Blood in whose army!? (page 3)

TD

...but I do think you've made a critical error in saying that JWs believe that Jesus followed the Law perfectly.

I studied with the JW's 40+ years ago and had to double check this morning before I replied to make sure that idea is still current thought. It's rampant in the writings of Franz in the 60's, but JW literature seems to avoid theological discussion of that caliber today.

I'll provide quotes below, showing it's still valid.

The counter-balance for Adam's sin was that Jesus, the second perfect man, did not sin. That's the JW doctrine, if not a general Christian doctrine. Keeping the Law could not atone for Adam's sin because Adam did not violate the Law (there being no Law at the time to violate).

Understood.

But what is the tangible proof that Jesus did not sin, if not for the fact that he kept the Law in every respect? (i.e. Perfectly) In Pauline theology, (Which is pretty different from what Jesus actually taught) the Law is the tool that exposes sin.

The JW publication, United In Worship of the Only True God states on page 147:

"Using the Jews as a sample of the imperfect human family, the Law exposed all the world, including each one of us, as sinners, liable to God for punishment. (Rom. 3:19, 20) Thus it emphasized the need for a savior for mankind, and it led faithful ones to Jesus Christ as that Savior. In what way? It identified him as the only one who kept the Law perfectly, thus the only human who was sinless."

This is what the JW Bible Encyclopedia, Insight On The Scriptures states:

"The Law was “holy,” “good,” “fine” (Ro 7:12, 16), and anyone who could fully live up to this perfect Law would prove himself a perfect man, worthy of life. (Le 18:5; Ro 10:5; Ga 3:12) For this very reason the Law brought condemnation, rather than life, not because the Law was not good but because of the imperfect, sinful nature of those under it. (Ro 7:13-16; Ga 3:10-12, 19-22) The perfect Law made their imperfection and sinfulness especially evident. (Ro 3:19, 20; Ga 3:19, 22) The Law in this respect also served to identify Jesus as the Messiah, for he alone was able to keep the Law in every respect, proving himself a perfect man.—Joh 8:46; 2Co 5:21; Heb 7:26." (Volume II, pp. 602-603)

So a JW who assents to the notion that Jesus broke the Sabbath really is punching big holes in their own Ransom doctrine. Even though they toss the words, "Atone" and "Atonement" around JW's actually subscribe to the theory of substitution when it comes to the Ransom. It's a subtle distinction, but it does directly relate to the quotes from JW literature above.

Apognophos

Interesting, TD. Reading your quotations, I started wondering why I was under the impression all this time that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. To bolster your older quotes, here are some recent articles on jw.org's Library that state the same thing:

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011525?q=sabbath+jesus&p=par

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002643?q=sabbath+jesus&p=par

It's pretty clearly stated in thoes articles that the Pharisees were interpreting the Sabbath law too strictly, and that was why Jesus could heal and his disciples could pluck grain on the Sabbath -- rather than Jesus disobeying the Sabbath because he was God's son and had the authority to disobey the Law.

However -- see the following articles (relevant bits quoted below):

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011525?q=sabbath+jesus&p=par

"In effect, Jesus was saying to his critics: ‘My Father and I are engaged in the same type of work. Since my Father has kept working during his millenniums-long Sabbath, it is quite permissible for me to keep working, even on the Sabbath.'"

"The priests and Levites performed work on the Sabbath in connection with the temple and ‘remained guiltless.’ As the high priest of God’s great spiritual temple, Jesus could also carry out his spiritual assignment without fear of violating the Sabbath ."

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102002038?q=sabbath+jesus&p=par

"The Messiah, he explained, is “Lord of the sabbath ” and therefore entitled to cure people on the Sabbath. "

Sounds a lot like what I was saying, huh? Makes me wonder if everyone in the Writing department is on the same page.

scary21

Marked

disposable hero of hypocrisy

Hang on. I've had a couple of beers so tell me if I've not got this right......

Atthe beginning of this thread the OP postulated that since Jesus broke the law to save a life, (or rather heal a hand, or save an animal ), we should be able to do the same with regards to blood.

However, according to WT literature, Jesus DIDNT break the law, rather he broke the pharisees too-strict interpretation of the law.

Therefore WT = pharisees yes? Same difference either way..

disposable hero of hypocrisy

Ah.

Just re-read the OP.

