The Law: Was it so Hard

[liamconnor]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

How then, do you reconcile all that with Jesus own admonition that

"if you would enter life, keep the commandments".

( Mt 19.17)

The subject was the inheritance of eternal life.

Nothing about believing in any atoning merits of "believing in" Jesus' impending martyrdom. Rather just "keep the commandments".

Seems Jesus saw equivlency between eternal life, to the life and deliverance spoken of in his own Hebrew Bible. Both were "salvation".

The question was what good thing must one do to inherit eternal life. Yeshua answers by saying, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments." That frames the question properly. Eternal life is not a commodity, it is a process. If one does all of the commandments, one does not need salvation. Yeshua did not need salvation, because he did all of the commandments. If one enters life and continues in that life, that one also has no need for salvation. It is not that it is difficult to keep the commandments, it is just that it is easy to not keep them.

Then there's the parable from Luke about the Rich Man and Lazarus.

"if they do not listen to Moses (Law) and the Prophets, neither would they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead"

Ironic, considering who's telling the parable.

So here too, Jesus is teaching that keeping the Law will lead to eternal life. He never spoke against the Law, or diminished it's importance by teaching that it's utility was only for the purpose of making us aware of our sinfulness, (as Paul does). Rather, Jesus called people to keep the Law from the heart. To observe the Spirit of the Law, not just the letter.

The keeping of HaTorah is the beginning of eternal life. Paul doesn't say it is ONLY for the purpose of making us aware. He says, it is a guardian that leads us to HaMeshiach. One of the things a guardian does is point out one's faults, it also directs us along the path. However, it does not provide the will, that we receive by grace through faith from Adonai.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Yes, no one keeps it perfectly, but when we deviate, there's always repentance, and trust in the mercy of the Father., Jesus taught the Father's mercy with no mention of blood in the Lord's Prayer, the Parables and the Beattitudes.

Seems Jesus was more of an enlightened Jew than he was a Pauline Christian. In this, he was very much in the tradition of such prophets as Micah, (6.6-8) and others. And like all of his predecessors, Jesus called his people to repentance, and a deeper observance of the Torah.

See also, Luke 10.25.[/quote]

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

How then, do you reconcile all that with Jesus own admonition that

"if you would enter life, keep the commandments".

( Mt 19.17)

The subject was the inheritance of eternal life.

Nothing about believing in any atoning merits of "believing in" Jesus' impending martyrdom. Rather just "keep the commandments".

Seems Jesus saw equivlency between eternal life, to the life and deliverance spoken of in his own Hebrew Bible. Both were "salvation".

The question was what good thing must one do to inherit eternal life. Yeshua answers by saying, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments." That frames the question properly. Eternal life is not a commodity, it is a process. If one does all of the commandments, one does not need salvation. Yeshua did not need salvation, because he did all of the commandments. If one enters life and continues in that life, that one also has no need for salvation. It is not that it is difficult to keep the commandments, it is just that it is easy to not keep them.

Then there's the parable from Luke about the Rich Man and Lazarus.

"if they do not listen to Moses (Law) and the Prophets, neither would they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead"

Ironic, considering who's telling the parable.

So here too, Jesus is teaching that keeping the Law will lead to eternal life. He never spoke against the Law, or diminished it's importance by teaching that it's utility was only for the purpose of making us aware of our sinfulness, (as Paul does). Rather, Jesus called people to keep the Law from the heart. To observe the Spirit of the Law, not just the letter.

The keeping of HaTorah is the beginning of eternal life. Paul doesn't say it is ONLY for the purpose of making us aware. He says, it is a guardian that leads us to HaMeshiach. One of the things a guardian does is point out one's faults, but it also directs us along the path. However, it does not provide the will, that we receive by grace through faith from Adonai.

Yes, no one keeps it perfectly, but when we deviate, there's always repentance, and trust in the mercy of the Father., Jesus taught the Father's mercy with no mention of blood in the Lord's Prayer, the Parables and the Beattitudes.

Seems Jesus was more of an enlightened Jew than he was a Pauline Christian. In this, he was very much in the tradition of such prophets as Micah, (6.6-8) and others. And like all of his predecessors, Jesus called his people to repentance, and a deeper observance of the Torah.

The purpose of the shedding of blood is not a matter of ghoulish entertainment, but an object lesson representing a commitment to pouring out of one's life as a martyr, devoted unto death. It is not invented by Paul, but is referred to by him as a principle that is established by HaTorah. The point being made by Micah and the rest of the prophets is that the symbol is of no use if it is seen as an end unto itself. It is the principle of devotion that is important. That is exactly what the author of the letter to the diaspora is saying when he notes, (Heb. 9:22) "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." He is taking the Temple rituals and showing how Yeshua lived out what they represented not in just dying, but in being a living sacrifice unto death. Paul also expresses this to the believers in Rome saying, (Rom. 12:1) "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of Elohim, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto Elohim, which is your reasonable service."

