FOREWORD<\/p>\n
When scholars can capture the complexities of theology and biblical content in down-to-earth language, there is power and beauty. This is one of the best characteristics of Dr. David Friedman\u2019s book, They Loved the Torah. The truth he is espousing is that the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) occupied a central place in the earthly life of Yeshua the Messiah, as well as in the lives of all of his followers, including Sha\u2019ul (Paul) of Tarsus. Dr. Friedman\u2019s findings can be easily grasped.
\nThe loyalty that Yeshua and his students had toward the Torah is evident from even a cursory reading of the pages of the Newer Covenant Scriptures. Dr. Friedman makes that truth even more clear in this book. That over the centuries, many godly and sincere scholars have missed seeing the Torah faithfulness of Yeshua and his students (who later were the writers of Scripture themselves), is an amazing fact. They have asserted, instead, that Yeshua\u2019s atoning death and miraculous Resurrection rendered the Torah inoperative. Furthermore, they have taught that since Yeshua fulfilled the Torah, his followers (including us, today) have no responsibility to live it. Moreover, when it comes to Sha\u2019ul, the typical conclusion among many Pauline scholars is, as Dr. Cheryl Ann Brown asserted in her foreword to Brad Young\u2019s book, Paul, the Jewish Theologian, \u201cIn many people\u2019s minds, Paul remains the \u2018founder\u2019 of Christianity and is cut off almost\u2026 from his Jewish roots.\u201d They Loved the Torah is Dr. Friedman\u2019s significant contribution to the modern reassessment of these historical theological conclusions.
\nIn recent years, there has been a movement among many believers to take another look at the Torah and its place in the daily lives of those who trust in Yeshua. There are a growing number of voices rising in opposition to the accepted, centuries-long anti-Torah position of the majority of those who claim to follow Yeshua. In this book, Friedman has successfully demonstrated the deep love that Yeshua and his talmidim (students)\u2014including Sha\u2019ul of Tarsus\u2014had for the first five books of the Bible. Dr. Friedman has amassed clear and irrefutable evidence from the Scriptures that the Torah was more than just a book of Messianic typology to the first-century believers. Rather, Dr. Friedman has drawn the natural conclusions that have somehow escaped many Bible scholars through the centuries about the place the Torah occupied in the lives of Yeshua and his first followers. He observes that they provided living and loving examples to follow for all of us who believe in him. He has accomplished all of this in clear, down to earth language. The research can feed the scholars; the language is palatable for the laymen.
\nIt is my hope that all who read this book, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, will see the mass of evidence for Torah faithfulness accumulated by Dr. Friedman. May they be challenged to re-think their attitudes toward Torah for believers in Yeshua. They Loved the Torah contains not only sound scholarship (the basis of this book was Dr. Friedman\u2019s Ph.D. dissertation), but it is also written by a humble Jewish scholar, one who loves both the Living Torah (Yeshua), as well as the written Torah. Our family and his have been coworkers and close friends for several years. Truly, we can say of them that, just like Yeshua and his followers, they also love the Torah.<\/p>\n
\u2014Ariel Berkowitz
\nCongregational Leader, Kehilat Neve Tzion, Israel<\/p>\n
PREFACE<\/p>\n
Entering the world of the Torah is a privilege. When we study and discuss the Torah, we enter the world that many biblical figures, scholars, rabbis, and Messianic Jews entered as they attempted to learn about God. As I enter the world of the Torah through this book, I want to relay to you, the reader, my thorough respect and love for the Torah. Examining the meaning of the Torah for our day is a rich and meaningful experience. This is especially the case when we look at the Torah in the lives of the first generation of Messianic Jews. Therefore, it is with a sense of awe that I begin this essay.
\nIt is my hope that the reader will understand how Yeshua and his first followers in Israel, including Sha\u2019ul (Paul), Shim\u2019on (Peter) and Ya\u2018akov (James) related to the Torah. This is crucial if the reader desires to know what Yeshua taught and how he lived. Without understanding Yeshua\u2019s relation to the Torah, we will neither understand what he taught or how he lived his life. Furthermore, we will not know why he taught and lived as he did. To understand how Yeshua related to the Torah is relevant for all students of the Bible, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, as this is the base on which Yeshua built his life. Whether the reader is a student of first-century history, wanting to assess Yeshua\u2019s historical background, or is simply interested in developing personal religious awareness, this essay is relevant.
