Arguably, I think there’s only so many ways one can show “partiality in the Law” (Malachi 2:9). You can favor one part of the Law over another. You can preferentially keep some commandments, but not others. Hebrew poetry exhibits various styles of parallelism. Malachi 2:9 should not be a separate, independent idea from the rest of the poem, it should parallel the argument made above it and below it, which is: “But you have departed from the way; You have caused many to stumble at the Law, You have corrupted the covenant of Levi…you have not kept my Laws” (Malachi 2:7-9); “By profaning the covenant of the fathers” (Malachi 2:10).
When you look at other chiasms in the Bible, there’s definitely a symmetrical structure to them:
“A longer chiasm is found in Joel 3:17–21. This one has seven parts, diagrammed this way: ABCXCBA. Here is the passage:
“‘Then you will know that I, the Lord your God,
dwell in Zion, my holy hill.
Jerusalem will be holy;
never again will foreigners invade her.
In that day the mountains will drip new wine,
and the hills will flow with milk;
all the ravines of Judah will run with water.
A fountain will flow out of the Lord’s house
and will water the valley of acacias.
But Egypt will be desolate,
Edom a desert waste,
because of violence done to the people of Judah,
in whose land they shed innocent blood.
Judah will be inhabited forever
and Jerusalem through all generations.
Shall I leave their innocent blood unavenged?
No, I will not.’
The Lord dwells in Zion!”
The ideas presented in this prophecy follow this arrangement:
A – God dwells in Zion (verse 17a)
B – Jerusalem is holy (verse 17b)
C – Foreign invaders are banished (verse 17c)
X – The blessings of the Kingdom (verse 18)
C – Foreign enemies are destroyed (verse 19)
B – Jerusalem and Judah are preserved (verses 20–21a)
A – God dwells in Zion (verse 21b)”
From ** you do not have permission to see this link **
If you interpret James 2:8-12 as a chiasm of the symmetrical structure A1-B1-X-B2-A2, then the meaning of B1 should parallel the meaning of B2.
B1 = “But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the Law as transgressors”
B2 = “For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Hence why I translate partiality in James 2:9 to mean to partially keep the Law. James is comparing partiality to someone who keeps commandment A but not commandment B in the second half of the chiasm.
I would probably also challenge the translation of James 2:13: “For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgement.” I would argue that a more meaningful translation of the word mercy would be loyalty:
1656 éleos (translating OT 2617 /kataisxýnō, “covenant-loyalty, covenant-love” in the OT-LXX over 170 times) – properly, “mercy” as it is defined by loyalty to God’s covenant.
James 2:13 should most likely be translated as “For judgement is without divine propitiation (mercy/anileós) to one who has shown no loyalty to God’s covenant. Loyalty triumphs over judgement” to maintain the author’s original intent.
I would argue that James 2 sustains the central ideology of upholding the entire Mosaic Law throughout its argumentation, whether that’s urging readers not the partially keep the Law or that faith without works of the Law is dead.
Would you consider that a fair argument?
So I’m assuming that the Ebionites referred to themselves as the Poor for reasons other than what early Christian theology Origen suggested, which was that they named themselves as the Poor due to their “poverty of (understanding of) the Law” (Contra Celsium Book II: Chapter 1).
James reports: “Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the Poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him” (James 2:5). “Blessed is the man who endures temptation (to sin against the Law); for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life (the resurrection) which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.” (James 1:12).
As far as I can tell, James believed there to be pre-existing promises from God and so those promises should be findable within the Jewish Scriptures. 1 Samuel 2:6-8 best supports this thesis.
1 Samuel 2:6-8
“The LORD kills and makes alive;
He brings down to the grave and brings up.
The LORD makes poor and makes rich;
He brings low and lifts up.
He raises the poor from the dust
Lifts the beggar from the ash heap,
To set among princes
And make them inherit the throne of glory.
“For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s,
And He has set the world upon them.””
The Ebionites quite possibly developed their ideology of a bodily resurrection from 1 Samuel 2:6 and the expectation to become heirs to the kingdom of God from 1 Samuel 2:8.