In Luke 10:25 the questioner again treats eternal life as a commodity, speaking of it as an inheritance. Here again, Yeshua turns it back to something that one lives out, not something that one possesses. Paul also, refers to this when he says, (Phil. 2:6-8) "Who, being in very nature Elohim, did not consider equality with Elohim something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient (unto) death— even death on a cross!"

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

Yes, salvation is a process, not a commodity. Jesus contrasts the way of life verses the way of sin and death and describes the contrasting ways as paths. The straight and narrow, vs the broad and easy. The Laws of God are the signposts along the way. One embraces the Commandments as a way of life, a path, the Halachah. The way of life that leads to (eternal) Life.

Also, if there is "no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood", why then did Jesus preach the forgiveness of sin with no mention of the need for the shedding of blood? In these important instances:

-The Lord's prayer
-The Beattitudes
-The Parables, especially the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and the Parable of the Phraisee and the Publican.

Why did Jesus and the Prophet Hosea say "I desire mercy, not sacrifice". Notice the line is not "I desire mercy as well as sacrifice" Or "in additon to" sacrifice, or "and" sacrifice.

And why did John perform "baptism's of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" without sending his disciples to the Temple? There was no bloodshed at the River.

Yes, of course Jesus considered a sacrificial life important. But a cornerstone of his ministry was to (as 1213 often points out) to proclaim and declare the Father's forgiveness. He did this in life, in his ministry on earth, before he seems to have been aware of his impending crucifixion.

Could it be there was a process of Spiritual evolution going on here? That the ancient Hebrews were outgrowing the need to worship God (and show their devotion) by means of blood sacrifice? That the Prophets, including the Baptizer, and Jesus were spearheading this awakening? That the Father never desired, but only tolerated blood sacrifice as transitional, from pagan tinged practice, to more enlightened worship of God?

Independent of Jesus and John, this seems to be what the sage Maimonides had taught.

Or do you think Jews, who no longer practice blood sacrifice, (nor accept Jesus as a sin offering) are unforgiven and their devotion (without the shedding of blood) is in vain?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 30 by Wootah]

In the passage from Luke, Jesus is not making the point that we cannot keep the Law, which he encapsulates as love of God and neighbor. He is making the point that our love of neighbor, like God's love for us, should be expansive. To include people from outside of our tribe, like Jews should see that Samaritans are also capable of doing the will of God, and are covered by His love. And that Austailians should consider us Americans as neighbors too.

And could it be that Jesus was teaching that folks who practice other religions are also expriencing and practicing the love of God and neighbor??

Sammaritans practiced their love of God outside of the Jewish Temple. That was, in effect, a "different" religion. Gerizim instead of Zion.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 29 by dakoski]

Who said anything about "our own merits"? Of course the mercy of God is still required. And some of us trust in His merciful nature, and His righteousness even if we don't accept Pauline theology, or Paul's odd (unique) view of the Law. Instead of being merely for the purpose of "demonstrating our need for a Savior" the Law is celebrated time and time again in the Hebrew Bibe as life giving, life nurturing and not as death bringing.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

"The keeping of HaTorah is the beginning of eternal life. Paul doesn't say it is ONLY for the purpose of making us aware. He says, it is a guardian that leads us to HaMeshiach. One of the things a guardian does is point out one's faults, but it also directs us along the path. However, it does not provide the will, that we receive by grace through faith from Adonai."

On these Discuss Christianity boards I find names foreign to Christians splashed around and i do not know who they are referring to. They are not in any Bibles I read.

Here we have Ha Torah, Ha Meshiach, Adonai; is Ha Torah the OT, and who is Ha Meshiach and who is Adonai?

On another thread I read it in one sentence - 'Torah and his own Hebrew Bible'; is it Torah Jewish Old Testament or books of Moses or Talmud also called Torah.
Hebrew Bible I assume to mean the whole Old Testament.

Someone quoted Romans 12:1 using the name Elohim which is foreign to Christian New Testament. Elohim belongs in OT.
I don't know what HALACHAH means.

I feel a new Thread should be started for people who want to mix these words and meanings.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by Monta]

There is a group of Christians that believe it is more appropriate to mix English with transliterated Hebrew words and names when it comes to the bible. The argument is that mixing languages is more accurate because this renders the word closer to the source language (Hebrew) although I personally think its just more confusing; especially when the word or name has a widely recognizable English equivalent.

I don't think that there is any biblical evidence Jesus mixed the commonly spoken Aramaic with ancient Hebrew, nor outside of the Divine name, that the bible writers mixed Greek with Hebrew. (I'm not sure if those that tend to mix English with Hebrew accept the 'New Testament' ). I think its noteworthy that the gospel writer Mark, evidently writing for a foreign readership, took the time to explain specific Hebrew terms when he used them.

is it Torah Jewish Old Testament or books of Moses or Talmud also called Torah. Hebrew Bible I assume to mean the whole Old Testament

That said, I think its reasonable to assume most people engaging in debate on the subject of "The Law" would be familiar with the terms above; and thanks to google we all can be.



