting that one must not make sweeping generalizations based on these verses:

The injunction that "there shall be one law for you and the resident stranger" (Num. 15:15; cf. Exodus 12:48-49; Lev. 7:7; 24:22; Num. 9:14; 15:29-30) should not be misconstrued. It applies only to the case given in the context; it is not to be taken as a generalization.(4)

But what about in the days of Yeshua and the apostles? How did they interpret the "one law" passages of the Torah?

Keep reading on the next blog: "Part Two: 'One Law' in the Late Second Temple Era."

1. Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish publication Society, 1991), 64.
2. Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish publication Society, 1989), 401.
3. Baruch Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish publication Society, 1991), 168.
4. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, 401.

Links to Related Blog Articles:
Reasoning Together
One Simple Verse: Galatians 5:3
Moral vs. Ceremonial
The Unbearable Yoke
Q&A: Divine Invitation
The Tipping Point
Acts 15 Re-Examined
The Lone Voice of FFOZ
One Law in Context Part One
One Law in Context Part Two

About the Author: Toby Janicki is a teacher, writer and speaker for FFOZ. He is also a writer for Messiah Journal and the author of the Restoration and Bounrdary Stones workbooks as well as a book on the Mezuzah.