Jesus and the Pharisees

[patrick457]

Tim and Tom, I think we have just been victimized by a loaded question. Let me ask you another, “have you ever stopped beating your wives?”

Well, GMST, the fact is that Jesus was not focusing on the stoning of children but on the respecting of Parents. Jesus didn’t say, “hey, you guys are getting around the law requiring the stoning of your children.” He said, “hey, you guys are getting around the law requiring you to take care of your parents.”

So, the answer to your question is, “No, Jesus was not advocating the stoning of children.”

Sincerely,

De Maria

You have a point.

 

[GiveMeSomeTruth]

So, the answer to your question is, “No, Jesus was not advocating the stoning of children.”

De Maria, thank you for guiding the discussion back to my intended topic. It seems that a lot of the discussion has been tangential to what I wanted to focus on and I take responsibility for that in the vagueness of my title.

The point I was trying to make is that there are aspects of the Law of Moses to which I don’t feel enough attention is given in modern discussions. Due to the uncomfortable nature of these prohibitions in regard to our modern sensibilities, Christianity *must *obviate these strictures in order to maintain relevance. What is less clear, however, is Jesus’ true opinion on the validity of the law. See, for example, Matthew 5:18-20 which clearly demands rigid adherence to the law “until heaven and earth pass away”.

 

[patrick457]

De Maria, thank you for guiding the discussion back to my intended topic. It seems that a lot of the discussion has been tangential to what I wanted to focus on and I take responsibility for that in the vagueness of my title.

The point I was trying to make is that there are aspects of the Law of Moses to which I don’t feel enough attention is given in modern discussions. Due to the uncomfortable nature of these prohibitions in regard to our modern sensibilities, Christianity *must *obviate these strictures in order to maintain relevance. What is less clear, however, is Jesus’ true opinion on the validity of the law. See, for example, Matthew 5:18-20 which clearly demands rigid adherence to the law “until heaven and earth pass away”.

I apologize for that. Now if you’ll ask me, IMHO we shouldn’t be too ashamed of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture and just conveniently dismiss them and sweep them all under the rug. I think that on the contrary, the problem lies not with Scripture itself, but our preconceptions on what Scripture should be like.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

Enjoyed your post! Now, I don’t know about Tim … but, I’m cool with my wife - she’s put up with me for 42 years!

Thanks for keep the posts focused.

God bless

I think what He said is just straightforward: the Pharisees were stealing the money that the son would give to help his parents. No retirement in those days, no welfare, the son’s help to his parents was extremely important. Jesus refers to the Law to show how very important it is and how it is the true Law, while the Pharisees just made up something to get what they wanted.

BUT - I think He is also implying that the Pharisees, by preventing the man from honoring his parents, are worthy of death under their own Law.

Jesus had the chance to stand by while the Law was carried out when the woman was caught in adultery. I think we know from that what His reaction would be to anyone trying to kill their child for being lazy and drunken.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GMST,

Hey, I did not think you were vague - actually, I thought your post was clear as a bell. In my opinion it was totally irrevalent, went to the aburd and appeared to bury the point rather then clarify it - but - you really weren’t vague.

I guess Christ was trying to provide the Pharisees with a sense of proportion - Here is what God has said, and here is a man-made rule that negates God’s Law. Stoning was not the issue - never was - but, rather, look how legalism has suffocated the Life of God from the hearts of these particular Jewish religious leaders.

Christ was providing them with a 1st Century ‘wake-up call’: trying to evade the Law of God with a human rule is not pleasing to God. Continue down this road and you will find out just how displeased He Is!

God bless

De Maria, thank you for guiding the discussion back to my intended topic. It seems that a lot of the discussion has been tangential to what I wanted to focus on and I take responsibility for that in the vagueness of my title.

The point I was trying to make is that there are aspects of the Law of Moses to which I don’t feel enough attention is given in modern discussions. Due to the uncomfortable nature of these prohibitions in regard to our modern sensibilities, Christianity *must *obviate these strictures in order to maintain relevance. What is less clear, however, is Jesus’ true opinion on the validity of the law. See, for example, Matthew 5:18-20 which clearly demands rigid adherence to the law “until heaven and earth pass away”.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick457,

This and your following post were very interesting reads. Thanks for these posts.

God bless

Miracles by itself is not a sign of uniqueness at that time, since the Jews believed that righteous and holy men who were particularly close to God could ‘influence’ the divine will and perform signs and wonders in His name. We don’t know the names of any miracle-workers active during Jesus’ lifetime, but we do have records of some who came before or after Him: the rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, who healed the son of the famous rabbi Gamaliel vicariously, and Honi/Onias the Circle Drawer, who was perceived to be so close to God that he is on highly familiar terms with Him; God in turn seems to do whatever Honi asks (according to the story preserved in the Mishna, the Pharisaic scholar Simeon ben Shetach called Honi up and told him that “if you were not Honi I would decree a ban upon you. But what shall I do to you, for you act like a spoiled child before God and He does your will for you, like a son who acts like a spoiled child with his father and he does his will for him?”). Honi’s fame in particular was such that even Josephus, who was usually extremely skeptical about ‘miracle-workers’, considered him a “righteous man” and a “beloved of God.” Of course, that’s not counting charlatans, magicians (who differed from miracle-workers in that they did not perform wonders because of any relationship with a deity and following a fixed set of techniques to perform, rather than being ‘autonomous’ and spontaneous) and people who claimed to be wonderworkers but never got to perform any miracle - usually because they were killed off (some messianic claimants like Theudas or the unnamed Egyptian guy falls under this category).

