Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My view is that Slavery is obsolete. And nobody can understand the Bible until they set 'Love' (or uncritical acceptance, as others call it) and do some critical thinking.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Then he scolds the Pharisees for following and teaching the laws in matt23
13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
The way I see it, the Pharisees and Scribes would be evil if they were killing innocent people. But it is very clear that they were only following the laws of Moses when they condemned them to die. The doctrine of the OT sanctions the death of anybody. No one is innocent in the eyes of YHWH. NO ONE! Not even Jesus! He healed on the Sabbath, and taught of God in a way that contradicted Moses. According to the OT he is guilty, and should die. It seems to me, if Jesus was the savior of the Jews, he would have scolded Moses and YHWH for murdering innocent people, and sanctioning the executions of innocent people, himself included. Does Jesus lack the wisdom? It seems he hated the sinners and loved the sin here. Anyone?
Jesus did not lack wisdom as he was well aware of the scriptures, the Law, and its purpose however the same cannot be said of casual Bible readers. Jesus is quoted in Matthew 23:23 as follows, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy, and faithfulness."
The scribes/Pharisees taught the people the Law but when it came to applying the Law they disregarded that which mattered the most. Matthew 23:3, "Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say."
Yes. But we are getting off the topic of contradictions, I'm broadly in agreement, but just what groups of Jews were under Gospel attack and how much of Jewry itself that covered (I think that in Matthew and John is was pretty much all of it).
Matthew’s Gospel is very Jewish in flavor and clearly directed to Jews who follow Jesus. Jesus is the King of the Jews, Jesus is the new Moses, Jesus is the culmination of Jewish history, the Law is here to stay. Matthew’s ire is directed explicitly against Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law, chief priests and elders. The great majority of Jews were not any of those things. The closest Matthew comes to condemning Jews at large is when the crowd demands that Jesus be crucified, accepting blood guilt on them and their children. (Mt 27:25) But they were persuaded to do this by the chief priests and elders. (Mt 27:20) It is Matthew’s competition, Rabbinic Judaism, who were opposed to Jesus. They are the evil ones, inheriting the blood guilt. Keep away from them, Matthew is telling his community.
John mentions most of the various groups that Matthew does. But he also refers to them as ‘the Jews’. As I previously pointed out, John makes Jesus a very observant Jew and does not condemn all Jews. But it is clear that he perceives Christianity as now distinct from Judaism and not the ‘true’ Judaism as Matthew does. To John, the Jesus movement has its roots in Judaism, something well established by the prior Gospels, but it is now something new and separate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The contradiction was.. yes it was the Jewish law in Matthew and matters such as the remark about clean food, healing on the sabbath and what I call 'dilution of the mosaic law'. This is all to be taken together with remarks about 'something greater than the temple is here'. Jesus (that is, Faith in Jesus) had replaced the Law as the way to be saved.
It is informative to compare Mark and Matthew concerning eating food and hand washing. We should note right off that the hand washing ritual is not the same as washing one’s hands before eating. One is required to wash one’s hands thoroughly before the ritual to be sure that the purifying water touches all the skin directly. The ‘defilement’ is ritual not physical. Ref The Pharisees were upset over the absence of ritual, not any matter of hygiene.
Quote:
Mark 7
1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] 17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Note that Mark explains the hand washing ritual as something that “Pharisees and Jews” do. His intended audience is not Jewish. Also Mark does not refer to this as Mosaic Law but as a “tradition of the elders”. In fact it is not Mosaic Law but a tradition of the Pharisees. The Law says that priests must do it when they perform a service.
It is performed today by observant Jews exactly because the Temple does not exist and those services cannot be performed. Today, the table is the altar, the food is the sacrifice and the one performing the ritual becomes the priest. In this way the scriptural mitzvah is kept alive. Ref
(We may wonder if this and the other ’traditional’ non-Mosaic rules were an attempt by the rule-centric Shammai Pharisees to aggrandize themselves relative to the Temple-centric Sadducees, to whom the Pharisees were hostile. The more the people obeyed the rules of the Pharisees, the more important they would be. Recall that the Sadducees obeyed only the Torah.)
Back to Mark…
Jesus calls out the Pharisees on forcing non-Mosaic rules on people. He points out that the non-Mosaic Pharisaic rule about Corban (sacrifice) can require people to neglect their parents in violation of not just the scriptural mitzvot but the Decalogue itself.
Mark has Jesus imply that all foods are clean, that the kashrut rules are obsolete. This would be extremely surprising since Jesus just got through emphasizing that God-given Mosaic Law is what must be obeyed, not made-made rules that contradict Mosaic Law. However it is not surprising that Mark would say this since we have already seen that he is talking to a non-Jewish audience. Mark adds this interpretation as a comment and not a quote from Jesus. We can see the intrusion of Pauline (or maybe post-Pauline) ideas into what may have been an existing traditional story about Jesus.
