One commonly hears, especially in church, that Jesus routinely transgressed the Torah, the law of Israel. Indeed, at least one New Testament writer agreed, saying that Jesus "abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances" (Ephesians 2:15). So what about Jesus? Did he observe the Torah like most other Jews of his day, or did he transgress it?
Most historians and biblical scholars agree: Jesus lived his life as a Torah-observant Jew. Jesus was Jewish. His parents were Jewish. His followers, including James and Mary and Peter and Paul, were Jewish. And, so far as we can tell, the movement of his followers remained both Jewish and Torah-observant for some time.
Some might object. What about healing on the Sabbath- - didn't Jesus transgress the Law then? Didn't Jesus touch lepers and bleeding women? What about eating with unwashed hands? Do not all these examples show that Jesus occasionally but intentionally violated the Torah?
In a word, no. These examples come in two kinds. The first kind involves debates concerning Jesus' behavior. Jesus' opponents, usually identified as scribes and Pharisees, do accuse Jesus of violating the law. But in every case Jesus defends himself. He does not say, "The Torah is no longer valid." Instead, he offers his own interpretation of the law that conflicts with the interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. Thus, Jesus says, it's okay to save life on the Sabbath, it's okay to glean grain when one is hungry and away from home, it's okay to eat with unwashed hands.
This first set of debates portrays Jesus very much as a law-observant Jew. No rigid orthodoxy characterized Jewish practice and belief in Jesus' day. Like other Jews, he debates the Torah's proper interpretation. But he does not transgress it.
The second set of examples involves touching people who are considered to be unclean. We'll leave aside our questions concerning the specific malady that afflicts the woman with a flow of blood (Mark 5:25-34; Matthew 9:20-22). And we can set aside technicalities the Torah's teaching on lepers. For the Gospels, the point is that Jesus cleanses people of their defilements. Notice that in none of those stories do any of Jesus' opponents complain about his contact with people who are unclean as they complain in other cases. Like bleach, Jesus cleanses other people; he does not become contaminated by them.
We also note Jesus' conflicts with the Jerusalem temple and the folks who run it. Jesus clearly has some harsh words for the temple: does that not represent a violation of the law? Well, not exactly. Other observant Jews harshly criticized the temple authorities and awaited the temple's judgment. Our most prominent example would be the Qumran community that produced and preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls. No scholar would accuse these people of neglecting the Torah even though their conflict with the Jerusalem priest was extremely harsh. Indeed, some of the biblical prophets also weigh in against the temple. Critiquing the temple and its priests does not amount to violating the Torah. Remarkably, Acts insists that Jesus' followers continued to worship in the temple after his death -- and never suggests that they ceased doing so.
Only once does a Gospel author directly suggest that Jesus violates the law. In the debate concerning hand washing, Jesus asserts that what goes into a person cannot defile that person; instead, one is defiled by the speech and behavior that comes forth from within. When Jesus finishes speaking, the author of Mark says he was "cleansing all foods" (7:19). (Many translations render this, "Thus he declared all foods clean.")
One can scarcely imagine how an observant Jew of Jesus' day would "cleanse all foods." If Jesus really did declare all foods clean, then he would have violated one of the distinguishing markers for ancient Jewish identity -- and open himself to the charge that he had violated the law.
However, only Mark includes this comment. Matthew's Gospel tells precisely the same story, often word for word, but Matthew omits entirely the bit about cleansing all foods (Matthew 15:1-20).
It seems we have a conflict. Matthew, by all accounts, speaks on behalf of Torah-observant Jewish Christianity. Many Christians are unaware that such Christianity existed, but Matthew likely stands with the epistle of James, Hebrews and Revelation as examples of this stream of ancient Jesus devotion. And Matthew's Jesus is decidedly Torah-observant: "Don't even think that I've come to abolish the law and the prophets -- I have come not to abolish but to fulfill," pronounces Matthew's Jesus (5:17). Indeed, Matthew's Jesus instructs his disciples to do just as the scribes and Pharisees teach -- but not to emulate their behavior (23:2-3).
Meanwhile, Mark seems to emerge from Christian circles that included Gentiles as well as Jews -- a movement that welcomed Gentiles without requiring them to circumcise their men, observe Jewish dietary practices, or keep the Sabbath.
On the matter of Jesus and the Torah, it appears that Matthew -- and not Mark -- got Jesus right. And scholars have firm reasons for their confidence in this judgment. Not long after Jesus' death non-Jews -- or "Gentiles" -- joined the movement. Paul and other evangelists insisted that Gentiles who had received the Holy Spirit should be allowed into the movement without converting to Judaism or observing the Torah.
