quote:
How'd they figure that? What, if we really really obey the laws then God will give us our nation and temple back?
The Jews have lost two temples. The first in 586 bce and the second in 70 ce.
From "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism" by Rabbi Benjamin Blech 1999 (First five commandments, tablet 1, deal with human obligations to God and the second five, tablet 2, deal with relationships of people to people.)
The first temple was destroyed because Jews worshiped idols. They had forsaken the God of their ancestors. Simply put, they broke the first tablet. The second time around, Jews were "religious" and deeply pious in their allegiance to God, but profoundly insensitive to ethical behavior between themselves. The second temple was destroyed, the rabbis realized, because of needless hatred between Jew and fellow Jew. The values of the second tablet were the ones disregarded.
Herod did build the second temple and they got most of their independence back for a time.
Hasmonean Dynasty
In reading "A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson", we find a lot of conflict between Greeks and Jews. The author feels that the Jewish Leadership would not have minded assimilating the Greeks, but didn't like the Greeks hellenizing Judaism.
Even Paul was probably trying to bring about the
fullness of the Gentiles.
Also from the idiot's guide:
The Messianic vision places upon Jews a responsibility and a mission to perfect the world and to serve as a light unto the nations.
A lot of political and religious issues the Jewish leadership had to deal with. Tough times.
quote:
But Jesus wasn't talking about not needing national laws. He was talking about the religious aspect. It doesn't really matter if what you're doing might technically count as work and you happen to be doing it on Saturday, just love God and each other.
Exactly! Hillel the Elder was concerned about the people.
Hillel's rulings were often based on concern for the welfare of the individual. For example with regard to the remarriage of an aguna, whose husband is not known with certainty to be alive or dead, the view of Hillel (and most of his colleagues) was that she can remarry even on the basis of indirect evidence of the husband's death. Bet Shammai required that witnesses come forth with direct testimony before she was permitted to remarry. Another example of his leniency as compared with Shammai involves converts; Hillel favored the admission of proselytes into Judaism even when they made unreasonable demands, such as one did by demanding that the whole Torah be taught to him quickly "while standing on one foot." Hillel accepted this person as eligible for conversion, whereas Shammai dismissed him as not serious about Judaism.
Jesus followed that school of thinking. What Jesus did do was take these teachings to the Jewish people. He didn't just teach those who came to worship.
During the
Roman takeover, the Romans left the Jews their religion but took the state.
Gentiles didn't have to take on the full mantle of Judaism unless they wanted to. Jewish Christians were still bound by any Jewish laws they were already following and Non-Jewish Christians were bound by the religious rules given them through the Christian Sect.
The national aspect of the OT laws were made unnecessary before Jesus started his mission and the religious aspect of the OT laws were still applicable to Jewish Christians as much as they were before they became Christians. IOW, if a Jewish Christian wasn't practicing strict Judaism before they became a Christian, they probably didn't after they became a Christian.
As I said in
Message 5: The Mosaic Laws were the basis for the Jewish legal system when they were an independent nation. Jesus did not do away with the Jewish legal system. The Jewish followers of Jesus still followed the Mosaic Laws as allowed by the Romans.
Laws and rules can get complicated. Interpretations vary.
HalakhahA major problem here is the motivation behind the approaches of the two rival schools. The theory associated with L. Ginzberg (On Jewish Law and Lore (1955), 102—18) and L. Finkelstein (op. cit.) finds the differences in the different social strata to which the schools belonged. The school of Shammai, it is argued, was legislating for the upper classes, the wealthy landowners and aristocrats, while the school of Hillel was legislating for the poorer urban workers and artisans. Thus according to the school of Hillel the legal definition of a "meal" is one dish, whereas according to the school of Shammai it is at least two dishes (Beẓah 2:1). In most societies the woman has a much more significant role among the upper classes than among the lower. Hence the school of Hillel rules that a valid marriage can be effected by the delivery to the woman of the smallest coin — a perutah — whereas the school of Shammai demands the much larger minimum amount of a dinar (Kid. 1:1). The school of Shammai only permits the divorce of a wife if she is unfaithful whereas the school of Hillel permits it on other grounds (Git. 9:10). While there is undoubtedly some truth in the theory of social motivation it is too sweeping to be entirely adequate. Other motives, such as different exegetical methods, were also at work (see Alon, Meḥkarim, 2 (1958), 181—222).
I don't feel the coming of Jesus rendered the law of the OT null and void. A changing world altered what was needed as is the case with most laws and rules. Even Christianity adjusts for a changing world.
Reformation
™ Version 4.2