There is quite a bit of synonymous parallelism within this prayer of Hannah:
“The LORD kills” – “He brings down”
“makes alive” – “brings up”
“makes poor” – “brings low”
“makes rich” – “lifts up”
“raises the poor” – ” lifts the beggar”
“from the dust” – “from the ash heap”
“to set among princes” – “for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s”
“make them inherit the throne of glory” – “has set the world upon them”
If you extend this parallelism, 1 Samuel appears to refer to the Poor as “His saints” (1 Samuel 2:9), which was also a common self-epithet used by the early Christians. Vice versa, ill fortune is predicted to be in store for the rich: “the wicked shall be silent in darkness” (1 Samuel 2:9) and “the adversaries of the LORD shall be broken in pieces. From heaven He will thunder against them. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth.” (1 Samuel 2:10).
And critically, the prayer ends with what would most likely have been deemed a Messianic prophecy by readers in the 1st century: “He will give strength to His King and exalt the horn of His anointed.” (1 Samuel 2:10).
The Ebionites were mostly likely headed by James, Peter, and John as Paul records “they asked only that we should remember the Poor” (Galatians 2:10). I would hazard to guess that Jewish Christianity further refined the definition of ‘rich’ to extend beyond 1 Samuel’s definition of “wicked…adversaries of the LORD” (1 Samuel 2:9-10) to include false prophets purely on the basis of parallelism within the poem of the Beatitudes:
Luke 6:24-26
“But woe to you who are rich,
For you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full,
For you shall hunger.
Woe to you who laugh now,
For you shall mourn and weep.
Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
For so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
There appears to be indications of alternate parallelism between the rich, the full, those who laugh now, and those who are well spoken of. Simultaneously, Luke 6:26 appears to exhibit synonymous parallelism where the second line repeats the first line, but keeps the same meaning.
“all men” – “their fathers”
“you” – “false prophets”
I equate the ‘rich’ with false prophets by this chain of logic.
The same logic is applied to the blessing in the Beatitudes to reach the conclusion that the ‘poor’ refer to true prophets:
Luke 6:20-23
“Blessed are you poor,
For yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
For you shall be filled.
Blessed are you who weep now,
For you shall laugh.
Blessed are you when men hate you,
And when they exclude you,
And revile you, and cast out your name as evil,
For the Son of Man’s sake.
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!
For indeed your reward is great in heaven,
For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.”
So I suspect that there has been revisions to the blessing of the Lukan Beatitudes, to maintain parallelism within the poem itself and between the two poems of blessings and woes, the following words would have to be excised: “hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you, and” and “For the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in heaven” may have been later scribal additions and the blessings originally ended as:
“Blessed are you when men cast our your name as evil,
For in like manner their fathers did to the prophets.”
If so, then there appears to be indications of alternate parallelism between the poor, those who hunger, those who weep, and those are evil spoken of (the Hebraic idiomatic meaning behind the phase cast out your name as evil), which would match the symmetry of the poem of woes which references the rich, the full, those who laugh now, and those who are well spoken of. By that logic, the Poor – who were evil spoken of – are referred to within the Beatitudes as true prophets, like the prophets of old.
Within the New Testament, we know that the Pauline Christians, Jewish Christians, and Apollos (and possibly his followers) were all actively prophesizing via dreams, visions, and revelations of the Lord.
“I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows – such a one was caught up to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2)
“Purse love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1)
“For we know in part and we prophesy in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9)
“For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged” (1 Corinthians 14:31)
“Who then is Paul, and who Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one (by prophesy)?…According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it.” (1 Corinthians 3:5-10)
“and He sent and signified by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.” (Revelations 1:1-2)
“For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Revelations 19:10)
Of these various schools of Christian prophets, it appears Jude was not happy with the prophesies of some: “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.” (Jude 1:8) The Jewish Christian Poor may have felt threatened by the prophecies of these “dreamers [who] speak evil of whatever they do not know…[and who] mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage” (Jude 1:8-16) and may have referred to them as the Rich, to contrast their adversaries from their own adopted name of the Poor, and to evoke the curses of 1 Samuel 2:9-10.
