brenmcg said
Steefen said
Problem: Sermon on the Mount passages are anti-Pauline
– Jesus condemns anyone who takes away from the Torah or teaches one does not have to follow the Torah, he will be least in the Kingdom of God.
He doesn’t.
He condemns anyone who takes away from the “these” commandments. That is, those commandments he is about to give in the sermon on the mount.
Having given his commandments in chapters 5, 6, 7 he says in Matthew 7:24-26
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.”
Steefen
Jesus’ position on the Law is different from Paul’s position on the law.
Matthew Chapter 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 I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
= = =
Now, let’s specifically deal with your counter-interpretation of Matthew 5:19.
You ignore the context before the 19th verse (in the same paragraph/section) to point to context after the 19th verse (outside of that paragraph/section). How far after 5: 19? 5: 20 to 7: 23.
I am not persuaded by your reading comprehension, your interpretation of the paragraph. Your objection/criticism is rejected.
Also see that Biblehub dot com calls the paragraph/section where Matthew 5: 19 is:
(c) The Theme of the Discourse: Christ’s Idea of Righteousness in Contrast with That of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Well the discussion is about Paul reading Matthew so I’m not why it matters that Mark is different.
Thread drift, or: I’m not interested in Paul. In Mark’s account of the ‘rich young ruler’ one is saved by following Jesus. In Matthew’s account one is saved by following the Law. The highest and best expression of following the Law, i.e. “perfection”, is following Jesus. Big difference.
Aside from the internal clues and the fact that Matthew depends on Mark and Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple, Paul wouldn’t have followed Matthew because if you got the two of them in a room they would have clawed each other’s eyes out. Paul spent huge chunks of his letters attacking Christians who thought just like Matthew. If you’re going to follow Jesus you have to obey the Law.
“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
-Matthew 5:20
What is the “righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees”? Obeying the Law! Matthew is having Jesus say that if the disciples don’t obey the Law more stringently than the scribes and the Pharisees they can’t enter the kingdom. The historical Jesus was a Jew.
“The general idea is the law is not enough.”
“Those who only follow the law and lacking something. That something is to give up everything and follow Jesus. Or as Paul says die to the world and live for Christ.”
thats two things, not ONE thing. following jesus by becoming homeless and waiting for the kingdom of god? this has nothing to do with what paul said. paul’s jesus said the law brings out what a sinner a person is. marks jesus NEVER said that the law brings out what a sinner a person is.
marks jeesus says obediance to the torah is what gives you eternal life. this is not what paul said.
paul saw torah as “how much sin did i do today”
pauls jesus,
quote:
For example, in order to prove that no one can be righteous through the Law, he misrepresents Ps. 14, quoting: “There is no one who is righteous, not even one…”
quote:
According to Paul, however, because no one can keep the Law, it does not bring blessing and life, only curses and death.
thats not what marks jesus said to the rich man
quote:
As Peter says in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** “We have left everything to follow you”
at that point in time, how are you fitting in pauls jesus who said that the torah does not bring eternal life?
“Is this that brings eternal life ** you do not have permission to see this link **
You know the commandments… you forgot this MAIN thing here.
mark says rich people dont get into heaven because it is difficult for them to give up their riches and live a homeless life until the kingdom of god arrives.
quote:
What’s translated as “then follow me” is really “and follow me”
which means nothing because he already told him that obediance to the commands brings eternal life. paul nevver said that.
I dont know greek
Second, if we are to accept Jesus at his word, then when he said the rich man lacked one thing, we are not permitted to say he lacked two things. In context, the one thing he lacked was obedience to the commandment to love his neighbor as himself, which would require that he contribute to helping the poor (Leviticus 19:18). Since that qualifies as “one thing”, then apparently the second part of Jesus’ answer “come and follow me” is more or less an afterthought, an invitation to do something that might be a good idea, but which is not essential.
but the guy “giving up” his riches in a sense has become a follower without having to literally persue a live person.
do you know greek? you forgot the golden nugget again, marks jesus contrary to pauls jesus siad ” you KNOW THE COMMANDMENTS….”
