Yeshua referred to both the Pharisees and the Sadducees as leaven/hypocrites (Matthew 16:6 & 12) & (Luke 12:1). His message was do as they say, not as they do (Matthew 23:3). The liberals of today, are the more defined hypocrites, and follow the path of the Pharisee Paul, who says to keep the law of God with your mind and the law of sin with your flesh (Romans 7:25). The "teachings" of the Pharisees were based on the "lying pen of the scribes", being the Talmud, which made the "law" "into a lie" (Jeremiah 8:8). That corresponds to the "hypocrites" of today, the liberals, and the liberal media, being the lying pen of the scribes of today. The expressed love and peace of the liberals is best portrayed in the New York liberal Senate cheering the law allowing for the death of live born babies.
https://www.faithwire.com/2019/01/2...ter-passing-horrific-late-term-abortion-bill/ That would correspond to the Jews sacrificing their children to the fire (Ezekiel 16:21) & (Leviticus 18:21), or in this case, offering the children to the basement furnace, in honor of the gods of convenience, by means of financial support from "many" of the liberal Jewish community to the liberal senate members. The consequences will be "woe, woe to you" (Ezekiel 16:23) to all supporters of such actions, including RINOs. Best not to live in New York, which according to statistics, numbers of Jews are moving out of state, even before the cut off of state tax deductions. They probably thought they saw the abomination of desolation of Daniel, and are fleeing to the mountains of neighboring states.
Leviticus 18:21
You must not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 22You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.…
The New York Senate was seen erupting in feverish applause after voting 38-24 to approve a bill which would allow abortion up to birth. Heralded as a major victory for pro-abortion activists, the Reproductive Health Act (RHA) was signed on the 46th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.
Why is the new legislation so horrifying?
Simply put, the RHA will allow for the termination of fully formed babies. The killings can take place if the patient is 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, if there is an absence of fetal viability, or, if “the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”
Critically, however, the intentional ambiguity of that last part allows for the destruction of the baby at any point during pregnancy should the doctor deem the mother’s wellbeing is at risk. The term “wellbeing” is, in itself, terrifyingly non-specific. So, with regards to these life and death decisions, physicians will be asked to assess “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
Effectively, abortion will be available “on demand” up until birth — if the woman wants to terminate her fully-formed child because she claims it is too much for her to deal with financially, emotionally or otherwise, she will be allowed to do so.
Well written post!
First, let me say that I am sympathetic to your conservative morality. I'm sure you know that there are different branches of Judaism, and I cannot possibly represent them all. I agree with the Orthodox Rabbis who condemn the New York abortion legislation; although halakhah does not consider abortion to be murder, it nevertheless considers it to be wrong and in Orthodox communities a woman who wants an abortion is to go before a beit din (Rabbinical tribunal) which will rule whether it is justified or not.
However, we cannot possibly say that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their liberal attitudes. Therefore there can be no comparison between this and your conclusions about the modern "leaven" of liberalism.
To understand Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees, you must first understand some historical background to give it context. I know this is long, but PLEASE do me the courtesy of reading the whole thing -- it will really give you a whole new depth to understanding the gospels.
There were actually two schools of Pharisees, one which Jesus had no problems with, and one which controlled the Sanhedrin and which Jesus hated. The hated school was actually the more strict one.
The first one was the school of Hillel. Rabbi Hillel was a stickler for obeying the Law, but he didn't want it to be a burden, and looked for ways to make it reasonable.
The second one was the school of Shammai. Rabbai Shammai was extremely strict and austere. He not only wanted Jews to obey the law, but to go way past it so as to not come even close to breaking it. It's not as though there isn't something to be said for avoiding situations that might lead to sin. It's just that Shammai gave all sorts of rulings that made observing the law into an excessive burden.
When Jesus was a very young boy, Rabbi Hillel and his followers controlled the Sanhedrin. In fact, there is a possibility that Jesus met Rabbi Hillel when he went to the Temple at age 12.
However, when Hillel died, the followers of Rabbi Shammai seized control of the Sanhedrin. These were the "religious leaders" with whom Jesus had most of his run ins. It's not as though students of Hillel weren't still around; you had Nicodemus and Simon Arimathea and others. But they weren't in control.
You also need to understand that it was Jewish tradition for the followers of Hillel and Shammai to debate with one another. The Talmud records many such arguments.
The run-ins of Jesus with the Pharisees can be seen in this light. The halakhah (Jewish law) of Jesus was that of Hillel and those he argued with had that of Shammai -- thus you hear him berating them for making the law a burden. You also hear him scorning them for being so concerned with the halakha of Shammai that they forgot the basic 613 laws of the Torah. (He was also livid at their hypocrisy, but that's another topic.)
An example of this would be some of the laws of Shabbat. Shammai ruled that it was unlawful even to heal on the Shabbat. Hillel ruled that not only was it lawful to heal with prayer on the Shabbat, but the necessity of saving a life outruled all other laws, including Shabbat. Thus according to Shammai, Jesus broke the Shabbat when he healed, but according to Hillel he did not.
So you can see how, while neither school was "liberal," it was the school which was stricter which Jesus called "leaven."