Eventually Paul and his colleagues won out. However, the debate reveals how things stood. Had Jesus habitually violated the Torah, or had Jesus instructed his disciples that it was okay to do so, no one would have objected to the Gentiles' Torah-free conversion. But Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew. So were Peter, James and Mary Magdalene -- so were all his followers. The books of Acts and Galatians agree that Peter and his colleagues needed some firm convincing to welcome Gentiles without requiring their conversion to Judaism (Acts 10:1-48; 15:1-21; Galatians 2:1-14). The need for debate and deliberation concerning the Gentiles' conversion reveals that Jesus had not prepared his followers for that question. Jesus almost certainly observed the law, as did his earliest followers.
Follow Greg Carey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregC666
Rev. David Lewicki: Acts 10: 44-48: Holy Calamity
Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why Don't Jews Believe In Jesus | The difference between Judaism ...
Should Christians be "Torah Observant"?
Jesus Christ in the Torah (The Books of Moses) - YouTube
Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus, why Jews reject Jesus,why the ...
The fact is, there is a dramatic difference, a huge change, in the gap between the Old Testament god, between Judaism - and Christianity.
In particular? Christianity amounts to a "Hellenization" or Greco-Romanization, of Judaism.
Specifically as it turns out, Jesus was bending/breaking Old Testemant laws, to accomodate the beliefs of Gentiles, non-jews. By for example, allowing the preparing and eating of food on the Sabbath for example.
And so? It is apologetically covering things up - or in Biblical language, "whitewashing" things - to fail to frankly say that yes, indeed, Jesus WAS violating/changing Torah, Old Testament law.
The law against working on a Sabbath? It's not in the New Testament; it's in the Old Testament, and the Torah. Where God 1) in the Ten Commandements, tells us not to work on the Sabbath; while next in Numbers and Exodus 16 and so forth, 2) it is stipulated that this includes gathering, baking food. And indeed, 3) even gathering sticks of wood (for cooking?) is specifically, punished by Death.
Some might say next, that the New Testament, Jesus, were authorized to simply break - or even change - this and other laws of God; that they have the authority to establish a "new covenant," a new set of laws from God.
And yet, that seems questionable.
To me, these particular verses show the extent of God's love for Israel, the first-born of his children through Abaraham, putting them first, continuing to seek their return to God's love by abandoning the encrustations to the Ten Commandments of not living by the spirit but the letter of law given to Moses. It was only after Jesus' death, Resurrection, Ascension and sending down the Holy Spirit at Penetecost, converts Saul to carry His Father's love to ALL His Children - the Gentiles. But always the Children of the Promise to Abraham First and Foremost.
I suggest It's very useful to see latter-day Christianity - but also I'd submit, even Jesus himself - not as purely Jewish; but as "Hellenized" Judaism. That is, as a combination of Jewish with Greco-Roman influences.;
Jerusalem in the time of Jesus had been part of the Roman Empire since c. 64 BC; it was run by a Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and was occupied by Roman soliders. In this era, there would have been many avenues of Greco-Roman cultural influence on the Jews themselves. Though the Torah/Old Testament resisted other cultures, no doubt many Jews and Samaritans especially, as they worked with and for Romans, Greeks, were influenced by foreign culture. In effect, many Jews - like Herod, Philo - were "Hellenized" as we say.
Currently, many scholars agree with parts of this. To be sure, many like to see the original Jesus as having been, most likely, rather purelyJewish; while they see any positive statements in favor of "Romans," and "Greeks" in the New Testament, as being a later addition to Jesus and his times.
But in either case? The "Jesus" that many of us are coming to see today, the"Jesus" that we came to see in the New Testament, was very much a product not only of Judaism, but was a product of Greco-Roman culture too.
Christianity I suggest is "Hellenized Judaism." That is, it is Greek and Roman-influenced Judaism.
Christianity's holidays and ceremonies and iconography are incredibly close to Roman/Hellenistic paganism. (look nothing like Jewish culture)
Christianity's "New Testament", is largely Pro-Roman. (Jews fiercely opposed Roman rule)
Christianity's "New Testament" makes villains of the Jews, from the being the under dog surviviors in the Torah.
Christianity's "New Testament" The Jew Saul, who is now the *roman citizen re-named Paul is reluctantly arrested by the Romans by call from a jewish mob claiming he's preaching against following Moses' law.
Once you read history, once you read the bible and the torah and look at the constructs of them, it's very difficult not to see that Christianity was fabricated by the Romans as a way to assimilate the Jews and their culture to Roman culture and rule. The romans did this with just about EVERY northern european culture as well, which is why those traditions merged into Christianity.
The Roman, as they did in just about every single area they conquered did what? They assimilated every culture to Roman pagan culture.
Isn't it interesting that Christianity, which was a sect of JUDAISM, somehow looks nothing like jewish culture, all Christian holidays are completely pagan derived.
Does anyone every wonder why Gods chosen people, the jews in the torah, the people and culture God holds most dear throughout the Torah, somehow become the villains in the NT. How the Jews who were fiercely opposed to Roman rule and authority are introduced to the NT, which is completely PRO-Roman. Or why the NT isn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek?