\nIt is necessary to give you my working definition of the Torah. As I use the term Torah, I am referring to the first five books of the Scriptures\u2014the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It would be wrong to define the Torah as Law, as is done so often by commentators, translators, and teachers. The richness of the Torah is evidenced by its makeup\u2014narrative history, instructions, instructional songs and poems, legal codes, genealogies, ethical instructions, and covenants. The fuller meaning of the term Torah refers to the full instruction given by God to the Jewish people, in what became known as the Scriptures. Each time the Torah is referred to in this book, however, its meaning is the instruction of God given in the first five books of Moses. This includes the legal codes, commandments, and statutes that we associate with the word Law. Additionally, the glossary in the back of this book will help the reader with some unfamiliar Hebrew terms. I suggest reviewing it before starting to read.
\nFinally, I wish to express my thanks to the following people for their help in the writing of this book: Dr. John Fischer, Ariel Berkowitz, L. Savage, H. Weiss, and last but certainly not least, M. Friedman, without whose encouragement this work would not exist.<\/p>\n
PART ONE
\n____________<\/p>\n
YESHUA
\nAND THE
\nTORAH<\/p>\n
CHAPTER ONE<\/p>\n
THE TORAH
\nOBSERVANCE OF YESHUA\u2019S
\nFAMILY<\/p>\n
The keys to understanding Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance are twofold. First, we will see that he kept the Torah\u2019s commandments. Then, we will see that his teachings mirrored his practice. In some sense, I am making this artificial division because every rabbi of that era taught through both practice and oral teaching as an integrated whole. After we see Yeshua\u2019s words and example, such an integrated whole will emerge.1
\nAs we examine Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance, it is logical to look at his family background. It is important to understand how Yeshua was brought up. If his family was Torah-observant, then we should expect that Yeshua would have been Torah-observant as well. His upbringing would have been rich with the study of the Torah, the keeping of the feasts and holidays, and a deep connection to the history and calling of the nation of Israel. Let us see what the evidence shows us.<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Family Upbringing<\/p>\n
When we study the scriptural information about Yeshua\u2019s home life, it soon becomes evident that his family brought him up as a Torah-observant Jew. The family fit into the normal range of Torah observance for their era and geographic location (first century C.E. Galilean Judaism). This is seen from Yeshua\u2019s earliest days. In Luke 2:21\u201332, Yeshua and his family fulfilled the Mitzvah of circumcision as mentioned in Exodus 13:2, 11\u201316 and Leviticus 12:1\u20138. The Leviticus text states:<\/p>\n
When a woman gives birth to a boy \u2026 he is to be circumcised on the eighth day \u2026 and when the days of purification pass \u2026 bring a one-year old sheep for a burnt offering, and a dove or pigeon for a sin offering, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the kohen \u2026 or bring two pigeons or two doves, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering; and the kohen will perform the atonement and purification ceremony, (author\u2019s translation)<\/p>\n
The text in Luke shows the literal fulfillment of this Mitzvah by Joseph and Miriam (Mary), Yeshua\u2019s parents.<\/p>\n
On the eighth day, when it was time for his b\u2019rit-milah [circumcision], he was given the name Yeshua. \u2026 [T]hey took him up to Yerushalayim [Jerusalem] to present him to ADONAI (as it is written in the Torah of ADONAI, \u201cEvery firstborn male is to be consecrated to ADONAI\u201d) and also to offer a sacrifice of a pair of doves or two young pigeons, as required by the Torah of ADONAI. (Luke 2:21\u201324)<\/p>\n
Yeshua was circumcised according to the Mitzvot of the Mosaic (and Abrahamic) Covenant(s). The Greek phrase, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c2 (kata ton nomon Moseus, according to the Torah of Moses), in Luke 2:22, makes it clear that Yeshua\u2019s family did this in order to fulfill the requirements of the Torah. Luke 2:24, explains that the sacrifice offered by the family was the one mentioned in Leviticus 12:8. Here is one clear example of the Torah-observant ways of Yeshua\u2019s family. In addition, it is doubtful that the righteous man of Luke 2:25, meaning a strict Torah-observant Jew, would bless the Messiah (v. 28) if the Messiah was not going to be Torah-observant. A tzaddik would not give this blessing to a Torah-ignorant person. It is hardly conceivable, based on any Jewish writings or rabbinic literature with which I am familiar, that the Messiah would not observe the Torah. The text makes it clear why Yeshua and his family came to Jerusalem in this instance: \u201cto do for him [Yeshua] what the Torah required\u201d (v. 27b).
