i also had very intense conversation with our friend thinkofone, in which he was adamant that Christ contradicted the law, and if he had knowledge of, would certainly have done so with the Pauls letters. I stated that i would take my case to the forum, so please, anyone that is interested please comment on this passage.
My line of reasoning was quite simple, Christ was speaking, not against the law itself, but the Pharisaical interpretation of the law. this was based on the following lines of reasoning
1. Christ states, 'you have heard that it was said'. This being in contrast to what he had stated elsewhere, for example when he was being tempted by Satan, 'it is written'.
2. secondly the context has shown that Christ makes reference to an attitude of thought not found in the Law, but is a clear Pharisaical interpretation of the law, namely, (Matthew 5:43) . . .“you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy. . ., naturally there is no admonition in the law which says that one must hate ones neighbour making it a reference to the Pharisaical interpretation of the law.
3.Christ himself was Jewish, practised and upheld the law and had reverence for the law indicated by the following passage, (Matthew 5:17-18) . . .Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. . .
now we as Christians are no longer under the mosaic Law, but i wonder if anyone would care to comment upon theses lines of reasoning and the passage in question, whether Christ was contradicting the Law, or whether he was speaking against a Pharisaical interpretation of the law. i provide the passage for easy reference, taken from the New world translation of the Holy Scriptures - thanks in advance - Robbie.
(Matthew 5:21-48) “you heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder; but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.’ However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Gehenna. . . . . . “you heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. . . . “Again you heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not swear without performing, but you must pay your vows to Jehovah.’ However, I say to you: Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God’s throne; nor by earth, because it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Nor by your head must you swear, because you cannot turn one hair white or black. Just let your word Yes mean Yes, your No, No; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one. “you heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ However, I say to you: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him. . . . “you heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; that you may prove yourselves sons of you Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? And if you greet you brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? you must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Originally posted by menace71Healing on the Sabbath is permitted under the rule that saving a life trumps any Sabbath mitzvot (commandments). Since something as seemingly minor as a paper cut could become infected, it should be treated.
The part about the Sabbath and not healing on it. Which is evil to leave a man in an un-healed state? Or to Heal? Same with yes this is funny but if a man's ox fell in a well on the sabbath to help or not to help that is the question? Christ said to help!
Manny
I think Jesus knew that his opponents knew this—that is why they couldn’t answer him, and had to remain silent. The Talmud is full of arguments among various rabbis (in fact, that is what it mostly is: alternative opinions on such stuff). Had it not been for the “messiah issue” (which I am not going to get into), one might expect that the Talmud would have opinions of “R. Yeshua”, along with, say, his elder contemporary Hillel.
With that said, Galilean rabbis were known to have been generally less strict about mitzvot than were Judean rabbis (including those of the Pharisees). Of course, there are hypocrites in any group.
Originally posted by vistesdhi Vistesd, a thousand Shaloms to you and yours! what do you think my friend, from the passage, would you proffer your valued opinion as to whether you think that Christ was contradicting the Law as given to Gods servant Moses or not? In the back of my mind I had really thought that it was unthinkable that he would do so and thus it seems to be evidently a questioning and refutation of what had grown up around the Law, its interpretation and the plethora of ordinances which governed many aspects of the ancient Hebrews life, of which Christ, clearly seems to have felt obstructed the true nature, or rather 'the spirit', of the law.
Healing on the Sabbath is permitted under the rule that saving a life trumps any Sabbath mitzvot (commandments). Since something as seemingly minor as a paper cut could become infected, it should be treated.
I think Jesus knew that his opponents knew this—that is why they couldn’t answer him, and had to remain silent. The Talmud is full of ...[text shortened]... Judean rabbis (including those of the Pharisees). Of course, there are hypocrites in any group.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think you probably have it pretty right (from my non-Christian viewpoint). I have a couple of comments, but can't make them right now, so I'll get back to you if that's okay.
i also had very intense conversation with our friend thinkofone, in which he was adamant that Christ contradicted the law, and if he had knowledge of, would certainly have done so with the Pauls letters. I stated that i would take my case to the forum, so please, anyone that is interested please comment on this passage.
