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

[Guest shiloh357]

The Pharisees studied scripture. The Mishnah was not yet written. And the Gemorah was not written, so the Talmud was not yet written.

 

The Mish-nah was in oral form and even Jesus alluded to it multiple times.  I was referencing both ancient rabbis and modern Judaism, and in that context I am correct.

 

 

At that time, the Pharisees memorized large amounts of scripture. The Jewish population in general memorized scripture.

 

The point I was making though, which you evidently miss is not that they didn't read the Scriptures.  My point is that they were not followers of the Scriptures and Jesus points out on more than one occcasion and they are even denigrated as evil men by later rabbinic authors in the Talmud itself.

 

In Judaism, there is an order of authority, with the Torah (five books of Moses) holding the highest authority. The 'ratings' come based on the method of transmission to the human writer. God spoke or dictated the Torah directly to Moses.  The Prophets and Writings were next in authority. They were given by revelation. Then the Mishnah comes after the Torah, and Prophets and Writings. At the time of Jesus, the Mishnah was said to be orally transmitted. Additional books were added in the line of authority which were written after the time of Jesus, some 1000 years later. But the Torah, and the Nach (Prophets and writings) comes next. Nothing is above these writings. In Judaism, one must study the Torah first and a person is not supposed to study the Mishnah until they have basic understanding of Torah.    

Yeah, I know all of that.   But modern Judaism isn't the Jewish religion of Jesus' day. While there is a pharisacial residue of that ancient Jewish religion in modern Judaism, it would be wrong to equate modern Judaism with the religion of Jesus' day.  They are simply not the same.

[nebula]

I have never met anyone who was devoted to the Scriptures who didn't have a vibrant relationship with God.   I don't think there is a way to be devoted to the Scriptures and yet miss God in the process.

I have actually seen this happen.

It is very easy to get lost in the intellectual pursuits of the Bible and fail to pursue the Lord Himself with them.

I am not talking about an intellectual pursuit, though.  I am talking about people who are devoted to studying and obeying the Scriptures.  How can someone do that and fail to pursue the Lord? ...

Quite easily. Remember the Deceiver is very cunning. He can trip up anyone in many ways, including convincing you that your pursuit of theology is a pursuit of God, when you are in fact building your own "kingdom" (your own theology, your own church, your own teaching, your own "unique" relationship with God, etc.)

 

I've come across people who are arrogant in their knowledge of Scripture.

 

I've come across people who are so obsessed with "obedience" to Scripture that they miss the greater commands to love, to do justly, to love mercy, to "defend the orphan and the widow."

 

I have been under pastors/teachers who could preach and quote Scripture left and right, yet it eventually became apparent they were building an idol rather than pointing to the Cross.

[Guest shiloh357]

Quite easily. Remember the Deceiver is very cunning. He can trip up anyone in many ways, including convincing you that your pursuit of theology is a pursuit of God, when you are in fact building your own "kingdom" (your own theology, your own church, your own teaching, your own "unique" relationship with God, etc.)

 

 

That makes no sense.  People being devoted to obeying Scripture do not fall into that kind of deception.   In fact, we are admonished to stay in the Word of God in order to avoid being decieved.

 

The enemy isn't trying to make us more devoted to the Scripture in order to get us away from God.  That is self-defeating.  The Bible is among other things, theology.  You cannot separate prayerful and thoughtful study of the Word of God from theology.   It doesn't work that way.

 

Deception stems from less, not more devotion to Scripture.  The Christians who are easy pickings for the cults are the ones who less devoted to the Bible, who have a rudimentary understanding of things like the nature  of God, plan of redemption, etc.

I've come across people who are arrogant in their knowledge of Scripture.

 

I've come across people who are so obsessed with "obedience" to Scripture that they miss the greater commands to love, to do justly, to love mercy, to "defend the orphan and the widow."

 

That is a self-defeating concept.  If that is the case, they are not obsessed with obeying Scripture.

I have been under pastors/teachers who could preach and quote Scripture left and right, yet it eventually became apparent they were building an idol rather than pointing to the Cross.

 

Which again, defeats the argument that devotion to Scripture makes less devoted to God.

 

I think you and I are at odds over what "devotion to the Scriptures" actually entails.

[Donibm]

Interesting thread.

 

 

... something I have been considering.

 

 

Yes, love the Word of God ... but do not forget to love the One who OWNS it while you are at it.