Bart Ehrman writes:
First, I had them read and analyze the famous story of the so-called “Rich Young Ruler” as found, for example, in ** you do not have permission to see this link **. (I say so-called because in Matthew of the Gospels he is young – though definitely not in Mark – and in only one of the Gospels — Luke – is he said to be a ruler.) In Matthew’s version, the man comes up to Jesus and asks him “what good deed must I do to inherit eternal life.” Jesus answers swiftly and directly “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” The man asks which ones, and Jesus lists some of the Ten Commandments, along with the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. The man claims he has indeed kept these. Jesus then tells him that if he wants to be perfect, he needs to sell everything he owns and give the money away to the poor, “and you will have treasure in heaven. And then come, follow me.”It is important to notice what Jesus’ response is to how to have eternal life. You have to keep the laws God laid out in the Torah. And if you want to have treasures in heaven, you are to do even more than that – you are to give love *totally* to your (poor) neighbor. That’s how one earns salvation.
So, I have my students summarize and discuss that passage. And then I give them a thought experiment: suppose that twenty years later the *same* man, now in middle age, comes up to the apostle Paul, and asks him “what must I do in order to inherit eternal life?” What does Paul say in response? Does he say, “Keep the commandments”? Or “follow the Torah”? Or, “give away everything you own and you will have treasures in heaven”?
Or does he say something completely different? The answer, of course, is that Paul says something completely different. Paul does not tell the person to follow the Law of God. He tells him to “believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus and be baptized.”
//////////////
for writers like paul who was persecuting christians with different contradictory views, obediance to torah just shows what a dirty sinner a person is. matthews jesus and marks jesus completely disagree. obediance to torah brings eternal life.
this line “You know the commandments…” trumps everything that follows. this IS the direct response to “what must i do….”
pauls jesus vs marks jesus
3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[** you do not have permission to see this link **] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[** you do not have permission to see this link **] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Law and the Promise
15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”[** you do not have permission to see this link **] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Children of God
23 Before the coming of this faith,[** you do not have permission to see this link **] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
//////
this guy is telling the jews that their torah does not bring eternal life by obediance to it.
is this what marks jesus said ?
paul telling jews to live unjewish life :
I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the gentiles to live like Jews?”
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not gentile sinners, 16 yet we know that a person is justified[** you do not have permission to see this link **] not by the works of the law but through the faith of Jesus Christ
marks jesus
good teacher, WHAT must I DO to inherit eternal life….
the direct response “you KNOW the commandments…..”
Ehrman says that by DOING the commandments the man WILL receive his treasure in heaven. in other words obediance to the commandments secures you rewards in heaven.
Mark’s view is somewhat illuminated by another passage. Mark 12: 28-34
Now one of the scribes had come up and heard their debate. Noticing how well Jesus had answered them, he asked Him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”
Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
“Right, Teacher,” the scribe replied. “You have stated correctly that God is One and there is no other but Him, and to love Him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
When Jesus saw that the man had answered wisely, He said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
And no one dared to question Him any further.
Presumably like with the Rich Young Ruler the thing that is missing is a commitment to follow Jesus. Some scholars have detected a Pauline influence on Mark. It seems pretty clear for Mark obeying the Law is important but it is not enough to enter the kingdom. For that you need to follow Jesus.
Steefen said
Jesus’ position on the Law is different from Paul’s position on the law.Matthew Chapter 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 I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
“Do not think that I have come to destroy (or tear down) the law …”
The implication is that Jesus is doing or saying something which gives the appearance of tearing down the law. Here he says don’t see it that way see it as me fulfilling the law. The question is what was Jesus doing or saying that would lead people to think he was destroying the law.
The statement that not a single jot will change does not mean people are to obey the law. Paul believed that not a jot would change but thought it was no longer necessary to obey it.
The statement “these commandments” refers to the teachings Jesus is about to give – not to the law of Moses.
Stephen said
Well the discussion is about Paul reading Matthew so I’m not why it matters that Mark is different.Thread drift, or: I’m not interested in Paul. In Mark’s account of the ‘rich young ruler’ one is saved by following Jesus. In Matthew’s account one is saved by following the Law. The highest and best expression of following the Law, i.e. “perfection”, is following Jesus. Big difference.
I don’t see where you think there is a difference. Why does the rich young man walk away upset in Matthew’s version if he is save by following the law? He has kept the law according to himself – why isn’t he saved according to Matthew?
Aside from the internal clues and the fact that Matthew depends on Mark and Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple, Paul wouldn’t have followed Matthew because if you got the two of them in a room they would have clawed each other’s eyes out. Paul spent huge chunks of his letters attacking Christians who thought just like Matthew. If you’re going to follow Jesus you have to obey the Law.
