Why didnt Jesus like the pharisees?

[Wootah]

If the law is enough why didnt Jesus like the pharisees?

Why didnt jesus tell the young man, 'well done for following the law i'll see you in heaven'?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 37 by Overcomer]

Excellent post Overcomer!

I agree, I don't think Jesus was adding to the law at all. Jesus focused on what was essential in it. His life and sacrifice did indeed fulfill the law.

The Pharisees had developed a system of 613 laws, 365 negative commands and 248 positive laws. By the time Christ came it had produced a heartless, cold, and arrogant brand of righteousness. As such, it contained at least ten tragic flaws. l

Indeed, for example they said that a man could not suck vinger through his teeth on a Sabbath, if he had a sore tooth because that could heal it and healing was "work". That if a wall fell on a person they could clear away enough of the debris to see if he was dead, if he was you had to leave the body there until after the Sabbath.

Jesus absolutely hated the heartlessness of the Scribes and the Pharisees and they hated him right back for undermining their traditions.



JW

[dio9]

[Replying to Overcomer]

Yes I'm saying the Jewish Christian author of put those words into Jesus' mouth . Its a polemic series of sayings used by the author in his fight with the pharisees in the broader early Christian struggle with the Jews.

[shnarkle]

If the law is enough why didnt Jesus like the pharisees?

Because the Pharisees went beyond the law (meaning the written law of Moses); the chose to add numerous burdensome oral traditions. Theses traditions violated the principles upon which the written law was based and made the lives of ordinary working people difficult.

JW

Jesus also went beyond the law. He was quite clear when asked by the rich young ruler, and his recommendation was an explicitly articulated prerequisite for becoming one of his followers. His requirement was much easier to process than all the numerous traditions presented by the Pharisees, but it made it all the more easy to reject immediately as is evident by the fact that there are practically no professing Christians who are willing to fulfill this prerequisite, i.e "sell all your possessions..give the proceeeds to the poor, etc."

Most would make the same argument you just did with regard to it making the lives of ordinary people difficult. Of course this is a matter of faith in Christ's teaching. As Chesterton pointed out, Christians have found his teachings to be too difficult and left them untried.

[shnarkle]

Jesus said nothing about which day of the week to worship.

He led by example, and he kept the Sabbath as was his custom. He also taught this:

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.

This is a figure of speech which indicates that they will not be anywhere near the kingdom. There is no least commandment, but evidently some feel the fourth qualifies not only as the least, but worthy of being broken and teaching others to break it. Go figure.

Jesus said nothing about not eating meat on Friday.

True, but he did talk about fasting, and fasting from meat is still a type of fasting. Paul also pointed out that as long as one was doing it for God it was okay with him.

Jesus said nothing about forbidding marriage for ministers, passing collection plates during services, charging for conducting religious weddings, funderals or bible instruction.

Right, he said that instead of going into some building, worship would be in "spirit and truth". He said to place your trust in God's providence rather than money. It's no accident that he juxtaposed money with God rather than Satan. He knows who we really worship and depend upon.

He did not wear special garb.

He dressed like an observant Jew. He didn't wear the clothes of pagan Rome.

Authorize anyone to mediate prayer except himself,

He told his disciples to leave those they weren't familiar with alone because if they weren't against them,they were with them.

tell his followers to celebrate his birth.

Paul doesn't even mention his birth, but Matthew and Luke do. Not only do they mention it, they give plenty of evidence to let the readers know when he was born.

Neither did he burden his followers to isolate themselves either in remote locations

He didn't characterize it as a burden, but he actually did suggest that they isolate themselves when they prayed.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret;

I don't know any denomintations that follow that format other than Quakers. All the mainstream denomintations love to show off.

[shnarkle]

Tcg wrote:

He never disagreed with the law, but simply added to it as was the case with the "rich young ruler" which you referred to. His answer wasn't that the law was invalid, but that you have to do even more.

His response was basically, sure you've kept the law, but I require more works than that. You need to give everything.

