Jesus is the law

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:51 pm

Emmet, do you hold that Jesus was a prophet of Israel or a false prophet?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to JC

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:11 pm

Hi, JC,

Thank you for your inquiry.
Emmet, do you hold that Jesus was a prophet of Israel or a false prophet?
Does Jesus claim to be a prophet?

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:39 pm

Emmet, in Matthew 13:57 (and in Mark 6:4) we see that Jesus considered himself a prophet. In Matthew 21:11 the crowds referred to Jesus as a prophet and he certainly didn't object. In Matthew 21:46 we again read that the Jews in Jerusalem considered Jesus a prophet. In Luke 7:16 a different crowd said, "A great prophet has appeared among us." Jesus never objected to the many times this claim was made about him and even confirmed his status in the Matthew 13 passage. He also acted as a prophet in that he warned of God's judgement on the nation of Israel, just like Isaiah, Ezekiel and the others. Jesus said he had special revelation from God, just as the other prophets did.

Perhaps your question to me wasn't really a question but a veiled answer. If that's the case, I think I understand.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:17 am

John Chrysostom used this argument sixteen centuries ago, but it is tendentious and violates the natural flow of thought in the passage. When the text states "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments..." [v.19a], Jesus has just set the context for his comment by referring to the most minor aspects of the Torah [v. 18].

Jesus (and/or Matthew) needed to comment on the Mosaic Law to lay the foundation for his further teaching. Jesus then supplements the Law with his own teachings, but thereafter it is not necessary (or desirable) for him to reinvent the wheel.

Failure to recognize that the Law forms such a foundation has led to distortion in Christian thought. For example, it has been observed that Jesus offers only an ethic for the disenfranchised, and that he offers no paradigm for how people in power should act. It would be impracticable (and erroneous) to insist that a government should turn the other cheek, or that it should not judge. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus already endorses a paradigm for how people in power should act: the Torah lays out patterns and standards for such circumstances.



Emmet, I think Chrysostrom was correct in that natural flow or not from verse 5.20 on Jesus begins a series of six "you have heard it said by them of old time" followed by "but i say unto you" and in every case , the "but i say" is a dramatic change from "the law" which Christ quotes every time he says "you have heard it said."
Anyone who thinks "love your enemy" or "except for fornication" or "don't look on a women to lust after her" is in Torah is mistaken. And anyone who thinks Jesus observed the Sabbath is also mistaken.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to JC

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Hi, JC,

Thank you for your response!

Re: Matthew 21:11 & 46 = These verses give popular opinion, but do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jesus, whether he bothers to correct them or not.

Re: Matthew 13:57 // Mark 6:4 = One may take this as an implicit claim to the role of prophet, but it is not an explicit claim. Jesus may be quoting a proverb here or making a historical observation, without intending to directly lay claim to the title of "prophet."

It is possible that Jesus saw himself as a prophet, though. But then again, it would be interesting to know what the diction of "prophet" might have meant to Jesus.

Perhaps your question to me wasn't really a question but a veiled answer. If that's the case, I think I understand.
It was a question, not a veiled answer.

As for a (short) answer: it is difficult to assess the prophetic character of Jesus because our knowledge of him is second-hand at best.

But in any case:

(1) though prophets are useful, they are not always necessary. One does not need a prophet to be faithful to the covenant, and one does not require a prophet to enjoy intimate communion with God through prayer;

and (2) prophets are like messiahs - they are not infallible except when they bear the word of God. Both prophets and messiahs may be mistaken about sundry matters. Thus, we should be careful to gauge what a prophet or messiah says when they say "Thus saith the Lord," but we should be even more careful to gauge their sayings when they do not introduce the divine citation.


Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to Steve7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:31 am

Hello, Steve,

Thank you, truly, for your response.
I think Chrysostrom was correct in that natural flow or not from verse 5.20 on Jesus begins a series of six "you have heard it said by them of old time" followed by "but i say unto you" and in every case , the "but i say" is a dramatic change from "the law" which Christ quotes every time he says "you have heard it said."
I don't know that you can have it both ways here without pushing the text beyond its most natural implications. If "these commandments" is supposed to be anticipatory (which is not the most natural reading of the passage), then the flow of thought quite naturally suggests that Jesus is seeing these new articulations as part of his fulfilling the Law (q.v., v. 17) - not as in terminating, but as in bringing it to its full expression.

Though a modern reader may see a dramatic change between the Law and what is being done in the following verses, we should be cautious, because the interpretive mechanics of the day allowed for much deductive and even creative reasoning to derive further/deeper meaning from sacred text. The connective reasoning may seem obscure to us, because we have our own tradition of hermeneutics, but that does not mean that it was not apparent or meaningful to Jesus. Jesus, after all, finds proof for the doctrine of resurrection in the statement "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" - and an argument is present there, but it is very subtle (and it only works, incidentally, if one does not believe in the existence of one's soul apart from one's body).

The key to the ensuing verses is not that they are displacing the Law, but that they are superior to the ways of the scribes and the Pharisees, Hence the "you have heard it said"; not all of the things "heard" are actually said in the Law. The scribes and Pharisees fail to bring forth, in their recitations or interpretations, the full righteousness implicit in the Law, but Jesus is able to fulfill that potential in his teaching (so Matthew, anyway).