Now let us look at Matthew
Quote:
Matthew 15
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’”
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”
16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
Matthew agrees with Mark about the hand washing ritual being a man-made tradition that is not part of Mosaic Law and that such traditions can actually violate Mosaic Law. This is emphasized by his addition about the plants not planted by God. But Matthew omits Mark’s implication that all Jews observed the hand washing ritual. He also omits any reference to kashrut laws being obsolete. And of course he does not need to explain Judaism to his Jewish audience.
Mark dilutes Mosaic Law for his non-observant Gentile audience. Matthew does not. Just as in his Sermon on the Mount, Matthew is saying that the Law is here to stay. We might notice similarities between defilement coming out of the heart (in both Mark and Matthew) to Jesus emphasizing the spirit of the law in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. As I alluded to earlier, there appears to be an older non-Pauline tradition that influenced Mark and Matthew.
In the healing on the Sabbath incident (Matthew 12) Jesus is criticized because his followers pick grain on the Sabbath because they are hungry. Jesus refers to David taking consecrated bread (which BTW is being replaced with fresh bread) (Samuel 21) to feed his hungry men. That is, Jesus is giving scriptural justification for doing what is necessary despite the rules. This is the general attitude in Judaism today. If in some circumstance harm will come from following a rule then the rule should not be followed. There are very few mitzvot that must never be violated no matter what.
Later Jesus will point out that his critics will also break Sabbath rules if harm will come from obeying them. Jesus then proceeds to heal on the Sabbath - performing work - because it is doing good. We see here something of the attitude of Hillel, Shammai’s predecessor as leading Pharisee, in emphasizing the spirit of the Law and not just blind obedience to the letter. According to traditional chronology, Jesus would have grown up in the Hillel era.
Jesus being “something greater than the Temple” needs to be seen in context.
Matthew 12:5-6
Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.
Priests work on the Sabbath because it is what they do. They are not guilty of violating the law. Jesus heals on the Sabbath because it is what he does. He is not guilty of anything, especially because of who he is, the Son of God, who is greater than the temple.
At one point Matthew has Jesus refer to Hosea as justification “‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6) Goodness according to the law, not misplaced obsessiveness about following the details of the law.
It is very interesting to look closer at Hosea 6.
Quote:
Hosea 6
1 “Come, let us return to the LORD.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds.
2 After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.
3 Let us acknowledge the LORD;
let us press on to acknowledge him.
As surely as the sun rises,
he will appear;
he will come to us like the winter rains,
like the spring rains that water the earth.”
Anybody see a potential messianic reference? And how about that ‘third day’ business? I guess Matthew could not figure a place to squeeze this one in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It is true that the attack is on the Pharisees mainly and the Sadducees only appear when Jesus arrives in Jerusalem (as though he had never been there before). The attack is on the law through the Pharisees and personal attack on their motives and behaviour is only to be expected.
As I have shown above, it is not Mosaic Law that Jesus attacks but the plethora of man-made rules the Pharisees invented that are not only unnecessary but counter-productive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
This is based on Paul, who only targeted the law because it did not suit the gentiles. I suspect there is also a personal element of a not very observant Jew. Paul begins by saying that the law is only incumbent on Jews (which includes himself) and not on gentiles, who can become as good as Jews but without Kashrut or circumcision. He argues that, if they allow themselves to be circumcised, they are then 'burdened' with the need to observe the Mosaic law. All this is very arguable, but that is his line and that the ball the gentile christian run with when they wrote the gospels.
As I have shown above, Matthew does not agree with Paul on this matter. Not surprising when addressing a Jewish audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I may say that Paul indicates that did not observe the law himself at times (justifying it as a method of winning converts) and it becomes clear that part of his 'conversion' what a method of being saved like a good Jew, even when he wasn't. Simple. Faith in Jesus clears him. Which it doesn't as (as a Jew) he is required in his own thesis to observe the Law) but he soon overlooks that.
Are you referring to eating with Gentiles? There is actually no mitzvah against it. But it is still incumbent on the Jew to observe dietary laws. Paul’s chewing out Peter seems to about Peter not wanting to be seen with Gentiles when the ‘circumcision’ crowd arrived. They were the ones insisting that the Jesus movement was a strictly Jewish thing and that Gentiles had to convert to be let in. Is there any other incident? I do not recall any. (But getting’ old, ya know)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
These arguments about anything is clean if you think it is (Romans 14.14) are reflected in the synoptic arguments that what goes into a mouth does not defile, but what comes out. This is a development of Paul's argument placed into the mouth of Jesus, retrospectively.
Paul said the opposite of that. If you think something is unclean, then it is unclean for you. But nothing is inherently unclean.
