Yehoshua and Changing the Law?

[DanielRB]

Hi All, :wave:

Probably every believer in Yehoshua, Jewish and Gentile, has struggled with the meaning of his statement in the Sermon on the Mount:

"“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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes 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, ESV)

The problem is not so much the statement in itself, but what comes after--and not just from Paul, but from the Sermon on the Mount itself.

Remember what Torah says:

"“And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, ESV)

"“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." (Deuteronomy 12:32, ESV)

And yet, right after Yehoshua states that one "jot or tittle" will fall from Torah, he proceeds to apparently change it.

For example:

Torah says "do not murder" (Ex 20:13 & Deut 5:17); but Yehoshua adds "you cannot hate" and it is the same as murder (Matt 5:22). Does this not add to Torah? Yet Deut 4:2 & 12:32 says not to add to Torah.

Torah says "do not commit adultery" (Ex 20:14 & Deut 5:18); but Yehoshua adds "you cannot lust" and it is the same as adultery (Matt 5;28). Does this not add to Torah? [One could say that lust falls under the category of covetness, but Yehoshua doesn't make that equivalence--rather, he makes it equivalent to adultery).

Torah says divorce is permissible (Deut 24:1); but Yehoshua says only in the case of sexual immorality (Matt 5:32; which according to Torah, is punishable by death--Lev 20:10, so divorce is a moot point). Does this not add to Torah?

Torah says "Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. " (Deuteronomy 19:21, ESV) Yet Yehoshua says you shall pity and not retaliate (Matt 5:39). Does this not change what Torah says?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

In Messiah,

Daniel

[muffler dragon]

I wouldn't say there is any addition or change on the part of Y'shua regarding the Torah. He is simply showing the root cause instead of the end result.

You can't murder without hate.
You can't commit adultery without lust.

So on and so forth.

Regarding the last part about eye for eye and such, the sanctity of life in Judaism reigns supreme even over a mitzvah. Therefore, it's a matter of repentence, forgiveness, and reconciliation instead of bloodlust. Furthermore, justice is still served in Judaism. The idea of recompense is much stronger (at least that is what I have been told) than in America.

m.d.

[ShirChadash]

I too do not see that Yeshua changed anything when He said these things. Rather, He filled the "Law" full for us in our understanding.

Do not murder. Yeshua fills it full -- I tell you that to hate is to commit murder in your heart.

Do not commit adultery. Yeshua fils it full -- to even lust after a woman is to commit adultery...

Remember what "abolish" and "fulfill" actually meant: Abolish meant to interpret Torah incorrectly/badly and fulfill meant to interpret Torah CORRECTLY and thereby ratify/establish it. SO this is exactly what Yeshua proceeds to do in the Sermon... He tells us He has come to fulfill Torah, to interpret it for us fully/completely/accurately. Then He does so with a number of Torah commands.

I liken this also to the fact that Yeshua elsewhere says He has come that we may have Life and have it fully/abundantly/completely. What is "Life"? We know from the Word itself that Torah is Life. :) So, I understand all of this together to mean that He never changed, nor abolished, nor "freed us from" G-d's "Law"/teachings/Torah. Rather, He interpretted G-d's Torah fully and also gave us His Spirit, a Spirit of Truth and obedience to walk The Way of Life -- in other words, to live according to Torah.

:) How awesome!

[Katydid]

I agree with the others, but I think of it this way. G-d has always been merciful and loving. Yeshua came to teach us how to live the law, in love and mercy. How to not be obsessed with being obedient, begrudgingly, but to love following the law, to love the mercy that the law has, to love the giver of the law. I don't know if that makes sense, but I hope so.

[debi b]

If you can accept that Yeshua is HaShem, then it could be looked at this way: "When I said this (something in Torah for example) I want you to understand this is what I was saying to begin with".

So often it is the common understanding of the day that Yeshua is making reference to .

[Buccaneer]

He is clarifying Torah. At his time, they were practising Torah by the pharasees incorrect interpretation and he was merely exposing light and the true intent of the passages in Torah.

http://www.lightofmashiach.org/fulfill.html very good site and answers your question very well.

[DanielRB]

Hi MD, :wave:

I wouldn't say there is any addition or change on the part of Y'shua regarding the Torah. He is simply showing the root cause instead of the end result.

You can't murder without hate.

Actually, you can--you can be a hit man..."It's nothing personal, it's just business." ;)

You can't commit adultery without lust.

So on and so forth.

Regarding the last part about eye for eye and such, the sanctity of life in Judaism reigns supreme even over a mitzvah. Therefore, it's a matter of repentence, forgiveness, and reconciliation instead of bloodlust. Furthermore, justice is still served in Judaism. The idea of recompense is much stronger (at least that is what I have been told) than in America.

m.d.

I've heard this before...yet how can it be reconciled with a mitzvah to kill? What about the command to destroy those who worship other gods in Deut 13? It's very clear that showing mercy would be breaking Torah at this point. Or killing those who break the Sabbath, or killing adulterers?