“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
-Matthew 5:20
What is the “righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees”? Obeying the Law! Matthew is having Jesus say that if the disciples don’t obey the Law more stringently than the scribes and the Pharisees they can’t enter the kingdom.
Either the scribes and pharisees obey the law or they don’t. If they obey the law you can’t be more righteous than them by obeying it also.
Matthew 7:12 “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you for this is the law and the prophets.” This is the righteousness he’s talking about.
The mosaic law is written by man Matthew 19:8 “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so.“
God’s law is unchanging and perfect and its that law which will bring righteousness surpassing the Pharisees.
The historical Jesus was a Jew.
So was the historical Paul.
jakejones said
thats two things, not ONE thing.
Yes. The original is “if you want to be perfect … “
Luke’s edit creates the error.
marks jeesus says obediance to the torah is what gives you eternal life. this is not what paul said.
No Mark’s Jesus say that. Mark’s Jesus says nothing you eat can defile a person. Denying the entire Levitical dietary laws.
For example, in order to prove that no one can be righteous through the Law, he misrepresents Ps. 14, quoting: “There is no one who is righteous, not even one…”
Why do you think that’s a misrepresentation. Israel is in captivity for her sins and there are righteous to free her. It is God himself who will have to be the deliverer.
You know the commandments… you forgot this MAIN thing here.
mark says rich people dont get into heaven because it is difficult for them to give up their riches and live a homeless life until the kingdom of god arrives.
But giving up your riches and living a homeless life isn’t part of the law.
Jesus never says obey the mosaic law. He lists 5 laws in Mark and says you’ll be lacking one thing after that. How can you take “obey the mosaic law” from that?
Second, if we are to accept Jesus at his word, then when he said the rich man lacked one thing, we are not permitted to say he lacked two things. In context, the one thing he lacked was obedience to the commandment to love his neighbor as himself, which would require that he contribute to helping the poor (Leviticus 19:18). Since that qualifies as “one thing”, then apparently the second part of Jesus’ answer “come and follow me” is more or less an afterthought, an invitation to do something that might be a good idea, but which is not essential.
The original is “If you want to be perfect … “
The version in Luke/Mark doesn’t make complete sense. What they’re trying to say by “you lack one thing … ” is you don’t need to follow every other 600 mosaic commandments.
They’re are saying do the normal things you’d do for a moral life and then you’ll be lacking one thing – giving up everything in the world and go to Jesus.
jakejones said
this line “You know the commandments…” trumps everything that follows. this IS the direct response to “what must i do….”
No the questions “which ones?” trumps everything. The rich young man in Matthew directly asks Jesus which commands to follow.
Which commands does Jesus tell him to follow?
marks jesus
good teacher, WHAT must I DO to inherit eternal life….
the direct response “you KNOW the commandments…..”
Ehrman says that by DOING the commandments the man WILL receive his treasure in heaven. in other words obediance to the commandments secures you rewards in heaven.
Selling all your possessions is not part of the law, this is a command of Jesus. He lists five other commands for the young man. Nowhere in the passage or the rest of Mark does Jesus say obey the mosaic law and you will get into heaven. On the contrary he denies the legitimacy of the Levitical dietary laws.
paul says that doing the law just highlights your sins and shows a person what a sinner he is. marks jesus doesnt say that.
paul says that it isnt the law that saves you but a blood sacrifice, jesus doesnt say that in mark.
” He lists five other commands for the young man. Nowhere in the passage or the rest of Mark does Jesus say obey the mosaic law and you will get into heaven.”
nowhere in the pssage does it say that belief in a blood sacrifice saves you.
the response he gives to the young man is “you know the commandments”
paul says the commandments just highlights your sins and shows a person what a dirty sinner he/she is. jesus doesnt say that.
