Was Jesus a Pharisee?

[Prodigal Girl]

Paul was, James was. Was Jesus?

[Eliora]

I don't think so. He didn't seem to have much regard for the "tradition of the elders." What do you think?

[Prodigal Girl]

Sept 21, 2008 4:33:36 GMT -8 Eliora said:

I don't think so. He didn't seem to have much regard for the "tradition of the elders." What do you think?

What I find problematic with this statement, is that James and Paul made it very clear that they DID have regard for the tradition of the elders, and they were Pharisees, and continued to be Pharisees for decades after the death and resurrection. A careful reading of the New Testament reveals this. Was it tradition per se that Jesus had trouble with, or was it the setting aside of G-d's laws for the sake of traditions? I say the latter. Look at what the Bible says that Paul and Stephen were FALSELY accused of.
I see this as very, very relevant today. The church teaches and believes that it is Jewish traditions and culture in particular that Jesus taught against, yet do not see that it is their OWN traditions which can and do also take precedence, in practice, over G-d's laws. The point is, EVERYONE and ANYONE has traditions; it is universal. It is what value you place on those traditions as compared to following G-d's law, that I believe Jesus was speaking to. He happened to be teaching from within his own particular tradition and culture when making this point. However I see this as so relevant in particular to the American church.
Everyone has an accent, yet cannot hear their own accent when they speak. So it is with culture. The American church interprets the Bible through their own cultural lens.
I say, that it is a distinct possibility that Jesus was a Pharisee, and that his criticism was leveled from within that group. It would be similar to a church member getting up and addressing the church, pastor, and choir, telling them to repent of shacking up, committing adultery, visiting pornographic sites, and robbing poor widows. Also telling them to open the books for all to see where the money is going to. Not very likely to happen in today's American church, but it did happen with the Old Testament prophets, who Jesus did compare himself to in one sense. When it does happen rarely in American churches, what commonly happens is that the person is not-so-politely shown the door.

[Eliora]

Well, nowadays, to be Orthodox means that you believe the decrees of the rabbis and the traditions of the elders have equal standing with the word of God. There's no way around that... And then the Orthodox Jews come out of the Pharisees. I don't know enough about the Pharisees to say one way or the other whether rabbinical decrees and tradition as law was an "established" doctrine in those days. Do you know? I'm saying that Yeshua definitely didn't seem to conform to that view (of rabbinical decrees and traditions being law). It's hard to say about Paul and the others.

But if it wasn't an *integral* part of being considered a Pharisee back then, then sure, Yeshua could've been one.

[Prodigal Girl]

It is well known in current biblical scholarship circles, that in the second temple period, there was no one particular form of Judaism that spoke for all the others across the board, that there was no one particular one that even had the power to do that.. There were many forms of "Judaisms". Yes, the mainline Orthodox rank and file today will say that their interpretation, over and against the interpretations of "heresies", is the valid one that has been handed down intact from Moses. However even within today's orthodox there exists more than one interpretation of some things.
I would agree definitely that Yeshua would not agree with today's Orthodox interpretation that the traditions of the Elders takes precedence over what the itself ( for the sake of this discussion referring to the first five Books) However, what I am questioning is these two assumptions:First, that today's Orthodox viewpoint (assuming that we can pin that down to one viewpoint, in itself problematic) is an accurate representation of "normal" Judaism of the Second (or third, depending on how you look at it) Temple period. Secondly, I question the assumption that most from both sides make, (from Christiandom and from Judaism), that Yeshua and Stephen and Paul and Peter trashed tradition across the board, not only tradition but indeed law. I would also question whether the Rabbinic tradition of today has been handed down intact from Moses or indeed even from the Second Temple period. There is a TON of change, within the Rabbinic tradition that happened since that time period, down through the middle ages and it is still happening. Just as there was a ton of change that happened in the "Church", and is still happening. And these changes did not happen in a vacuum. They happened very much as part and parcel of reaction to the "Other"; i.e., "Christianity" reacting to "Judasim" and vice-versa.
Some examples for thought:
1) Did or did not Yeshua break the law when he healed on the Sabbath? According to today's Orthodox, yes, because the healing he did was not to save a life; it could have waited until the next day. The "church" interprets this the same way; that he broke the law, because he broke how Orthodox interpreted the Law. But did he really break the Law? Did he break the law when he told the lame man who was healed, to carry his bed on the Sabbath?
2) Did Yeshua break the law when he allowed his disciples to pick and thresh grain between their hands on the Sabbath? If Orthodox today interpret that as being all right, because they were hungry, then what exactly was the problem the Pharisees back then had with it? Have the Orthodox today then strayed away from the tradition of the elders if they interpret it as being all right? Or was he breaking the Law as it was represented back then, but would not be seen as breaking it today because maybe some Orthodox have changed their minds, in the time periods since then?
Or, was it that at that time there was more than one interpretation of that WITHIN PHARISAIC TRADITION, and Yeshua came out in favor of the more lenient interpretation (that it is ok to pick and thresh some grain if you are hungry)?
I can go on and on with this. Whatever represents itself as THE Judaism in many time periods does not necessarily line up perfectly with what G-d has in my mind, in my opinion. Ditto with THE Christianity of every time period.

