This here thread is an expansion of a recent forum conversation and sparked by a video I just watched. The subject seems important enough to discuss further and in its own thread.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5,17-20 NRSV
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through the faith of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
Galatians 2,15-21 NRSV
As I’ve noted repeatedly I was raised in a hardcore fundamentalist church community. It was tacitly assumed that even given some differences in emphasis, the Bible was univocal, essentially telling one story from start to finish, centered on Christ, who was either being predicted or described.
Of course this viewpoint doesn’t survive any kind of serious scrutiny. One of the real accomplishments of modern historical-criticism of the Bible is to demonstrate the diversity of the early Jesus community. The early church was formed in controversy both externally and internally. The Apostle Paul is constantly arguing with others about what he regards as essential doctrines of the Faith. It is interesting to realize that the folks he is arguing with are not outsiders but fellow Christians! Christians who take the same testimonies and traditions that Paul received but interpret them differently. Most fascinating of all, some of the folks Paul is in controversy with seem to be the leaders of the Mother Church in Jerusalem, Jesus own immediate disciples, presumably the ones who knew Jesus’ teachings best.
One of those early controversies (perhaps the earliest?) was how converts to the Faith stood in relation to the Jewish Law. Do Christians have to be Torah observant? Now we need to be careful here. I don’t think there is any place in Paul’s surviving authentic letters where he actually tells Jewish converts to stop being Torah observant. But he definitely believes the coming of Christ puts the believer in a different relationship with God’s righteousness, a relationship not dependent on Torah observance. This clearly contradicts Jesus’ own teaching as recorded in the passage I quoted from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.
This raises all kinds of questions. Did the “Pillars” in Jerusalem, James, Peter & John, really understand what Paul was teaching his converts? Were they all really one big happy family, as depicted in Acts? Could there have been, in fact, a schism, as is slightly hinted at in Galatians? Whatever outcome we imagine, Paul’s view won the day, and interpreters have been eliding Jesus’ words in Matthew ever since. I remember the first time I read Matthew with understanding myself, when the proverbial lightbulb went off. I was flabbergasted. That’s not what I had been taught! Somehow we had transformed “fulfill” to mean “done away with”.
This also brings up another point. Growing up I can remember very few sermons taken directly from Jesus’ teachings in the gospels. The overwhelming number of sermons were drawn from Paul’s writings. Understandable perhaps since Paul and his imitators were dealing with issues that arose within the community. Lots of “problem” passages were dealt with by simply being ignored.
The clear conclusion here is that any consensus achieved by the Church was hard won after decades of debate and controversy. None of the doctrines of the Church sprang complete and unmodified from the mouths of the first generation of believers. I suppose people who are comfortable with the idea of Progressive Revelation will have an easier time of it than my bunch would have.
Stephen said
This here thread is an expansion of a recent forum conversation and sparked by a video I just watched. The subject seems important enough to discuss further and in its own thread.
Why Christians have to follow the law of Moses
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5,17-20 NRSV
I’ve been looking at these verses, Matthew 5:17-20. In my mind, I’ve been doing a bit of a breakdown of them.
The first part: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; …” Is about the Law and the Prophets. Quite often, when people say, “The Law and the Prophets”, they are talking about two sets of books. The Law is the first five books of Moses, and the Prophets are a set of prophetic books in the Jewish Bible/OT.
The New Living Translation even seems to state it this way: “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
So Jesus is talking about books here.
The next sentence also seems to be about writing: “not one letter, not one stroke of a letter,”.
Jesus is saying that the books, writings, and even the letters and parts of the letters of the books of the Prophets and Moses will not pass away. – – To date, this could be true. Or possibly be true. Christians and Jews have been carrying around the Jewish Bible/OT for a very long time. I’m as sure as I can be that the Hebrew editions of the JB/OT are written with Hebrew letters, with all the “strokes of a letter” that Hebrew letters entail. It’s also my understanding that the Jews are very fastidious about how they copy their Bible, whether handwritten on scrolls or even with modern printing methods. (We could talk about this latter: exactly how perfect are the letters and the words transmitted).
***
The next two verses (19-20) start with: “Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments …” and end with “… unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” — Then Jesus goes on to list a number of Jewish commandments and how one can keep them even better than the scribes and the Pharisees. They concern: murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, eye for eye, & love for enemies. (see Matt 5:21-48).
When Jesus says, “these commandments”, is he referring to “these” upcoming commandments that he is about to list and speak about?
Or, is he referring to these, or perhaps one could say those, commandments that he had just mentioned that are in the books of the Law and the Prophets?
****
I guess what I’m asking is Jesus saying that we should follow All the Laws of the Jewish Bible/OT?
Or, is he saying that we should follow the following laws that he goes on to list, and do them even better as well?
****
Perhaps a paragraph break should be before the “Therefore” at the beginning of verse 19? idk
Does this make sense?
