Yehoshua and Changing the Law?

[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,

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. 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,

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, 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.

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,

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.

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

 

[Yahudim]

Hi Talmidim,

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)