Rom 14:14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean
The discussion is about eating food sacrificed in a pagan temple. It is not unclean for a Gentile not bound by the mitzvot but others might be upset if they see you do it, so best not to do it. Jews, even Jesus followers, would think it unclean so of course it is unclean for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So all this is arguing that the thrust of the gospels is that Jesus came and fulfilled the law and prophecies, too) not prophets, as John has Caiaphas prophesying long after John and Jesus had arrived.
This still leaves us with that contradiction in Matthew and also in Luke. I am pretty sure in a vague way that validity of the Law in its Mosaic law form was not on the Gospel table. I am sure that Luke and Matthew copied that passage (and others) from another source (I know you think Luke copied and 'inverted' Matthew - which would make Matthew the original) and one or both of them 'tweaked' the original text.
The phrase “Law and the Prophets” referred to the written scriptures. (‘Writings’ was not yet a coherent canonical body of work.) This is actually a common Pharisaic phrase to distinguish them from the Sadducees, who believed in only the Law (five books of Moses). It is not prophesying that is ended, but those prophecies in the written scriptures that have been fulfilled by the arrival of the Messiah. Remember this is Matthew who is mad about messianic prophecies, real or imagined.
BTW the Caiaphas prophecy only appears in the Gospel of John, written much later. And it is a rather weird thing to put in the mouth of the high priest who wants Jesus dead. He is affirming that the death of Jesus will be a redeeming sacrifice for the whole world. (Oddly this and other aspects of John remind me of the unthinking inevitableness of the actions of the Furies underscored in the trial scene at the end of the Oresteian Trilogy of Aeschylus. WAY off topic. Maybe someday…)
The Law has not ended. But it needs to be followed not just by the letter as the Shammai Pharisees hypocritically do but by the spirit. Just as the prophets of old said (as well as the Hillel Pharisees).
There is no contradiction in Matthew. Luke contradicts Matthew as I have already described but not himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
What i suggest is that it is rather getting around the permanence of the Mosaic laws by saying 'they are permanent - up until John and Jesus came. It is a way of getting over a problem by eliminating the problem. It is the solution of decriminalization. It is exactly what Paul does about his 'Sin' of not observing the Law as well as he should; get rid of the Law.
Matthew says Mosaic Law is permanent until the end of days, but the end of days is not that far off and all things will be fulfilled then. (See his Olivet Discourse for example.) Luke sidesteps the issue, making the Law seemingly permanent but segueing into territory familiar to Gentiles. I have already dealt with the Law and Prophets issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I noted just now his rather amusing contention that he wouldn't have known that to covet was a sin if there wasn't a law to tell him so. What about the law written on the heart? What about the knowledge of good and evil? Paul says himself that sin was in the world before the Law. The law just made it easier to sin my imposing rules to break.
(this explains that odd passage in Acts (15.10 where Peter talks of a burden neither we (Jews of the circumcision) or the forefathers were able to bear. This would be nonsense to an observing Jew and of course they would have leaped up to protest and of course Peter couldn't have made any such argument and of course it is Luke making it all up
*** Acts 15:10
As I said someplace or other, Paul is all over the place depending on who he is talking to. And they don’t call him Luke the Storyteller for nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
What you think? Could Matthew be the original form? Could the raiding be literal and Matthew talking about armed invasions of the Holy land? Could Luke have tweaked it to suggests that everyone is rushing forcefully to sign up to Christianity? Matthew is saying that none of the Law will disappear until it is all 'accomplished'. That isn't the same as saying that everyone including Gentiles is obliged to observe it. It is just saying that it will stay, intact until the end. That also doesn't preclude those who listen to Jesus not being obliged to observe it.
The more I look, the more I'm beginning to think that Luke did the alteration!
Here is a discussion of the original Greek words in the forcing/raiding passages. I am not convinced by the conclusions offered on the intended meanings, but do not have an alternative at the moment.
And of course Matthew was the original form and Luke adapted it.
Thanks. That is a lot to read and think about I shall get back to you.
Right now, let me reiterate what the contradiction apparently is: hang on... Yep, the OP made one point about the Law and the prophets. In Matthew, Jesus seems to say that the Law will not pass away until all is 'fulfilled'. But he always (or so I argue) seems to argue that it has passed away, not only because of its inherent problems (you mention how it can be misused by 'Corban' and the ritual washing of hands or implements -for ritual reasons rather than hygiene) but because Jesus stands up and proclaims new and more just rules that replace the old laws. Specifically the 'you have heard..but I tell you..' passages in the sermon.
Luke has none of those and that suggests to me that Matthew invented them himself. I cannot see any good reason why Luke would not have been very pleased to use them.
So we are considering whether there really is a contradiction or whether it only looks like it. That Luke has a different slant on the passage, but pretty much agrees with Matthew of the Law ending with John the Baptist, suggests that he saw a contradiction and sought to minimize it.