A study of non-Christian literature would show that the miracles attributed to Jesus were not greatly different from those attributed to other Jews in the same general period. People who saw Honi or Hanina only concluded that their prayers were effective. Those who saw the exorcist named Eleazar (Antiquities 8.45-49) using a herb and a ring concluded only that he had access to the wisdom of Solomon, considered in folklore to be the exorcist par excellence. All in all, people did not doubt that Jesus was a miracle-worker, but this alone did not move all of them to become followers or to conclude that He was God’s final Spokesman. The miracles proved nothing to most Galileans beyond the fact that He was a holy man on intimate terms with God (which wasn’t that exceptional); with His enemies, on the other hand, thinking that He was on intimate terms with the devil. (Sure makes you appreciate Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ in contrast to public opinion: it took a huge leap of faith to do that one, and Jesus Himself says so.) The effect that Jesus’ miracles had on His disciples seems to have been no greater, or not much greater, than their effect on other people: at least it did not stop them from abandoning Jesus when He was arrested. It took the greatest - and most unlikely in many ways - miracle, the Resurrection, to persuade them and set them on fire.

I’m planning to write about the ‘Messianic expectation’ in 1st century Judaism next. Stay tuned.

 

[GiveMeSomeTruth]

In my opinion it was totally irrevalent, went to the aburd and appeared to bury the point rather then clarify it

Please clarify the above sentence.

trying to evade the Law of God with a human rule is not pleasing to God. Continue down this road and you will find out just how displeased He Is!

The law is to stone your children when they curse you. In order not to evade the law the Pharisees would have to have been stoning their children when they cursed them. You are making my point.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria, thank you for guiding the discussion back to my intended topic. It seems that a lot of the discussion has been tangential to what I wanted to focus on and I take responsibility for that in the vagueness of my title.

Jesus teaching is not to emphasize the killing of children but the kindness to parents.

The point I was trying to make is that there are aspects of the Law of Moses to which I don’t feel enough attention is given in modern discussions. Due to the uncomfortable nature of these prohibitions in regard to our modern sensibilities, Christianity *must *obviate these strictures in order to maintain relevance.

Now, you’re being vague. “Christianity” is a vague term.

And it wasn’t Christianity which obviated these strictures. It was Jesus Christ. First He said:
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And then He said:
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

First He gave the Commandment and then He reformulated it to a higher standard.

What is less clear, however, is Jesus’ true opinion on the validity of the law. See, for example, Matthew 5:18-20 which clearly demands rigid adherence to the law “until heaven and earth pass away”.

Read the rest of the treatise. Jesus has reformulated the Law of Moses.

Jesus’ disciples are the ones who first understood what He taught. This particular disciple was taught after the Christ’s resurrection, but explained it best of all, as concerns what Christ meant about the Law:

Hebrews 9:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Now, the Testator of the Old Law is God and God died on the Cross. Therefore the Old Law is fulfilled and has passed away.

That is why Scripture says:
John 19:28-30
King James Version (KJV)
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. 29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Matt 5:18-20 which clearly demands rigid adherence to the law “until heaven and earth pass away”

That’s not how I read it.
Matthew 5:18-20
King James Version (KJV)
18 For verily I say unto you,

Verily is called an oath word. So, Jesus is literally swearing this is true.

Till heaven and earth pass,

In essence, this means “never”. Until heaven and earth pass away. Well it didn’t happen in their lifetime and it probably won’t happen in ours. Although there are some who think it might.

**one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, **

In essence this means, “no change in the law.” A jot or tittle is a very small thing. But not even one small thing will change in the law.

Now, let’s put this together up to this point.

Never will the law change in the smallest degree…

till all be fulfilled.

That puts a great big period on the law doesn’t it? Till all is fulfilled. So, let’s put it together.

Never will the law change in the smallest degree…until all is fulfilled.

When was all fulfilled? On the Cross.

I don’t think you had trouble with the rest but I’ll go over it briefly.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Keep the Commandments if you want to be saved.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Because only the righteous will enter heaven.

See Rev 22:13-15 for correlation with the last part.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GMST,

Your approach seems to be in killing children as a form of biblical correction is the only way to do something. Applying this - there would not be any children left! There are many biblical ways of teaching children - but to insist on stoning makes no sense and is truly irrelevant to a serious discussion.

There are certain teaching styles that were not intended to be applied literally - and should not be applied that way. For example, In Matthew 5:29 and Mark 9:47, Christ tells us that if your eye causes us to sin - then pluck it out! Stop and think about that for a minute - of course it is better to have one eye then to be in hell with both eyes - but, don’t you think there are steps that can and should be taken that do not involve self-mutulation? If this saying of Christ were to be literally applied in the same manner that you want this stoning of children applied - then followers of Christ would have no eyes! This is why I think your continued repitition of this approach totally misses the point and is irrelevant. Did this clarify the matter?

Really, if you do want others to give you some truth, you will need to listen to others. I do not think that stoning children was applied - now, if you care to provide the biblical references that actually back up your position, I would be happy to look at them. I do not believe any exist.

I have done my best to DISPROVE your point. What you do with what I have provided to you is strictly your business. But, please, don’t continue on this time-wasting course unless you have evidence that this stoning has taken place as you describe.

God bless

The law is to stone your children when they curse you. In order not to evade the law the Pharisees would have to have been stoning their children when they cursed them. You are making my point.