“No Mark’s Jesus say that. Mark’s Jesus says nothing you eat can defile a person. Denying the entire Levitical dietary laws. “
quote:
The topic being discussed in Mark 7 is not the eating of foods prohibited by the Torah but ritual purity in terms of eating food with unwashed hands. With the emphasis throughout the story of the Pharisees’ “traditions of the elders,” the dispute here is a halakhic one, with Jesus rejecting their interpretation of the Torah (v. 3) that in his opinion fails to respect inner purity as much as outer purity. He is accusing them of being hypocrites by making rules on less important matters while failing to observe the most important precepts of the Law, thereby setting aside the actual Torah by paying more attention to their oral tradition. The Pharisees were not accusing Jesus and his disciples of eating meat (such as pork) that the Torah forbids. So this raises the question of the scope of πάντα τὰ βρώματα in 7:19. This is a parenthetical comment from the author. James Crossley in “Mark 7.1-13: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean’ “ (in Torah in the New Testament; A&C Black, 2009) argues that this comment has nothing to do with eating ritually unclean foods but contaminating clean foods via second-hand impurity:
“With Mk 7:1-5 in mind, impurity could be contracted at the market. To counter this, immersion is required, as Mark of course mentions. This was one important step in the removal of impurity for the purposes of eating in a state of purity. Yet, as we saw with the issue of a tebul yom, there was still danger because hands were always liable to contract impurity even if the body had been imemrsed, and so the next important step, as Mark realizes, is to wash the hands. This washing of hands therefore prevented the possibility of impurity being transmitted from hands to food (via a liquid) to the insides. With this detail in mind, the saying ‘there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile’ (Mk 7.15) and the statement ‘he declared all foods clean’ (Mk 7.19), can be read as a critique of the views associated with establishing the transmission of impurity from hands to food (via a liquid) to eater. In other words, from this perspective, all foods permitted in the Torah were clean to eat and hand-washing was unnecessary” (p. 16).
Just my 2 pence, but I think there can be a temptation to rush to find radical discontinuity where there is just a bit of subtlety mixed with a different emphasis.
E.g., Mark’s Jesus says, to be saved, keep the commandments, and he lists some of the commandments he is talking about. But Paul also says practically the same thing in Rom 13:8-10.
If you read Paul like Luther did, it is easy to see discontinuity, but Luther’s reading of Paul was somewhat one-sided and totally overlooks all the places that Paul either speaks about the importance of deeds or mentions the law in positive terms.
I mean, Paul doesn’t say all you have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus; he explicitly says that belief has to manifest itself in living according to charity (Gal 5:6). And despite his famously railing against works he says, explicitly that God will render to each according to his works (Rom 2:6).
It’s also noteworthy that Jesus’ answer to the rich young man is particular to that specific individual in his particular circumstances. It isn’t posed as a general, exhaustive explanation for everyone. So, his final, “You lack one thing: sell everything, give it to the poor, and come follow me” could be read as commanding something like Pauline faith in Jesus.
I’m not saying there is no difference; I just think people can be too quick to cherry pick one passage from each author, and facilely say, “look they are obviously saying totally different things” even though there are other passages in those very authors that suggest the divergence may not be so great.
I think it would be be easier to say that Paul’s own theology is incoherent on this point, than to argue it is in any clear contradiction with the theology of Mark’s Jesus.
“Do not think that I have come to destroy (or tear down) the law …”
The implication is that Jesus is doing or saying something which gives the appearance of tearing down the law. Here he says don’t see it that way see it as me fulfilling the law. The question is what was Jesus doing or saying that would lead people to think he was destroying the law.
The statement that not a single jot will change does not mean people are to obey the law. Paul believed that not a jot would change but thought it was no longer necessary to obey it.
The statement “these commandments” refers to the teachings Jesus is about to give – not to the law of Moses.
Yep these are the rationalizations I was taught as well. I was taught that “fulfilling the law” meant doing away with it, even though Jesus is saying just the opposite. Paul wrote that one cannot be saved by obeying the law. Matthew has Jesus say just the opposite. Whoever else he might have been Matthew’s Jesus was a pious Torah observant Jew and the expectation is that his followers will be as well. There is no substitute for a close reading of the text. Let Matthew have his say. He is not saying what Mark is saying. He is not saying what Paul is saying. (One very interesting question is whether Mark is saying what Paul is saying!)
Why does the rich young man walk away upset in Matthew’s version if he is save by following the law? He has kept the law according to himself – why isn’t he saved according to Matthew?
Read carefully what Jesus said. Perfection in observing the law is to follow Jesus. Jesus requires that the RYR give away his wealth and come join the community. One is saved by obeying the law but Jesus is the perfection of the law. Obeying the law is a continuum not a binary.
Either the scribes and pharisees obey the law or they don’t. If they obey the law you can’t be more righteous than them by obeying it also.
No, once again obeying the law is not a binary. It’s a continuum. Jesus is saying the disciples must be more stringent in their practice than the Pharisees. The history of Judaism is one long argument about how best to obey the law. Jesus participated in these controversies.