Anyone who thinks "love your enemy" or "except for fornication" or "don't look on a women to lust after her" is in Torah is mistaken.
"Love your enemy" might be derived from "You will love your neighbor as yourself."

"Except for fornication" is an exception clause unique to Matthew, and perhaps inauthentic. But it might be derived from Deuteronomy 22:20-22.

"Don't look..." might be derived in part from "You will not covet ... your neighbor's wife ... or anything that is your neighbor's." The Hebrew word rendered "covet" would be even more accurately rendered "lust for."

Again, the interpretive process of the era was imaginative and fertile, and commentators required very little to springboard vigorously from a text.

And anyone who thinks Jesus observed the Sabbath is also mistaken.
So if Jesus did not observe the Sabbath, was he not breaking the covenant? If he was breaking that covenant, was he not falling short of fulfilling it? And was he not sinning? And was he not rightly put to death, such being the penalty for Sabbath-breakers?


Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:13 am

So if Jesus did not observe the Sabbath, was he not breaking the covenant? If he was breaking that covenant, was he not falling short of fulfilling it? And was he not sinning? And was he not rightly put to death, such being the penalty for Sabbath-breakers?


Unless He was who he claimed to be "Lord of the Sabbath." And as Jesus said he works everyday because his Father works everyday and does'nt a good Son follow in his Father's footsteps?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to steve7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:50 pm

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response.
Unless He was who he claimed to be "Lord of the Sabbath."
Your bible states that Jesus was under law (Galatians 4:4). Within Israel, the Law required Sabbath observance, under penalty of death. However Jesus may have understood the lordship of the Sabbath, if it extended to violation of the commandment, he was liable.

And as Jesus said he works everyday because his Father works everyday and does'nt a good Son follow in his Father's footsteps?
A good son is obedient.

Furthermore, God is not subject to the Law, but human beings are. God is free to work if he wishes. Humans who are under the Law are free to work, then die.

But it is not a given that God works on the Sabbath. At least in theory, he took a day off before without the world falling apart.


Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:48 pm

Emmet, you stated the following:
Re: Matthew 13:57 // Mark 6:4 = One may take this as an implicit claim to the role of prophet, but it is not an explicit claim. Jesus may be quoting a proverb here or making a historical observation, without intending to directly lay claim to the title of "prophet."
OK, so we agree that Jesus imlicitly called himself a prophet. He needn't actually say the words, "I'm Jesus and I'm a prophet" in order to make the point. Jesus rarely took a direct course when explaining things to people and I believe he had specific reasons for this.
It is possible that Jesus saw himself as a prophet, though. But then again, it would be interesting to know what the diction of "prophet" might have meant to Jesus.
Jesus taught as though prophets were holy men of God who spoke prophetically to the nation of Israel. I gather this from the many times he quoted the prophets on certain issues.
As for a (short) answer: it is difficult to assess the prophetic character of Jesus because our knowledge of him is second-hand at best.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Our knowledge of any historical person is second-hand. Do you discredit Abraham because Moses wrote his biography? Do you then discredit Moses because his writings were copied by others and handed to us? Do you have reason to believe the New Testament writers lied about Jesus? Granted, they could've very well fudged on trivial details, but certainly they'd remember whether or not a man who was publically executed ate fish with them three days later. If you think it difficult to assess things that are second-hand then you wouldn't know anything and neither would I.
(1) though prophets are useful, they are not always necessary. One does not need a prophet to be faithful to the covenant, and one does not require a prophet to enjoy intimate communion with God through prayer;
We are in agreement here.
and (2) prophets are like messiahs - they are not infallible except when they bear the word of God. Both prophets and messiahs may be mistaken about sundry matters. Thus, we should be careful to gauge what a prophet or messiah says when they say "Thus saith the Lord," but we should be even more careful to gauge their sayings when they do not introduce the divine citation.
You might want to preface this paragraph by saying, "In my opinion...." because this is stated as though it were a known fact. The truth is, what you've said here is not the opinion of any Christian I'm aware of so the argument is only effective to those holding a certain view of Judaism. I know you're not wishing to "convert" anyone with this line of reasoning but you know with whom you're communicating... and Christians don't hold the premise from which you begin this thought.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:17 pm

Furthermore, God is not subject to the Law, but human beings are. God is free to work if he wishes. Humans who are under the Law are free to work, then die.

But it is not a given that God works on the Sabbath. At least in theory, he took a day off before without the world falling apart.



Emmet, I agree that God is not subject to the law which was the reason Jesus used for not observing the Sabbath so the logical conclusion s/b obvious. Jesus had been under the law but at some point (perhaps his baptism) he fulfilled the law.
Now regarding what Jesus meant regarding his sermon on the Mount , i think he answered this himself later on.
Matt 9.16-17 "No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment , for the patch pulls away from the garment and the tear is made worse"
Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins and both are preserved."
Another words Jesus was'nt adding on to the Sinatic Covenant for just as Jeremiah said "not according to the Covenant that i made with their fathers in the day that i took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."
So in fact Jesus did'nt destroy the law but he made it clear it had a purpose and that purpose had passed, it was time to move on. Now i understand you disagree but that's not the issue here, the issue is what did Jesus mean?
BTW re God taking a day off, all we know is that He ceased from His creative efforts but someone still has to maintain the universe.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”