But do you think the pharisees thought they were adding to the law? or merely doing their best to keep the law?
The Law describes an evil God. His requirements and actions are foul. Their corruption is at the core of Christianity.
That is the elephant in the naked emperorâs room.
In Matthew 5, Jesus states clearly what he thought about the law.
I concur with Bill_II.
Yes, Jesus said that he has not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them.
Ok. Bill_ II didnât answer me, so Iâm still wondering then if you think the pharisees thought they were adding to the lawâŚ
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the law⌠completed it, so that we do not have to. (by following him we accomplish that which the law intended) Galatians 3:23-25 speaks of the law as a temporary âbabysitterâ (translation of the Greek word âguardianâ) needed before we came to maturity in ChristâŚ
âBefore the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.â
Definitely adding by interpreting what they thought the Law meant. They donât consider that adding though. The law had some harsh penalties but also dietary and health laws that worked for the good.
1 Like
Yes. Just look at Psalm 119. and the celebration of Simchat Torah. Jesus didnât come to save us from the law of Moses or Judaism. He came to save us from sin. It is true that nobody could keep the law of Moses, but Jews have the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) to confess their sins. Christians are not without sin either, but most of us have services with general confession of sins and penitential periods such as Advent and Lent (which includes Ash Wednesday).
While the Law of Moses in and of itself is not oppressive, some sects of Judaism and Christianity can certainly be oppressive. For example, certain ultra-orthodox Jewish sects seem oppressive. And that goes for certain sects of Christianity as well.
Yes I agree. The pharisees themselves didnât think they were adding to the lawâthey viewed themselves as extra good keepers of it. And you make the point (which was my point) that then âkeeping the lawâ is subjectiveâit depends on how one interprets things. And for a considerable portion of Jews it was indeed burdensome what they were doing (as Jesus states).
1 Like
Nobody is saying that Christians are under the law. Guardian does not mean babysitter. And none of this means that the Law is oppressive.
A pastor I know who studied the original greek text (I do not know Greek myself admittedly), said that the word translated as âGuardianâ literally meant ânannyâ or âbabysitterâ in that contextâŚ
And according to Jesusâs statement in Luke 11:46, by âfollowing the lawâ as people were interpreting it, it was indeed burdensome to those people. You might want to split hairs over the semantic meaning of âburdensomeâ vs. âoppressiveâ?
Yes, and the evidence that he has already done it begins when he was baptized by John. Immediately after that act, the heavens opened up and the spirit of God descended upon him (Mark 1:10). Before that event, he was like us. After it, he could do miraculous things. I donât know of any other person who has done that. So, somewhere in his words there must exist clues about a missing piece that would allow others to do what he has already done.
that is incorrectâŚwe have from some of the earliest biblical accounts that your statement is wrong. See Exodus 31:11
10When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they would stand up and worship, each one at the entrance to his own tent. 11Thus the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp,
Surely you must agree that in speaking with someone as consistently and as often as God did to Moses, the revelation of the mission of the Israelites was made very clear to them.
Do you not understand why the gospel was given to the Gentiles and that it was taken from the Jews simply because the Jews did not fulfill their promise concerning it?
In reading your statement i have quoted, im sure you do not really understand the relationship of the sanctuary service and the implications that institution has for the future. The sanctuary service is a model for the entire plan of salvation from the fall of man to the second coming and even beyond the final judgement.
The Jews had the gospel all along, and they squandered that opportunity and turned it into a burdenâŚthat is the point!
Jesus is not saying that the law itself is burdensome. He is saying that the lawyers were making it burdensome. Bill_II has attempted to explain this. Conflicts over how to interpret the Law continue to this day. Look at the conflict over women praying at the Western Wall. I recommend the book
Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots. The extreme orthodox upbringing of the author, Deborah Feldman, was very oppressive and burdensome. Conservatives in other faiths often act the same way.
The writer of Psalm 119 certainly didnât see the Law as oppressive.
Oh, how I love thy law!
It is my meditation all the day.
Thy commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
And the celebration of Simchat Torah shows that Jews today donât see the Law as oppressive.
You then also agree with Bill and I that âfollowing the lawâ is not objectiveâit is based on oneâs subjective interpretation of which laws need to be followed and to what degree of rigor. Jesusâs words in Luke, indicate that some (sizable?) component of Jews were going along with the Phariseeâs interpretation of âfollowing the lawâ, so these jews were in agreement that that interpretation was correct for themselves-- and so Luke indicates that this (sizable component?) of the Jews at the time were feeling burdened because of it.
But if the particular subjective interpretation of the text on the page was indeed the Phariseeâs root problem, donât you find it notable that Jesus does NOT simply advise them to âstop adding to the text, go back and study the exact words of the law more closely and get it rightâ.
Instead, he laments the fact that they âstudy the scriptures diligentlyâ and yet do not come to HIM. (John 5 :39). (i.e. he who fulfills and completes the law by his own work), and âwhose yoke is easy and whose burden is lightâ.
What is incorrect? What does Jewish folklore have anything to do with reality? And Christians have been so much better than Jews at fulfilling their promise where? When? How? And no, I have no understanding of the sanctuary service and the implications that institution has for the future. What does any of that word salad mean? Iâm smelling antisemitism here.
Not my point. Actually you could say the by adding to the Law they were attempting to take the subjective out of the Law. So from my point of view they were adding to the Law when they âthinkâ they arenât. It was these additions that Jesus considered to be a burden on the people while carving out exceptions for themselves.
He was most likely addressing the Jewish leaders and not the common folk.
In effect that is what He told them in the above quotation.
No I donât. And I donât see that Bill said that. And itâs normally not about one individualâs subjective interpretation. Instead, there are main groups/schools of thought, such as the Pharisees.
Today in the US There are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. Within Orthodoxy there are sub groups often based on one rabbiâs teaching. E.g. there is the strict Satmar sect within orthodoxy.
Disagreements within Judaism are not a terrible thing. They say that when 2 Jews get together there will be 3 different opinions. A Jewish co-worker told me that Jewish people like to go into law because they love to argue. The rabbis even preserved their disagreements in the Talmud.
But if Jesus told the pharisees to stop oppressing the people, then there must have been a group of people who felt oppressed. Or do you think Jesus was lying, or was mistaken that âthe peopleâ really were oppressed?
And why should the Pharisees (or anyone) accept your opinion that they were just âadding stuff onâ? For example, if the Mosaic Law in the text says to keep the Sabbath as a day of rest, then maybe the Pharisaic interpretation of work as including eating some heads of grain while walking past a wheat field is indeed correct. After all, walking around and plucking grain does entail the expenditure of unnecessary energy doesnât it. So, isnât oneâs interpretion of âfollowing the lawâ greatly subjective and impossible to precisely regulate? Maybe Moses should have written another whole book of the law to precisely define what âworkâ was?
And so please show me from the passage in Luke (or indeed anywhere else in the NT) where Jesus says clearly to the Pharisees that they need to read the original Mosaic Laws from Leviticus more accurately so they can enforce that more literal textual reading onto the people. I disagree that it was clearly implied by Jesus anywhere!