As I say, I'll study your post and respond.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-24-2015 at 04:41 PM..
Thanks. That is a lot to read and think about I shall get back to you.
Right now, let me reiterate what the contradiction apparently is: hang on... Yep, the OP made one point about the Law and the prophets. In Matthew, Jesus seems to say that the Law will not pass away until all is 'fulfilled'. But he always (or so I argue) seems to argue that it has passed away, not only because of its inherent problems (you mention how it can be misused by 'Corban' and the ritual washing of hands or implements -for ritual reasons rather than hygiene) but because Jesus stands up and proclaims new and more just rules that replace the old laws. Specifically the 'you have heard..but I tell you..' passages in the sermon.
Luke has none of those and that suggests to me that Matthew invented them himself. I cannot see any good reason why Luke would not have been very pleased to use them.
So we are considering whether there really is a contradiction or whether it only looks like it. That Luke has a different slant on the passage, but pretty much agrees with Matthew of the Law ending with John the Baptist, suggests that he saw a contradiction and sought to minimize it.
As I say, I'll study your post and respond.
Where does Matthew argue that he Law has passed away? I have already dealt with the 'Law and Prophets' business a couple of times. 'Law and Prophets' is the name given to the Jewish scriptures, which contain the messianic prophecies. The prophecies were fulfilled in John (Eliza) and Jesus (Messiah). The Law did not end. The prophecies were fulfilled.
There are Christians who say that the Law passed away when Jesus died. Or rose again, take your pick. If one wants to have Jesus abolish the Law, that is a pretty good time. But to have it abolished when John the Baptist is born (?) makes no sense. In addition to the obvious Why? there is the issue of Jesus very obviously obeying the Law his entire life.
Corban and the hand washing are not part of the Mosaic Law. They were invented by the Pharisees. The 'you have heard' passages emphasize the need to obey the spirit of the Law, not just the letter as the Shammai Pharisees do. E.g., hating someone but stopping short of murder obeys the letter of the Law but not the spirit. Jesus is saying get your mind right. Or is this a failure to communicate?
Luke did not use the 'you have heard' passages because they are about following Jewish Law, a point Luke does not want to say to his Gentile audience. Nor does he want to blatantly contradict the Law either. As we see in Acts 15, Luke subscribes to the Solomonic decision of the Council: Jews yes, Gentiles no. That 'split' is mentioned in Paul's writings and Paul is Luke's superhero of Christianity.
Well, Matthew is saying the law has passed away as regards dots and strokes of the pen simply by superseding it with the spirit of the Law. I am not disagreeing that this is his (or Matthew's) 'get it right' line Yes, I think it is a communication problem. You seem to be looking things in my posts to pick holes in even when I am not disagreeing with you. That's the apparent contradiction. If you say that Jesus' arrival fulfilled them so they were no longer needed as ritual observances, that I believe I suggested that earlier on.
The use of Luke of the passage depends on the recognizable similarity of the passage, not how he used it. The Law passing away and Law and the prophets until John passages are clearly the same ones, used differently. Matthew's is more of flat statement about no stroke or jot of the Law will pass away until all if Fulfilled. If that means until his crucifixion, resurrection or 2nd coming, it contradicts his comments in Matthew. If his appearance or indeed John's (not his birth, but his announcement of the coming messiah) was the time the letter of the law - and we are talking about the Jewish law and its observances - it all passed away then the passages under discussion are a bit of a swindle.
It seems that it is is of course down to Matthew to explain what he means because of course this isn't Jesus talking at all but the gospels -writers. Or that's what I tend to figure.
I shall have to look at Corban and hand washing. As a rule Pharisees tended to introduce some reasonable leeway of ritual observance whereas the Sadducees insisted on literal observation, so I suspect that this was not so much an invention of the Pharisees, but their take on existing practice. Or or be accurate, the rather jaundiced view of Gentile christian writers trying to discredit the Judaism they were familiar with.
As you know, I reckon that Luke didn't use the 'you have heard' passages, not because he didn't like them - I think he would have liked them very much - but because Matthew invented then and Luke never saw them. I know we disagree on this, but it means that of course I am not going to take your explanation of why Luke doesn't have them as right. And in fact it makes no difference to Matthew's attitude towards the law. Luke is only involved because his use of law and prophets and the law passing away shows that he had those passages (in some form) before him too.
we still have this contradiction in Matthew between the Law not passing away and yet passing away. can this be resolved? Only if somebody is cheating by saying that the Law will never pass away until it does. It did when Jesus showed up.
