Devoted more to the Scriptures than to the God of the Scriptures?

[Littlelambseativy]

OH!! let me correct myself - Jesus came to fulfill the law!!  That's what happens when I have my mind on 2 things at the same time. How wrong I was.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just for clarity -

 

There is a difference between what the Torah stated about Sabbath and what the religious teaching had done to it by then.

 

They taught the letter of the Law; Jesus showed the spirit of the Law - so to speak,

 

How many of our religious traditions and doctrines are the same? Have we left the heart of Scripture for the letter of it?

Actually, they were not teaching the letter of the law, at all; at least, not according to Jesus.   He said that they had left the law and were teaching their traditions, which had nothing to do with the letter of the law.  In fact, many of their traditions allowed them to skirt the letter of the law, such as their immoral approach to divorce.  

 

Keeping the "letter of the law" wasn't the problem.  Jesus used the letter of the law to to condemn them for violating it.

[nebula]

No, they didn't.  They were trying rest "rabbinically."   That was the problem.  The irony is that they were not keeping the Sabbath and Jesus made that point more than once.  They had missed the Sabbath altogether because they weren't resting "biblically."

 

I find it ironic that the author who appears to be criticizing people for trying too hard to be "biblcial"  is incapable of correctly framing the Bible when it comes to understanding the dynamics of the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees.  If he spent more time trying to be biblical he would not make that mistake.

 

I think rather he may have argued his point differently.

 

Consider this:

 

When I engage in debate against Replacement Theology, it is because those who stand for that doctrine would quite likely treat Jews differently (particularly more negatively than others) than if they believed that God's covenant still stands.

 

However, when it comes to the Predestination - Free-will debate, I discovered that neither theology changes how anyone acts. After everyone beats each other up verbally trying to drive home their interpretation of Scripture (for both sides have tons of Scripture to support their side and refute the other), what does it change? For example, if a person has a heart for God, would they be lax about sin because they believe in eternal security? (If they were lax, I'd be questioning if they had the Spirit in them to begin with, you know?) Does either position change how one witnesses to others?

 

 

Or consider debates on legalism. (Oh no - I said "the L word"!) Are rules to be followed for rules' sake, or for the sake of how they lead you to love God and love others?

[Guest Butero]

 

Jesus Came to Save Us from the Bible

March 5, 2014 By michaboyett

 

Following the Bible’s teachings on the Sabbath can be exhausting.

 

Seeking the freedom of scripture can lead to bondage.

 

Drawing near to the teachings of scripture can lead us further from God.

 

This is the paradox Jesus faced in the Gospels. It’s a tension that runs throughout the many stories where ordinary people, experts in the law, and religious/political leaders rejected the allegedly “heretical” teachings of Jesus in favor of their take on the Law.

 

They had an air-tight systematic theology that was supposed to keep them from error. They never thought that their greatest barrier between themselves and God would be their reading of Scripture itself.

 

<snip>

 

The short answer is that they were devoted more to the Scriptures than to the God of the Scriptures.

 

 

The author  fails to understand the pharisaical/rabbinic paradigm that was in play during the first century.   People tend to see the Pharisees as people who had a legalistic approach to the Scriptures, but that is not the case.  

 

Jesus, in the Gospels, is not criticizing the Pharisees as legalists, but as hypocrites.   Jesus' charge is not that they are following the Bible too rigidly.   His accusation is that they had forsaken the Bible altogether in defference to their man-made traditions and that they applied those traditions hypocritically. The Rabbis, by that time, had created a sytem of fence rules and those fence rules, we would call "traditions" had been granted the mantle of having equal authority to the Scriptures.   Furthermore, the Oral Law or Mishnah was the rule of law and not so much the Scriptures.

 

So the notion that modern Christians are making the same legalisitic mistakes the Pharisees made because they are sticklers for proper biblical interpretation really doesn't hold any water.   Jesus spent a good portion of the Sermon on the Mount correcting rabbinical excesses, not complaining about how strictly someone was interpreting the Bible.  The Pharisees were not obeying the Bible.   If they were, much of what Jesus had said would not have been needed to be said.

 

The author's notion that focusing on a proper interpretation of Scripture leads people away from God simply isn't true.   Perhaps it cramps some people's style and puts a wrinkle in their theology and makes them mad, but it doesn't lead them away from the Lord.  

 

The New Testament connects the knowlege of God through the Scriptures to loviing God (Eph. 5:17; Phil. 1:9; Col. 1:9, 3:10; II Pet. 1:5-6, 3:18).

 Someone once said,  "He would be strange God indeed, who is loved more by being known less."  The more are devoted to the study of the Scriptures, the more we bathe ourselves in the Word of God the more we will love God.   This because everything new that we learn about God from the Scriptures is another reason to love Him.  The Scripturs are God's self-disclosure.  He gave us the Scriptures to increase our knowledge of Him and thereby deepen our relationship with Him.