“No Mark’s Jesus say that. Mark’s Jesus says nothing you eat can defile a person. Denying the entire Levitical dietary laws. “
quote:
The topic being discussed in Mark 7 is not the eating of foods prohibited by the Torah but ritual purity in terms of eating food with unwashed hands. With the emphasis throughout the story of the Pharisees’ “traditions of the elders,” the dispute here is a halakhic one, with Jesus rejecting their interpretation of the Torah (v. 3) that in his opinion fails to respect inner purity as much as outer purity. He is accusing them of being hypocrites by making rules on less important matters while failing to observe the most important precepts of the Law, thereby setting aside the actual Torah by paying more attention to their oral tradition. The Pharisees were not accusing Jesus and his disciples of eating meat (such as pork) that the Torah forbids. So this raises the question of the scope of πάντα τὰ βρώματα in 7:19. This is a parenthetical comment from the author. James Crossley in “Mark 7.1-13: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean’ “ (in Torah in the New Testament; A&C Black, 2009) argues that this comment has nothing to do with eating ritually unclean foods but contaminating clean foods via second-hand impurity:
“With Mk 7:1-5 in mind, impurity could be contracted at the market. To counter this, immersion is required, as Mark of course mentions. This was one important step in the removal of impurity for the purposes of eating in a state of purity. Yet, as we saw with the issue of a tebul yom, there was still danger because hands were always liable to contract impurity even if the body had been imemrsed, and so the next important step, as Mark realizes, is to wash the hands. This washing of hands therefore prevented the possibility of impurity being transmitted from hands to food (via a liquid) to the insides. With this detail in mind, the saying ‘there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile’ (Mk 7.15) and the statement ‘he declared all foods clean’ (Mk 7.19), can be read as a critique of the views associated with establishing the transmission of impurity from hands to food (via a liquid) to eater. In other words, from this perspective, all foods permitted in the Torah were clean to eat and hand-washing was unnecessary” (p. 16).
quote:
Israel is in captivity for her sins and there are righteous to free her. It is God himself who will have to be the deliverer.
we see again and again that israel is called back to obey the commandments of god. paul says that the law just highlights your sins
paul:
20 For no human will be justified before him by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.
where is this in mark ?
paul said he came to do away with what saved moses’ life.
quote:
The phrase “there is none righteous, not one” is found in Romans 3:10, but it is not found in the T’nach. The closest to this one will find in T’hillim / Psalm 14:3 and 53:4 says “no one does good, not even one.”
The Hebrew here is ט֑וֹב — good. Not righteous. . . good.
The book of Romans is misquoting the T’nach.
When the psalms say “no one does good” does it mean that there are no good people in the world? Does it mean that it is impossible to be a good person?
Nope.
Read it IN CONTEXT. “The degraded one says in his heart, “There is no G-d!” They have acted corruptly and abominably (in their) action; there is no doer of good.”
The degraded one does no good.
Not all people.
There are hundreds of verses that stress we can do good and amend wrongs. Perfection is neither expected nor required!
** you do not have permission to see this link **
quote:
But giving up your riches and living a homeless life isn’t part of the law.
its an interpretation of the law. its still SOMETHING you have to do.
“Jesus never says obey the mosaic law. He lists 5 laws in Mark and says you’ll be lacking one thing after that. How can you take “obey the mosaic law” from that?”
i already explained this in one of my earlier replies. circumcision, loving god, loving neighbour etc etc was how to inherit eternal life.
quote:
The original is “If you want to be perfect … “
The version in Luke/Mark doesn’t make complete sense. What they’re trying to say by “you lack one thing … ” is you don’t need to follow every other 600 mosaic commandments.
what do you base this on ?
and what makes you think that mark had 600 in view?
‘You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not defraud. Honor your father and mother.’ ” 20 He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.”
did mark just limit it to the list of 6 above ? no he didnt. mark jesus contrary to pauls jesus SEPARATED the important commandments from the unimportant.
“They’re are saying do the normal things you’d do for a moral life and then you’ll be lacking one thing”
mark is saying that “one thing” is living a homeless life because kingdom of god is arriving soon.
paul says the law just shows a person what a sinner he/she is.
“- giving up everything in the world and go to Jesus.”
no. nothing about faith in a blood sacrifice. mark is writing to an audience who were expeciting an imminent second coming , so what would “giving up” mean?