\nIndeed, the family\u2019s scrupulous Torah observance is shown in Luke 2:39: \u201cYosef and Miryam [Joseph and Mary] \u2026 finished doing everything required by the Torah.\u201d Both the Greek text and the corresponding Hebrew translations bring out the beautiful flavor of this phrase, which well portrays the fact that Joseph and Miriam were careful to fulfill all of the Mitzvot of the Torah regarding the birth, ritual cleansing period, circumcision, and sacrifices for their newborn son. This alone tells us a good deal about the family atmosphere in which Yeshua was raised. His family was not abnormal. As Dr. Safrai noted in his lecture of December 16, 1996, in Jerusalem, Israel, a Torah-observant home environment was normal for a Galilean Jewish family of that period. Logic, culture, and history dictate that Yeshua grew up as a Torah-observant child and youth.
\nAt age twelve, we find Yeshua fulfilling a Mitzvah of the Torah with his family. Luke 2:41 states, \u201cEvery year Yeshua\u2019s parents went to Yerushalayim for the festival of Pesach [Passover].\u201d It is evident that participating in the pilgrimage festivals was the custom of Yeshua\u2019s family. As with all Jews of that time, this was done out of obedience to the Mitzvot of the Torah. Here, the family fulfilled the Mitzvah found in Exodus 23:14\u201315 and Deuteronomy 16:16. The Deuteronomy text states, \u201cThree times a year all your men are to appear [in Yerushalayim] in the presence of ADONAI your God \u2026 [including] at the festival of matzah [unleavened bread\/Passover].\u201d Yeshua\u2019s family kept the festival cycle outlined in Leviticus 23.
\nOn this particular Passover pilgrimage, the twelve-year-old Yeshua showed his desire to serve God and to know the true meaning of the Torah. He spent three full days in discussion of the Torah with leading Jerusalem rabbis (see Luke 2:43\u201350). If Yeshua, or his family for that matter, had been hostile to observing the Torah, this pilgrimage event would not have occurred. It is highly unlikely that Yeshua would have engaged in a three-day discussion about the Torah with rabbis if he had held an anti-Torah attitude. Although it is impossible to identify these Jerusalem rabbis, they may have been Sanhedrin members. Leading Sanhedrin members headed yeshivas, or religious schools, where they taught young Jewish boys and men about the Torah. To engage in discussion of the Torah with a young Jewish pilgrim from Galilee is very imaginable. In Luke 2, could Yeshua have discussed the Torah with such eminent teachers as the sages Hillel, Shammai, or Rabban Gamliel (Sha\u2019ul\u2019s teacher)? We do not know. Yet, it does remain within the realm of historical possibility that this happened. No matter who these rabbis actually were, it is hardly possible that three days worth of discussions could have taken place between such lovers of the Torah and Yeshua, had Yeshua not been Torah-observant.2
\nAs a youth, Yeshua is also portrayed as fulfilling Exodus 20:12, which states, \u201cHonor your father and mother.\u201d Luke 2:51 notes that Yeshua \u201cwent with them [his parents] to Natzeret [Nazareth] and was obedient to them.\u201d Yeshua was obedient to his parents, thereby fulfilling more of the Torah\u2019s instructions. Although Exodus 20:12 is not mentioned specifically in Luke 2:51, Yeshua\u2019s actions did fulfill this Mitzvah.
\nRabbi Harvey Falk states, \u201cHe [Yeshua] strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically \u2026 not one of our sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah.\u201d3<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Torah-Observant Cousin<\/p>\n
It is appropriate to determine if Yeshua\u2019s relatives were Torah-observant, as this would strengthen the picture of the extended family being devoted to fulfilling the Torah. The Scriptures are relatively silent regarding this issue. However, one of Yeshua\u2019s relatives, his cousin John, is portrayed in a Torah-observant light.
\nIn Mark 6:17\u201320, we have our relevant text. Yeshua\u2019s cousin John the Baptist is murdered for his devotion to the Torah. Due to his love for God, he had rebuked King Herod Antipas, who had disobeyed the Mitzvah of Leviticus 18:16: \u201cYou are not to have sexual relations with your brother\u2019s wife, because that is your brother\u2019s prerogative.\u201d
\nJohn reproved the king for breaking this Mitzvah (see Mark 6:18). Although Antipas murdered him in return, the king feared John and considered him a tzaddik, or righteous man. In the historical context of this event, it took a very Torah-zealous person to rebuke Herod Antipas, as it was a dangerous act to perform. This king had the power to kill John if he was insulted by his rebuke. John\u2019s motivation was one of devotion to God and to God\u2019s Torah. It is of note that the term used in the Greek New Testament (Mark 6:20) to refer to John is \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (andra dikaion). This is the probable Greek cognate term corresponding to the Hebrew technical term, \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 (the aforementioned word, tzaddik). Indeed, John\u2019s students are elsewhere described as fasting and praying often: \u201cThe disciples of John often fast and offer prayers, the disciples of the Pharisees also do the same\u201d (Luke 5:33 NASB). If John\u2019s students lived in this manner, it is logical that they learned to do so from John. John understood that he was a forerunner to Yeshua, who would have even greater influence. In fact, he stated, \u201cAfter me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals\u201d (Mark 1:7 NASB).
