The greatest teacher of hermeneutics is Jesus. Jesus goes out of his way at times to put his disagreements with the Pharisees on display, and we can learn a lot about how to read the New Testament (and the Law and the Prophets) from Jesus.
Consider the Sermon on the Mount —
(Mat 5:17-20 ESV) 17 “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. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Early in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declares that he is not going to abolish the Law and the Prophets or “relax one of the least of these commandments.” He sounds like a Pharisee of Pharisees! We ignore this because Jesus obviously did not interpret Moses the way the Pharisees (or modern Jews) do. In fact, Jesus does not interpret the way we interpret Moses. And that’s a problem.
(Mat 5:21-22 ESV) 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
What does Jesus do with “You shall not murder”? He toughens it. How? By looking at the purpose behind the command (love your neighbor) and so expanding the command to include dehumanizing others through name calling. He’s not legislating! He’s interpreting.
(Mat 12:10-13 ESV) 10 And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”–so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other.
Don’t object that the Sermon the Mount ended at chapter 7. It did, but Jesus said that “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Is he contradicting himself by healing on the Sabbath?
Well, he announced that “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath”! The Sabbath is designed to help the Jews become more — not less — like God. Interpreting God’s command so literally that they become un-Godlike is really bad hermeneutics. (Can you think of examples where modern Christians have made the same mistake?)
He also said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mar 2:27 ESV). Again, any interpretation of the Sabbath this is contrary to God’s purposes — to benefit man — is wrong because it ignores the true nature of God.
(Mar 3:3-5 ESV) 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” 4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
The Pharisees were zealously enforcing the Law of Moses. It made Jesus angry! Why? Because they allowed a law of God to interfere with helping people. Love is the higher command. And, yes, some commands are higher than others, and when they contradict, the higher command prevails — as we’ll see shortly.
(Luk 13:11-17 ESV) 11 And there was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.” 13 And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God. 14 But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” 15 Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? 16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” 17 As he said these things, all his adversaries were put to shame, and all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by him.
Jesus could have easily avoided giving offense by healing the disabled woman on Sunday. Just by waiting until sunset, he’d have pleased the Pharisees and avoided damaging his reputation. But he preferred to have a confrontation because the Pharisees’ hermeneutics made him mad. They treated their animals better than their women!
(John 7:22-24 ESV) 22 “Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? 24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
The Law of Moses commands that an infant male be circumcised on the eighth day. It also commands that no work be done on the Sabbath. What if a baby is born so that the eighth day falls on a Sabbath? The rabbis concluded that the command to be circumcised is the higher law — it goes all the way back to Abraham. And so they circumcise the baby in violation of the Sabbath.
Jesus says the same hermeneutic allows him to heal on the Sabbath. You see, the command to love is higher than the Sabbath. And if circumcision can’t wait for sundown, surely loving our neighbors can’t either.
Now, Jesus himself, in no uncertain terms, declared that “he is not going to abolish the Law and the Prophets or “relax one of the least of these commandments.” And yet he seemed to delight in doing just that. It’s a puzzle, isn’t it?
Yes, but it’s a puzzle with a solution: Jesus wasn’t legislating or repealing. He was honoring the commands exactly as God always meant for the commands to be honored.
[to be continued]
Amen! The only quibble I have is that Jesus didn’t toughen any of these commands. What he said is what the command meant from the beginning. That goes for everything he said in the sermon, and everything he said later in his ministry. (That has important implications for topics like divorce for example.)
Hermeneutics, as understood by the fundamentalist or legalist, is a “science” that should never have come into being. The Bible is not a rubiks’s cube that can only be put together by an organization’s best and brightest; that it is either perfect or flawed.
Jay, you are so right in stating that LOVE is more important than the “Sabbath”. The scholars who understand this, who translate and research looking for the LIFE behind, in and beyond the words are the ones who are, sometimes in the real danger and possibility of loss, actually saving their churches.
