Originally posted by menace71
I 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 w ...[text shortened]... never intended. Our friend vistesd maybe able to in lighten us on this for sure.
Manny
Well, I’ll try, Manny—in my roundabout way. 🙂
Well, the first thing is that “law” as mentioned in the NT means Torah (primarily the “five books of Moses”, but sometimes it also refers to the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures). The Greek word used to translate Torah was
nomos (in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, before the NT). But clearly all of Torah is not “law” in the legal sense, or in the sense of commandments.
Some Jewish writers follow that conventional translation in English, but others say that Torah is better translated as “teaching”, or even “the way”. (I use it almost exactly the way that a Taoist uses the word “Tao”.)
The Hebrew word for legal stuff, dealing with Biblical commandments (
mitzvot) is
halakhah. That clearly is part of Torah, too—and often what was in dispute. The rabbis did add lots of rulings (“ordinances” ) on the law/commandment parts of Torah. Partly that had to do with practical considerations: “Do we do it this way or that way? Does this count?” Etc., etc. And the rabbis do not always (or perhaps even often agree): Hillel says this, Shammai says that (Shammai was viewed as generally stricter than Hillel).
But also, rabbinical thought tends to argue from specifics to larger principles, rather than the other way around. One can read through pages of Talmud (which I am just beginning to do again, and in translation) and ask: “So who’s right?!” And: “Who cares?!” But the point is that underlying all the minutiae is a principle that the specifics and differing viewpoints (and all viewpoints are to be included) attempt to examine. Sometimes more than one principle.
As philosopher Emmanuel Levinas put it: “It is certain that, when discussing the right to eat or not to eat ‘an egg hatched on a holy day,’ or payments owed for damages caused by a ‘wild ox’, the sages of the Talmud are discussing neither an egg nor an ox but are arguing about fundamental ideas without appearing to do so.” [Levinas,
Nine Talmudic Readings.] But the fundamental ideas (the underlying principles) are generally not alluded to. That is, according to Levinas, in part to assure that the opinions of the rabbis in the Talmud cannot be taken as dogma.
Now, it’s possible to get stuck in the specifics and miss the principle. And that may be what Jesus was saying that the Pharisees were tending to do (and maybe they were
A modern example: Reform Jews do not feel bound by the laws of kosher. They view them as generally historical artifacts, recorded in the Torah, that made sense at the time (it could be, not that long ago, risky to eat pork if it was not cooked carefully). But what might be an underlying principle behind kosher rules, that a Reform Jew might identify? Healthy eating, say. Orthodox Jews do follow kosher, and will not eat meat and milk products at the same meal. Now, I’m not saying that it is simply unhealthy to eat meat and milk products (such as cheese) together—but can you think ways in which separating the two, as a general rule, could lead one to fashion more “heart-healthy” meals? What other kosher rules might be examined the same way? (I don’t know, just asking.)
Now, that approach asks some questions that simply “declaring all foods clean” does not. (Although, if one asks: “What might be the ‘fundamental ideas’ behind such a declaration?”—one might also find all sorts of insights, that lead to further questions, that lead to further insights….)
_____________________________________
If you ever want some light reading that bears on some of this, you might try Harry Kellerman’s “Rabbi Small” mystery series. The Rabbi uses Talmudic reasoning, as from the discussions about those oxen and eggs and such, to analyze human behavior in order to solve crimes.
Did Christ contradict the Law?
02 Feb '10 06:21
Back to Top