| 01 02 03 04 05 06 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 |
DID JESUS ABOLISH THE LAW FOR THE CHRISTIAN?Having survived 1994, Bet Emet Ministries has the enjoyable task of having
no longer to expose, reveal, and correct the many errors and areas of
disobedience that has crept in unawares in the Christian faith. It has been our
purpose to reveal to our readers the tragic truth concerning how we have been
led so far astray from obedience and proper worship of God in the majority of
Christian churches of today. This has not always been as easy task for me as I
have had to use a "sharp" pen to confront you with the tragic failure on our
parts to worship God "in spirit and in truth" as I hope is your desire. Having
spent the last year exposing these many errors and sins, we now can devote much
needed time to investigating in depth the life of Yeshua as pictured in the
Gospels. In this way, we will come to understand more accurately how we are to
pattern our lives after him, for it is he who said "when you see me you have
seen the Father." Understanding that we are to follow after his example, let us
continue our pilgrimage to holiness as we study to learn in order to obey, thus
ensuring we are truly becoming more like God who is to be our model for life and
perfection. The natural starting point in the study of Yeshua's teaching as seen from
the Jewish perspective is his attitude toward the Law, for the Jews are first
and foremost the people of the Torah (the Torah is the Jewish word for the
Bible, primarily the first five books of the Bible). In first-century Judaism,
as is in much of Judaism today, the Law was virtually synonymous with authority.
The traditional view, still held by Orthodox Jews, is that God's revelation of
the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai included not only the Written Law
(Pentateuch-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) but also the
Oral Law (the "traditions of the elders"). This "tradition of the elders" is the
interpretation of the written law which has been handed down in Rabbinic
literature as found in the Mishnah (the collections of Jewish Oral Law) and its
commentaries (which together make up the Talmud). The religion of Yeshua (Second
Temple Judaism) is founded upon the Law. And since the Law constitutes the very
essence of Judaism, one's view of the Law determines one's validity of Judaism
itself. One's view of the Law determines if the religion of Yeshua is still
valid for today or if it has been replaced by another religion; namely
Christianity which, for the most part, rejects the Law that Yeshua upheld. The
attitude of Yeshua toward the Law is therefore of the greatest importance to not
only the Jew, but the Christian as well. It is not surprising to note that in the Gospels it is clearly the Law
that is the focal point of disputes between Yeshua and some of the Jewish
leaders. The majority of scholars hold to the belief that the Law has been the
basis of separation between Jews and Christians, not the crucifixion (see J.
Parkes' The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, pp. 45). C.
Montefiore, a Jewish author that esteems Yeshua highly, states that "the
quarrels of Yeshua with the Jews of his age, and more especially with the
Pharisaic Rabbis, were not about the nature of God, His unity, His justice, His
mercy; they were about the Law and its authority, and about the relations of
outward ceremonial to morality, of ritual ordinances to spiritual religion"
(The Religious Teaching of the Synoptic Gospels in Relation to Judaism).
Without study on your part, the stance taken by Yeshua with respect to the
Law and its authority will be vague and hard to comprehend. It seems to the
casual reader of the Bible that at times Yeshua speaks of the permanent validity
of the Law as seen in Matt. 5:17-18; yet his actions and words often seem
contrary to the Law (Mark 2:18-27 records the plucking of grain on the Sabbath,
a form of work forbidden on the Sabbath). How
are we to interpret his intentions as he seems to contradict himself? Much
learning is necessary to arrive at the truth of the
matter. The majority of Jewish scholars, consistent with their affirmation of the
Jewishness of Yeshua (this means that he was not rejecting his religion and his
faith when he, for instance, calls for repentance within his faith by rebuking
those leaders who were leading the people astray), take note of the strong
emphasis of Yeshua's faithfulness to the
Law. A survey of their writings brings us to a consensus of
opinion concerning Yeshua's faithfulness to the Law of Israel. With this
understanding it is easy to see that Yeshua upheld the Law and did not create a new religion. Notice
with me:
Such attitudes
of Yeshua reflect not only his obedience to the Written Law but his agreement
with the social customs (Oral Law) of his day. To the casual reader the assumed
paradox of Yeshua's affirmation and denial of the Law must be
understood if we are ever to arrive at a correct conclusion regarding Yeshua
either continuing in the faith of his fathers or else replacing it with a new
faith. Upon correctly understanding what we read in the Synoptic Gospels we
shall be able to understand Yeshua and his relationship to the Judaism of his
day. It is this issue, which we at Bet Emet Ministries maintain is of crucial
importance to properly understand if we as Christians are to justify our current
practice of our faith, or in need of correction and repentance. Let us look at
various positions regarding Yeshua and the Law and then draw some conclusions.