In Messiah,

Daniel

[DanielRB]

If you can accept that Yeshua is HaShem, then it could be looked at this way: "When I said this (something in Torah for example) I want you to understand this is what I was saying to begin with".

So often it is the common understanding of the day that Yeshua is making reference to .

HI Debi, :wave:

Yet at points Torah is unambigious--it says not to "add to or subtract from it." If one adds a command to Torah--which I believe Talmudic Judaism does with it's "fence around Torah"--it seems to "add to Torah", and thus breaks it.

If Torah allows something--such as "eye for an eye" (and it more than allows it, it actually commands it in the passage I quoted), and then a later Teacher says that G-d does not actually allow it, how is this not "adding to" Torah?

Since I believe that Yehoshua wouldn't contradict himself (say that Torah could not be changed and then a few verse later changes it), then I think that he must mean something else.

In Messiah,

Daniel

[visionary]

Since it is the Judge's discision as to the punishment, and His job to mete out the the judgment, and if you read it in the context of not man will do the judging today but God. He is now in charge, and He will execute the judgment, "eye for eye" example. I would not go poking anyone's eye out for fear of the Lord taking out one of mine in return if I repented not. He is a righteous Judge.

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

Hebrews 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

1 Peter 1;17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Revelation 11;18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

[koilias]

"“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.
In Hebrew "to fulfill" would have been "lekayem" or "to establish". The purpose of Oral Torah *what Yeshua is doing* is to "establish" or "stand up" the Torah. You "stand up" Torah by building a fence around the commands. Rabbinics 101.

Torah says "Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. " (Deuteronomy 19:21, ESV) Yet Yehoshua says you shall pity and not retaliate (Matt 5:39). Does this not change what Torah says?
Yeshua doesn't change the text at all!...But the reading of it, he does! "And you shall not pity your eye: life for life, eye for eye, etc."

meaning pity your enemy by giving him also the second eye, offering up your own cheek instead of his...as David Flusser points out in his book Jesus.

Yeshua the master of Oral Torah!

[koilias]

I've heard this before...yet how can it be reconciled with a mitzvah to kill? What about the command to destroy those who worship other gods in Deut 13? It's very clear that showing mercy would be breaking Torah at this point. Or killing those who break the Sabbath, or killing adulterers?
This comes up in the incident of the woman caught in adultery. Yeshua says, "he who is without sin cast the first stone".

What he has in mind is Reuben and Bilhah as well as Judah and Tamar. They were spared from execution for some reason. This caused exegetical headaches back in Yeshua's day...the only reason some could come up was that the Torah hadn't been revealed yet (although this disagreed with the prevailing opinion). Yeshua is pointing out that had Judah followed through and burned Tamar to death he would have been condemning himself as well...So, in effect, what Yeshua is saying, "Do you want the same leniency when the time of your judgment comes?? You better darn well make sure your own teaching (or lack thereof) or your own bad example did not lead this woman to commit her sin!!!!"

[koilias]

Torah says "do not murder" (Ex 20:13 & Deut 5:17); but Yehoshua adds "you cannot hate" and it is the same as murder (Matt 5:22). Does this not add to Torah? Yet Deut 4:2 & 12:32 says not to add to Torah.
In Matthew, Yeshua is saying you are liable for murder before the heavenly court if you show anger against your brother. Why? Because it may lead not just you but someone else to murder him. This is especially true if you actually utter an audible insult! The tongue is a more lethal weapon than the sword.

Extremely Rabbinic mode of thinking. I'll get back to divorce issue tomorrow...time to :sleep: ...but this great!

[DanielRB]

Hi All, :wave:

I appreciate everyone's reply to this question.

It seems to me that at some point, most people reject a literal interpretation of Torah. If G-d wanted to say "do not hate" instead of "do not murder" when he gave Torah, he could have. If he wanted to say "divorce is permissible only for sexual immorality" (which IMO would be moot, because after executing an adulterer divorce is unnecessary) when he gave Torah, he could have. Indeed, Moses indicates that Torah was not difficult to understand or to follow:

"“For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it." (Deuteronomy 30:11-14, ESV)

There was some reason why G-d chose to reveal Torah as he did, and why later Yehoshua clarified it in such a way as to add requirements to it that his people didn't see before. Yehoshua hints at this in another passage about divorce:

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”" (Matthew 19:3-9, ESV)

Yehoshua indicates that G-d permitted certain things--at least divorce--because of the "hardness of heart." (Of course, it's debatable if men's hearts are any less hard when Yehoshua walked on earth or today). But in later times, G-d said that mere adherence to Torah as written was not good enough. He wanted more--and that is his right as the lawgiver.

Paul said to the Gentiles:

"Being then G-d’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance G-d overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”" (Acts 17:29-31, ESV)

At one time G-d overlooked the Gentile's sin; but now he calls them to account, a higher standard.

I believe that there are certain aspects of Torah that are more vital than others. Indeed, Paul wrote that one who did not follow Torah in the matter of circumcision could be considered a follower of Torah by his other actions:

"For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from G-d. " (Romans 2:25-29, ESV)

Someone who beleived in a wooden literalism regarding Torah and every "jot and tittle" would disagree with Paul at this point--how can one be said to "keep the precepts of Torah" if he does not keep the mitzvah of circumcision?