A bit more on your post...perhaps some of the same points
Quote:
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matthew 11
12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence,[d] and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the
Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.
d Matthew 11:12 Or been forcefully advancing
Luke 16
16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John (the Baptist). Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Quote:
Matthew’s Gospel is very Jewish in flavor and clearly directed to Jews who follow Jesus. Jesus is the King of the Jews, Jesus is the new Moses, Jesus is the culmination of Jewish history, the Law is here to stay. Matthew’s ire is directed explicitly against Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law, chief priests and elders. The great majority of Jews were not any of those things. The closest Matthew comes to condemning Jews at large is when the crowd demands that Jesus be crucified, accepting blood guilt on them and their children. (Mt 27:25) But they were persuaded to do this by the chief priests and elders. (Mt 27:20) It is Matthew’s competition, Rabbinic Judaism, who were opposed to Jesus. They are the evil ones, inheriting the blood guilt. Keep away from them, Matthew is telling his community.
John mentions most of the various groups that Matthew does. But he also refers to them as ‘the Jews’. As I previously pointed out, John makes Jesus a very observant Jew and does not condemn all Jews. But it is clear that he perceives Christianity as now distinct from Judaism and not the ‘true’ Judaism as Matthew does. To John, the Jesus movement has its roots in Judaism, something well established by the prior Gospels, but it is now something new and separate.
I'm seriously considering your argument that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience (whether or not they were interested in what he had to say) and that he might even have been a converted Jew himself. I note some instances of working from the Septuagint (notably with the Almah/Bethulah problem) but I suppose he could have been culturally gentilized enough that he had not learned to read Hebrew. On the other hand, it is also possible that he was a greek with a particular interest in scripture and, if he argued from scripture in terms of fulfilled prophecy, then so do the others. That was something started by Paul (so I argue) and the gospels contibue it.
Quote:
It is informative to compare Mark and Matthew concerning eating food and hand washing. We should note right off that the hand washing ritual is not the same as washing one’s hands before eating. One is required to wash one’s hands thoroughly before the ritual to be sure that the purifying water touches all the skin directly. The ‘defilement’ is ritual not physical. Ref The Pharisees were upset over the absence of ritual, not any matter of hygiene.
I agree. The argument is about the ritual cleanliness that Jews should observe (I would be surprised to hear an argument that most Jews did not follow the rituals based on Mosaic law whether they belonged to Pharisees or Sadducees or not). Jesus as a Jew should also do this. He does not and teaches his followers not to. The Pharisees question this and Jesus pretty much says that the ritual purity laws or procedures are irrelevant. Effectively he is making them obsolete. He talks in terms of practical purity which isn't -as you say - to do with hygeine, but is to do with personal behaviour. This is the message all through the gosepls. That being and doing good is what matters to man and God, not the rituals or the mosaic law.
That is where the contradiction appears where Matthew says the law will not pass away and Luke says it is harder for the law to pass away than heaven and earth. But both say that the law and prophets were until John (the baptist) - and I take your point that John the gospel -writer
goes a bit maverick with having caiphas prophecy - Thus I am still thinking in terms of a common text which Matthew and Luke both had and they both altered it to suit their way of thinking. The contradiction still remains with both. They seem to be saying that the law cannot pass away or it is is hard for it to pass away, while also saying that it passed away as soon as the Baptist appeared as a herald for the Messiah.
Quote:
Note that Mark explains the hand washing ritual as something that “Pharisees and Jews” do. His intended audience is not Jewish. Also Mark does not refer to this as Mosaic Law but as a “tradition of the elders”. In fact it is not Mosaic Law but a tradition of the Pharisees. The Law says that priests must do it when they perform a service.
That the kohein [priest] shall wash his hands and feet at the time of service (Ex. 30:19)
Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) (Mitzvah #435)
It is performed today by observant Jews exactly because the Temple does not exist and those services cannot be performed. Today, the table is the altar, the food is the sacrifice and the one performing the ritual becomes the priest. In this way the scriptural mitzvah is kept alive. Ref
(We may wonder if this and the other ’traditional’ non-Mosaic rules were an attempt by the rule-centric Shammai Pharisees to aggrandize themselves relative to the Temple-centric Sadducees, to whom the Pharisees were hostile. The more the people obeyed the rules of the Pharisees, the more important they would be. Recall that the Sadducees obeyed only the Torah.)
Well, that's what i say below. The traditions of the elders were the Pharisee way of taking the laws and rites which - as I say - I would be surprised to hear were not already incumbent on all Jews to observe. What the Pharisees did, so far as I understand, was to enable some wiggle room or arrange a sort of safety barrier of observance around the laws to keep people from even approaching them let alone breaking them. The Sadducees, as you say, didn't argue about this. It was letter of the law and no dickering
Quote:
Back to Mark…
Jesus calls out the Pharisees on forcing non-Mosaic rules on people. He points out that the non-Mosaic Pharisaic rule about Corban (sacrifice) can require people to neglect their parents in violation of not just the scriptural mitzvot but the Decalogue itself.