[Guest Butero]

 

In reality can one separate God from the scriptures? ...

 

I've encountered theologians doing this all the time - worried more about doctrine and dogma that finding God.

 

I agree with nearly everything Shiloh has written, and I also agree with Littlelambseativy.  I did want to comment on one thing, and that is a scripture you used.  John 5:39.  It never says "You." 

 

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:  and they are they which testify of me.

 

Granted, I know you don't use a KJV Bible, but the way you posted that completely misrepresents the context.  All Jesus is doing is telling them to search the scriptures, meaning they haven't done a good job of it in the past as Shiloh indicated was the case.  If the word "You" does appear in your translation, Jesus is saying it is something they should do, as in "You need to search the scriptures."  He is not saying they search the scriptures because they think they have eternal life.  What kind of sense would that make?  He is telling them to search the scriptures, because if they do, they will realize they don't have eternal life because they don't believe in him.

 

To me, all this thread is about is finding ways to come against people who spend time teaching doctrine, like that is not what we should be concerned about.  It is an attempt to move us away from absolutes, because there are people who don't like being told anything is right or wrong, black or white.  I have been amazed at how much I agree with what Shiloh has said.  The only small point I might take issue with is his way of interpreting things, because it doesn't always jive with the way I interpret scripture, but as far as this thread goes, and the points he made goes, it could have been me saying those things.  It is right on the money. 

[EnochBethany]

I think of how often we debate over the details of Scripture and miss the big picture as well.

 

Obedience for the sake of obedience is never something Jesus seemed to advocate, did He?

 

We worry about "being right", but after the debate, what does your position do to draw you nearer to God? (That question is rarely addressed in our debates.)

 

Granted, I'm not referring to clear heresies, but our debates as brothers and sisters over doctrine and Scriptural interpretations.

 

 

And I'm pointing to myself as much as anyone.

Obedience for the sake of obedience is never something Jesus seemed to advocate, did He?

 

Well, he did say that if  you love Me, keep my commandments.  So obedience is for the sake of love.  And He did enforce the jot & tittle of the Law of Moses.

 

But indeed, obedience for the sake of obedience is a deficient theology & morality.  I don't think we understand any commandment right until we see  how it fits into the 2 big commandments.

 

But it is a big canard to claim that loving someone's word is foreign to loving the person. 

[Qnts2]

 

The Pharisees studied scripture. The Mishnah was not yet written. And the Gemorah was not written, so the Talmud was not yet written.

 

The Mish-nah was in oral form and even Jesus alluded to it multiple times.  I was referencing both ancient rabbis and modern Judaism, and in that context I am correct.

 

 

At that time, the Pharisees memorized large amounts of scripture. The Jewish population in general memorized scripture.

 

The point I was making though, which you evidently miss is not that they didn't read the Scriptures.  My point is that they were not followers of the Scriptures and Jesus points out on more than one occcasion and they are even denigrated as evil men by later rabbinic authors in the Talmud itself.

 

In Judaism, there is an order of authority, with the Torah (five books of Moses) holding the highest authority. The 'ratings' come based on the method of transmission to the human writer. God spoke or dictated the Torah directly to Moses.  The Prophets and Writings were next in authority. They were given by revelation. Then the Mishnah comes after the Torah, and Prophets and Writings. At the time of Jesus, the Mishnah was said to be orally transmitted. Additional books were added in the line of authority which were written after the time of Jesus, some 1000 years later. But the Torah, and the Nach (Prophets and writings) comes next. Nothing is above these writings. In Judaism, one must study the Torah first and a person is not supposed to study the Mishnah until they have basic understanding of Torah.    

Yeah, I know all of that.   But modern Judaism isn't the Jewish religion of Jesus' day. While there is a pharisacial residue of that ancient Jewish religion in modern Judaism, it would be wrong to equate modern Judaism with the religion of Jesus' day.  They are simply not the same.

 

 

Very simple. You stated that the Pharisees did not read the bible, but instead studied the Oral Torah/Talmud. You also said scripture does not mean bible but also means the Talmud etc. I say that the Pharisees did study scripture extensively, and memorized scripture, meaning the bible/Torah/Pentateuch.