All thoughts and responses are welcome. :)

In Messiah,

Daniel

[debi b]

Well.......

Here is where you have to get Hebraic in understanding scripture. MANY times we are limited in our ability to see because we have a translation in the way, and our frame of reference. Often we percieve conflict when the potential for them to be looked at differently does in fact exist but we don't have the tools to do that.

I do understand where you are coming from. Jacob's name was changed after he wrestled. We do too :) I am not uncomfortable with that anymore. I see it as part of the process. My M.O. when I percieve a conflict is "HE is right" and "I am wrong", and I long for the day when that can be resolved. Sometimes that happens too :clap:

[koilias]

These are great points. Enjoying this discussion.:) Just a few of my observations:


It seems to me that at some point, most people reject a literal interpretation of Torah. If G-d wanted to say "do not hate" instead of "do not murder" when he gave Torah, he could have.
It depends on what you consider "literal". Jews had an extremely nuanced view of the flexibility of halachic interpretation. That is why Rabbis came to be. And that's why a vivid debate existed on absolutely any point of the Torah! And that's how Yeshua was so good at interpretation: he could wrap the text around blockheads (what you would call "literalists", i.e. the Saduccees and the fundamentalist wing of the Pharisees) more ways than one. ;)

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”" (Matthew 19:3-9, ESV)
Here, one must point out that to "sit on the seat of Moshe" gives one authority to ease as well as increase the restrictions of Torah. This is the point of the words: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose of earth will be loosed in heaven". The authority resided with the people not the text. I would agree that this is an innovation of the Judaism of Yeshua's time.

"For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Keep in mind, Paul understands that it is much better to become a righteous gentile (who keeps the Law under no requirement, therefore as a pure mitzvah) than a lapsed Jew (someone who has undertaken the yoke of the Torah, and therefore is liable for all of it). Paul and Yeshua understood that the Torah was too heavy a burden for the typical gentile. Both were adamantly against conversion for this reason, but they were not against keeping the Torah. If a gentile chooses to keep the Torah, it's a great mitzvah! Keep it a mitzvah, not a requirement!


Someone who beleived in a wooden literalism regarding Torah and every "jot and tittle" would disagree with Paul at this point--how can one be said to "keep the precepts of Torah" if he does not keep the mitzvah of circumcision?


"jot" and "title" are the flourishes, the additions, of the text. Yeshua comes to explain the flourishes, the part between the lines. Yes, I agree he adds, but just remember: It all comes back to the text. Yeshua's greatest contribution to Judaism is that he put the focus back on HaShem and His character, the more hidden corners of the Torah, which point towards the godly character, the "Hesed v'emet" covenant of the heart.

[DanielRB]

"jot" and "title" are the flourishes, the additions, of the text. Yeshua comes to explain the flourishes, the part between the lines. Yes, I agree he adds, but just remember: It all comes back to the text. Yeshua's greatest contribution to Judaism is that he put the focus back on HaShem and His character, the more hidden corners of the Torah, which point towards the godly character, the "Hesed v'emet" covenant of the heart.

Hi Koilias, :wave:

Thanks for your post.

I had never thought of "jot" and "tittle" as flourishes and/or additions of the text. I had usually connected what Yehoshua said about jot and tittle to what came next--the relaxing or abolishing of the least of the commandments. That is, not the smallest letter (the iota in Greek and the yod in Hebrew) nor the smallest stroke of a pen (the seraphs on certain letters) will pass away from Torah. Could you please explain how you came to this view, and how it fits with the rest of the verse?

Building on what I posted before, take the example of circumcision. Paul obviously doesn't place value on it (1 Cor 7:18-19; Gal 5:6, 6:15)--he doesn't even classify it with "the commandments of G-d" (1 Cor 7:19). A literalistic (probably I should use a different word--I'm not sure what) understanding of not having the least commandment of Torah relaxed would say that Paul went against Yehoshua's teaching. However, as I believe that all Scripture can be harmonized, I believe that Yehoshua was pointing at something deeper than a mere unthinking obedience to all the specific mitzvot. Rather, he aimed at showing obedience to "the Torah behind the Torah" (for lack of a better term). As the prophets often condemned Israel's mere external obedience to Torah, Yehoshua pointed to the really important aspects of Torah--love, justice, mercy, etc (Matt 23:23).

Do you think it is appropriate to divide Torah into different categories of importance? For example, the commandment to love the L-rd our G-d with all our heart is more weighty than, say, not taking a mother bird with her eggs? If so, how much different is this view than the typical Christian viewpoint about "ceremonial law" and "moral law"?

In Messiah,

Daniel

[DanielRB]

Well.......

Here is where you have to get Hebraic in understanding scripture. MANY times we are limited in our ability to see because we have a translation in the way, and our frame of reference. Often we percieve conflict when the potential for them to be looked at differently does in fact exist but we don't have the tools to do that.