My line of reasoning was q s doing the same thing? you must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
EDIT: Shalom to you too! I see our posts just crossed, but I'll be back.
Originally posted by vistesd🙂
I think you probably have it pretty right (from my non-Christian viewpoint). I have a couple of comments, but can't make them right now, so I'll get back to you if that's okay.
EDIT: Shalom to you too! I see our posts just crossed, but I'll be back.
Originally posted by vistesdThanks for the insight.
Healing on the Sabbath is permitted under the rule that saving a life trumps any Sabbath mitzvot (commandments). Since something as seemingly minor as a paper cut could become infected, it should be treated.
I think Jesus knew that his opponents knew this—that is why they couldn’t answer him, and had to remain silent. The Talmud is full of ...[text shortened]... Judean rabbis (including those of the Pharisees). Of course, there are hypocrites in any group.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Manny what do you think? Contradicting the Law or the interpretation of the Law? Its ok i shall not be offended if you disagree or you think the evidence is unsubstantiated, or if you agree and then change your mind 🙂
Thanks for the insight.
Manny
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay, Robbie, here are my comments (which really are little more than addenda to what you wrote)—
🙂
(1) I have not come across any statement about “hating your enemies” in the Oral Torah, so if that was a saying among the Pharisees, it did not get recognized. There is a statement somewhere in the Talmud that I read recently that said that one should not rejoice over his enemy’s downfall (I’ll do some searching to see what I can find). I’m not sure that all of the “you have heard it said” statements can be attributed to any one group (they could have been folk sayings).
(2) There is no doubt about Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees: some may have been fairly classic rabbinical debate, but others were clearly harsher. He seemed, as I recall, to have been on good terms with Nicodemus. I suspect that the Pharisees today might be considered something like “ultra-orthodox” rabbinical Jews. The 18th century Hasidic movement was in part a counter to what they saw as a kind of “hyper-Talmudism” in Judaism.
—I speculate that, if Jesus were a rabbi today (again, ignoring the messiah issue), that he would be more of a Reform, neo-Hasidic type.
(3) According to Josephus, the party of the Pharisees didn’t number more than 6,000; and scholar Geza Vermes has said that they were almost entirely in Judea with no real presence in Galilee. (The population estimate of Judea/Galilee combined that I have seen for the period was about 1.5 million.) The Sadducees I think numbered about 4,000; they were Temple-centered and did not accept the Oral Torah (which at the time was still oral).
__________________________________________
With all that said, I see Jesus as more “giving his torah”, rather than setting aside Torah. That is what rabbis do. In the Talmud, you read stuff like: “R. Eleazer said…. But, R. Joshua said….”. It’s not far-fetched to think that, before any of that was written down, that what some of these guys said was: “R. Eleazer says…. But, I say….”. The Oral Torah offers expansive interpretation of the written Torah, and conflicting opinions are included (often with no resolution).
There’s an interesting case where one might plug Jesus into the Oral Torah:
Hillel (who died when Jesus would have been a teenager) said: “’Do not do unto to others what you would not like them to do to you.’ That is the whole of the Torah; the rest is commentary, go and learn.” [Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat; quoted from Norman Solomon, The Talmud: A Selection.]
Then Jesus came along and said: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Point, counterpoint! Wonderful! Now, I happen to prefer Hillel’s version, only because I have had well-intentioned people “do unto” me what I did not like or want—“Please, stop ‘doing unto me’!” However, Jesus’ formulation also has validity. What are the circumstances? “Well, here is a circumstance for this, and there is a circumstance for that.”