“They’re are saying do the normal things you’d do for a moral life and then you’ll be lacking one thing”
here is the question again, “what must i DO to inherit eternal life….”
jesus answers by giving a list of to do….nothing about having faith in pauls dying messiah.
“
But giving up your riches and living a homeless life isn’t part of the law.”
mate, the end of the world is around the corner. what need is there of riches when god will reward thousand fold ?
jakejones said
paul says that it isnt the law that saves you but a blood sacrifice, jesus doesnt say that in mark.
nowhere in the pssage does it say that belief in a blood sacrifice saves you.
Mark says it elsewhere “the son of man did not come to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many”
The topic being discussed in Mark 7 is not the eating of foods prohibited by the Torah but ritual purity in terms of eating food with unwashed hands. With the emphasis throughout the story of the Pharisees’ “traditions of the elders,” the dispute here is a halakhic one, with Jesus rejecting their interpretation of the Torah (v. 3) that in his opinion fails to respect inner purity as much as outer purity. He is accusing them of being hypocrites by making rules on less important matters while failing to observe the most important precepts of the Law, thereby setting aside the actual Torah by paying more attention to their oral tradition. The Pharisees were not accusing Jesus and his disciples of eating meat (such as pork) that the Torah forbids. So this raises the question of the scope of πάντα τὰ βρώματα in 7:19. This is a parenthetical comment from the author. James Crossley in “** you do not have permission to see this link **: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean’ “ (in Torah in the New Testament; A&C Black, 2009) argues that this comment has nothing to do with eating ritually unclean foods but contaminating clean foods via second-hand impurity:
The topic begins on the specific point about eating with unwashed hands but Jesus answers this with the more general statement that nothing that enters from outside can defile a person. “Nothing can defile” and “purifying all foods” leave no room to question the scope of jesus’s pronouncement.
Porphyry said
I’m not saying there is no difference; I just think people can be too quick to cherry pick one passage from each author, and facilely say, “look they are obviously saying totally different things” even though there are other passages in those very authors that suggest the divergence may not be so great.
Yes – no two people will agree precisely on what they believe in any religion but to claim any some major incompatible differences between Paul and the gospels is hard to justify.
I think it would be be easier to say that Paul’s own theology is incoherent on this point, than to argue it is in any clear contradiction with the theology of Mark’s Jesus.
I wouldn’t say his theology is incoherent – just that he is never quite able to say precisely how he views the current status of the law.
Stephen said
Yep these are the rationalizations I was taught as well. I was taught that “fulfilling the law” meant doing away with it, even though Jesus is saying just the opposite.
No “fulfilling the law and the prophets” means fulfilling the prophecies of “the law and the prophets”.
Paul wrote that one cannot be saved by obeying the law. Matthew has Jesus say just the opposite.
Really? – where does Matthew say you can be saved by observing the law?
“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.“
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.“
“the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
“What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.“
“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.“
“You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you do not resist an evil person.“
“Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.“
Where does Jesus say no need for me – just follow the law of moses and you’ll be save.
Whoever else he might have been Matthew’s Jesus was a pious Torah observant Jew and the expectation is that his followers will be as well.
“Then John’s disciples came and asked him, How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?”
“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.“
“Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?“
Neither Jesus nor his disciples were very pious by the standards of the day.
Read carefully what Jesus said. Perfection in observing the law is to follow Jesus. Jesus requires that the RYR give away his wealth and come join the community. One is saved by obeying the law but Jesus is the perfection of the law. Obeying the law is a continuum not a binary.
Lets read carefully.
“If you want to enter life keep the commandments. Which ones? he said”
So which commandments did Jesus say to keep? Did he tell them to keep the commandment of an eye for an eye? Or the commandment that whoever wishes to divorce his wife should give her a certificate of divorce? Did he say make sure you stay away from foods which defile a person?
Did he say keep every law written in the torah?
No, once again obeying the law is not a binary. It’s a continuum. Jesus is saying the disciples must be more stringent in their practice than the Pharisees. The history of Judaism is one long argument about how best to obey the law. Jesus participated in these controversies.
Jesus participates in these controversies by saying Moses made up the divorce laws because of the hardness of people’s hearts.
He says no food can defile a person.
He claims to be Lord of the Sabbath.
Claims that his blood is the blood of the covenant.
Why believe that Jesus preached torah observance when he so clearly didn’t?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)