” He was honoring the commands exactly as God always meant for the commands to be honored”
Finally…all the way at the end and you put this! Jay, this really belonged up higher (IMHO). As Alan pointed out (and Alan I don’t think it is a quibble) Jesus didn’t toughen. He fulfilled and taught us how to do so.
If the Love of God and neighbor truely are the hinges holding the law and prophets up, then it is easier to see how ‘hating your brother’ is to murder, lusting after a women is covetous not just the actual sex.
I agree with the last sentence you gave and think it can flavor the thoughts you shared more. While it is true that he gave more stringentness than the ‘you have heard it said’ it wasn’t any more stringent than what God intended….and he should know!
I think this is a very critical point to understand.
Another example — in Matthew 22, and other gospels, is the report of a Pharisee who asks Jesus about the greatest commands. To this Jew, Jesus gives a Jewish answer, in effect, quote Deuteronomy and Leviticus — Love the Lord …; love your neighbor as yourself.
Interestingly, in context, the Love your neighbor quote really means love your fellow Jew as yourself. The way Jesus quotes it, it does seem to broaden the application.
However, in John 13 and John 15, Jesus raises the bar by commanding (the only time Jesus described his own words as a command) us to love one another as he loved us. That’s a different standard.
More interesting to me, is that, if you step back a little, it seems like Jesus always spoke in broad strokes. He repeatedly strikes down the narrow interpretations of the Mosaic Law in favor of broad insights.
His parables are notoriously general. They are more examples of how we should act than rules to follow.
Not until we get to Acts and the epistles do we seem to run into Text that leads us to find endless explicit rules to be followed. And as we’ve all experienced, these seem to be subject to endless interpretation based upon one’s point-of-view regarding the Text.
For me, I’ve started paying more attention to the words of Jesus, than to the applications described by the epistle writers. Those writers provide some insights, but they more often write about the application of Jesus teaching rather than replicating the actual teaching of Jesus.
Jay wrote:
I’ve often heard that the New Testament retains 9 of the 10 commandments, excepting only the 4th, which is no longer binding.
I’ve always had a problem with this (though I have never wanted to be a Sabbatarian), especially in view of Hebrews 4:9. “There remains, therefore, a Sabbath rest for the people of God” or more literally, “a keeping of Sabbath.”
I have written what I consider to be the solution to this dillemma here and here.
Jay, I would love to get reactions from you and your readers – since this is a matter of hermeneutics, which you are discussing on this blog at this time. This question seems to fit in with the general theme of Jesus and Moses.
Jerry
John 5:39-40 (The Message)
“You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you’ll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren’t willing to receive from me the life you say you want.”
I know some won’t like this translation … but is not it a very relevant passage for this topic?
It seems obvious to me that, when approaching the Bible, OF COURSE we prioritize the words and example of Jesus above all others. We use the words and examples of Jesus to help understand the rest of the Bible – not the other way around.
It is such a simple idea, but we just miss it because, quite frankly, the words and example of Jesus are far too difficult and costly. We simply refuse to believe him, so we refuse to put his words and examples first.
If we truly did, I wonder how many law suits would start from within the church. How many soldiers the church would send to fight our nation’s wars. How many orphans would exist in our communities. How many families we would have living in squalor. How many AIDS victims dying alone.
Big stones first.
As for the law on divorce, I think it is true for all of the Mosaic laws: They were a “limited” version of God’s will because of our hardened hearts. Jesus now goes to the heart of the Law – he does not go beyond letter, but shows what is behind the letter! So we misundestand Him greatly if we assume – as you seem to do, Jay – that Jesus is “relaxing” the commands.
And it is also clear that Jesus does not even remotely explain the law as “cultural”. He accepts the full inspiration even to the tiniest letter (that’s verbal inspiration at its best). But he points us to the true meaning and essnece ofthe Law, something the scribes and pharisees in general (not all of them) missed because they focussed on the “outward form of the law”.