\nIf, according to Mark 6:20, John was a tzaddik, Yeshua would have been one all the more so\u2014being as scrupulously Torah-observant as his cousin was. I therefore conclude that, since John was uncompromisingly Torah-observant, even unto death, Yeshua would also have been so. The two men were from the same family, and should have been consistent in the manner in which they approached Torah observance. The record bears this out.
\nAdditionally, Luke 1:6 sheds light on the manner of Torah observance of John\u2019s parents: \u201cBoth of them [John\u2019s parents] were righteous before God, observing all the Mitzvot and ordinances of Adonai blamelessly.\u201d In this verse, the Greek word \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (dikaioi) is used in describing John\u2019s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth. This is the same Greek word as in Mark 6:20, where the text spoke of John as being a tzaddik.
\nLet us remember that the Hebrew word tzaddik means a scrupulously Torah-observant person. John was raised in this manner, with parents who were zealous toward fulfilling the Mitzvot. As mentioned earlier, John was arrested and later murdered when he reproved the king for breaking the Torah. The picture that we see of John and his parents, then, is one of devotion to keeping and teaching the Torah.
\nAfter examining the evidence, we can conclude that Yeshua was brought up in a Torah-observant atmosphere. His immediate family, as evidenced by his parents\u2019 lives, was Torah-observant. His broader family, as evidenced by the lives of his cousins (from the house of Zechariah the priest), was also Torah-observant. The New Testament paints this picture for us. In short, we can readily see that Yeshua\u2019s family brought him up to observe the Mitzvot of the Torah.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER TWO<\/p>\n
YESHUA AND
\nHIS SABBATH
\nOBSERVANCE<\/p>\n
Central to showing Yeshua\u2019s Torah-observant life is an understanding of his observance of the Sabbath (see Exod. 20:8; 23:12\u201313; Lev. 23:3). Sabbath observance was considered a prime duty and crucial Mitzvah in the Second Temple era. Whatever particular wing of Judaism a person may have adhered to in this period, all Jewry looked upon the keeping of the Sabbath as extremely important.<\/p>\n
How Did Yeshua Keep the Sabbath?<\/p>\n
The evidence from the New Covenant clearly indicates that Yeshua kept the Sabbath (see Matt. 5:17\u201320; Luke 4:16\u201322, 31). Therefore, the question to be considered is not whether Yeshua kept the Sabbath, but rather, \u201cIn what manner did he keep it?\u201d Our conclusions will uphold the main assertion of this book: Yeshua lived an undeniably Torah-observant lifestyle.
\nHow is it that Yeshua actually kept the Sabbath if he received so much opposition from religious teachers concerning his Sabbath observance? (Please refer to Luke 6:1\u201311; John 7:22\u201324; and John 9:16 for examples of this opposition.) Jewish sources differ as to if and how Yeshua transgressed the Mitzvah of Sabbath observance. However, most sources agree that Yeshua had differences with various movements of the Israeli Jewish world of his time.
\nFour well known scholars\u2014Klausner, Montefiore, Abrahams, and Cohen\u2014have asserted that Yeshua violated the Mitzvah of keeping the Sabbath, while two other scholars\u2014Jacobs and Schonfeld\u2014asserted that he did not break any scriptural Mitzvot regarding the Sabbath. Still four others\u2014Kohler, Flusser, Lapide, and Vermes\u2014asserted that he did not violate scriptural Mitzvot, nor did he have any major differences with accepted Pharisaic Sabbath keeping.1 Indeed, Kohler suggested that the whole Sabbath conflict regarding Yeshua could be understood in light of the arguments of Rabbi Hillel with Rabbi Shammai concerning how to correctly fulfill the Sabbath Mitzvot.