I do understand where you are coming from. Jacob's name was changed after he wrestled. We do too :) I am not uncomfortable with that anymore. I see it as part of the process. My M.O. when I percieve a conflict is "HE is right" and "I am wrong", and I long for the day when that can be resolved. Sometimes that happens too :clap:

Hi Debi, :wave:

I'm not sure if I follow what you mean by a "Hebraic in understanding." Could you please elaborate how this differs from other ways one might approach Scripture? Thanks! :)

In Messiah,

Daniel

[koilias]

I had never thought of "jot" and "tittle" as flourishes and/or additions of the text. I had usually connected what Yehoshua said about jot and tittle to what came next--the relaxing or abolishing of the least of the commandments. That is, not the smallest letter (the iota in Greek and the yod in Hebrew) nor the smallest stroke of a pen (the seraphs on certain letters) will pass away from Torah. Could you please explain how you came to this view, and how it fits with the rest of the verse?

....Do you think it is appropriate to divide Torah into different categories of importance? For example, the commandment to love the L-rd our G-d with all our heart is more weighty than, say, not taking a mother bird with her eggs? If so, how much different is this view than the typical Christian viewpoint about "ceremonial law" and "moral law"?
Shalom Daniel! I do think Yeshua is saying some commandments, the ethical ones are more important than the ritual ones, if you have the understanding that the commands serving ritual matters serve the larger ethical commandments. You're right, there has to be levels of importance for all of this to work...and thus you've touched on the importance of Oral Torah!

"Jot" and "tittle", I take as the unimportant marks, but Yeshua is saying these too are important, only because they too can contribute to the larger whole of Oral Torah. The role of the sage is to distinguish the emphasis and application of the commandments. To a Rabbi, the "wiggle room", and interpretive handles is many times in the seemingly unimportant details of the text, because these help the sage make creative halakhic and midrashic interpretation and embellishment (exegesis).

Christian interpretation of the Bible is very simplistic and narrow, IMHO. Unfortunately most of us will never understand Jewish exegesis. Christians tend to look for the most basic meaning of the text (what Jews call "Pshat" which means "simple")...or they tend to look for symbolism and allegory (which Jews consider simple too). But Jews approach the text very differently....mostly because they see the "warts" of the Hebrew text (the linguistic problems that have been smoothed out of most translations). They see a variagated interpretative landscape whereas most Christians only see a flat plane.

Most Christians will never feel comfortable with Jewish exegetical methods. I think there is a anthropological reason. Christians love tidiness whereas Jews get impatient with it. :D Jews view the Biblical text as multi-faceted. There is a saying that there are "seventy faces" to the Torah. Meaning every verse can have 70 different understandings and applications. That is what is meant by "jot" and "tittle". You look for these understandings through many kinds of interpretive methods...you embellish creatively but with the discipline of the sages.

[koilias]

Daniel,

A fine example of a multi-faceted (Jewish) approach to the scriptural text is what Debi does here in post #12:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1035556&page=2

[talmidim]

Shalom all,

I have been facinated by the original post and the many and varied responses. It has been very educational. The scriptures quoted from the sermon on the mount were very correctly characterized as neither taking away nor adding to Torah. Yeshua was illustrating a simple fact. There is a causal relationship to sin that is inherent in the nature of iniquity and His discourse is therefore only expositional in nature.

I am curious that no one has pointed out something that seems obvious to me. I am refering to the scripture from deuteronomy in the original post. So in the gentile manner of drawing observations from the flat plane of Torah, ;) I will do my best to scare up a "wart" or two.
Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
Deu 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
Deu 19:20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
Deu 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shallgo for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
These verses are about the judicial process. If we know anything about our heavenly Father, it is His perfect nature. He cannot abide sin. An anomaly in His judicial process is impossible because He is Just. Verse 18 & 19 tell how to deal with a perjurer. He is to have the same thing done to him that would have been done to the person against whom he swore falsely. The reason is give in verse 20, that is, to put an end to perjury. Verse 21 tells us not to exercise pity because the perjurer freely exercises judgement upon himself. In essence, the pity is not ours to give.

Many have tried to use these verses as a means of justifying revenge. The dynamic is the opposite. The lesson in these verses is this: We should not hurt each other because it is in effect, doing the same evil to ourselves. The same dynamic will be true when we stand before the Master.

Thanks to all for some great posts!

[DanielRB]

Daniel,

A fine example of a multi-faceted (Jewish) approach to the scriptural text is what Debi does here in post #12:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1035556&page=2

Hi Koilias, :wave:

Thanks for the post. It was very interesting, and Debi brings up good points in her analysis.

I am somewhat familiar with Rabbinic approaches to Scripture--for example, what can be seen here. (http://www.thewatchman.net/remez.html) Of course, Rabbinic Judaism is not the only form of Judaism (certainly not in Messiah's day)--for example, the Karaites would not necessarily agree with "Pardes". I'm not sure if the post-first century Rabbinic approach was exactly what Yehoshua or Paul had in mind when they wrote, though traces of it appear in the way that they teach.