POSITION #1: YESHUA...A MODEST BREAK WITH THE LAW
The majority of Christian scholars and only a few Jewish scholars speak of
Yeshua in terms of breaking the Law or replacing the Law. Even so, if you read
their works, they only imply a
break, and several who imply it make other statements that
seem to contradict their implication. This is very confusing; either Yeshua did
or he didn't violate or replace the Law. It is important to note that where a
break is spoken of or implied, it is always with the insistence that this in no
way lessens Yeshua's true Jewishness. This in itself is a paradox, for the Jews
are the people of Law. Those who imply a break see in Yeshua a novel attitude
toward the Law, even some go so far as to say "revolutionary." Some see in the
Gospels that Yeshua minimized the Oral
Law by distinguishing between moral and ceremonial laws (the moral in every case
taking precedence over the ceremonial laws). They also point to Yeshua's emphasis upon the
inward over the merely outward as well as his stressing of the importance of the
higher law of love. It is this "unique" emphasis that the
supposed genius of Yeshua is said to consist. Thus, these scholars (primarily
Christians) see that Yeshua's teaching regarding the Law forms a new departure
from and a break with the Judaism of his age. What they fail to understand if
they had studied Judaism as I have, that within the religion of Judaism are
allowances to do just that; to choose the ethical over the ritual to promote
life. The Commandments were given by God in order that we might "live by them"
and "not die by them." What I find hard to accept about the conclusion of such
important scholars is that in ascribing to Yeshua that he makes a radical
departure from Judaism, then Yeshua would have violated and broken the Law in
certain of his teachings and actions and also contradicted his own assertion of
the permanent validity of the Law (Matt. 5:17-18). To the Christian this poses a very important question; "how could
Yeshua be, according to accepted Christian theology, the substitutionary atoning
sacrifice without spot and blemish but yet have sinned because he violated and
disobeyed the Law? Such would be sin. This would be
impossible! Of course if you have done
any personal investigation into how the sacrificial system operated in the first
place you now understand how Christianity has taught atonement wrong and how
that it never applied to Yeshua's death in the first place. If this is news to
you then you need to ask this ministry for the information in such subjects in
order that you become knowledgeable about such matters as are the Jewish people
to whom the sacrificial system was given in the first place.
So it is easy to discount totally such an interpretation as applied to Yeshua.
Let us move on. Some scholars see Yeshua's departure and break from the Judaism of his day
in his relaxing the rigid observance of the Sabbath as well as the dietary
restrictions. Such a stance is unsupported by a proper understanding of the
text. Yeshua taught the people of Israel
that they must observe the Law in every particular aspect (jot and tittle) and
that loyalty to the Law was essential. Samuel Sandmel, a Jewish Biblical scholar, is willing to admit a break
with the Law if Yeshua actually spoke the words of Mark 7:15: "There is
nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him." He believes
that this was added to the text by the early Gentile Christian community. For
Yeshua to say this is for him to repudiate the Mosaic food laws of Leviticus 11
and Deut. 14. Again this would be sin to Yeshua. According to Sandmel one cannot
be certain that Yeshua did say these words because they stand against the
general picture given in the Gospels, which is one of basic agreement between
the Jews and Yeshua (conservative Phariseeism), with only "hints" at any
profound differences (primarily the school of Shammai which was ultra-strict).
What we have then is a tension between Yeshua's affirmation of the Law on the
one hand and his supposed neglect and infraction of it on the other hand, and
this view is not held by the majority of scholars to say the least. This tension is dealt with by understanding
that for Yeshua the "Law should be obeyed unless a higher principle intervenes."
Those holding to this viewpoint point to Luke 6:4 according to
the Codex Beza (early Greek manuscript) as reflecting this viewpoint. There,
seeing a man working on the Sabbath and thus violating Torah, he says, "O man,
blessed are you if you know what you are doing; but if you do not know cursed
are you and a transgressor of the law." It is beneficial to our study understand
that it was always permissible to violate Sabbath Law if one was to do so to
preserve life. Possibly the meaning might be intended that with know-ledge and increased understanding, one might violate Sabbath Law
for the intended purpose of honoring and observing a higher Law, but to do so
without such understanding that you are responding to a higher Law would be
considered sin. So, I believe that Yeshua did not violate or set aside the Law
for a new religion that maintains that the Law is ended. POSITION #2: YESHUA...NO BREAK WITH THE LAWThe vast majority of Jewish scholars are inclined to understand Yeshua as
differing only mildly with the typical Jewish understanding of the Law in his
day. Again, this can be seen somewhat in the above account. Yeshua is thus regarded as not essentially
different from the Pharisaic Rabbis of his day. Let me interject, that there
were two types of Pharisaism in the days of Yeshua; one of which he ascribed and
supported, and another to which he would rebuke in Matt. 23. But by no means,
was Yeshua rebuking and calling for the abolition of all Pharisees in his day.