Mark has Jesus imply that all foods are clean, that the kashrut rules are obsolete. This would be extremely surprising since Jesus just got through emphasizing that God-given Mosaic Law is what must be obeyed, not made-made rules that contradict Mosaic Law. However it is not surprising that Mark would say this since we have already seen that he is talking to a non-Jewish audience. Mark adds this interpretation as a comment and not a quote from Jesus. We can see the intrusion of Pauline (or maybe post-Pauline) ideas into what may have been an existing traditional story about Jesus.
Mark explains the tradition - in fact I think you may find that this is derived from the Sadducee (priestly) observance which is as you based on the Mosaic law, because the Pharisees took the observance of the law into the synagogues and of course, after the destruction of the temple (which is when Christians and Jews were in conflict) the Pharisees and synagogues were the |Mosaic law.
Don't be too quick to dismiss Corban and hand -washing as some sort of Pharisee tradition that had no basis of Mosaic law.
There is that passage saying that the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. Do what they tell you (because that is the Mosaic law) but don't imitate them. This is clear. The Pharisees represent the |Law, but their behaviour makes them unworthy of it.
(This is a jaundiced Christian view and I see it as an uncomfortably anti Jewish gentile Christian view and consider that it is unfair to the Pharisees of the time). The Pharisees do represent the law.
The examples I mentioned about the rituals, sabbath obseervance and so on had some point - Pharisees would not disagree that you could Do something on the sabbath to save life, but if it was not urgent, you could leave it till the next day.
The thrust of the gospels is not just to make exceptions to Ritual observance, but to make them obsolete, really, because doing what is good is the 'Real' law, not ritual observances. That is the point of 'what goes into the moth cannot defile'. This is aimed ad discrediting Kashrut food laws.
We can perhaps look at the relevant passages but in fact it is (in my view)
(1) Paul saying it is ok for Gentile god -worshippers not to eat clean foods, but it is incumbent on Jews to observe the laws. I suspect (I cannot prove it) that Paul himself was lax about observance and I base this on his breast -beating about the law making one a sinner (by breaking it) and 'Who will save me?' Well, despite saying that the Law in incumbent on himself as a jew, he later on seems to think that Jesus has saved him. Not the Law, but Jesus.
The implication is that her sometimes breaks the law, (as he says sometimes to be a gentile to gentiles and a Jew to Jews)
The passages about clean if you think it is and not causing your brother to stumble is really Paul just exhorting Jewish and gentile Christians not to squabble over observance.
The point here is that Paul worked this out for himself- he didn't get it from the apostles. They were observing Jews and even Acts (though I would not trust Luke to give me the correct time of day) shows James concerned with the observance of the law and trying to gloss over Paul's sidelining it.
(2)I have already said that I regard the Peter speech in Acts 15 7. as nonsense. I might also regard as nonsense the hammock of wrigglies in Acts 10.11 when peter is invited to eat unclean foods (and it is about eating unclean foods not about killing it) and refuses "I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean'
And he is told that it has been cleansed by God. This would all be unnecessary if Jesus had really taught them as much as in Mark, Matthew and Luke.
(3)That is why i say that the Gospels (and Acts) were taking Paul's personal efforts to sideline the law of circumcision and clean food - purely to accommodate his Gentiles, and took it further in a general dislike of the Jewish law and customs, the teachers of the law and as you have noted, Jews in general, if they haven't converted.
This is why I think in terms , not of what Jesus Jesus said, but of what gentile Christians wanted him to say. That must be kept in mind when considering Gospel passages.
As I said, I am considering your argument of Matthew as a Jew writing for Jews, but it could also be a non Jew with a great interest in scripture. I mentioned that he seems to use the septuagint, not the Hebrew.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-25-2015 at 07:31 AM..
I know we risk getting onto a different subject, but note that Mark and Matthew pretty much give an extended account of a wrangle between Jesus and a group of Pharisees about washing before dinner. Mark, as you observe, gives an explanation for an audience to whom this was unfamiliar. You argue that this means that Matthew's audience were Jews.
Luke also has this (11.37) in a different context - dinner with on Pharisee in his house. Luke doesn't explain the practice either, but for the obvious reason - at the later date, the audience were familiar with the argument and it didn't need explaining - even to gentiles.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Then he scolds the Pharisees for following and teaching the laws in matt23
13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
The way I see it, the Pharisees and Scribes would be evil if they were killing innocent people. But it is very clear that they were only following the laws of Moses when they condemned them to die. The doctrine of the OT sanctions the death of anybody. No one is innocent in the eyes of YHWH. NO ONE! Not even Jesus! He healed on the Sabbath, and taught of God in a way that contradicted Moses. According to the OT he is guilty, and should die. It seems to me, if Jesus was the savior of the Jews, he would have scolded Moses and YHWH for murdering innocent people, and sanctioning the executions of innocent people, himself included. Does Jesus lack the wisdom? It seems he hated the sinners and loved the sin here. Anyone?