[Mpossoff]

Hi ProdigalGirl,

Here's an excellent exergesis from a study I did a while back which will help.

Matthew 12:1-8

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”
3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

You would excpect Yeshua in the above to immediately rebuke the disciples for breaking the Sabbath. , “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”

So Yeshua said “You foolish Pharisee’s with all your rules and regulations and traditions of men, picking grain and rubbing it between your fingers in order to eat is not breaking the Sabbath. Buy your tradition you break the commandment of God”.

I would have expected Yeshua to say the above though.

“Look you hypocrites the doesn’t say it’s breaking the Sabbath to pick grain”.

In reality the does forbid harvesting on the Sabbath. Exodus 34:21.

Instead of Yeshua saying “Uh uh, they weren’t breaking the Sabbath” He admits that they were. But defends their decision to do so.

Then Yeshua said: , 3“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

Yeshua said David and his men did something that was not lawful. Yeshua is also conceding that Him and His disciples were doing something not lawful on the Sabbath.

According to the it is not lawful for anyone to eat the bread of the presence that was in the Tabernacle except for the priesthood.

David and his men did something unlawful on the Sabbath.

What is the relationship between David and his men and Yeshua and His disciples?

Both were hungry.

In the Midrash David is explaining to the priests ‘give me some bread to eat so we will not die of hunger’. The preservation of life takes precedence over the Sabbath and most commandments.. This is a principle that is true in rabbinic literature.

Then I ask myself were Yeshua and His disciples SO hungry that their lives were in danger? That they were going to starve to death like David and his men?

It is permissible to save a life. So if someone is dying you can break the Sabbath and do whatever you can to try and save a life. You can heal if life is in danger.

So the question I have where Yeshua and His disciples SO hungry that their lives were in danger? Where is this line drawn because Yeshua heals when life is not in danger.

The sages teaching about the commandments(Leviticus) that you should live by them, not die by them. If it’s a difference between life and death you break the Sabbath.


Yeshua says: 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless. The priest break the Sabbath and are innocent. Why are they innocent? Because they have a commandment to do so. On one hand there are commandments not to break the Sabbath and one the other hand commandments to carry out the services of the Temple. When two commandments contradict each other and both are of equal weight a person has to choose the positive commandment. The Talmud says(unquote) whenever you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment contradicting, if you can fulfill both of them that’s preferable. But if not let the positive come and supercede the negative commandment. So in regards to the priesthood you have a positive commandment to do the Temple service, the positive commandment supercedes the prohibitions of Shabbat.

Yeshua and His disciples are not priests and they are not doing the Temple service. How can Yeshua construe that they have a positive commandment to eat the grain. The Talmud says(unquote) if the service of the Temple supercedes the Sabbath, how much more so should the saving of human life supercede the Sabbath laws.

This is the same argument that our Master uses. Yes indeed Yeshua had regard for tradition. Yeshua But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
The Temple service over-rides the Sabbath.

How much more so does something greater than the Temple service over-ride the prohibitions of the Sabbath?

What is it that is greater than the Temple? What is the one that is greater than the Temple?

I would say Yeshua is the one that is present that is greater than the Temple. So my thinking would be like this:

1- The Temple service over-rides the Sabbath.
2- Yeshua is greater than the Temple service
3- Therefore Yeshua can do whatever He wants to on the Sabbath.

There is a problem with this reasoning because it can be used to sanction anything.