 

I’m the one asking, “Am I doing this right?” More times than not, Jesus pointed people away from questions like that.

 

Yeah, not buying that at all.   That is not at all true.

 

 

They wore themselves out trying to rest “biblically.”

 

 

No, they didn't.  They were trying rest "rabbinically."   That was the problem.  The irony is that they were not keeping the Sabbath and Jesus made that point more than once.  They had missed the Sabbath altogether because they weren't resting "biblically."

 

I find it ironic that the author who appears to be criticizing people for trying too hard to be "biblcial"  is incapable of correctly framing the Bible when it comes to understanding the dynamics of the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees.  If he spent more time trying to be biblical he would not make that mistake.

 

Shiloh, those are all excellent points.  Well said. 

[Guest Butero]

 

Just for clarity -

 

There is a difference between what the Torah stated about Sabbath and what the religious teaching had done to it by then.

 

They taught the letter of the Law; Jesus showed the spirit of the Law - so to speak,

 

How many of our religious traditions and doctrines are the same? Have we left the heart of Scripture for the letter of it?

Actually, they were not teaching the letter of the law, at all; at least, not according to Jesus.   He said that they had left the law and were teaching their traditions, which had nothing to do with the letter of the law.  In fact, many of their traditions allowed them to skirt the letter of the law, such as their immoral approach to divorce.  

 

Keeping the "letter of the law" wasn't the problem.  Jesus used the letter of the law to to condemn them for violating it.

 

  Once again Shiloh, I completely agree with you.  There is nothing more I could add to what you said. 

[EnochBethany]

Well, it is possible to be a legalist, straining at gnats, arguing theological & biblical tiddlywinks. 

 

But devotion to a person's words is devotion to the person -- so this is basically a false dichotomy.  Ps 119 is appropriate here -- my, what bibliolatry!

[Qnts2]

OH!! let me correct myself - Jesus came to fulfill the law!!  That's what happens when I have my mind on 2 things at the same time. How wrong I was.

 

Ahhh, good.

 

I was a little concerned with your initial statement, but this is dead on in my opinion. I have met Christians who claim Jesus broke the law. I've never understood their thought process.

[Qnts2]

 

Just for clarity -

 

There is a difference between what the Torah stated about Sabbath and what the religious teaching had done to it by then.

 

They taught the letter of the Law; Jesus showed the spirit of the Law - so to speak,

 

How many of our religious traditions and doctrines are the same? Have we left the heart of Scripture for the letter of it?

Actually, they were not teaching the letter of the law, at all; at least, not according to Jesus.   He said that they had left the law and were teaching their traditions, which had nothing to do with the letter of the law.  In fact, many of their traditions allowed them to skirt the letter of the law, such as their immoral approach to divorce.  

 

Keeping the "letter of the law" wasn't the problem.  Jesus used the letter of the law to to condemn them for violating it.

 

 

What Jesus objected to was the traditions which were considered obligations. But to generalize that the Pharisees were not teaching the letter of the law is incorrect and too generalized. The traditions were setup, not to allow them to skirt the letter of the law, but the main purpose was so that people would not accidently violate the letter of the law.

 

In reading Jesus position and explanation, the Pharisees actually taught the same as Jesus in many differing areas. The disagreements are what Jesus came after, but I suspect Jesus came after the Pharisees for a several reasons. 1. They were the popular teachers of that day, and held in high esteem by the people. 2. They were the closer to the truth then the other sects of Judaism. 3. Most of the Jewish people were very familiar with the teaching of the Pharisees, and practiced that teaching.   4. The Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Messiah using mainly Jesus claim to be equal to God. And taught the people to reject Jesus.    

[nebula]

In reading Jesus position and explanation, the Pharisees actually taught the same as Jesus in many differing areas. The disagreements are what Jesus came after, but I suspect Jesus came after the Pharisees for a several reasons. 1. They were the popular teachers of that day, and held in high esteem by the people. 2. They were the closer to the truth then the other sects of Judaism. 3. Most of the Jewish people were very familiar with the teaching of the Pharisees, and practiced that teaching.   4. The Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Messiah using mainly Jesus claim to be equal to God. And taught the people to reject Jesus.    

 

 

I have heard, too, that Jesus was a Pharisee.

 

The explanation has to do with Jesus being a rabbi, and to be a rabbi one had to discipled under a rabbi, and within the system one had to belong to one of the different groups (Pharisee, Sadducee, etc.).

 

Something like that.

 

But in any event, that would make sense for why Jesus' teaching were more in-line with pharisitical thought (as opposed to sadduceacal thought).

 

What do you think?

[nebula]

So guys, what do you see in error about this"

 

"I don’t see Jesus telling us to slack off in our scripture reading or to make up our own rules. Rather, he’s calling us to keep the purpose of Scripture in mind. Is our reading of Scripture leading us closer to love of God and love of neighbor? Is our reading of Scripture leading to spiritual restoration or exhaustion on the Sabbath?"