Replies

Klinghoffer is way off base in his analysis, and he COMPLETELY misrepresents Geza Vermes' meticulous research into the Judaism of ancient Galilee.

Jesus did not reject the oral Torah at all - he told the disciples that the Pharisaic teachers sat in Moses' seat and that their teaching should be observed.

What he was critiquing was too intense a focus on the letter.

The Pharisaic interpretation believes that the Torah was twofold: written and oral.

Jesus believed that too.

But the Pharisaic tradition also believes in "building a protective hedge" of observances around both the written and oral Torah as well.

As far as Galilee was concerned, Vermes shows that Galilee was a wealthy province with many well-educated scholars and charismatic tzaddikim (holy men).

He demonstrates that Galilean Jews thought that their counterparts in the Judaean homeland were too wrapped up in the finer points of legal disputes, that they had an aversion to work and enterprise and all the other prejudices that crop up in regional rivalries.

Klinghoffer does Vermes a real disservice here.

Or, putting it more simply, Jesus preached the spirit of the law. The Pharisees taught that salvation came through strict observance of the letter of the law.

Klinghoffer's statement about St. Paul "abrogating" the Torah is similarly incorrect. A good study of Paul's letter to the Romans should set him straight.

Jesus did not reject the oral Torah at all - he told the disciples that the Pharisaic teachers sat in Moses' seat and that their teaching should be observed.

You're kidding, right? Jesus heavily criticized the religious leaders of his day for substituting their own man-made rules for God's law.
Interestingly, that's still the main bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants. Both have invented man-made rules -- like Baptists demanding abstinence from wine or pretty much any Catholic doctrine developed after about 400 AD, like the perpetual virginity of Mary.

You are wrong here. Jesus opposed the Pharisaic emphasis on their own rules and regulations and interpretations over that of Sacred Scripture. He was condemning the religious leaders of his day for usurping the Mosaic Tradition, which was God's, in favor of their own man-made tradition. We've got the same problem today plaguing the Catholic Church.

Before the New Covenant in Jesus' Blood, the Pentatuch (the five books of The Law) was God's Law intended for only his chosen people, the Jews.

What Jesus told His disciples was now the New Covenant in His Blood included the following:

Where God's Law had previously been intended for only His chosen people, the Jews, the New Law was intended for Jew and Gentile alike... for all mankind.

Jesus also taught of other changes from the rules in the Pentatuch, such as that food once declared unclean was now clean; "It is not what man puts into his mouth that corrupts him, but what proceeds from his mouth...", etc.

But the biggest difference (along with the previous Covenant having been replaced) was that God's Law was now intended for all of mankind, Jew and Gentile alike.