Noted. But did you not think in the specific text that they were being legalistic? I mean that’s what their argument with each other was about? What was or was not allowed.
Replies
Your presumption that legalism is incompatible with the “meaning” of the Sabbath is what’s antisemitic. Interpreting and living according to God’s law is at the core of what it means to be a Jew. Disagreement about what is or is not allowed is holy!
aug 25, 2025, 8:54 pm • 14 0 • view
Do you not notice that Jesus is constantly shown making legalistic arguments? IIRC Paul does too.
aug 25, 2025, 9:08 pm • 3 0 • view
What would be a better term for his argument with the Pharisees for not wanting Jesus to heal on the sabbath?
aug 25, 2025, 9:19 pm • 0 0 • view
What's confounding to me is that in the story, from Jesus's perspective he did not violate the Sabbath. He didn't administer a medicine or a bandage; he performed a miracle. The Pharisees' objection is basically "we don't think you performed a miracle, so you must have provided medicine." 1/2
aug 25, 2025, 11:18 pm • 0 0 • view
The disagreement seems to be about Jesus's status and abilities, not about the laws of Shabbat. And Jesus's response seems to be "don't close your eyes to a miracle that happened before you."
aug 25, 2025, 11:20 pm • 0 0 • view
The Pharisees balanced aspects of the law. The laws of Shabbat (a landowner couldn't ask a worker for an extra day of gathering because the community would not cross the union line) and the sanctity of life (healers could break Shabbat in life threatening cases)
aug 25, 2025, 10:07 pm • 2 0 • view
For what in the story is not a life threatening illness, what aspects are being balanced here preventing Jesus to wait until sundown to do his healing work?
aug 25, 2025, 10:07 pm • 2 0 • view
The same word you would use for his "who is your neighbour" argument.
aug 25, 2025, 9:21 pm • 1 0 • view
Judaism frames justice (tzedek) as the careful application of law in a way that is fair and that balances strict law (din) with kindness/mercy (chesed), to achieve righteousness. So, we don't talk about being "legalistic", but rather about seeing the whole picture and not being overly strict. 1/
aug 26, 2025, 8:14 pm • 1 0 • view
That process isn't seen as a departure from following the law, but rather as a proper application of it. You get LONG debates and discussions about all of the principles involved, how to weigh factors and try to resolve issues. It's like reading Supreme Court of Canada opinions. (🇨🇦 lawyer here)
aug 26, 2025, 8:21 pm • 1 0 • view
Legalism is literally necessary for society to function! It's a basic part of Judaism, and that is Good and Fine! Legalism isn't a four letter word. I mean, look at the Torah: 613 mitzvot, and none of them have the clarity necessary to be constitutional. So you have Oral Torah and centuries...
aug 25, 2025, 9:00 pm • 1 0 • view
...of debate adding the necessary clarity for them to be useful and just. If the Torah says you have to execute someone for a given offense, you'd better be damned sure you know how to define and prove that the offense took place. Legalism is good.
aug 25, 2025, 9:00 pm • 2 0 • view