It may look like that on the surface, but that isn't true. Jesus put it this way:

Matthew 5:17-20:"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."

The question is – what did Jesus mean when he said he fulfilled the Law?

He meant that he fulfilled the requirements of the Law. The Law pointed out sin, but it did nothing to help anybody keep it. No human being could fulfill all of its requirements perfectly and that's what it would take to please God.

But Jesus could keep them all perfectly because he was sin-free and he was sin-free because he was God Incarnate.

Animal sacrifices for sin were temporary. But Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, made once and for all. In Hebrews, we read the following:

Hebrews 10:10: And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:12:But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God . . . .

Hebrews 10:14: For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Paul put it this way in Rom. 8:4: For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Bottom line: Jesus didn't add to the Law. He fulfilled it on our behalf.

The problem with the rich young ruler lay in the fact that his money meant more to him than following Jesus. That's what Jesus was pointing out.

Jesus was able to keep the law because he was given the power to by God. He pointed out that he only did what he saw the father doing and only said what was given to him by his father. This is no different than what the Mosaic law states.

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

Ezekiel and Jeremiah both point out that this is what happens when God puts a new heart into his new creation, and the reason is so that they will keep his commandments.

Jesus' suggestion to sell everything isn't just leveled at the rich young ruler. He points out that no one can be his follower until they have first sold all their possessions and given the proceeds to the poor.

for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth...
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment...O ye of little faith? 29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth....And they all with one consent began to make excuse...whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he CANNOT be my disciple." - Luke 12:15,22;28-33;14:18,33

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 37 by Overcomer]
The problem here is that there's only one gospel message and God doesn't have one set of rules for the Jew and one for the Gentile. The covenant isn't done away with, just how it is administered. As Paul points out "faith establishes the law". Nothing is being done away with except the sacrificial system for dealing with the transgression of the law. The system of dealing with transgressions of the law is not the law that is to be kept in one's heart.

The problem with your analysis is in overlooking a fundamental distinction within the Mosaic law, namely that if you sin intentionally Christ's sacrifice will not cover you. This isn't a problem for those who are born again as they are no longer walking after the lusts of the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Only unintentional sin was remedied by sacrifice, and it is no accident that he cries this fact out right from the cross, e.g. "Father forgive them for they know NOT what they do"

Every single passage that deals with the law being done away with is referring to the sacrificial system or at the very least the law that is meant to deal with transgressions of the law rather than the law itself. All other references are dealing with the issue of justification/self righteousness.

There can be no sin in you if you are in Christ as there is no sin in Christ.

[shnarkle]

It occurred to me that it might be helpful if we talked about what happened to people when they died prior to Christ's death and resurrection. They went to Sheol, a place that is referred to as Hades in the New Testament. Sheol consisted of two parts -- Abraham's Bosom, which was a place of comfort for followers of God, and hell, where non-believers ended up. That's where the story of Lazarus and the rich man takes place -- in Sheol.

The way one got to Abraham's Bosom prior to Christ's death and resurrection was through faith and obedience and sacrifices to the Lord. When Abraham talks about the Law and the Prophets to the rich man, he is talking about what one had to do in life to ensure entry into Abraham's Bosom AT THAT TIME.

Christ emptied Abraham's Bosom upon his death and resurrection. And now his followers go to heaven to be with him upon death. They no longer go to Abraham's Bosom. As Paul put it, "to die is to be with Jesus" (2 Corinthians 5:6–9). Unbelievers still go to the torment side of Hades and will remain there until Christ's second coming and the final judgment.

This means that, as I explained in my previous post, obedience, faith, and sacrifices aren't going to get a person into heaven. Only acceptance of Christ's gift of salvation will do that.