\nOne of the most influential Second Temple period scholars of our time, Shmuel Safrai, noted that Yeshua kept the Sabbath fully according to the halakhah of his day. Commenting upon Yeshua\u2019s Sabbath observance, Dr. Safrai stated, \u201cIt was 100 percent according to the Law.\u201d2 Vermes agreed with him:\u201d [Yeshua\u2019s] basic attitudes [toward the Sabbath] \u2026 are the same as those of the rabbis.\u201d3 I believe, following Flusser, Lapide, and Vermes, that Yeshua did not break any scriptural Mitzvot concerning the Sabbath. His differences with various religious leaders, as outlined in the New Covenant, should be understood as typical of the world of first-century Judaism.<\/p>\n
Historical Background on Sabbath Observance<\/p>\n
Many examples of this type of halakhic conflict are to be found in the rabbinic literature of the first century B.C.E. As mentioned above, the religious schools of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai\u2014both well within the Pharisaic tradition\u2014are said to have had over 300 points of contention between them concerning how to fulfill the Torah. In other words, these rabbis and their students were allies with each other, yet they daily argued, debated, and struggled with each other over the most important issue in life to all of them\u2014understanding the Torah. Yeshua simply took part in this struggle. Often, these differences of opinion, as in Yeshua\u2019s case, took on proportions of life and death. We have an example of these differences in the Talmud. Rabbi Tarfon was traveling and stopped to pray, praying after the manner taught by Rabbi Shammai.<\/p>\n
Rabbi Tarfon said, \u201cI was travelling on the road and I reclined to recite the Shema [a special prayer], according to the ruling of Bet Shammai. Robbers came, endangering me \u2026 [so I fled].\u201d His colleagues told him, \u201cYou would have deserved what you would have gotten [death] for not adhering to Bet Hillel\u2019s ruling [on how to pray].\u201d (Mishnah Berakhot 1:3)<\/p>\n
Those Pharisaic rabbis who adhered to Rabbi Hillel\u2019s teaching on prayer had no sympathy for Tarfon in his near escape from death at the hand of bandits, since Tarfon prayed according to Rabbi Shammai\u2019s custom. This reaction to Tarfon\u2019s predicament illustrates the seriousness of interpretational differences among allies in the first century. In part, this is because interpretational differences involved political differences.
\nIn the above situation, the Second Temple had already fallen (70 C.E.). The Israeli city of Yavneh had absorbed many refugee Pharisees. Various Pharisaic schools of thought were jockeying for the head position from which to lead the Jewish people through this difficult period of Roman oppression. Whomever you followed in terms of Torah interpretation was the one whose movement you supported in terms of political power. This was unavoidable. Certainly, there were genuine points of interpretational conflict. However, the motivation of the Yavneh rabbis was to follow God and preserve the Jewish people.
\nMany other halakhic conflicts portrayed in the Talmud, although too numerous to mention, can be seen in this light.4 Such doctrinal and political differences were a definite part of Yeshua\u2019s arguments with some Pharisees. We will see that the doctrinal and political differences, as in Rabbi Tarfon\u2019s case, very much influenced the severity of the conflict between Yeshua and the authorities that argued with him. In fact, Safrai noted that in Second Temple times verbal sparring among rabbis was a common, accepted practice. This was particularly true between Galilean and Judean religious authorities. Safrai commented that Galilee, where Yeshua was educated and raised, was actually more devoted, as a whole, to the study and practice of the Torah than many parts of Judah.5 Some of Yeshua\u2019s arguments with the religious authorities in Judah were common to the rivalry between Galilean and Judean religious teachers of this era. In fact, both Safrai and Young feel that Yeshua\u2019s approach to the Torah was close to that of the \u201cHasidic\u201d movement of his day.6<\/p>\n
Case in Point: The Shabbat<\/p>\n
Let us examine the scriptural evidence of Yeshua\u2019s Sabbath observance (see Matt. 12:9; Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke 4:16, 31; 6:6; 13:10; 14:1; John 5:1\u201316; John 9). In all of these narratives Yeshua is either in synagogue on the Sabbath or is teaching on the Sabbath. Luke 4:16 and 4:31 indicate that it was Yeshua\u2019s custom to pray in synagogue on every Sabbath, observing this day according to local custom. Luke 4:16 says, \u201cOn Shabbat he [Yeshua] went to the synagogue as usual.\u201d This shows us what he normally did on the Sabbath. Luke 4:31 confirms this: \u201c[Yeshua] made a practice of teaching them on Shabbat.\u201d
\nLet us look at some examples of Yeshua\u2019s Shabbat observance that have been brought into question, both by his contemporaries as well as by many interpreters down through the centuries.<\/p>\n
Healing and Handling the Sick<\/p>\n
Mark mentions the timing of one of Yeshua\u2019s acts of healing: \u201cThat evening after sundown, they brought to Yeshua all who were ill or held in the power of demons\u201d (1:32). The verse emphasizes that Yeshua publicly healed during what is termed \u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea (Hebrew, motza\u2019ey Shabbat), that is, after the official passing of the Sabbath. This was done to insure keeping the oral traditions around the Sabbath concerning the transport of invalid persons. Although what customs were kept then is not revealed, we can make an educated guess about the general sentiment of the time. Lachs, commenting upon this verse, noted, \u201cThe people waited until evening [motza\u2019ey Shabbat] to carry out their sick to him [Yeshua], and thus avoiding desecrating the Shabbat by carrying them, an act which was forbidden.\u201d7
\nIt is also true that at other times (and as a principle) Yeshua healed people on the Sabbath (see Mark 1:29\u201331). The issue was not whether healing could take place on the Sabbath (see John 5:1\u201316; 9:13\u201314). In both of these instances, Yeshua taught that healing could take place on the Sabbath, according to the ruling of Beyt Hillel. The issue was whether he would authorize and allow the transportation of sick people on the Sabbath.8
\nPut differently, the issue is whether Yeshua had the authority to teach anything other than the accepted custom concerning the transportation of sick people on the Sabbath. To know the answer to this, the exact identity of Yeshua\u2019s opposition in John 5 and John 9 is crucial. Although we do not know who these people were, they undoubtedly held to the opinion of Beyt Shammai on this issue. Yeshua did not agree with them. (It is possible that this opposition came from one or more of Shammai\u2019s second-generation yeshivas, which held much political power among the Pharisees in these years.)