I would like to see how this particular passage (Matt 5:17-20) is Rabbinically interpreted (that is, from a Messianic Rabbinic perspective).

In Messiah,

Daniel

[visionary]

Shalom all,

I have been facinated by the original post and the many and varied responses. It has been very educational. The scriptures quoted from the sermon on the mount were very correctly characterized as neither taking away nor adding to Torah. Yeshua was illustrating a simple fact. There is a causal relationship to sin that is inherent in the nature of iniquity and His discourse is therefore only expositional in nature.

I am curious that no one has pointed out something that seems obvious to me. I am refering to the scripture from deuteronomy in the original post. So in the gentile manner of drawing observations from the flat plane of Torah, ;) I will do my best to scare up a "wart" or two.

These verses are about the judicial process. If we know anything about our heavenly Father, it is His perfect nature. He cannot abide sin. An anomaly in His judicial process is impossible because He is Just. Verse 18 & 19 tell how to deal with a perjurer. He is to have the same thing done to him that would have been done to the person against whom he swore falsely. The reason is give in verse 20, that is, to put an end to perjury. Verse 21 tells us not to exercise pity because the perjurer freely exercises judgement upon himself. In essence, the pity is not ours to give.

Many have tried to use these verses as a means of justifying revenge. The dynamic is the opposite. The lesson in these verses is this: We should not hurt each other because it is in effect, doing the same evil to ourselves. The same dynamic will be true when we stand before the Master.

Thanks to all for some great posts!

the eye for eye.....as it relates to perjury and the perjurer.

[DanielRB]

Hi again, Koilias, :wave:

Shalom Daniel! I do think Yeshua is saying some commandments, the ethical ones are more important than the ritual ones, if you have the understanding that the commands serving ritual matters serve the larger ethical commandments. You're right, there has to be levels of importance for all of this to work...and thus you've touched on the importance of Oral Torah!

How does this ouch on the importance of Oral Torah? (Forgive me for being so dense!)

"Jot" and "tittle", I take as the unimportant marks, but Yeshua is saying these too are important, only because they too can contribute to the larger whole of Oral Torah. The role of the sage is to distinguish the emphasis and application of the commandments. To a Rabbi, the "wiggle room", and interpretive handles is many times in the seemingly unimportant details of the text, because these help the sage make creative halakhic and midrashic interpretation and embellishment (exegesis).

Would you say that this approach, though valid, can go to extremes--similar to the excesses of Midieval allegorical interpretation? I think this is one of the objections that many Gentile Christians and Karaite Jews have with Rabbinic interpretive methods.

Christian interpretation of the Bible is very simplistic and narrow, IMHO.

I think this is an unfair generalization. There are a wide variety of interpretive methods to the Bible in the Christian Community, and I wouldn't presume that many fine scholars throughout the ages were merely simplistic and narrow--just as I wouldn't characterize all Rabbinical Jews as handling the Biblical text like silly putty.

Unfortunately most of us will never understand Jewish exegesis. Christians tend to look for the most basic meaning of the text (what Jews call "Pshat" which means "simple")...or they tend to look for symbolism and allegory (which Jews consider simple too). But Jews approach the text very differently....mostly because they see the "warts" of the Hebrew text (the linguistic problems that have been smoothed out of most translations). They see a variagated interpretative landscape whereas most Christians only see a flat plane.

Please remember that many Christian scholars have studied Hebrew extensively and are familiar with the "warts" of the Hebrew text.

Yet don't you think that those warts can be magnified out of porportion--making "mountains out of molehills"?

An article here (http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0077.htm), though not speaking directly of Rabbinic methods of interpretation, points out the dangers of creative interpretation.

Most Christians will never feel comfortable with Jewish exegetical methods.

I would clarify this by saying many Jews don't feel comfortable with Rabbinical exegetical methods, either--the Karaites among them. This is similar to how many Christians don't feel comfortable with Catholic interpretive methods or Dispensational interpretive methods.

I think there is a anthropological reason. Christians love tidiness whereas Jews get impatient with it. :D

Is this why Messianic Jews are sometimes called "Messys"? ;) (Just kidding!)

Seriously though, many Christians are not so addicted to tidiness. There is a rich depth of mystical literature in Christian traditions that are not dry, tidy theological treatieses--for example, St. John of the Cross.

Jews view the Biblical text as multi-faceted. There is a saying that there are "seventy faces" to the Torah. Meaning every verse can have 70 different understandings and applications.

I think many--perhaps most--Christians also look at the Bible as multi-faceted. I will admit, though, that many Dispensationalists emphasize the literal meaning over all else--though even then, they heavily look into typology (which is different than allegory, as you know.)

That is what is meant by "jot" and "tittle". You look for these understandings through many kinds of interpretive methods...you embellish creatively but with the discipline of the sages.

What exactly is this discipline? How does a Rabbinical Jew know "whoops, I've gone too far?" Is there a "fence" around interpretation, like the fence built around Torah?

