dog-on

But the "God of the Torah" was crazy and most societies, currently, usually refrain from allowing the crazy to make their laws, eventually.

storytime

Jesus was making a point about offensive speech[food]. The comparison is made to food and serves to explain how false doctrine cannot harm those who hear it because they know the truth.

"Food" was a term for words. Jesus told Peter "feed my sheep". It also has to do with purification of speech. Jews were instructed to keep their words holy(truthful) so as no offense was made to God or man, or through man, which may indicate the commandment of "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".

penguinfan

All four Gospels? I can only think of Matthew where Jesus explicitly states to preach only to Jews. Even in that Gospel, there are indications of a Gentile conversion - such as the parable of the wedding feast and what Jesus said to the Roman soldier after he healed his slave.

I agree with you that Jesus *mostly* ministered to Jews, but Judea and Galilea were mostly Jewish. Jesus and the apostles ministered to Samaritans and Gentiles a number of times. Such as the sermon on the mount, the exorcism of the man possessed by demons (Jesus sends the demons into a heard of pigs), feeding of 4,000 in Decapolis, the conversion of a Samaritan village in John 4 and the apostles traveling to another Samaritan village in Luke 9.

That's just off the top of my head. Would it not be more likely that the 'Jesus for Jews' passages found in Matthew were added in there by Judaizers who wanted Gentiles to follow Jewish Law before they converted, since the "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel..." etc, etc are not in Mark?

aa5874

It is really problematic to claim that the Gospels agree on anything when they may not reflect actual history but just authors either copying one another or copying one source.

Now, once Jesus was publicly preaching to thousands of people, it can hardly be said his mission was confined to Jews, when people from all over the habitable earth was in Judaea and could have heard him if he did preach at all.

andrewcriddle

Hi Peter

However Mark may have interpreted it, the dispute in its original context is about the relatively minor form of ritual impurity incurred by eating using hands that have not been purified from having previously touched potentially impure objects.

Jesus could, perfectly consistently, have repudiated this concern with minor impurity while still upholding the ban on eating pork.

Andrew Criddle

IamJoseph

And today, hands are cut off for misdemeanors in some places. The Hebrew bible has exit clauses, and crimes can be punishable by alternative modes to suit a generation's cultures. The Sabbath law was correct and proven today; the penalty prescribed was also correct - for its time and in that examples' circumstances: it was perpertrated under immediate challenge in the face of everyone - a far more grevious crime than doing it in secret; not responding to it would also be a crime - and slavery would not be abolished, nor would inalienable human rights and Liberty be established - the Sabbath law is directly related to those sublime premises. Ancient Egypt never allowed a day of rest for slaves - when they became sick they were killed off.

It does not mean the same penalty applies today - but it does mean the Sabaath law is correct. One who respects the Sabbath and contemplates its meaning - will be less likely to commit the other crimes listed after it - thus it is listed before the crimes of murder and stealing.

The fact is, capital punishment was first abolished by Israel, even 1000s of years before all other nations - and one was innocent till proven guilty via a bona fide court. Decrees were changed to rule of law by the Hebrew bible - and no other.

'MAN SHAL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE" :wave:

Petergdi

Yes, all four. The exceptional cases where Jesus talks to or heals a non-Jew are presented as exceptions. It may be the case that the writers use these cases to show that Jesus had some interest in Gentiles and Samaritans. This doesn't change the fact that Jesus's mission was largely confined to the Jewish people - the exceptions highlight the general rule.

In Mark 7: 27-28 there is a rather interesting exchange beween Jesus and a Syrophenician woman. Jesus says "it is not proper to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs", and the woman replies" Yes, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." If this doesn't establish that Jesus's mission in Mark was primarily to the Jews, I can't think what would.


The parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22 is not about Jews vs Gentiles. It is about how the religiously respectable people concerned with their farms and businesses don't want to be Jesus's followers. Jesus has already used the wedding party metaphor in Matt 9:15 where he is the bridgroom and his followers the wedding guests.

Is Matthew really Judaizing in that sense? Matthew is certainly dead against any idea that the law can in any sense be made void. But this would not obviously differ from the compromise reached in Acts where Gentile Christians are to be required to follow something like the Noahide laws. None of the gospels address the circumcision issue or the food issue for Gentile Christians.

It is perfectly possible to accept the four Gospels as we have them and think that it would be good for Christians to become Jewish Christians. It is possible (and I think perhaps even logical) to read Paul and Acts and conclude that Jewish Christians are only exempt from the food rules for the purpose of dining with Gentiles.

Peter.

Joan of Bark

In other words, Gods laws must be followed, unless you don't want to follow them, in which case they can be 'interpreted' away. Are you a lawyer, by any chance?

IamJoseph

No - because God is subjective and elusive. Those laws have held by their own credibility. The judiciary system accepted those laws based on their credibility, not on any names attached to them. And no names are attached to the laws in the Hebrew bible: they stand on their own merit.

In fact, those who proposed laws based on preferred names of messengers and saviors - even enforcing them with rakes and swords - were NOT accepted by the world's institutions!

Trust me - I'm not a lawyer.