Latest revision as of 16:00, 25 November 2020
Information about message (contribute ) This message has no documentation.
If you know where or how this message is used, you can help other translators by adding documentation to this message.
Message definition (In what way was Jesus' command in John 13:34 "new"? )
I suggest the answer must be no. Jesus violated (often intentionally) the Pharisees' traditions about the law, but Jesus never violated the law itself. Rather, he upheld the law in ways that made men uncomfortable. Therefore, he could never have given us an example of an action which overturns the law, only actions which clarify it, or contradict men's additions to (or traditions about) the law.
I suggest the answer must be no. Jesus violated (often intentionally) the Pharisees' traditions about the law, but Jesus never violated the law itself. Rather, he upheld the law in ways that made men uncomfortable. Therefore, he could never have given us an example of an action which overturns the law, only actions which clarify it, or contradict men's additions to (or traditions about) the law. Translation I suggest the answer must be no. Jesus violated (often intentionally) the Pharisees' traditions about the law, but Jesus never violated the law itself. Rather, he upheld the law in ways that made men uncomfortable. Therefore, he could never have given us an example of an action which overturns the law, only actions which clarify it, or contradict men's additions to (or traditions about) the law. I suggest the answer must be no. Jesus violated (often intentionally) the Pharisees' traditions about the law, but Jesus never violated the law itself. Rather, he upheld the law in ways that made men uncomfortable. Therefore, he could never have given us an example of an action which overturns the law, only actions which clarify it, or contradict men's additions to (or traditions about) the law.