So the two sentences concerning the naked and destitute brothers and sisters are encapsulated by “What profit (benefit), my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” (James 2:14) and “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:17). In the passage directly before James 2:14-17, James is talking about covenant loyalty (mercy/chesed) and about being compliant with the entire Torah and not just one commandment. The passages immediately after James 2:14-17 continue with the idea that man is justified by works and not faith alone and that faith without works is dead.
The author has either gone off on a sharp tangent in James 2:15-16 to talk about clothing and hunger, or as I previously contended, it’s a parable that’s trying to argue the point that faith without works is not enough. Given the commonality of ‘talking’ parables within rabbinic literature, the presence of internal dialogue within James 2:2-3 and 2:15-16 may actually be an indication that they are parables.
There’s a certain degree of symmetry within James’ style of argumentation. He tends to present a thesis or point of contention, defend his position within the body of the argument, and follow it up with a conclusion, usually repeating the language of his original thesis.
Thesis: What profit (in Hebrew, benefit), my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can such faith save him? (James 2:14)
Repetition of Thesis: Thus also, faith by itself if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:17)
Thesis: “But some will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:18)
Repetition of Thesis: “You see then a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24)
Thesis: “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren.” (James 4:11)
Repetition of Thesis: “Who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12)
The Hebrew word shaphat behind the translation for the word judge has a greater range of meaning in Hebrew than in English and can also mean condemnation. “For He shall stand at the right hand of the poor, To save him from those who condemn (shaphat) him.” (Psalm 109:31). James 4:12 is probably better translated as “Who are you to condemn your neighbor?”
If translated that way, James 4:11 and 4:12 maintains synonymous parallelism:
“speak evil of” – “condemn”
“brethren” – “neighbor”
Thesis: My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with partiality – glory. (James 2:1)
Repetition of Thesis: Have you not discriminated among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts. (James 2:1)
So glory can also mean to boast in Hebrew.
Jeremiah 9:23-24:
“Let not the wise glory (boast) in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty glory (boast) in his might,
Nor let the rich glory (boast) in his riches;
But let him who glories (boasts) glory (boast) in this”
I would probably recommend retranslating James as “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with partiality and boast.” By the argument of parallelism, “those who discriminate among yourselves” should be the same as the brethren who “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with partiality”. James accuses these brethren that hold the faith in partiality of boasting and equate them with being judges with evil thoughts.
I would argue that James was referring to those who were boasting by prophecy and that the judges with evil thoughts were judges of the Law as he clarifies who he is accusing of ‘boasting’ and ‘judges’ who ‘speak evil’ later in his epistle.
“Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the Law and judges the Law. But if you judge the Law, you are not a doer of the Law but a judge.” (James 4:11)
Usually, James 3:14 is translated as:
“But if you have bitter jealousy and self-interest in your heart, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and self-interest exists, confusion and every evil thing are there.” (James 3:14)
The Hebrew wourd qanah can be translated as jealous or zealous, and wisdom in Hebrew can take on the sense of hidden divine wisdom obtained via by prophecy.
I would argue a better translation would be:
“But if you have bitter (religious) zealousness and self-interested in your heart (for the interests of your own denomination of Christianity), do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom (by prophecy) does not descend from above, but is earthly, unSpiritual, demonic. For where zealousness and self-interest exists, anarchy and every evil thing are there.”
We do know that Paul taught by prophecy and that he gave his own interpretation of the Mosaic Law and thus would have been considered a judge of the Law and evil per the standards of the Old Testament because he advocated sin (in the sense he okayed his congregation to not have to follow the Mosaic Law).