\nThe Sabbath healing texts of the New Testament present a difficult problem concerning understanding how Yeshua observed the Sabbath. Yet, one thing is certain: Yeshua is recorded as having observed it, and he entered into many arguments on how to correctly keep it. As Parkes noted, \u201cThe sphere of disagreement was the sphere of the development of halachah.\u2026 It is not the observance of the Sabbath itself which is at issue.\u201d9<\/p>\n
halakhic Argumentation Regarding the Sabbath<\/p>\n
Matthew 12:1\u20138 provides another example of how Yeshua kept the Sabbath. In verse 2, Yeshua was accused of teaching his students to break the Sabbath. He countered the accusation with what is known as a rabbinic \u05e7\u05dc \u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 (Hebrew, kal vachomer) argument.10 He then backed his answer with two scriptural proofs. By doing this, he demonstrated that the customs and avot 11 that his accusers accepted had corrupted the correct order of priorities on the Sabbath. Perhaps what infuriated Yeshua\u2019s opponents, more than his actual halakhic argumentation, was the claim he made in verse 6, \u201cI tell you, there is in this place something greater than the Temple.\u201d
\nThis point was central to Yeshua\u2019s argument. These particular Pharisees probably perceived it as an outrageous, almost ridiculous comment, but it changed the essence of the argument from how to keep the Sabbath to Yeshua\u2019s true identity. The point to be made is that Yeshua argued for the setting of proper priorities on the Sabbath. His argumentation is halakhic and normal for first-century Judaism. A few years before Yeshua was an adult, Rabbis Hillel and Shammai argued fervently with each other for their understanding of the Torah, yet few would question their loyalty to it. Their students also argued against each other regarding their distinct interpretations of the Torah, yet no responsible scholar could question their loyalty to keeping it. Here is an example of this type of halakhic argumentation.<\/p>\n
Olives and grapes that have turned hard, the school of Shammai declare susceptible to uncleanness, but the school of Hillel declare them insusceptible. The school of Shammai declare black cummin insusceptible to uncleanness, and the school of Hillel declare it susceptible. So, too, do they differ concerning whether it is liable to tithes. (Danby edition, Mishnah Uktzin 2:6)<\/p>\n
On the issue of ritual uncleanness, Beyt Hillel and Beyt Shammai differed regarding the categorizing of olives, grapes, and black cummin, as well as what items were liable for tithing. More examples of Beyt Hillel-Beyt Shammai argumentations are found in the Talmud. In fact, this passionate halakhic argumentation did, on occasion, lead to changes of opinion regarding how to fulfill the Torah. Such argumentation was valuable in formulating halakhah. Here is an example of such a change of opinion.<\/p>\n
If a woman returned from beyond the sea [abroad] and said, \u201cMy husband is dead,\u201d she may marry again; and if she said, \u201cMy husband died childless,\u201d she may contract levirate marriage. So [teaches] the school of Shammai. And the school of Hillel says: we have heard no such tradition save of a woman that returned from the harvest. The school of Shammai answered: It is all one (the same set of circumstances), whether she returned from the harvest or from the olive-picking or from beyond the sea \u2026 the school of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the school of Shammai. (Danby edition, Mishnah Eduyot 1:12a)<\/p>\n
In the above incident, the argumentation between the yeshivas of Hillel and Shammai led to Beyt Hillel changing its opinion, and changing the way they would fulfill this aspect of halakhah. After Beyt Shammai\u2019s representatives argued their case to Beyt Hillel\u2019s representatives, both Pharisaic schools accepted the opinion that a woman could remarry upon her own testimony, either freely or according to the Deuteronomy 25:5 levirate marriage law. The halakhic argumentation that took place served to provide a way for the two schools to get their teachings and reasoning heard. Their goal was to influence the developing halakhah. In all of this halakhic disputation, the main motivation was the desire to fulfill the Torah.