In Messiah,

Daniel

[DanielRB]

Hi Talmidim, :wave:

Shalom all,

I have been facinated by the original post and the many and varied responses. It has been very educational. The scriptures quoted from the sermon on the mount were very correctly characterized as neither taking away nor adding to Torah. Yeshua was illustrating a simple fact. There is a causal relationship to sin that is inherent in the nature of iniquity and His discourse is therefore only expositional in nature.

I am curious that no one has pointed out something that seems obvious to me. I am refering to the scripture from deuteronomy in the original post. So in the gentile manner of drawing observations from the flat plane of Torah, ;) I will do my best to scare up a "wart" or two.

These verses are about the judicial process. If we know anything about our heavenly Father, it is His perfect nature. He cannot abide sin. An anomaly in His judicial process is impossible because He is Just. Verse 18 & 19 tell how to deal with a perjurer. He is to have the same thing done to him that would have been done to the person against whom he swore falsely. The reason is give in verse 20, that is, to put an end to perjury. Verse 21 tells us not to exercise pity because the perjurer freely exercises judgement upon himself. In essence, the pity is not ours to give.

Many have tried to use these verses as a means of justifying revenge. The dynamic is the opposite. The lesson in these verses is this: We should not hurt each other because it is in effect, doing the same evil to ourselves. The same dynamic will be true when we stand before the Master.

Thanks to all for some great posts!


Thanks for pointing out the context of the passage from Deuteronomy.

How, then, does this relate to Yehoshua granting mercy to the adulterous woman in John 8? I can of course see that Yehoshua can grant mercy, since he also is the judge and lawgiver. However, what lesson can we derive from this?

I would think that if "pity is not ours to give", we cannot pronounce G-d's forgiveness for sins for which we are not the injured party. Yet what does Messiah mean, then, here:

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” " (John 20:19-23, ESV)

Did the rules of pity and forgiveness change when G-d sent his Ruach haKodesh?

In Messiah,

Daniel

[koilias]

Of course, Rabbinic Judaism is not the only form of Judaism (certainly not in Messiah's day)--for example, the Karaites would not necessarily agree with "Pardes". I'm not sure if the post-first century Rabbinic approach was exactly what Yehoshua or Paul had in mind when they wrote, though traces of it appear in the way that they teach.
Shalom Daniel. I will have to come back to many of your points later (as I'm busy preparing a presentation for school).

Let me just say first off that the Karaites have a problem mainly with the authority of the Rabbis. In their eyes, the Rabbis have watered down everything. IOW, the authority, according to them, resides in the text, not the people...In stark cotradiction to Yeshua's Rabbinic position that the keys of the Kingdom are given to the heads of the nation.

In the first century, the beef of the sectarians with the Rabbis was not all concerned with interpretive technique so much as the fact that the Rabbis used their creative exegesis towards liberal ends and not fundamentalist ones (but the DSS and pseudapigraphica are absolutely crawling with the multi-faceted approach to scripture, just read Jubilees!).

"Pardes" is a notion that arises in the Middle Ages. I don't think first century sages would have qualified their methods that way. But you would be wrong to think that Paul and Yeshua do not use the approaches of the Rabbis of their day, which is even more robust than a systematized "Pardes". Let me qualify by saying that "multi-faceted" means having a liberal approach to the text, to put it in today's terminology, one that plays off the bumps in the text and liberally changes the direct and implied meanings...sometimes even going so far as changing the words. But there is a discipline and technique you have to follow...this comes with training and being under the authority of the community. You won't find Yeshua's statement for example, "Rivers from his innermost being will flow to living water" (John 7:38) in the Bible. You arrive at it by liberally changing the text. I believe he changed "Levanon" in Songs 4:15 to "Levavo" (his heart), but there are probably other ways he may have done it. He would have defended his change using proof-texts (corroborating scriptures). There is a technique involved.

[koilias]

I am somewhat familiar with Rabbinic approaches to Scripture--for example, what can be seen here. (http://www.thewatchman.net/remez.html) Despite what this article claims, although I respect the approach and see it as a valid "path" for a Torah observant community, the gospels cannot be seriously classified along Pardes divisions. They all involved varying levels of each approach. There are more categorizations of exegetical techniques than just four broad ones. This article is mainly a product of Medieval Jewish thought. Exegesis has progressively been systemitized over the centuries.

Again, it is up to the respective leadership of a Torah-focused community how you interpret the text. I realize the situation of most churches demands that this approach be held at a distance, since we have already established "doctrine". That is why I only advocate it for Torah-based communities (which we represent on this forum at varying levels).

So why is it important for us to know about them and become familiar with these techniques? Well, we need it to better understand the NT. That's all important.

[koilias]

Thanks for the questions, I'll respond with my thoughts, but others here can perhaps more adequately respond and speak for the MJ position. I don't represent the opinion of most MJ's, as I've been trained only as a student of second temple period Jewish literature, and I am not qualified to answer from a Rabbinic perspective. I should have made this clear much earlier! (Please, others speak up!)



How does this ouch on the importance of Oral Torah? (Forgive me for being so dense!)


The Oral Torah explains where to place the focus, quite simply. It is the commentary on the text.