It doesn’t make sense as a halachtic defense because Yeshua doesn’t need to keep the He can do whatever He wants. Then the point of Him being sinless and obedient becomes pointless. Are the Pharisee’s going to accept that? “Oh we forgot you are greater than the Temple” Of course not.

What is it that is greater than the Temple then? what else is present there that is greater than the Temple in the grain fields? His answer is But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.This is what is present that is greater than the Temple.Compassion for human beings.


Why was it possible for David and his men to over-ride the Temple service by taking the bread of the presence? Was King David greater than the Temple? No he wasn't. But his human need less he and his men suffer and starve was greater than the Temple service. That need was greater than the Temple service. The same in this case. Yeshua illustrates the same point in the Good Samaritan. The sages know that the preservation of life takes precedence over the Temple service. The priest should have stopped, it was wrong for him not to.

Yeshua applies this to His disciples. Their need is greater than the Temple service because they are hungry. The disciples probably were very hungry. Unfortunately at least for me I can't fantom being that hungry or starving. Compassion for human suffering to eliviate human suffering is a higher priority than even the Temple service.

Since the Temple service is higher priority than the Shabbat, the discples are halachly permitted to violate the Sabbath in this situation.

Then He says For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. I have always though that this meant Yeshua who is the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. He's Lord of the Sabbath so he can do whatever He wants. You know since He's the Lord of the Sabbath His disicples could get away with breaking the Sabbath. Son of man simple means human being in 'hebrew'. In this case this is how it should be read. Human beings take precedence over the Sabbath. Yeshua is not making this up, he is quoting a piece of oral because it is found later in rabbinic sources. In the Talmud it says(unquote) The Sabbath is giving to you, you have not been given over to the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath so that man is lord over the Sabbath.

Yeshua is actually using and quaoting oral law to exhonerate His disciples.

Some food for thought.

This makes way more sesce to me. I always beleived that Yeshua was putting them off with absurbity. Because I didn't understand the argument from a 'Jewish way of thinking'. I didn't understand that halachtic argument and the 'logic'. This is the BRILLIANT genius of the Master! Wow!

He reveals not just a genius halachtic argument BUT more importantly He reveals the HEART of God! Who prioritizes people and compassion over inflexible rules.

Marc

[Eliora]

I have no problem with tradition so long as it's taught as tradition and not as, "you must do this." Also it has to not contradict the Bible. I *think* everyone understands that Yeshua wasn't preaching against tradition when it's done as "tradition"... you think they don't?

Nowadays I'd say the problem with the washing of hands tradition is the blessing that goes with it, that says God commanded it to be done. Supposedly without saying that blessing, you haven't done the washing of the hands... could be that's what Yeshua was against, but who knows - as you pointed out, Pharisaical Judaism has changed over the millenia.

[Prodigal Girl]

Thank you Marc, that was extremely helpful and does make sense. However, I still do not get why carrying the bed would have been necessary on the Sabbath. Would he have suffered by waiting until sundown to do that?
I know, I will probably get blasted for thinking like a Pharisee... I usually do. I am just trying to understand.
I also wonder if we assume too much, when we assume that every time Yeshua spoke to the Pharisees concerning the law, that he was automatically rebuking them. I wonder if sometimes, he was merely explaining the law. Similar to the way a pastor preaches; he is more likely than not, in today's church culture, just teaching. We put this adversarial slant on it that I am not convinced is accurate to all situations. That is why I ask the question, "Was Jesus a Pharisee?

[Eliora]

About the man carrying his bed, I have to wonder if it was really a burden for him... was it a light mat? Was the guy weak or strong? How far was he going with it? We don't know.

[Mark]

Hi Marc,

It's good to hear from you again.

I'm more than a little concerned about your exegesis. If Yeshua taught in anyway contrary to or supported others in their disdain toward it, then He could not be the Messiah that has been promised in the Old Testament.