\nSimilarly, in Matthew 12, Yeshua was arguing for the correct manner in which to keep the Sabbath. It is not reasonable to think that he intended, in any way, to break the Sabbath\u2014because then he would have had to break the Torah. The type of argumentation found in Matthew 12 demonstrates the way in which the Jewish world of the first century taught the proper method of understanding and fulfilling the Torah. Clearly, Yeshua was doing just that, arguing fervently about how to fulfill the Torah and how to correctly understand the Torah\u2019s requirements and priorities.<\/p>\n
Plucking Grain<\/p>\n
A few matters remain to be discussed concerning this issue. Regarding the incident just cited, Rabbi Safrai noted, \u201cYeshua entered into a halakhic argument and gave his reasoning. He did not break the Sabbath.\u201d12 Rabbi Safrai also observed that Yeshua and his students did not actually pluck the grain. He reasoned that no group of people would enter into or trample upon an uncut field of grain, as it was not legal to do so. However, Safrai noted that it is legal to enter such a grain field if the crops were already cut. Then, all who desire to do so, can enter, pick up grain lying on the ground, husk it in their hands, and eat. In fact, the Torah allows such a practice.<\/p>\n
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:9\u201310 NASB)<\/p>\n
Rabbi Safrai understood that Yeshua\u2019s students, instead of plucking the grain, picked up already cut grain off the ground. The Complete Jewish Bible correctly states, \u201cThey began picking heads of grain and eating them\u201d (Matt. 12:1). Picking heads of grain (off the ground, or off the stem, which was probably on the ground) is what Safrai understood to be happening in the text.13 Interestingly, the Talmud records a situation where we can see the different positions Jews held concerning this halakhic issue.<\/p>\n
The men of Jericho did six things: for three they were reproved, and for three, they were not reproved.\u2026 [The sages did not reprove them when] they reaped and stacked [ripe barley] before the Omer. [The sages did reprove them when] they ate from fallen fruit on the Sabbath. (Pesachim 4:8)<\/p>\n
Here, we can see the difference in the interpretation of proper halakhah between the Jews of Jericho and the stricter rabbis. The Jews of Jericho did not see any halakhic fault with eating fallen fruit on the Sabbath, yet the rabbis did. Here, the differences in halakhic interpretation are regional. Jericho, in the Jordan Valley, depended upon fruit for sustenance and economic life. Pesachim 4:8 probably refers to incidents around the time of Passover. Therefore, the issue being brought up is similar to the one in Matthew 12.
\nWhat was permitted halakhically regarding eating produce on the Sabbath? It is important for us to see that this kind of argumentation and regional understanding was standard for that day and age. First, who were these particular Pharisees that were out on this Sabbath, observing Yeshua and his students in the Matthew 12 text? Were they sent from Jerusalem to spy out the actions of the Galilean rabbi? Were they, perhaps, young, zealous yeshiva students eager to engage Yeshua in debate? Were they sent to find promising Galilean students to become their disciples and party members? Were they teachers and rabbis passing through the region, en route from teaching in one synagogue to the next? Or, were they strict adherents to the teachings of Beyt Shammai?.
\nIf we knew their identity, we could better understand the nature of their charges against Yeshua. My guess is that they were zealous young Pharisee party members from one of the Jerusalem academies, sent to assess the ritual state of Galilean Jews and to find promising candidates for instruction back in Jerusalem. Even if they were Pharisees who lived in the Galilee, this incident is very believable. Among Galilean sages themselves, there was an argument as to what was permitted regarding the husking, then eating, of grain on the Sabbath.14<\/p>\n
Made for Man<\/p>\n
Yeshua made another point that could easily have been understood as controversial, but would hardly have been grounds on which to establish a charge of Sabbath breaking. In Matthew 12:8, Yeshua asserted that human beings have authority over the Sabbath. In addition, he inferred that he, as Messiah, had the right to teach the true means of keeping the Sabbath and define its priorities. Yeshua pointed out that mankind, collectively, is king over the Sabbath, and that this order should not be reversed. Therefore, the Sabbath should serve man. Man should not be enslaved by attempting to live according to various opinions concerning correct Sabbath observance.