Would you say that this approach, though valid, can go to extremes--similar to the excesses of Midieval allegorical interpretation? I think this is one of the objections that many Gentile Christians and Karaite Jews have with Rabbinic interpretive methods.


Absolutely! Especially in our Post-Modern age, where sects reproduce like herring. I share the same reservations as the Churches and the Karaites. But I believe that everyone should (and can) practice Torah from the heart. This is the Kingdom of G-d. As well, the layers of depth and richness it gives to our understanding of Yeshua's words are immeasurable. If you are using Torah to spin off your own self-proclaimed doctrine and (worse) label others heretics because they disagree with you, I think you are missing the point, in my humble opinion. You are working then against the Kingdom, which is my problem with all cultish movements.


I think this is an unfair generalization. There are a wide variety of interpretive methods to the Bible in the Christian Community, and I wouldn't presume that many fine scholars throughout the ages were merely simplistic and narrow--just as I wouldn't characterize all Rabbinical Jews as handling the Biblical text like silly putty.

Forgive me if I've fallen now into the trap of generalizing. To state it better, Christians do read the text very creatively, however they only tend to give the text one meaning, and do not typically allow for an evolution of interpretive thought. I'm an architect and urbanist. In my field we call this the distinction between "closed-specific" and "open-specific" design. "Closed specific" design assigns one meaning and use to an object (a church), "Open-specific" design allows for room for interpretation and multiplicity of use (a street). Jews view scripture through an "open-specific" lens. That is why the authority of the sages is so valued to them and why they see their faith as an evolving relationship with HaShem, in ways peculiar to most Christians...although we too practice our faith subjectively at the communal level like Jews, we just don't admit it or are even aware that we do. The result of this approach is that we've progressively viewed the Bible as a repository of ancient knowledge that we can hold at a distance, instead of continually revisiting it and wrestling with it. There is a sad lack of biblical knowledge in our communities, which doesn't exist in Torah observant Judaism.



Please remember that many Christian scholars have studied Hebrew extensively and are familiar with the "warts" of the Hebrew text.

Understood. But they don't escape the "closed-specific" paradigm. They research the Hebrew to simply try to understand what the author may have "originally" intended to say. Nor do they seek to to integrate the linguistic disruption in meaning with the rest of scripture and build upon tradition. A Rabbi views textual problems as oppurtunities for midrashic expansion and cohesion. This is a very, very dramatic difference.

A Christian comes across a textual bump and says "Ouch!"...A Rabbi comes upon one and shouts "Hooorah! Boy oh boy! What does Rashi say about this! What does Rambam? What is G-d hinting at here?!?"


Yet don't you think that those warts can be magnified out of porportion--making "mountains out of molehills"?

Of course, see my first reply. Still, some molehills are better as mountains.

Think: "Love your enemies" is making the molehill of "Love your neighbor as yourself" into a mountain. Yeshua is extending the fence to its highest height, stretching it to its furthest distance and his prooftext is Ecclesiastes: G-d even allows good things to happen to bad people, so go imitate Him.



I would clarify this by saying many Jews don't feel comfortable with Rabbinical exegetical methods, either--the Karaites among them. This is similar to how many Christians don't feel comfortable with Catholic interpretive methods or Dispensational interpretive methods.

Agreed. Everybody has a problem with someone's authority not their own. I would even put the Ultra-Orthodox in this category.



Is this why Messianic Jews are sometimes called "Messys"? ;) (Just kidding!)

Messy's are even more messy than typical Jews because they have to try to reconcile two difficult religious streams into some kind of modicum of livable doctrine.


Seriously though, many Christians are not so addicted to tidiness. There is a rich depth of mystical literature in Christian traditions that are not dry, tidy theological treatieses--for example, St. John of the Cross.

I agree!



I think many--perhaps most--Christians also look at the Bible as multi-faceted. I will admit, though, that many Dispensationalists emphasize the literal meaning over all else--though even then, they heavily look into typology (which is different than allegory, as you know.)

I have my stark reservations about typology, because I see any wooden interpretation of scripture as blindingly narrow. Many in this forum are quite comfortable with it, though. I just won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. I'm much happier with the depth of meanings already in the Hebrew text.



What exactly is this discipline? How does a Rabbinical Jew know "whoops, I've gone too far?" Is there a "fence" around interpretation, like the fence built around Torah?

In Messiah,

Daniel
Well, its the same discipline that we require of our pastors: discipleship, doctrinal education, accountability and ordination. All words spoken by others (myself included) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Shalom b'Yeshua,

Eric

[talmidim]

Hi Talmidim, :wave:

Thanks for pointing out the context of the passage from Deuteronomy.

How, then, does this relate to Yehoshua granting mercy to the adulterous woman in John 8? I can of course see that Yehoshua can grant mercy, since he also is the judge and lawgiver. However, what lesson can we derive from this?

I would think that if "pity is not ours to give", we cannot pronounce G-d's forgiveness for sins for which we are not the injured party. Yet what does Messiah mean, then, here:

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld." " (John 20:19-23, ESV)

Did the rules of pity and forgiveness change when G-d sent his Ruach haKodesh?