Mark

[Prodigal Girl]

Mark,
I did not gather at all, from Marc's exegesis of this passage, that Yeshua was teaching anything contrary to , or supporting others in their disdain of it. Yeshua was merely teaching the true meaning of it; how it actually works in real life, how it applies, which is EXACTLY what was promised that the Messiah would do. I personally believe that those from a church background have a disdain for anything and everything that can be construed by them to be s Jewish "oral law", while yet swallowing hook, line and sinker Church oral law, though they do not recognize it as such, even when it contradicts scriptural truth. Oral law is indeed VERY helpful in understanding scriptures, in many cases. Does that mean we have to accept anything and everything? No, we need to test everything, and that INCLUDES what we hear in the church.
I do have trouble with this section, as it is clear in the Bible that we are not to gather food on Shabbat. My interpretation of this passage, is that like David was on a Holy mission for the King (the reason he was in a state of ritual purity, as he discussed with the priest), so was allowed to eat the bread, so Yeshua' disciples were with the Annointed King and were on a mission for him. So the grain they picked was rendered o.k. to pick and eat. Yeshua's point, is that it was an unusual circumstance. This was his way of stating that He is the promised King.
War by Israel, in the Bible, always was considered (or was supposed to be considered) as a holy war, an act of sacrifice. That essentially is what war is, and I am not alone in having that view of it.
Yeshua was correct in pointing out that technically, the priests working in the temple on Shabbat are "breaking the law". Remember that Greek and Hebrew do not have quotation marks.
There very obviously are times when to follow the Law, we have to "break the law".

[Prodigal Girl]

Sept 23, 2008 13:58:49 GMT -8 Eliora said:

About the man carrying his bed, I have to wonder if it was really a burden for him... was it a light mat? Was the guy weak or strong? How far was he going with it? We don't know.

I would tend to think that it is like a typical Asian style bed used in much of the far east; a simple, very light straw mat. A person's clothes serve as their blanket, so nothing of that sort to carry. Some say that to even carry a handkerchief on Shabbat is not lawful. There certainly are today, and were then, differences of opinion on how heavy something had to be to be off limits to carry on the sabbath or how far you can carry something on the Sabbath. I believe Yeshua was simply clarifying, defining, in His way, just as rabbis would typically do, to try to apply scripture to every day. He got down to nitty-gritty. What is sadly lacking, is for Bible teachers in the church to do that today. We would not want to be legalistic or offend anyone, so nothing specific is said about what would or would not constitute as sin. We are left to figure it out all by ourselves; and to each his own. To do more, is to be legalistic, too "Pharisaical".

[Mpossoff]

Hi Prodigal Girl,

It wasn't because the disciple's were with the Messiah and He had authority to make rulings on halacha.

The main point is that it was a halachtic debate. According to halacha one could save a life, and even one could work on the Sabbath if the job consists of saving life, protecting and the like.

Marc

[Mark]

The phrase that I draw particular exception to is this:

"Instead of Yeshua saying 'Uh uh, they weren’t breaking the Sabbath' He admits that they were. But defends their decision to do so."

I had mentioned in an earlier thread on this specific subject, that the word "unlawful" is a softer word than what we generally find as applied to in the Greek. The word "existaimee" usually refers to matters of etiquite or that which is proper, reasonable or polite.

I find the reference to Exodus 34:21

Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

somewhat of a stretch in application to the current context.

Yet, even these debates are exactly the sort of thing that was goingin in Messiah's day and I appreciate the acknopwledgment that this was all part of the normal process.

We get trapped in our denominational cookie-cutters to think that when the Scripture says, "the Pharisees taught" that meant all Pharisees believed the same way. It was not at all the case. In fact, the motive of the accusation was likely not to illigitimize Messiah's commitment to ; but simply to stimulate discussion.

Whether or not biblical halacha supports denying for the sake of preserving or defending life is debateable. We could ask Daniel's friends their opinion, and such discussion deserves its own thread. (It may even already exist somewhere. I know we've talked about it before.)

I wonder if Messiah Yeshua would have taken exception to being called a Pharisee? He quoted from the Phariseeic sages in defense of His position on at least one ocassion, probably more; but it's 4:30 in the morning right now and the coffee hasn't quite kicked in.

The term "Pharisee" actually means "separated" and refers to those who have fully committed themselves and separated every area of their lives as a holy vessel for Adonai. Messiah would have fit that definition

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
(John 5:30)

But another understanding of Pharisee is simply those who were against Roman rule and separated themselves from any aspect of Greek influence. To this Messiah replied,

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

[Mpossoff]

Hi Mark,

I believe what you and I are disagreeing on is semantics.

As an example if I save a life on the Sabbath I broke the Sabbath. There is no way to justify it.

But.... why did I break the Sabbath?

Marc