 

Now, back to the original verse:

 

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; ⁴⁰ 

 

They searched the scriptures. Now does the scriptures mean the Torah or does it mean what we call the OT? Well, if scripture in this case referred to the Mishnah or Talmud, which was not yet written down, by your argument and using this verse, we can conclude that you think the Talmud testifies of Jesus, because the scriptures they were searching testify of Jesus. I don't think it can be clearer that they were searching the OT to find what they must do to have eternal life. The Pharisees did read the bible. And that matches historical information which says they not only read, but memorized large amounts of scripture.  

 

As far as the Talmud talking about that time, the Talmud is investigating why the Temple was destroyed in 70 ce, and why the Jewish people were defeated in 132 ce. Since scripture says that those two things would occur if the Jewish people were disobedient, the writers in the Talmud explore or consider what was the sin which caused these two things to happen.

 

But as far as the Pharisees, they are called in Judaism, the Perushim, which means 'to separate', as they were trying to keep themselves separate from 'sin', unclean, etc. They were and are still held in high regard in Judaism. Modern Judaism is not just a remnant of their teachings, but it was the Pharisees who developed what became modern Judaism. In 132 ce, after the destruction of the Temple and the failed revolution when the Jewish people were mostly scattered out of Jerusalem, the Perushim met in Yavneh, and started the process of defining a Judaism which could be practiced in the diaspora, without a Temple. Modern Judaism is different from Jesus day, but the biggest difference is that it is a diaspora Judaism, a Judaism without a Temple, without an active Priesthood, and designed to be practiced outside of the land, but it is a Judaism developed initially by the Pharisees. (I would say the other two major influences on modern Judaism would be Rambam and Rashi plus the various persecutions).  Most of the traditions, such as the practice of the Passover seder, is based on the tradition of Jesus day, adjusted to be practiced without a Temple and in diaspora.

 

Now, it is clear that Jesus said the Pharisees had some serious errors (along with agreeing with many of their positions). Jesus criticism of the Pharisees can be interesting to someone interested in Mosaic law because what Jesus criticized was their interpretation and application of the Mosaic law, but more importantly, a heart issue.     

[Guest shiloh357]

Very simple. You stated that the Pharisees did not read the bible, but instead studied the Oral Torah/Talmud.

 

They read it but they didn't follow it.  That was my point.   The didn't read it for the purpose of keeping it.

 

 

You also said scripture does not mean bible but also means the Talmud etc.

 

 

Yes and that is true.   In Judaism, The Oral law is the Scriptures.  The comparison they make is that of a set of note cards vs. the entire text of speech.  The written Torah are the note cards.  The Oral law is the speech.   When they study Torah, they are not necessarily stuyding the Scriptures.  They are studying Oral Torah because in Jewish theology, the Oral Torah is just as much Scripture as the written Torah.   The Oral Torah is an expansion of the written Torah.

 

 

Now, back to the original verse:

 

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; ⁴⁰ 

 

They searched the scriptures. Now does the scriptures mean the Torah or does it mean what we call the OT? Well, if scripture in this case referred to the Mishnah or Talmud, which was not yet written down, by your argument and using this verse, we can conclude that you think the Talmud testifies of Jesus, because the scriptures they were searching testify of Jesus.

 

Jesus was referring to an aspect of Jewish theology that still exists in the modern Jewish thought, today.  He is referring to the principle that the Study of Torah is the path to eternal life.  This is alluded to as well in John 6 when Jesus stated that eating His flesh and drinking His blood was the way to eternal life.  He was countering the rabbnical view that the Study of Torah was the spiritual meat and drink of the Torah observant Jew.   The Mishnah was not written down, but that doesn't mean it wasn't studied and discussed.  That is Torah study in Jewish thought and practice.

I don't think it can be clearer that they were searching the OT to find what they must do to have eternal life. The Pharisees did read the bible. And that matches historical information which says they not only read, but memorized large amounts of scripture.  

 

Again, you need to understand that they considered and still do consider the Mishnah/Oral law, Scripture.  To them it is as much "Scripture" as the written Torah was.  Jesus did not circumvent that cultural reality.

As far as the Talmud talking about that time, the Talmud is investigating why the Temple was destroyed in 70 ce, and why the Jewish people were defeated in 132 ce. Since scripture says that those two things would occur if the Jewish people were disobedient, the writers in the Talmud explore or consider what was the sin which caused these two things to happen.

 

Yes and they concluded that the Rabbis of the first century prior to the fall of the Temple were corrupt and were, at least in part, responsible for its demise.  The later talmudic writers have litte or nothing good to say about the Jewish leadership that existed in Jesus' day prior to the fall of the temple.