How and why did the Jews become the villains in their own story, and the Romans just the reluctant participants?
Because the Romans were anti-semetic, when we read about the persecution of the Christians, we are not talking about christians of today. the Christians that were being persecuted - were JEWS.
Non-jewish Christianity didn't begin until Constantine had his vision and start force converting and force baptizing people.
Our author here insists that Jesus was a loyal Jew; or at least one who did not "intentionally" disobey God and the Old Testament. But it now seems clear, I would say here and now, that Jesus himself actually deliberately disobeyed/finessed the Torah, the Old Testament. Insofar as we can presently reconstruct Jesus himself from the Bible, and from History, and deduce the Historical Jesus (HJ), it seems clear to me that Jesus himself often claimed to be following God (while others claimed that he WAS God); but over and over, Jesus introduced one argument after another, that attempted to "twist" and bend the Old Testament, and what Paul would call its "law"s.
After Jesus died, followers claimed that Jesus could disobey, even re-define, the laws of God. Many claimed that since Jesus himself WAS God, Jesus was therefore authorized to simply disobey the Bible. Among other things, it was suggested by Paul, that specifically Jesus' new "spirituality," the rule of "faith" and "grace" - or as Jesus himself is said to have said, the "spirit," the "wind" - was good enough, to make him God, himself. And to give Jesus the authority to finesse/change/disobey, the Torah, the Old Testament.
In any case as it turns out indeed, not just Paul, but finally Jesus himself, the words attributed to him, often turned against the laws of God.
Hebews 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Having abolished in his flesh the " enmity," even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. Eph. 2:15
The more one can grasp the depth of this message the more readily the extension of respect for another .. which far exceeds laws of any kind.
It wasn't the only time the Jews tried to arrest, stone, or kill Jesus; many times they came after him, but he escaped.
While indeed, it was at the Jew's bidding, their complaint to the Romans, that the Romans - along with Jews showing them the way - finally caught up with Jesus, and arrested him.
WHile in those days, many say, only the Romans had authority to execute; Jews had to appeal to Rome to get jesus executed. Though the Roman authorities often found no fault in Jesus.
It is clear that if Jesus was crucified in part by the Roman authority, rather than stoned directly by the Jews, it wasn't because the Jews were not a major player in having Jesus killed; they were there all the time, as the main instigators.
Did the Hussites and Cathars really differ in their faith or were they different interpretations of the Christian doctrine?
You would not say that either was not Christian.
So what see finally, is not entirel positive. We see Jesus only marginally "following" core Old Testament traditions. While indeed, not being entirely Jewish here either; but bending the rules in a Gentile direction (as we ourselves have noted in our earlier recent comments on Dr. Jame's McGrath's blog).
While then too finally? Finally the whole experience of seeing all this is so disheartening? That after having worked through/seen all this? It would seem to many of us that a Christian couldn't be blamed for ... deciding to simply walk away from all of that stuff. One heaven-shattering "day." To put it all conventional religion behind. And move on to another entirely new, better view of God and life. One beyond the perpetual invocation of deadly bluffs, barely repaired by sophistical backtracking.
And it is 2) not much better - and in some ways worse - when we see Jesus himself resorting to rather legalistic arguments to justify himself. Example? It is shocking to see Jesus justifying breaking the law against gathering food or eating on a Sabbath, by saying it's OK - because David did it too (Mark 2.25).
Most of us are raised with the idea that the Rules are the rules; God's rules especially. And though some of us eventually see problems, in the rules themselves, and seek some flexibility? Still, when we see Jesus himself behaving and reasoning rather like a 2-year old to get the rules relaxed? Jesus telling us that changing/disobeying God's laws is OK because "Billy did it first"; or "He did it too"? We are greatful for Jesus relaxing some rules. But we can't unreservedly admire the exact (midrashic-seeming) arguments by which that was achieved.
Like "David did it first." Or "Billy did it too."
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath."
Mat 12:3 He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
Mat 12:4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? "
Here, Jesus defended his practice of breaking one of the major laws of the Torah, of God, of the Old Testament ... with a "David did it first" argument.
Mat 12:5 Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?
:
,
Oh, and among Jesus Jewish followers that were less than assiduous in following the Law was Peter, sometimes:
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? ..."
The Commandments were placed 'inside' the ark of the covenant (Ex.25:21); the sacrificial law was not given at Mt. Sinai (Jer.7:22), was not place inside the ark, but placed 'in the side of the ark' (Deut.31:26).
The 9th chapter of Hebrews details the ineffective of the sacrificial law, Christ doing what it could not do: one sacrifice for all that repent; making the sacrifice of bulls and goats no longer necessary: done away with by Christ offering himself once for the sins of many (Heb.9:28).
As for the commandments Jesus said: "if you love me, keep my commandments" (Jn.14:15), and cautioned against breaking the commandments and teaching others to break the commandments (Matt.5:19).
"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.