Robert said
No, the ‘therefore’ (οὖν in the underlying Greek) clearly ties verse 19 to the preceding text and is thus not the start of a new paragraph referring only to the more stringent following of the commandments recommended by Jesus.
So we can’t have bacon cheeseburgers? 🙁
Robert said
I can. Plus, the common rabbinic interpretation that derives the kashrut practice of not preparing or eating meat and milk products together is rather ridiculous in my opinion and in the opinion of at least a couple of Galilean rabbis (especially Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai). I like to Jesus would have agreed with them. And if you believe Matthew’s rather suspect account, legislative authority regarding these types of matters was handed over to Peter and the apostles.
What about the bacon?
Alternate history is a rich source of speculation. What would have happened if the “Party of Circumcision” had won the day and it was Paul that had been marginalized? Almost certainly the Jesus community would have remained a Jewish sectarian movement. Would it have died out at some point or would it have mutated into a lasting Jewish messianic sect? We have a bit of a parallel with the development of the Merkabah movement. They were an apocalyptic Jewish mystical sect that percolated for centuries, sometimes accepted, sometimes controversial, that survived because they remained Torah observant. Ultimately they were absorbed into Kabbalah. Could this have happened to the Jesus movement? Would scholars today be writing about the Jesus movement as a historical Messianic strain of Judaism in Late Antiquity?
Stephen said
Alternate history is a rich source of speculation. What would have happened if the “Party of Circumcision” had won the day and it was Paul that had been marginalized? Almost certainly the Jesus community would have remained a Jewish sectarian movement. Would it have died out at some point or would it have mutated into a lasting Jewish messianic sect? We have a bit of a parallel with the development of the Merkabah movement. They were an apocalyptic Jewish mystical sect that percolated for centuries, sometimes accepted, sometimes controversial, that survived because they remained Torah observant. Ultimately they were absorbed into Kabbalah. Could this have happened to the Jesus movement? Would scholars today be writing about the Jesus movement as a historical Messianic strain of Judaism in Late Antiquity?
That could be a real possibility.
Didn’t you say that’s how you lost your sense of humor?? That was you, wasn’t it?
My comment on the Blog got posted. I wanted to tell the other commenter that what I meant was that people who do the C-word do it this way, and this is why nowadays, but I’d run out of comments. (One can only make 2 comments a day on the Blog).
This is how it went:
-
Saying “most people” circumcise their male children is inaccurate. Only about 37 to 39 percent of males worldwide are circumcised (according to Wikipedia). Most Europeans I know look at the American predilection for circumcision of infant boys with bemusement sometimes shading over into horror.
-
You should see the look on the baby boys…
-
Are there ways of making circumcision non-painful nowadays?
-
Yup!
-
- ——————————————————–
-
- Idk if this post has quite come out right. Apologies if it hasn’t.
Robert said
Helen Young said
Do all the men have to wear long hair and tassels?The same word used exclusively for these commanded tassels in the Greek translation of Num 15,38, Deut. 22,12 & Zech 8,23 (κράσπεδα) is also used by Mark in 6,56 (also Mt 14,36) and is added by both Matthew and Luke in their versions of Mark’s story of the woman with the flow of blood (Mt 9,20 Lk 8,44). So all three of these authors seem to think Jesus followed this commandment, though Matthew also tells us that Jesus didn’t think they should be too long for show (23,5).
But this is also the type of commandment that Paul would not have enjoined upon gentiles. So who do you want to trust on this question?
I’m still leaning towards the idea that Jesus might have been referring to the laws and his additions/refinements of them that he was subsequently going to speak of and list. I need to look into this some more.
I have nothing against men wearing long hair and tassels. (I grew up in the 60s; the tassels might have been different, but this sort of thing is not new or all that weird to me. Neither is the long hair).
It’s the idea that they have to, that I object to.
Also, is one obligated to show people what their religion and belief system is from a distance of eye-shot? This could get into real problems, which I won’t get into here. On the other hand, it’s a way of showing people what you’re about, without having to say a word.
There are a lot of good ideas in the Jewish Bible/OT. There are also some that I wouldn’t agree with. Which ones are laws and ideas, and which ones are The Law, is another set of questions.
Not so long ago, a friend said to me, “The word of God is whatever is good for people and this earth”. I’m inclined to go along with this statement. (btw whatever is good for the earth Is good for people)
Robert said
No, the ‘therefore’ (οὖν in the underlying Greek) clearly ties verse 19 to the preceding text and is thus not the start of a new paragraph referring only to the more stringent following of the commandments recommended by Jesus.
It’s my understanding that the original Christian Bible/NT didn’t have paragraph breaks. Am I correct about this?
Did they have punctuation, lowercase letters, or spaces between the words?