Failure to under-stand the two currents within Pharisaism has been
responsible for the erroneous conclusions drawn by the majority of Christians
that Yeshua condemned all the Pharisees and that all the Pharisees plotted
against Yeshua. It is necessary to remember that Yeshua taught in a period of transition,
during the development of different schools of exegesis (interpretation) in
Judaism. It is thus inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of
the Law as recorded in the Gospels. These variety of interpretations would clash
daily. With the Pharisees, Yeshua accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs
only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law
detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath. Grace
was provided by God for those who needed to break the Sabbath for a higher ethic
and moral law. For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism
declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that
in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths.
This was accepted halakhah (interpretation) by the Hillel Pharisees (of which
Yeshua belonged), but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were
ultra-strict, always adhering to the letter of the Law over the spirit of the
Law (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the spirit of the Law over
the letter of the Law one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws.
But it is not that simple according to Yeshua. As Christians, we are not aware
that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters
were in doubt. Let us not forget that the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law, and
Yeshua and the Pharisees did not. Luke 11:42 says "these (least commandments) you ought to have done,
without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments)." In drawing such a contrast, Yeshua does not
annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings
priority to our obedience of all the Laws. Some mistakenly see in his words his opposition to Judaism, and these are
usually Christians. This "supposed" opposition to Judaism would be carried to
its final conclusion by Paul; namely the replacement of Judaism with a "new
Judaism" called Christianity. What was only a re-prioritization of the Law with
its many statutes, was mistakenly assumed by others to be a call for abolition
of the ceremonial laws (Sabbath, Festivals), and eventually the Law itself. Many
have assumed that when Yeshua placed only a "little stress" on the ceremonial
Laws, his intention was to abolish them. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. Such a concept is not in the context of the Scripture because Yeshua goes on to say "these (ceremonial laws)
you ought to have done!" This is far from abolition of the
ceremonial Laws in my opinion. Those who have read into this text the abolition
of ceremonial Law (for example the celebration and observance of the Festivals)
have unwittingly given ammunition to the founding of a new religion that has
rejected then tenets of the real faith of Yeshua. Repentance and ethical deeds,
as important as they are, are not to be set above or replace the Law, either
ethical, moral, or ceremonial Laws. Repentance and ethical deeds are the appropriate response to the
Law. Again, Yeshua states "these ought to be done" along with the "weightier
matters of the Law" which regards love, the tithe, the Tallit, alms, and
benevolence. Failure to understand the mechanics of these verses properly have
led well-intentioned people to erroneously believe that Yeshua and Paul set
aside ceremonial Laws. More true to the point, is that Yeshua
understood that people in daily life cannot retain their distinctiveness solely
by means of abstract ethical views. He understood that if Israel were to abandon
the ceremonial Laws peculiar to itself, it would gradually be absorbed into the
Gentile cultures and would disappear. This is the tragic story of the Christian
Church, for when casting off its Hebraic roots (many of which were obedience to
ceremonial laws), it has assumed many of the beliefs of paganism and its Hebraic
distinctiveness has disappeared. Yeshua did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the letter of the Law above the spirit of the Law. Jules Isaac states "Yeshua was born and lived under the Jewish Law. Did he intend or announce its abrogation? Many writers hold that he did, but their statements exaggerate, distort, or contradict the most important passages in the Gospels." The supposed violation of the Sabbath by Yeshua was a violation of Pharisaic scruples held by only one sect of the Pharisees (Shammai) and not Hillel Pharisaism. Such a violation for a higher principle (preservation of life) was not in and of itself a violation of the Law. On the matter of dietary restrictions, Yeshua did not declare all foods clean despite the passage as it reads in Mark 7:19. Yeshua tells us in John 8: 26 "I speak to the world those things I heard from Him." How could Yeshua contradict the words of his Father in Heaven as He spoke the dietary Laws in Leviticus? Again in John 12: 49-50 he says "I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak...whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak." Now, do you think that God would contradict His Word which He overlooks to perform it? "Take just a minute and remember Peter's vision of the unclean animals on
the sheet lowered from heaven and that he heard God tell him to "take and eat."