Did Jesus know Hillel’s version when he gave his counterpoint? Who knows? Hillel was pretty famous, and folks listening to Jesus’ torah-teaching could have known the reference. In my hypothetical “expanded oral torah”, I’d include this “exchange”. (But, then, I play it pretty fast and loose, and I’d include Lao Tzu as well! 😉 )
Now, as I noted above, some of Jesus’ exchanges with the Pharisees were clearly polemical. But maybe some were more on the order of this kind of rabbinical argument: the heart of Oral Torah.
Oral Torah really has two aspects: One is what was eventually written down in the Talmuds and the Midrashim—because it was being forgotten. The second is the continuing interpretation that goes on today. I generally use “torah” (with a small “t” ) for that. So, this person “gives his torah” on the Torah. And, no matter how expansive that process gets, it is still rooted in Torah—and is not an abrogation of Torah. And that’s pretty much what I see Jesus doing.
___________________________________________
I want to add two caveats to all this:
First, as I have said before, I have no intention of telling Christians who/what Jesus was, or how to understand him. Anything that I say here that conflicts with Christian theology or Christology (from whoever’s viewpoint), simply disregard. (Knightmeister once said, a good time ago when I was coming at things from a slightly different perspective, that I was trying to “Buddha-size” Christ. He was right—though I didn’t think so at the time—
and I don’t want to do that kind of thing.)
Second, I don’t speak for Judaism. I only speak from what I have studied, and that is always going to have my own spin (consciously or not). And I don’t spend a lot of time on halakhah, rabbinical legal opinions; I spend more time in aggadah, stories and midrash.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it was the interpretation of the Law. Also as Christ pointed out the Sabbath was made for man and not vice versa. Jesus fully breaks down the Pharisees they had no good reply for Him. I think when infused with God's spirit you will do the Law but it's from a different point of view. The spirit of the Law stamped on our hearts is what I think God wants. Not robots who just follow the law because they have to. I understand that 100's if not 1000's of extra ordinances were added to the Mosaic law that God never intended. Our friend vistesd maybe able to in lighten us on this for sure.
Manny what do you think? Contradicting the Law or the interpretation of the Law? Its ok i shall not be offended if you disagree or you think the evidence is unsubstantiated, or if you agree and then change your mind 🙂
Manny
Having written all of the above, I might mention a counter-view by renowned Jewish scholar and rabbi Jacob Neusner. Neusner, who goes out of his way to express his high regard for Christianity and Christians (while disagreeing, of course), thinks that Jesus was supplanting Torah with—himself, as messiah. *
Now, Neusner is a scholar to be reckoned with, but I’m not convinced he’s right—I’m not convinced that Jesus’ statements about fulfilling the Torah mean supplanting it. I think perhaps that most Christians don’t see it that way, either. But, in fairness, I thought I’d mention it.
______________________________________
* Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus; a book presented as a very cordial argument with Jesus—and one which Neusner tried to write in such a way as to allow space for the reader to argue back, with Neusner. A very difficult thing to do, but I actually think he pulled it off.
Originally posted by vistesdthis is really wonderful, where does the admonition come for the oral law? is it in the bible (written Torah to you) i know that not all in the time of Christ accepted the oral law, the Sadducees for example rejected it, that cause they were sad-you-see (boom boom!) and even today i think that there are still many that reject it, although there are even others who attribute to it a mystical significance as well. i was just wondering the source of or where it is reckoned that the admonition to keep a separate, or should we say, supplement to the written law comes from. whatever, there is clearly no admonition to hate ones enemies, not in the written Law.
Okay, Robbie, here are my comments (which really are little more than addenda to what you wrote)—
(1) I have not come across any statement about “hating your enemies” in the Oral Torah, so if that was a saying among the Pharisees, it did not get recognized. There is a statement somewhere in the Talmud that I read recently that said that one should not ...[text shortened]... akhah[/i], rabbinical legal opinions; I spend more time in aggadah, stories and midrash.
Interesting thing I just thought about That Jesus said " Not a tittle or jot will fail before the whole law is fulfilled" ? Something like that....I can't find it now but the significance of this is that Jesus put stock in the written law it seems. Also His followers called him Rabbi.
Manny