Think about this intresting verse:
What has been abolished? Read it very carefully!
the law (subject)
of comamndments (genitive)
expressed in ordinances (description of the subject)
The commandments have not been abolished, but the outward form as law expressed in ordinances! Think again that this law in ordinances actually is a limited expression of God’s will, so this confirms that the comamndments themselves, the will of God comes to the fore after the limitations thereof have been abolished.
This was a huge discovery for me a number of years ago that hepled me to undestand why Paul on one hand could use strong words against the adherants of the Mosaic Law, while on the other hand be very strict and clear in what he (through the spirit) commanded. Paul said accordingly:
Alexander
BTW to “fulfill” the law means to bring it to its full measure. (Greek pleromai)
Alexander
With most, Jesus and His words are seldom heard.
Paul the Roman lawyer is most heard, quoted and followed.
His letters to many peoples are THE LAW!
I think Paul rolls over in his grave seeing what is done with his letters of encouragement to new Christians just starting to understand what a Christian is from their background in the Jewish law.
Only a few are non Jewish Christian converts.
I’ve always been curious as to what were the ORIGINAL Apostles, individually chosen by Jesus Himself doing all this time and why were they not writing for our Bible?
They planted churches nd moved around quite a bit.
But sometimes they workes in the same area and among the same churches:
Peter was also in Rome and obviously also in Corinth;
John worked – later in his life – in Asia minor and settled in Ephesos.
The church in Antioch was started by Jews from Jerusalem, and Barnabas was among the main teachers there (also from Jerusalem).
There are no “exclusively Pauline” churches after all; travelling prophets, teachers and other apostles visited and built up the congregations (see also: 1Co 3:5-7)
Reading the writings of the 2nd century church of Christ, you can see that all churches (whether founded by the “original” Apostles or by Paul) had the same doctrine and discipline. And all – from the beginning – accepted Paul’s letters (all of them) as Holy Scripture.
So, aside from personality, there was (and is) no difference between Paul’s message and the message of the “original” Apostles. And the ECF give us a good example how to read and understand Paul … which differs quite a bit from the understanding of the Reformers who shaped our view on Paul. That’s what I find interesting in “The New Perspective On Paul”-movement BTW.
Alexander
abasnar/Alexander wrote,
Ray Vander Laan says that the rabbis used “fulfill” in the context of Scriptural interpretation to mean “rightly interpreted” — sound interpretation fulfills the text. That’s not a disagreement but rather an application.
Jerry,
First, a nit: the NT also doesn’t repeat the command banning graven images. And I suppose this is why we can have pictures of Jesus in our children’s classrooms. I’m not sure why we are allowed picture books of Jesus but not images in stained glass.
Regarding your discussion of the Sabbath, I thought it was excellent. I almost used it in my post — but figured I’d be caught with such a transparent theft. 🙂
Enterprise wrote,
I agree that it’s no quibble, but shortly after saying that Jesus toughens “You shall not kill,” I wrote —
He toughens the literal words but not the meaning that should have been seen in the words, because the words can only be understood by knowing their author and by knowing the story behind the words.
Jay,
It’s not theft if you give attribution and comment.
Jerry
Jesus promised His apostles that they would be led into ALL truth. Implied is that He had not Himself while on earth taught all that was needed concerning “church” doctrine and practice. We honor Jesus. We should also honor even more highly the apostles who were enabled to remember all He had taught and then teach truths Jesus had NOT Himself taught while on earth.
Should we then agree that the most important and pertinent teachings are those of Jesus Himself? I think not. Jesus pointed out that He had been sent to the house of Israel. He was teaching them in preparation for later fuller teaching by the apostles which would be for all people. The family of God should be directed by apostolic doctrine and practice. The church was still a FUTURE structure while Jesus was on earth.
So we who are the church of Jesus Christ should seek light from apostolic teachings even more than the personal teaching Jesus gave to Jewish hearers. It’s a calamitous mistake to suppose we today are under any part of the Mosaic Law. Some of the comments above assume wrongly that since Jesus taught Jews they should keep parts of the Law (all essential parts as given through Moses), that we now also should keep parts of the Law. He was not speaking to us!