That's not what he was saying at all..

I'll get me coat.

TD

However -- see the following articles (relevant bits quoted below:

Interesting, Apognophos. That strikes me as a little closer to mainstream Chrsitianity.

I wonder how far JW's could go down that road? They don't have the freedom in this area that mainstream Christianity does because they don't accept either the divinity of Christ or the Trinity, so I think they're walking a thin line when they have Jesus operating on the same moral plane as Jehovah. JW literature has actually said many times that, "Satan's challenge" would not really be answered by the faithfullness of a "God man" --That this would be cheating.

Apognophos

It looks like I messed up when I pasted in the first link in my previous post; it's the same as the third link. It was supposed to be an article that took the position that Jesus was not breaking the Law. I think it was this one:

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010888?q=Jesus+sabbath&p=par

"By the time Jesus came to earth, Jewish religious thinking and practices had strayed far from what was taught in the inspired Scriptures. The religious leaders of the day—the Sadducees, Pharisees, and scribes—upheld man-made traditions, putting them ahead of God’s written Word. Time and again they accused Jesus of breaking the Law because he performed miraculous cures on the Sabbath . By forcefully refuting their unscriptural teachings, Jesus challenged both their authority and their claims of having an approved standing with God . "

However, even the link I mistakenly used contains this sentence:

"First, consider Jesus ’ words to opposers who criticized him for healing on the Sabbath , which they construed as a form of work."

Then they make the statement that Jesus was entitled to keep working, part of which I quoted before:

"The Lord said to them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” ( John 5:16, 17 ) What was the point? Jesus was being accused of working on the Sabbath . His reply: “My Father has kept working” answered that charge. In effect, Jesus was saying to his critics: ‘My Father and I are engaged in the same type of work. Since my Father has kept working during his millenniums-long Sabbath , it is quite permissible for me to keep working, even on the Sabbath .’ Thus, Jesus implied that as regards the earth, God’s great Sabbath day of rest, the seventh day, had not ended in his day."

This is an interesting passage because the writer implies by the word "construe" that the Pharisees were wrong to count his healing as a form of work, but then the writer reasons on why it was okay for Jesus to work on the Sabbath. The reason for this non sequitur is apparently that the point of this article was to prove that we are living in the day of God's Rest, so the writer was not focused on addressing the issue of whether Jesus was working. Rather he wanted to prove that Jesus was acknowledging that the Day of Rest was continuing (which, in fact, he did not say), so the writer wanted to have Jesus performing work.

I wonder how far JW's could go down that road? They don't have the freedom in this area that mainstream Christianity does because they don't accept either the divinity of Christ or the Trinity, so I think they're walking a thin line when they have Jesus operating on the same moral plane as Jehovah.

That's true, I hadn't thought of it that way. I would just say that they probably won't be going any further down this road because they don't have to. They seem to be less interested than ever in deep doctrinal matters, and I'm not sure that anyone on the GB wants to rock the boat and start suggesting alternate ways of looking at Jesus. I think there's possibly just a lack of oversight in the finer points of doctrine in the writing (and after all, 99.9% of JWs will not notice this sort of thing).

I also wonder if the confusion doesn't stem from the Bible accounts themselves being inconsistent in their standpoint. I think that calling oneself "Lord of the Sabbath" in Luke 6 and likening oneself to God in John 5 are ways of saying "The Law doesn't apply to me", even though it's true that in other places Jesus disputes his opponents' interpretation of the Law and reasons with them on pulling an animal out of a well, etc. Perhaps we are looking at statements with different origins -- perhaps some come from a rabbinical dispute, and other statements were designed to demonstrate Jesus' divinity.

cofty

TD's post here was spot on...

It is a common vew among western evangelicals that Jesus was a christian. He was in fact a Jewish Rabbi who taught his followers to follow the Law to the last detail.

It was the lawyers' interpretation of the Law that he railed against.

Apognophos

Well, leaving aside that we don't know exactly what Jesus did and didn't say, if you take the teachings in the Gospels at face value, then how do you respond to the passages I mentioned above? Luke 6 and John 5 certainly make out Jesus to be less of a normative Rabbi and more of a maverick god-man (at least, in his own eyes).

cofty

I agree, if he said a fraction of the things the gospel writers claim he did, then he was an egomaniac.

Blood in whose army!?

Share this