The authority of the Law and the Sanhedrin

Recently I read an interesting article titled Jewish Web struck me: Why do not Jews believe in Jesus. The author wishes to clarify that the article does not intend to disparage other religions, but to expose the Jewish position on the issue.Among other issues are addressed on the Trinity, the doctrine advocated by the Christian religion, to Judaism as God is one (echad).

Some caracteristics of the Messiah are also highlighted in the article that compared with the texts of the New Testament claim that Jesus did not fulfill all requirements.Something that struck me was the fact the Messiah to be a descendant of David, by his father, King David (Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1).

According to Christianity, Jesus was born of a virgin mother, and therefore would be his adoptive father Joseph, unable to descend from King David. "You will agree that this statement is quite interesting. However, nowadays, it is stated that for a man regarded as Jewish is essential that you have had a Jewish mother.

Regardless of the differences between the two religions find a few statements of Jesus recorded in Matthew's  (5:17), in which Jesus himself declares that under no circumstances had the right or authority to abrogate the Law. The text says that he came to fulfill all that had been written.

In the Jewish New Testament Commentary find the definition for the term served: Complete.

Thus, Jesus would have said he came to supplement the law, and not, as many claim to destroy, revoke or even redo the whole Word of God which had been revealed through the Law and the prophets.

The Sermon on the Mount as it is called, not only refers to the Beatitudes, but the rest of the chapter and others. We think that listeners were residents of the surrounding regions, who were there to hear a Jew.

From this point, that Jesus would be impossible to make any claim against the Law and the prophets (vs. 19). Quite the contrary. I could even say that this statement was also a defense, perhaps wondering what could be misinterpreted. (ops! This has been happening every day).

Therefore, he proceeded to give instructions, and also affirmed the authority of law to judge and condemn, but also stated that the Sanhedrin was the supreme council in the religious, political and judicial branches of the Jewish people (vs. 22).

I do not know at what point in history there was this exchange of values, but here in this text, we find Jesus using all his knowledge concerning the Law and the writings of the prophets to embellish his speech.Let's see: First he said he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill (or complete).



Second, states that "until all is accomplished (heaven and earth pass, according to the analyzed text) or a Yod (smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet) nor useful (which refers to the attachment that distinguished some other Hebrew letters), if pass from the law. "









Jesus was not giving anyone authority to change the sacred text. Even because, "zeal for the Law" were not allowed errors in the reproduction of texts. Would not Jesus, a Jew, the first to do that!

Third, in verse 19 he says that anyone who violated a commandment, even the smallest, would be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven, a phrase that almost all his titled posts. Notice that Jesus was emphatic that it was not just the fact of making mistakes, but to induce others to err.

He tried keeping the commandments seriously and also explained the consequences.Imagine that, to comply with the law and the prophets was a key part (making use of an expression primarily Christian) to receive a reward.

I do not understand how and why this word was reversed to say that the commandments that Jesus was referring to were "those" that he would teach in the course of his ministry, when the entire text refers to the Law Especially since the only two commandments that Jesus taught, recorded in Chapter 22.37,39: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself" are mentioned respectively in Deuteronomy and Leviticus 19:18 6.5 5.

And it looks interesting, he says, "these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets!"

The next verse (20) received an interpretation completely out of context. When Jesus says to his listeners that the practice of their righteousness should exceed the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, was not disparaging these two groups of religious Jews who were part of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council that he "delegated" powers in verse 22.  It would be a contradiction!

Even so, the verse is mentioned as if justice practiced by the scribes and Pharisees were something deteriorated. And those who would enter the kingdom of heaven should exceed that justice! How? What? When? How much? These are gaps that arise ... or not! Depends on the listener, if he is really interested in the text or is there just passing the time ...

It is alarming that in the XXI century still have people who misrepresent the biblical text, to assert his philosophy in terms of benefit or part of religion. Are changing the Yod and useful without the slightest embarrassment.

The other day a preacher said that throughout his time of ministry he had ever made a preaching of the Old Testament and was not motivated to do so soon. That is, it just does not talk about what is written in the OT! (Do not ask me why, I do not understand this line of reasoning that omits part of God's Word to the listeners!).

In Chapter 8 we find Jesus emphasizing compliance with the Act, after healing a man with leprosy. According to Matthew, Jesus tells the man that he should present to the priest the gift that Moses commanded in the Law.

The discussion between Jesus and Pharisees, recorded in Matthew chapter 23, became the defamation and retaliation Pharisaic sect to this day. Any Brazilian Portuguese dictionary defines a hypocrite Pharisee as the subject. This pejorative way has the support of leaders (Christian) who insist on pronouncing such a definition.

Other New Testament texts continue to be misinterpreted and spread among the believers, for example, in Romans Chapter 10.4, asserts that "the end of the Law is Christ." For the most part, believers say that the word order here is ending, when it actually has a sense of purpose. Thus, if we consider the word Christ in Greek as a translation of the word Messiah in Hebrew is Mashiach understand that Paul makes the following statement: "The aim of the Act is HaMashiach."

We conclude that if both the Jewish and Christian religion it is necessary to the coming of a Deliverer to transform the world we live in, nothing remains but to wait for his coming. As one who believes that he has come and dwelt among us John 1:1 tells us, both to those who wait and pray every day for the coming of Moshiach, one thing is certain: Ba HaMashiach!


Marion Vaz