Sheol means "the grave", and is translated as Hades in the Greek. It's where everyone goes when they die. This idea of Abraham's bosom goes along with "under the throne of judgment" and Paradise as the three options one had when they died. These ideas were all brought by the Pharisees from the Babylonian captivity. If one looks at the broader context one should note that Jesus is spotlighting the hypocrisy and false doctrines of the Pharisees. The story of Lazarus and the rich man is a glaring condemnation of their selfish hoarding of the oracls of God which were supposed to be spread out as a shining light upon a hill to all the nations. Israel was to be God's instrument to help the nations. It is no coincidence that Lazarus means "whom God helps". The rich man is the personification of these elders who are contemptuous of Jesus.

The story has nothing to do with where one goes after they die. Jesus wouldn't be teaching these doctrines as they were commonly known and taught by the Pharisees.

The fact that he points out that if they aren't ready to learn what the Mosaic law says, a resurrection will be of no benefit to them should be troubling to anyone who thinks of themselves as a Christian.

[JehovahsWitness]

If the law is enough why didnt Jesus like the pharisees?

Because the Pharisees went beyond the law (meaning the written law of Moses); the chose to add numerous burdensome oral traditions. Theses traditions violated the principles upon which the written law was based and made the lives of ordinary working people difficult.

JW

Jesus also went beyond the law. He was quite clear when asked by the rich young ruler, and his recommendation was an explicitly articulated prerequisite for becoming one of his followers.

• When I say "went beyond the law" I meant adding to the Law of Moses and/or putting an interpretation of the written law which contradicted either its explicit content or the spirit (principles) of said law.

Given above no, I don't agree that Jesus "went beyond the law". He honored both the spirit and the letter of the written law, never contradicting it or oppositing its content or principles.

He was quite clear when asked by the rich young ruler, and his recommendation was an explicitly articulated prerequisite for becoming one of his followers.

Yes but what that that got to do with the content of the law? He wasn't saying that becoming one of his disciples was to be added to the Mosaic law, neither was is a "modification" of any law that existed. Being a disciple of Jesus, just as being a disciple of John the Baptizer, was entirely voluntary and not to be considered adding an additional law to the 613 existing laws. In short Jesus wasn't creating a 614th law, he was addressing the question of what this man needed to do to become one of his disciples (rather than what to do to be a law abiding Jew). That said, becoming a disciples did not violate any explicit command nor did it violate any principle of the Mosaic law.

So what I'm saying is when I say "to go beyond the law" I wasn't meaning that Jesus didn't give his disciples any "new" commandments but rather that Jesus did not seek to modify, add or violate the existing law code. He didn't misinterpret the law or tell anyone to break them. He gave them commands for an entirely new system of worship (see John 4:24)


JW

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 48 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm going to have to agree with you. However, when Jesus says that he gives them a new commandment, e.g. love others as I have loved you" he is abrogating "love your neighbor as yourself'. How would you characterize that? He's effectively removing one commandment and adding another one in its place, no?

He's also upholding the law which will not be done away with until heaven and earth pass away. In a sense to do away with the law is to go beyond the law, no?

[JehovahsWitness]

JOHN 13:34


A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

[Replying to post 48 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm going to have to agree with you. However, when Jesus says that he gives them a new commandment, e.g. love others as I have loved you" he is abrogating "love your neighbor as yourself'. How would you characterize that? He's effectively removing one commandment and adding another one in its place, no?

No! He didn't say "This law replaces the one in Hebrew scripture". He didn't say he was modifying the Mosaic law. He didn't send his disciples into the synagogues with a pen to cross out the words in the book of Moses and pencil in his "changes". When earlier ask which was the greatest of the Laws of Moses he quoted two. On this later occassion he explained to his disciples that he was commanding them that their love must go further than that commanded by the Law.

If a law required someone to contribute 10 dollars a year to a homeless person and your friend told you "Give him 20 like me", the friend isn't changing the law, he's saying if you want to be like me, give more than the law requires. That's real charity!

Any talk of "abrogation", "repudiation" "revokation" "overturning" of the Mosaic law ie keeping it in force but changing a part of its content, is suppositional interpretation. It cannot be concluded from the words of Jesus since he made absolutely explicit statement to that end.

ABROGATE

to repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement).
synonyms: repudiate, revoke, repeal, rescind, overturn, overrule,