So the passage in question:
James 2:2
“For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,””
If I were to interpret this as a parable, I would probably interpret it to mean that Paul came into the existing religion of the original apostles and introduced a gospel that was a lot more appealing to the crowd and it outcompeted the message of the Ebionites to the point that the Poor were treated as enemies. The reference to footstools probably isn’t coincidental. “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” (Psalm 110:1). Insomuch as parables were designed to “fathom words of Torah”, James might have used the concept of seating placement and footstools to make his argument that Paul’s congregation had rejected the Ebionites, doing them wrong by treating them as enemies, while preferentially favoring the teachings of Paul.
This interpretation offers far better continuity of thought within the epistle itself and flows into James next argument that the Poor shall inherit the kingdom of God and have been sued in Roman courts.
“Listen my beloved brothers, has not God chosen the Poor in this world to be rich in faith and heir to the kingdom that He promised to those who love Him (in 1 Samuel 2:8)? You, however, have dishonored the Poor. Do not the Rich oppress you and drag you to courts (1 Corinthians 6:1)? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?” (James 2:4-6)
As far as I can tell, the inclusion of the word “man” within the passage of James 2:4-6 in certain versions of the Bible is an artifact of translation and not original to the Greek.
If interpreted this way, there is continuity of thought within the epistle of James; the author was not schizophrenically switching topics within his epistle from being tempted by God, to starving brothers and sisters, to the greatest commandment, to having faith but no works, to jealous, boastful people, to judging your neighbors, etc. etc. From beginning to end, the entire epistle of James was written to refute the teachings of Paul (with a side swipe at Apollos, if I’ve interpreted the grapevine correctly) and to try to bring under control emerging heresies within nascent Christianity.
@Parables
James is talking to his brothers in the faith who believe that Jesus is Lord. These he said have been brought forth by God through the word of truth. This word is the “perfected law of freedom” James 1:25 – which has been given to believers in Lord Jesus. They are to speak and act as ones who will be judged by this “law of freedom”.
James says “If you really keep the ruling law found in Scripture, Love your neighbor as yourself you are doing good. But if you favor some over others you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”
Paul, who originally persecuted this James but later joined his faith, agrees with him
Gal 5:13-15 “You my brothers were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh rather serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command Love your neighbor as yourself. If you bite and devour each other, watch out lest you consume each other.”
James preached the faith before Paul and it was James (and his companions) that was convicted and executed by the Sanhedrin as a lawbreaker.
At least some of words translated into partiality in English are not a match for the partiality (nasah) used in Malachi 2:9.
Proverbs 24:23 “It is not good to show partiality (nakar) in judgement (misphat).”
Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not show partiality (panim)”
Proverbs 18:5: “It is not right to be partial (panim) to the wicked.”
Job 34:19 does use the word partial (nasah) in the sense of favoritism, but in the instances where the word nasah is used elsewhere in the Old Testament, the meaning varies dramatically from situation to situation: everything from bore, promote, pardon, protest, shield-carrier, to without, or worked per the NAS Exhaustive Concordance.
As far as I can tell, Malachi 2:9 is the only time in the Old Testament that an author uses the specific term ‘partiality (nasah) in the Law (torah)’, instead of partiality in decision making or towards another person. James 2:9 is also the only time in the New Testament where partiality is used in direct reference to the Law. I’ll leave Malachi 2:9 open to interpretation as I’m not finding a explicit exegesis of Malachi 2:9 in the Talmud nor an equal comp within the Old Testament.
Insomuch as most of the definitions of Hebrew words in the Old Testament (and most ancient languages) are derived based on the context that the words are found in, using parallelism within Hebrew literature as a cue (with the meaning to words like Selah lost to history as they are standalone), the chiastic structure of James 2:8-12 and the synonymous parallelism within it does support an interpretation that James used the term partiality in the sense of partially keeping the Mosaic Law:
A1-B1-X-B2-A2:
B1 = “But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the Law as transgressors”
B2 = “For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
“if you show partiality” = “For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.”
“you commit sin, and are convicted by the Law as transgressors” = ” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder (thus committing a sin per the Judaic definition of the word), you have become a transgressor of the Law”
I wouldn’t really consider Strong’s Concord or any of the lexicons to be an exhaustive definition of all the words in the Bible.