The Pharisees were legalistic, they saw something out of place and wanted to reprimand someone not adhering to it. Yes they did notice someone working on the Sabbath but had they not gathered crops they would have gone hungry.
An example would be if a Jewish doctor came across an accident on the Sabbath and the location was in the middle of the country(nowhere)where he or she would be the only ones who could save this individuals life. It would be a ludicrous thing to ignore this situation and let this individual die. I would say this falls under the sin of omission. We see someone who needs help as we preach about it but if only lip service how have we helped the individual
Well, Matthew is saying the law has passed away as regards dots and strokes of the pen simply by superseding it with the spirit of the Law. I am not disagreeing that this is his (or Matthew's) 'get it right' line Yes, I think it is a communication problem. You seem to be looking things in my posts to pick holes in even when I am not disagreeing with you. That's the apparent contradiction. If you say that Jesus' arrival fulfilled them so they were no longer needed as ritual observances, that I believe I suggested that earlier on.
That is exactly what I am NOT saying. Matthew is very explicitly saying that Mosaic Law will remain completely intact in every detail until the end of days. It has not been superseded at all. But mechanical literal obedience is insufficient.
Quote:
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
In v17 we can read between the lines here and see Matthew taking a swipe at Paul. Nothing is being abolished in any manner at all. The Law is here to stay in all its details until the end of days when everything will be accomplished.
Jesus fulfills the Prophets by being the Messiah that they predicted. Jesus fulfills the Law by teaching a return to the spirit of the Law in addition to the letter. The Pharisees and teachers of the law hypocritically demand the obedience to the letter, including their own made up rules, while losing track of the spirit. Their righteousness is false. To enter the kingdom of heaven one must live the Law in spirit in addition to the letter. The ‘you have heard’ passages emphasize that the letter is only half the story. One must have the spirit as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The use of Luke of the passage depends on the recognizable similarity of the passage, not how he used it. The Law passing away and Law and the prophets until John passages are clearly the same ones, used differently. Matthew's is more of flat statement about no stroke or jot of the Law will pass away until all if Fulfilled. If that means until his crucifixion, resurrection or 2nd coming, it contradicts his comments in Matthew. If his appearance or indeed John's (not his birth, but his announcement of the coming messiah) was the time the letter of the law - and we are talking about the Jewish law and its observances - it all passed away then the passages under discussion are a bit of a swindle.
The Law will not pass away until the end of days, the messianic age, the resurrection, the judgment and reward or punishment. That is when all will be fulfilled. In the life to come, everyone will be righteous.
It’s time to take a look in context at how Matthew has Jesus talk about John.
Quote:
Matthew 11
2 When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
4 Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5 The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.6 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”
7 As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. 9 Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written:
“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.
John is Elijah, he who is to return before the Messiah as prophesied in the scriptures. As I have already said a number of times, “the Prophets and the Law” IS the scriptures as should be obvious from v13. If it were not the scriptures, how could the Law prophesize? The scriptures Jesus refers to are not just the quote from Malachi. The answer Jesus gives to the disciples of John when they ask if he is the Messiah consists of messianic prophesies from Isaiah (8:14-15, 11:14, 14:30, 25:4, 29:18, 35:6). Jesus is not just claiming to be the Messiah. He is fulfilling the messianic prophecies from “the Prophets and the Law” (the scriptures) just as John did. The Law is not passing away. The scriptural prophecies are being fulfilled.
No contradiction in Matthew
This is yet another instance of Matthew promoting his agenda: Demonstrating by scriptural references that Jesus is the true Jewish Messiah and that the Jesus movement is therefore the true heir of historic Judaism. This is to ward off incursions into his community of Jewish followers of Jesus by Rabbinic Judaism, his competition for the soul of Judaism in a post-Temple world.
Now let’s look at Luke.
Quote:
Luke 16
16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Just bits and pieces form here and there in Matthew. The scriptures (“the Law and the Prophets”) led up to John. But no big deal about specific scriptural references. Luke’s mission is to the Gentiles. He does not need to constantly reinforce Jesus as the Jewish Messiah because he is not concerned with any Jewish competition. To Luke the important thing about Jesus is the promise of the kingdom of God. But he has no problem with there being Jewish followers of Jesus. The Law remains for them, just as Luke says in Acts 15.
No contradiction in Luke.