Robert said
The issue here is trying to understand the perspective of the author of the gospel of Matthew. What was his view of whether and how believers should follow the Law of Moses, not our own approach toward how to follow the entirety of the Law of Moses. The author of the gospel of Matthew had a different view than that of Paul. If they could disagree so fundamentally, why shouldn’t we also be allowed to disagree?
Of course we should be allowed to disagree also. We should be allowed to disagree whether Matthew and Paul did or not. Shouldn’t we? Or am I wrong about this?
Thing is, people want to know what the right things to do are. If Matthew said that Jesus said we should follow all of the Law, down to the last jot and tittle, then is Matthew telling us something we need to know? The text is quoting Jesus here, or reports to be quoting Jesus.
Choosing to agree with Matthew or Paul on these issues is one thing.
Choosing to agree with Jesus or Paul is another. Even another thing entirely.
If I had to cast my vote based just upon who said it. I’d vote for Jesus.
(This is, of course, being able to ignore what is being said, entirely.)
————————————————————————————-
Then there’s the issue of what Matthew said Jesus said, and what Jesus actually said.
This is a whole nuther box of words and ideas.
Robert said
Helen Young said
Robert said
No, the ‘therefore’ (οὖν in the underlying Greek) clearly ties verse 19 to the preceding text and is thus not the start of a new paragraph referring only to the more stringent following of the commandments recommended by Jesus.It’s my understanding that the original Christian Bible/NT didn’t have paragraph breaks. Am I correct about this?
Yes and no. The earliest manuscripts did not, but by the time they started combining books and letters into a collection, some manuscripts definitely had started adding some of these interpretive cues. It was sometimes a matter of wealth and social class. Did one need to prioritize saving space while using expensive papyri or parchment or could one afford to be a little extravagant
Did they have punctuation, lowercase letters, or spaces between the words?
In the very oldest manuscripts, no. Spaces between some words could indicate a sentence or paragraph break, but such would not be spaces between each and every word.
The takeaway is not that they didn’t think and express themselves in sentences, paragraphs, questions, etc, but these cues needed to derives from the context and meaning of what was written.Of course we should be allowed to disagree also. We should be allowed to disagree whether Matthew and Paul did or not. Shouldn’t we?
Of course.
Or am I wrong about this?
Thing is, people want to know what the right things to do are. If Matthew said that Jesus said we should follow all of the Law, down to the last jot and tittle, then is Matthew telling us something we need to know? The text is quoting Jesus here, or reports to be quoting Jesus.
Choosing to agree with Matthew or Paul on these issues is one thing.
Choosing to agree with Jesus or Paul is another. Even another thing entirely.
If I had to cast my vote based just upon who said it. I’d vote for Jesus.
(This is, of course, being able to ignore what is being said, entirely.)
————————————————————————————-
Then there’s the issue of what Matthew said Jesus said, and what Jesus actually said.
This is a whole nuther box of words and ideas.In this case we only know what Matthew or some elements of his community or their traditions thought or represented Jesus as saying. And it is pretty clear that at least some in Matthew’s audience definitely thought Jesus said his followers should follow the law of Moses in its entirety. The author of the gospel seems to have whole-hearted agreed with this, though he did not agree that their missionary outreach should only be to other Jews, but to gentiles as well, who should then also follow the law of Moses. And the way of following these laws was in a radical way reflected in the sermon of the mount. Now, in their mission to gentiles, he likely would have considered following food laws among gentiles less important (as also with nonobservant Jews).
It’s about how much of the Law we should follow, isn’t it?
At least for non-Jewish Christians?
It’s not about not following the Law at all. Like now you can murder or something ! ? ! !
Is it about how much of the Jewish Law non-Jewish Christians should follow?
Am I getting this right?
How best to obey the Torah was an ongoing controversy among Jews of Jesus’ day. Jesus’ controversies with his opponents were often based on interpretation of the Law. In Matthew he commanded that his followers be even more stringent than the Pharisees. Jesus was a pious Jew. In fact we get some curious glimpses:
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
– Matthew 10,5–6 NRSV
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
– Matthew 15,24 NRSV
And curiouser and curiouser…
When they persecute you in this town, flee to the next, for truly I tell you, you will not have finished going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
– Matthew 10,23 NRSV
Matthew seems to recognize a ministry to gentiles but here we get these glimpses of a view that maybe just maybe Jesus had a rather more restricted viewpoint. If the Son of Man will appear before his disciples make it through Israel there doesn’t seem to be time for a Pauline ministry to the gentiles.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
I’ve always found circumcision as a way of making a covenant with God rather funny and peculiar. I can understand a tattoo, wearing the hair, or dressing a particular way, or something like that,… But circumcision?
I sometimes wonder if, in Jewish and other theologies, if something seems like a good idea and something that people should do, they just say it’s “the word of God”. & that’s all there is to it. Perhaps it has something to do with their way of understanding things.