Jesus makes the Old Testament old hat?

[Vicki Q]

In the very first book of the New Testament Jesus says this:

"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...20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

I didn't see where he abolishes all the barbarism. Maybe it's my poor ability to contort a believable alternative interpretation, but he seems to be endorsing all the crazy shit from the first part of the book.

This is a very important question, and I'll attempt a too brief answer.

For the Early Church, Christianity was Judaism. The story within which they were living was the Jewish story, which had reached a climax and a new phase through the events around Jesus. They were simultaneously loyal to Israel's traditions, but clear that a substantial change had occurred.

Most Jews of Paul's day saw themselves as living on a story in search of an ending. God was going to act, sort out the pagans, and establish His Kingdom. The Christian analysis was that this happened in and through Jesus, but in a different way to what was conventionally expected.

Thus, the OT was never overridden, because these are the early chapters in The Story. So they were endorsed in a real sense. Torah was not abolished, but became redundant (“until everything is accomplished”), because its purpose as a boundary marker was over ('fulfilled').

The Torah intensification highlighted in the OP was Jesus' explanation that the new life requirements went beyond the sort of oral extension worked by the Pharisees. They were also trying to bring about the Kingdom of God, through adherence to Torah, and Jesus is saying “You're barking up the wrong tree. The Kingdom of God doesn't work like that, and won't come like that”.

He then continues to outline this deeper analysis in the rest of the section by giving examples of how this plays out in practice.

[Tonus]

Your explanation doesn't really clear the issue up, Vicki Q. It seems as if you're saying that yes, it was overridden but no, it wasn't either. Like many other biblical messages, the question of whether the old testament law applies is muddled because there are texts that can be used to support either viewpoint. I think most Christians prefer the version where the old law is superceded by the "new pact" because forced adherence to old testament law would be onerous for them today, seeing as they'd have to massacre anyone who worked on the weekend, for starters.

[Vicki Q]

Your explanation doesn't really clear the issue up, Vicki Q. It seems as if you're saying that yes, it was overridden but no, it wasn't either. Like many other biblical messages, the question of whether the old testament law applies is muddled because there are texts that can be used to support either viewpoint. I think most Christians prefer the version where the old law is superceded by the "new pact" because forced adherence to old testament law would be onerous for them today, seeing as they'd have to massacre anyone who worked on the weekend, for starters.

I think you're right that most Christians don't appreciate the Jewishness of their faith. The divergence really came home to me a couple of Xmasses ago when I read the beginning of Luke. It is a Christian book about a definitively Christian occasion, yet it is so packed with Jewish commentary and perspective that I felt like a visitor to someone else's culture.

The OT was not overridden, but elements of the Torah were made optional. This is why it's OK to eat prawn underwear, and wear mixed fibre sandwiches*. The idea that the OT is part of an old to-be-forgotten story is wrong, as the regular quotation rate in the NT shows.

Xians are like actors in the fifth act of a play, who have to come to terms with what has already happened to play the part. There is only one story, but it moves on as time goes by.

Alternatively, to grasp Gollum's actions in LOTR, the reader refers back to The Hobbit. Gollum no longer has the Ring, but he once did. OT writing no longer defines the people of God, but it once did. In each case the earlier story remains essential to the later, and is not to be rejected.

The OT meta-narrative was a cycle of sin->exile->forgiveness/restoration. Israel once believed with the return from Babylon that the restoration phase had begun, but by C1 it was clear that wasn't the case. The ****ing Romans were running things, and C1 Israel was expecting God to sort it all out.

The Xian proclamation is that God acted, at the much greater whole-of-world level as originally promised to Abraham. An interesting question is- why would they think that?





*More fun that way. Trust me on that.

[Minimalist]

For the Early Church, Christianity was Judaism. The story within which they were living was the Jewish story, which had reached a climax and a new phase through the events around Jesus

You do understand, I hope, that there is no evidence aside from the tale which was cobbled together centuries later for that story. Right?

[Vicki Q]

For the Early Church, Christianity was Judaism. The story within which they were living was the Jewish story, which had reached a climax and a new phase through the events around Jesus

You do understand, I hope, that there is no evidence aside from the tale which was cobbled together centuries later for that story. Right?

I'm a little puzzled by what you're referring to as 'the tale' and 'that story'. If you're suggesting that the historical Jesus is no more than a fiction invented centuries after it was supposed to have happened, then my policy on discussing mythical Jesus applies. Which, BTW, is the same policy as for 9-11 conspiracy theories, moon landing fake theories and creationist 'science'.

The Loch Ness monster isn't on that that list only because I'm hoping to go there this year, and I'd rather not let sense detract from the visit.