As we have previously discussed, Luke changes the ‘heaven and earth’ reference around a bit. Matthew has the Law continue unchanged until heaven and earth disappear. i.e., at the end of days. Luke says it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the Law to change. No mention of the end of days. And as I have previously referenced, just after this section Luke presents his unique Lazarus and the Rich Man story, with its immediate after death reward and punishment ala beliefs familiar to Gentiles. Pre-Christian Gentile beliefs in that time and place did not include the end of days idea. However there were several schools in Jewish thinking about life after death, one of which was immediate reward or punishment, so this was still with the bounds of Judaism. (Judaism 101: Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife) Luke changed the ‘heaven and earth’ theme to be more familiar to his Gentile audience.
While we are in this area, we may note that the Lazarus story begins with references to scraps falling from the table and dogs. Gee, that sounds familiar. It reminds me of the Gentile woman that Jesus called a dog and who then likened herself to a dog eating scraps that fall from the table. That story appears in Mark and Matthew but not Luke. It is part of what scholars call the Great Omission, a long multi-episode section that Luke omits. But he does not omit all of it, only the ‘dumb’ parts (as I have described elsewhere). One part that he does include is the hand washing confrontation with the Pharisees that we have been discussing. In addition to the (maybe) reference to the omitted ‘Gentiles are dogs’ section there is also the mention of people from (Gentile) Tyre and Sidon in Luke’s Sermon, the region where the ‘dogs’ episode occurs. We might note that in Matthew (and Mark) the ‘dogs’ episode immediately follows the hand washing episode. Luke’s hand washing episode is very close in wording to Mark and Matthew. It is hard to imagine that Luke saw the hand washing passage but not the ‘dogs’ passage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Well]It seems that it is of course down to Matthew to explain what he means because of course this isn't Jesus talking at all but the gospels -writers. Or that's what I tend to figure.
It is indeed the gospel writers talking, each following his own agenda, a point I have argued elsewhere. How much if any of the material relates to actual events is a matter of debate. But it seems to me that there is a likely sounding core proto-story that did not come via Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I shall have to look at Corban and hand washing. As a rule Pharisees tended to introduce some reasonable leeway of ritual observance whereas the Sadducees insisted on literal observation, so I suspect that this was not so much an invention of the Pharisees, but their take on existing practice. Or to be accurate, the rather jaundiced view of Gentile christian writers trying to discredit the Judaism they were familiar with.
There were two flavors of Pharisees at the time: the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. Shammai was the dominant school of thought at the time of Jesus, Hillel having died decades earlier, and was very strict with regard to enforcing the Law and the various non-Mosaic rules.
Quote:
The Hillelites were, like the founder of their school (Ber. 60a; Shab. 31a; Ab. i. 12 et seq.), quiet, peace-loving men, accommodating themselves to circumstances and times, and being determined only upon fostering the Law and bringing man nearer to his God and to his neighbor. The Shammaites, on the other hand, stern and unbending like the originator of their school, emulated and even exceeded his severity. To them it seemed impossible to be sufficiently stringent in religious prohibitions.
As you know, I reckon that Luke didn't use the 'you have heard' passages, not because he didn't like them - I think he would have liked them very much - but because Matthew invented then and Luke never saw them. I know we disagree on this, but it means that of course I am not going to take your explanation of why Luke doesn't have them as right. And in fact it makes no difference to Matthew's attitude towards the law. Luke is only involved because his use of law and prophets and the law passing away shows that he had those passages (in some form) before him too.
Matthew’s attitude toward the Law is that it is here to stay. Luke’s attitude is the same but that it is not relevant to his Gentile audience.
Matthew has Jesus say that he is NOT abolishing the Law (like Paul is perceived to have said) and that it will stay around in all its details. Part of his emphasis is the ‘heaven and earth’ phrase. But obeying the letter of the Law, like the Pharisees, is not sufficient. One must live the spirit of the Law as well. Thus the “you have heard” passage. This is all one piece, one continuous thought.
Luke uses the ‘heaven and earth’ phrase with respect to the Law. Where did he get it? Matthew uses it as part of a continuous thought that Luke does not otherwise repeat. It is clear that Luke left out the rest of the passage because it was not only irrelevant but would be counter-productive to his purpose. In particular, Luke did not like the “you have heard” passages because they were all about the Law. Luke dismisses discussion of the Law in his brief ‘heaven and earth’ passage because it is not relevant to his Gentile audience. His audience would not “have heard” those mitzvot of Mosaic Law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
we still have this contradiction in Matthew between the Law not passing away and yet passing away. can this be resolved? Only if somebody is cheating by saying that the Law will never pass away until it does. It did when Jesus showed up.
There is no contradiction to be resolved. Both Matthew and Luke agree that the Law is not going away although that is much more important to Matthew. Both Matthew and Luke agree that John was the prophesied precursor of Jesus although that is much more important to Matthew.
Read in context and with an understanding of agendas and it all makes sense. No contradictions.
Major personal business tomorrow (Thursday). Probably not much presence on C-D. I will address your other reply when I can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