In Messiah,

Daniel Shalom Daniel,

I believe your first observation is the crux of the matter in that "we cannot pronounce G-d's forgiveness for sins for which we are not the injured party." Let's take it a step further. Perhaps the forgiveness does not belong to the Father in this case. This is not the only place in scripture where we are told that the right of forgiveness belongs to the one that was wronged. We are told to leave our offering at the altar and go reconcile ourselves with our brother first remember? I think that it might even goes deeper than this though.

The first circumstance that we are examining is in the written law. I might see this differently from you, but I see the law as a means to keep the children of Israel set apart from the other nations (and of course from sin). This seems crucial to the plan to keep the bloodline of the Messiah free from the pollution of the Nefilim. Once Messiah arrived, the dynamics of the Fathers plan for the salvation of man changed. His plan didn't change, just the circumstances. Yeshua was here with us in the second circumstance mentioned. He could determine each case on it's own merits and use each one as an illustration upon which we could then pattern our behavior. The third situation occurred after He was sacrificed and resurrected. Again, circumstances changed. Now His plan is made manifest in His body. His body had been baptized in the Spirit and His body has been given authority to use His name with the Father.

Did the rules of pity and forgiveness change when G-d sent his Ruach haKodesh? In a word, yes, but not the rules, the conditions.

In the time of the Patriarchs, the Lord spoke to a few in dark sayings and in visions of the night. Then through Moses He gave His commandments and the priesthood, that we might seek and find His truth. The world as a whole was very far off from Him. The Father gave us the Word when we were still yet a ways from Him. We applied His law to our lives and it drew a few closer to Him. This is where you first example resides. Relationships with Him and faith in Him were built upon the truth He revealed. This allowed for the next step in His plan to occur.

The Father gave us Emmanuel. This is where the second example you gave occured. He came to live with us and to teach by His example, but He was one and we were many. We could draw close but only a few at a time and only within the confines of what had been spoken in faith. But still, certain things had to come to pass that the rest might draw closer. By His sacrifice, He settled issues concerning dominion and made final pronouncement upon the things yet to come. His victory over iniquity and sin allowed a more pervasive entry into this domain of unbelief, where many more could benefit.

The Father then gave us the Spirit of Truth. He comes to all that would recieve Him. This is where your final example takes place. We now rely on Him to open the eyes of our understanding in all of our pronouncements of righteousness and mercy. It is here that the fruits of His plan as well as His Spirit become abundant. Still I get the feeling I am missing something important in all of this. I will pray about it.

Thank you for a wonderful quandry, Daniel.
talmidim

[koilias]

These verses are about the judicial process. If we know anything about our heavenly Father, it is His perfect nature. He cannot abide sin. An anomaly in His judicial process is impossible because He is Just. Verse 18 & 19 tell how to deal with a perjurer. He is to have the same thing done to him that would have been done to the person against whom he swore falsely. The reason is give in verse 20, that is, to put an end to perjury. Verse 21 tells us not to exercise pity because the perjurer freely exercises judgement upon himself. In essence, the pity is not ours to give.Wonderful explanation of the context, Talmidim!

Unfortunately, evidently the Sadducees inflected the meaning of v. 21 away from the previous context, and did not share this understanding. They held in v. 21 the legitimization of the principle of retributive justice.

What Yeshua is doing in Matthew 5 is directly refuting the use of v. 21 as a proof-text in the Sadducean understanding of how we should interpret the command "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself". The Sadducees defined the words "as thyself" to mean: "as (your neighbor loves) you". In other words, return favor (love) to your neighbor if he shows you favor, return ill will (hate), if he shows you ill will. The Sadducees used verse 21 as their proof-text.

...So, Yeshua turns the tables on them by saying (in so many words), 'Do not read: "strike for strike" as "my strike for your strike", read "a second strike for your strike" (because I should love you as myself at all costs)'.

Very profoundly, Yeshua turns the Sadducean proof-text into a Rabbinic prooftext! The Rabbinic understanding of the command "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am Adonai thy G-d." was "Thou shalt love thy neighbor who is like you (and made in the image of) I, Adonai thy G-d".

Thus treat your enemy with the love you would treat yourself, for he is also made in the image of G-d.

[Sephania]

17 "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. 18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah -- not until everything that must happen has happened. 19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

What is a yud? The Letter Yud is the smallest letter of the alphabet, yet it can be the trickiest to write properly. The Yud should have a size of 1X2 kulmusim. The Yud should have a small Tag on the top left corner. This Tag should not be made too tall, because it can cause the letter to be invalid. The top right corner should be clearly rounded. The leg should not be too long, because otherwise the Yud can turn into a Vov. There should be a small kotz sticking out of the bottom left corner of the head of the Yud. According to many Poskim, a Yud without this kotz is invalid. A kotz is a small stick or thorn, and in this case it's used to represent a small point sticking out of the letter.

This 'tag' is what is referred to in the Greek as a 'tittle' see picture below for a yud written for STA*M ( Sifrei, Torah,Teffilin and Mezuzot)