JW

[bluethread]

Also, if there is "no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood", why then did Jesus preach the forgiveness of sin with no mention of the need for the shedding of blood? In these important instances:

-The Lord's prayer
-The Beattitudes
-The Parables, especially the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and the Parable of the Phraisee and the Publican.

That is because author of the letter to the diaspora was explaining proper theology using the elements of the Temple. It makes the transition from ritual to idiom. The "shedding of blood" is idiomatic of the sacrifice, and the sacrifice is emblematic of personal sacrifice and the Covenant relationship.

Why did Jesus and the Prophet Hosea say "I desire mercy, not sacrifice". Notice the line is not "I desire mercy as well as sacrifice" Or "in additon to" sacrifice, or "and" sacrifice.

The physical sacrifice is a means to an end. The purpose, which was from the beginning, was merciful halachah(lifestyle). The sacrifices were instituted for two reasons. First, as part of the covenant ritual of the times. That is the one who breaks the covenant becomes like the sacrifice. Second, as a symbolic reminder of that fact in three forms: the burnt offering, a direct reminder; the sin offering, a specific reminder; and the fellowship offering, a reminder as a community. This literal "shedding of blood" was necessary to impress upon us the importance of the figurative "shedding of blood" for one another, in our lives as a community. When the literal became the focus rather than the reminder, it lost it's value. Therefore, Adonai said, (Is. 1:1) “The multitude of YOUR sacrifices— what are they to me?� It was better that they have no literal sacrifices, if they were just going to be seen as a means of excusing themselves from the figurative sacrifices in their lives.

Sorry I didn't mean to post it yet. I'll get to the rest later.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

"The keeping of HaTorah is the beginning of eternal life. Paul doesn't say it is ONLY for the purpose of making us aware. He says, it is a guardian that leads us to HaMeshiach. One of the things a guardian does is point out one's faults, but it also directs us along the path. However, it does not provide the will, that we receive by grace through faith from Adonai."

On these Discuss Christianity boards I find names foreign to Christians splashed around and i do not know who they are referring to. They are not in any Bibles I read.

Here we have Ha Torah, Ha Meshiach, Adonai; is Ha Torah the OT, and who is Ha Meshiach and who is Adonai?

I think most understand or look it up. Ha' prefix is high, ie, heavenly. The Torah is the books of Moses. The Tanakh is the old testament in chronological order as it was written. Messiah and Lord are the last, but I think thats easily determined.

I think the reason people are looking into the original writings is they notice slight deviations and major ones in the King James. And if you read the Tanakh and pay attention to the footnotes and compare language with the OT, there are some differences.

To the question at hand, no, the law was not too hard. (Decalogue) Isreal complicated it for sure, making it harder. If they would have just followed God's advice(order) as in the Holy Days, things would have remained easier. (referring to the Lord saying,"Do not add to or take away from")

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

"The keeping of HaTorah is the beginning of eternal life. Paul doesn't say it is ONLY for the purpose of making us aware. He says, it is a guardian that leads us to HaMeshiach. One of the things a guardian does is point out one's faults, but it also directs us along the path. However, it does not provide the will, that we receive by grace through faith from Adonai."

On these Discuss Christianity boards I find names foreign to Christians splashed around and i do not know who they are referring to. They are not in any Bibles I read.

Here we have Ha Torah, Ha Meshiach, Adonai; is Ha Torah the OT, and who is Ha Meshiach and who is Adonai?

On another thread I read it in one sentence - 'Torah and his own Hebrew Bible'; is it Torah Jewish Old Testament or books of Moses or Talmud also called Torah.
Hebrew Bible I assume to mean the whole Old Testament.

Someone quoted Romans 12:1 using the name Elohim which is foreign to Christian New Testament. Elohim belongs in OT.
I don't know what HALACHAH means.

I feel a new Thread should be started for people who want to mix these words and meanings.

This may help, and I'm sure Bluethread can fill in any gaps.

Torah,...most specifically, the first five books of Moses. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Sometimes used in a more general sense to refer to the whole Hebrew Bible. "Ha" means "the" in Hebrew. "Torah", though, does not include the Talmud, which is commentary.

Hebrew Bible... What Christians call the "Old Testament". Whereas the New Testament was written in Greek, the "Old" Testament was written in Hebrew.

Elohim.. literally, "gods" plural. Ironic that Jews use the term for their singular God. Some say it's the plural of majesty, like the royal "we". Or it could be a holdover from the polytheistic past of the ancient Hebrews.

HaMashiach..The Messiah.

Halachah..The walk, the way of life. The path of the Commandments.

Adonai..Literally, "My LORD". The term is often used as a stand-in pronunciation instead of using the actual name of God, (YHVH, Yahweh, Yahovah, or Jehovah) which most Jews consider too sacred to pronounce.

HaShem.."The Name". THE name meaning the name of God, YHVH. (See above) which is used more than any other name in the Hebrew Bible, almost 7000 times.

Mitzvot, the plural of Mitzvah... Performance of a Commandment, or a good deed.

And there are terms which our friend Bluethread uses which I can usually only glean from the context. Mostly Hebrew versions of Bible names that we are all familiar with.

Did I miss anything BT?