 

But as far as the Pharisees, they are called in Judaism, the Perushim, which means 'to separate', as they were trying to keep themselves separate from 'sin', unclean, etc. They were and are still held in high regard in Judaism. Modern Judaism is not just a remnant of their teachings, but it was the Pharisees who developed what became modern Judaism. In 132 ce, after the destruction of the Temple and the failed revolution when the Jewish people were mostly scattered out of Jerusalem, the Perushim met in Yavneh, and started the process of defining a Judaism which could be practiced in the diaspora, without a Temple. Modern Judaism is different from Jesus day, but the biggest difference is that it is a diaspora Judaism, a Judaism without a Temple, without an active Priesthood, and designed to be practiced outside of the land, but it is a Judaism developed initially by the Pharisees.

 

Actually that happened in 72 AD in Yavneh under the leadership of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zachai.   Everythng else you said is old news.  I am very familiar with Jewish history. 

[nebula]

 

Quite easily. Remember the Deceiver is very cunning. He can trip up anyone in many ways, including convincing you that your pursuit of theology is a pursuit of God, when you are in fact building your own "kingdom" (your own theology, your own church, your own teaching, your own "unique" relationship with God, etc.)

That makes no sense.  People being devoted to obeying Scripture do not fall into that kind of deception.

 

Yes they do, and yes they have.

I had belonged to a small church which turned out to be a cult. Our leader encouraged us to spend more time in the Bible, and gave many teaching with Scripture reference to back the claims. I had read the Bible through all the way at least 3 times before this, and I was raised learning the Scriptures; so I was no "dummy" on the Word. Yet, there are other ways Satan can deceive your thinking, as I found out the hard way.

I know of others who came out of something similar.

 

In fact, we are admonished to stay in the Word of God in order to avoid being decieved.

Shiloh, how many debates have you been in on this board with people who are devoted to Scripture yet are way off the mark?

 

The enemy isn't trying to make us more devoted to the Scripture in order to get us away from God.  That is self-defeating.

No, but all he has to do is trick us into holding to the wrong doctrine, which clouds our reading of the Word to see only what our belief enables us to see.

Consider the WOF teachers.

 

The Bible is among other things, theology.  You cannot separate prayerful and thoughtful study of the Word of God from theology.   It doesn't work that way.

Except that most "theology" is about the knowledge of doctrine and dogma rather than the knowledge of God Himself.

 

Deception stems from less, not more devotion to Scripture.

We've both debated Replacement theologians who knew the Scriptures. Are you claiming that if they would just study the Scriptures more than they already are that they would suddenly see the light?

 

The Christians who are easy pickings for the cults are the ones who less devoted to the Bible, who have a rudimentary understanding of things like the nature of God, plan of redemption, etc.

Not exactly. The easy pickings for cults are wounded and insecure people. The difference between a cult and a church or group or ministry or denomination with bad theology is the manipulation and control factor.

Many people who came out of cults can testify that they were never given the freedom to question or challenge what was being taught. More often than not, it was the behavior that made them want to get out, not the bad theology.

Likewise, many people testify that the worst deceptions of the cults were not the doctrine and dogma that were preached, but the image of God they caused people to believe.

I can point out to you a particular cult which feeds people on the Word of God, even promoting a disciplined life of prayer, fasting, and Scripture meditation and memorization (I would have to send this information to you in a PM though - if you would like to check it out for yourself).

Thus, it is possible to know the logos of the Word backwards and forwards and yet miss the Word Himself.

 

 

I've come across people who are arrogant in their knowledge of Scripture.

 

I've come across people who are so obsessed with "obedience" to Scripture that they miss the greater commands to love, to do justly, to love mercy, to "defend the orphan and the widow."

That is a self-defeating concept.  If that is the case, they are not obsessed with obeying Scripture.

 

But they believe they are.

 

 

I have been under pastors/teachers who could preach and quote Scripture left and right, yet it eventually became apparent they were building an idol rather than pointing to the Cross.

Which again, defeats the argument that devotion to Scripture makes less devoted to God.

 

I think you and I are at odds over what "devotion to the Scriptures" actually entails.

 

Then please explain what "devotion to Scripture means to you?

[nebula]

Interesting thread.

 

 

... something I have been considering.

 

 

Yes, love the Word of God ... but do not forget to love the One who OWNS it while you are at it.

 

Yes!