As Rabbi Adam Bernay points out, “dogs and swine…were very often used at the time as derogatory reference to Gentiles…probably because pigs are the most common treif (unclean) animal pagans ate, and a lot of pagans in the Asiatic areas also eat dogs.” None of the lexicons list Gentiles as a potential definition to the Hebrew words for dogs or pigs, but you do see its usage in the Bible.
Proverbs 11:22 is usually translated as:
“As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a lovely woman who lacks discretion.”
Using Gentiles in lieu of the literal translation of the word pig, Proverbs 11:22 would most meaningfully be translated as:
“A lovely woman who lacks discretion, is like a Gentile with a gaudy nose ring.”
You see nose rings mentioned throughout the Old Testament:
“put a jewel in your nose” (Ezekial 16:12)
“So I put the nose ring on her nose” (Genesis 24:47)
Although nose rings were used by the early Israelites and among other tribes in the Middle East, with some cultures using them as a dowry (which might have made the nose rings quite large), it appears at some point modesty became the vogue, at least on the Sabbath, possibly prompting the author of Proverbs 11:22 to use the comparison he did:
“In what apparel may a woman go out, and in what may she not go out? … nor with gold ornaments, nor with nose-rings, nor with finger-rings that have no seal, nor with pins. But if she unwittingly went out wearing any of these things, she is not liable to bring a sin-offering “(Mishnah Shabbat 6)
I have definitely seen Proverbs 11:22 interpreted differently though:
“”A gold ring” was a valuable piece of jewelry. “A pig’s snout” was an extremely dirty part of a very unclean animal – according to Jewish Law. Such a valuable item stuck in an unclean pig’s snout was a terrible waste of good jewelry.”[3]
In the New Testament, Jesus’ teaching of the brother with the plank in the eye was probably of Jewish Christian origin as Matthew 7:6 says:
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs, do not throw your pearls to pigs.”
holy = pearls
dogs = pigs = Gentiles
“In traditional Jewish literature, pearls are usually a reference to the deep things of the Torah and other Scriptures” [3], which parallels pretty well with the word holy. At least in the case of pigs and dogs, a purely literal translation of the the Hebrew words will fail to transmit the meaning the author intended. Likewise, I’m not sure if translating nasah as to lift or carry will do much good in figuring out the author’s meaning, much as glory really has a far greater range of definitions than most people realize. For anyone interested in starting your own religion, I recommend against using a word poor language as the language of your holy book.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Concerning James’ usage of the term “Law of liberty” (James 2:12), I would argue he used the terminology to strike a contrast with Paul’s interpretation that the Mosaic Law as the “yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1). Yoke is often used in reference to the yoke of the Law: kabbalat ol ha’mitzvot, the “acceptance of the yoke of the commandments”.
[1] Bernay, Adam J. Beyond Salvation. Pg. 94-95.
[2]https://helpingupmission.org/2014/04/proverb-for-the-day-1122-a-gold-ring-and-a-beautiful-woman-not-what-you-think/
[3] Bernay, Adam J. Beyond Salvation. Pg. 95.
At least some of words translated into partiality in English are not a match for the partiality (nasah) used in Malachi 2:9.
Proverbs 24:23 “It is not good to show partiality (nakar) in judgement (misphat).”
Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not show partiality (panim)”
Proverbs 18:5: “It is not right to be partial (panim) to the wicked.”
We are not talking about one word, we are talking about variations on a two-word expression.
prov. 24:23 hakker [from nakir, to regard] panim
Deut 16:19 takkir [from nakir, to regard] panim
prov. 18:5 sa’et [from nasah, to lift, carry, take] panim
mal. 2:9 nose’im [from nasah, to lift, carry, take] panim
There’s definitely an aspect of favoritism in the phase, of favoring one person over another, of being biased in toward decision over another, the question is how do you apply that favoritism when it comes to the Mosaic Law? You don’t have other examples in the Old Testament. The immediate line prior to “but you have shown partiality in the Law” is “you have not kept My ways”, those 2 lines should be synonymous. There is symmetry within Malachi 2:
A1 For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge
A2 And people should seek the Law from his mouth
A3 For he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts
B1 But you have departed from the way
B2 You have caused many to stumble at the Law.