It was later he understood fully what the vision had originally meant; not that
God was abolishing the laws concerning the eating of clean and unclean food,
rather that God was cleansing the Gentiles (whom Judaism had previously
considered unclean as was the food). Now back to Yeshua. Yeshua's intention was to separate morality from the
strict interpretation of Laws of the Old Testament as held by one of the two
major branches of Pharisees (Shammai school). Although those Pharisees were
resentful of this, the majority never desired to be rid of Yeshua or to kill
him. It would be the chief Priests and their scribes (Sadducees) who would be
responsible for handing over Yeshua to the Romans. These were Sadducees and not
Pharisees. Having stated the above, it is the opinion of Bet Emet Ministries that Yeshua was a faithful holder of the Law all of his life. Any portrayal of Yeshua as one deliberately and consciously opposed to the Law is the reflection our lack of understanding of the religion of Yeshua and the hostility between the early Gentile church and the Synagogue. The only real differences between Yeshua and the Pharisees are to be found in matters of halakhah (interpretation) and other major differences do not in fact exist, but are due to the misunderstanding of the Gospel data by modern readers (especially when comparing their church's theology to that of Yeshua). So, we can summarize as the bottom line on the matter that any hostility between Yeshua and the Pharisees are due to differences of interpretation of Law (school of Hillel as against the school of Shammai). POSITION #3: YESHUA...NO ESSENTIAL BREAK WITH BIBLICAL JUDAISMRecent Jewish writers on Yeshua are
beginning to see Yeshua as an authority within Judaism of the first
century. This is great news! Although Yeshua does speak with his own
special authority ("But I say to you"), it is a mistake to regard this as a
break with Judaism. Yeshua is not seen to challenge the authority of Scripture
and never violated the Law in any sense at all, either Written or Oral Mosaic
Law. Not seeking to abolish the Law or even reform the Law, the mistaken
impression that Yeshua did oppose the Law is in part due to the exaggerated
wording contained in the Gospels; this wording reflects the later and growing
rift between the synagogue and the church (who would write the documents we have
called the New Testament). David Flusser sees only one explicit violation of the Law attributed to
Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels (the plucking of gain on the Sabbath). This,
however, is understood as coming from a Greek translator who added the
"plucking" of the grain to make the scene more vivid. What actually took place
was only the rubbing of grain in the hands, which was allowed by Torah (rubbing
was not considered work which was forbidden on the Sabbath). Even so, it was
Yeshua's disciples who were guilty of the supposed infraction, and not Yeshua.
Having understood the Greek copyist addition to the text, we find in Yeshua a "Torah-true" Jew, who never and nowhere in the Gospels transgressed against the Mosaic and orthodox Rabbinic legislation. Nowhere and never does he condemn or reject one single Mosaic or Rabbinic institution. Answer for yourself: If we are to be like Yeshua then how can we who carry his "name" reject the Law or believe it has passed away? Where Yeshua appears to go against the Law in the synoptic tradition, closer examination reveals repeatedly that this is the result of Christian misunderstanding or, as in the case of Mark 7:19, a later Christian addition. The overwhelming evidence of the Gospels is that Yeshua upheld the authority of the Torah and the Prophets and did not attack a single Biblical Law. On this point Yeshua is in the good company of Hillel, Akiba, and the Hasidim. There is no serious rift between Yeshua and conservative Pharisaism; what minor disagreements there were are properly understood as an "in-fighting" and not untypical of the Rabbinic tradition, which was itself in the process of change. What does set apart Yeshua is his prophetic rhetorical stress of the ethical over the ritual, as would be expected from a preacher of repentance. Where the Law is concerned, the real distinction of Yeshua's devotion is in his extraordinary emphasis on the real inner religious significance of the commandments. Of this view Bet Emet Ministries can concur. THE INFLUENCE OF THE GREEK GENTILE CHURCHWhereas Yeshua himself never contemplated abolishing the Law, the Gentile-Greek converts "by putting their words in Yeshua's mouth (altering existing manuscripts or adding to existing manuscripts) made it appear that it was Yeshua himself who undertook to tear down the whole fabric of the Mosaic Law." Thus, whenever Yeshua appears to go against the Law, most reputable scholars tell us we encounter the opinion of the later church and not that of the historical Yeshua. A prime example again is Mark 7:19. Upon study you will find that there was a deliberate twist in misrepresenting a play on words in the Aramaic as meaning "thus he declared all foods clean." This, more than likely, is the view of the writer's church rather than an accurate account of what Yeshua actually said.
|