B3 You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of hosts.
C1 Therefore I also have made you despised and humiliated before all people
C2 Because you have not kept My ways
C3 But have shown partiality in the Law.
The architecture around Malachi 2:9 isn’t talking about basic morality and treating people in an unbiased manner.
And the chiastic structure in the epistle of James supports a definition of following part of the Mosaic Law to the exclusion of other parts.
@Parables
*-Concerning James’ usage of the term “Law of liberty” (James 2:12), I would argue he used the terminology to strike a contrast with Paul’s interpretation that the Mosaic Law as the “yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1). Yoke is often used in reference to the yoke of the Law: kabbalat ol ha’mitzvot, the “acceptance of the yoke of the commandments”.-*
Why would you argue he’s using it to contrast with Paul – why not see him as contrasting with the common reference of “yoke” to the mosaic law?
Why not see all early christians who believe that Jesus is Lord as believing that Jesus has given them his own set of commandments? That’s what Lords do.
Matthew’s Jesus “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
James and his followers believe they are the first-fruits of the message of Jesus who is Lord and who has given them the “perfect law of freedom”. Just as Matthew, Paul and John also believe.
John’s Jesus “If you abide in my word you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
@brenmcg
Because there were two popular schools of Judaism at the time. Shammai was generally considered to be of the heavier yoke while Hilliel was considered to be of the lighter yoke.
“Whose yoke do you think is lighter? Hillel was usually lighter, although the Talmud points out a few instances where Shammai was lighter than Hillel.”
“Whoever takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, they remove from him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns, and whoever breaks off the yoke of the Torah, they place on him the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly concerns” (Avot 3:5).
Jesus’ earliest followers did not follow the traditions of the fathers which would have significantly decreased the burden of religious compliance and most likely followed an interpretation closer to the school of Hillel than the school of Shammai. Having a light yoke did it make the earliest Christianity yoke-free, that would have to wait until Paul came along.
@Robert & Porphyry
I hear what you’re trying to say now.
Shabbat 31a:6:
There was another incident involving one Gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick, and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same Gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you. do not do to another. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.
Matthew 22:36
“Rabbi, which is the greatest commandment in the Torah? Jesus said to him, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Obviously, Hillel earned his fame for teaching his interpretations for all 613 commandments in the Mosaic Law, not just ‘That which is hateful to you, do not do to another.’ Arguably, Jesus did the same thing.
I think the important thing in this is that Judaism in Jesus’ day wasnt a monolithic set of beliefs. There were clearly ongoing arguments about how best to obey the Law. If anything the historical Jesus was on the strict side of things. Perhaps he saw himself (following John?) as a reformer of sorts.
Matthew’s Jesus is clearly not rejecting the Law. He’s demanding a stringent, more fastidious approach. His authority as the “new” Moses reinforces this idea. It doesnt undermine it.
Judaism was a spectrum of behavior and interpretation of the Law. Each believed that he was interpreting the Law correctly and that he was following it. Figurative and literal interpretations mixed with the religious imagination of the faithful and with the surrounding culture of others.
Paul stood out because he was the only one who openly admitted that he didn’t care about the Law and the tradition of the prophets. What Matthew was doing with the prophecies was pure fraud to prove a preconceived thesis (R.J. Miller “Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy”).
@Robert *-Later Christians would think it was Judaism that had been superseded by Christianity, but that was a distortion of Paul’s thought.*
Gal 1:13 “For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.”
–
Matthew believed Jesus was the lord of the cosmos who had come to earth with his own set of commandments.
“Take *my* yoke upon you and learn from *me*, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For *my* yoke is easy and *my* burden is light.”
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to *me*. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to obey everything *I* have commanded you.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)