\nIn Mark\u2019s version of this incident, Yeshua stated the same point: \u201cThen he said to them, \u2018Shabbat was made for mankind, not mankind for Shabbat. So the Son of Man is Lord even of Shabbat\u2019 \u201d 2:27\u201328). Verse 28 expands upon the principle stated in verse 27. I understand Yeshua to be saying that collectively, men rule over the Sabbath. Yeshua, as a special \u201cSon of Man\u201d (in Second Temple language, \u201cson of man\u201d denoted an apocalyptic figure, or the Messiah), had authority from God to teach the Jewish people about correct Sabbath priorities. This incident demonstrates that Yeshua honored the Sabbath by defending it\u2014by arguing for its true meaning. He stood up for what he considered proper priority setting for Sabbath observance.
\nYeshua\u2019s understanding of man\u2019s relationship to the Sabbath was consistent with that of many rabbis of his time. As Vermes wrote, \u201c[The idea that] the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, is also firmly rooted in rabbinic thought.\u2026 Sabbath observance in the second century, and probably also in the first, was subservient to the essential well-being of a Jew.\u201d15
\nA merciful, grace-full keeping of the Sabbath with proper scriptural priorities was not a new concept introduced by Yeshua. This was God\u2019s original intention in giving the Sabbath to the Jewish people. Yeshua, however, heard, saw, and experienced wrong teaching as to how to keep the Sabbath. The Gospel narratives show us that Yeshua, as the Messiah of Israel, passionately taught about correct Sabbath keeping. Other rabbis of his day and age did the same. The one difference is that Yeshua made a Messianic claim and taught that his teaching (or interpretation) was authoritative. This was the claim that caused much friction.<\/p>\n
Shabbat: To Do Good<\/p>\n
Matthew 12:9\u201315 is another passage of Scripture where we can see Yeshua\u2019s attitude toward keeping the Sabbath. Here, he was accused of violating some unidentified group\u2019s customs of healing on the Sabbath. Again, with a rabbinic kal vachomer argument,16 he debated his accusers, giving them the correct understanding of Sabbath priorities. Verse 12 stands out as his \u201cumbrella\u201d teaching here: \u201cTherefore, what is permitted on Shabbat is to do good.\u201d
\nA few observations may help us to see why the Pharisees wanted to \u201cdo away\u201d with Yeshua (see v. 14). First, the accusers wanted to frame Yeshua for some type of serious Torah violation (see v. 10b for insight into their aim). Their question regarding healing may have been a lead-in, or trap, to get Yeshua to debate them. It may also have been designed to force Yeshua into contradicting their understanding of permissible Sabbath healings. Whatever their motive, we should read this situation as a confrontation between Yeshua and this group of Pharisees. These Pharisees did not represent the viewpoint of all Israel. Verse 15 shows that Yeshua was popular with the common people, while he threatened the popularity, mission, and authority of these particular Pharisees. As much as he was a threat to their perception of proper Jewish Sabbath practice, he was an even greater political threat. This aspect of the confrontation should not be underestimated, especially as it relates to the role it played in Yeshua\u2019s eventual death. Yeshua made enemies in high places, as evidenced by his interaction with these Pharisees.
\nIn Mark\u2019s version of this incident 3:1\u20136, allies of King Herod Antipas (son of Herod the First) joined with these angered Pharisees (see Luke 6:11) to form a plot to kill Yeshua. Antipas ruled over a smaller area than his father did. Likewise, Mark 3:6 emphasizes the political aspect of the conflict at hand. This conflict had more to do with the struggle between these Pharisees and Yeshua\u2019s perceived influence and role than it did with the question of how the Sabbath was to be observed. Yeshua and King Herod Antipas were at odds regarding their basic concepts of life. In Luke 13:32, Yeshua called Antipas a fox. In rabbinic literature, a fox represents a puffed-up buffoon who thinks he has great power (but in reality has little, if any). Antipas would have taken Yeshua\u2019s comment, in spite of its truth, as a curious and hard insult. In this same verse, Yeshua told Antipas what real power was: the ability to defeat death and rise again on the third day. For Antipas, power lay in his ability to please the Roman superpower and to spy on his people, controlling them by forceful means. This gives us some insight into a powerful enemy that Yeshua made, and why Antipas did not help Yeshua as he was facing death by Roman hands. In Luke 23:11\u201312, we see that Antipas used Yeshua\u2019s death as a means to befriend the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Yeshua was a political steppingstone for Antipas. Luke states that Antipas treated Yeshua with contempt (see v. 11). In standing up for the Torah, Yeshua made an enemy of the Herodian king, much as his cousin John had done before him.<\/p>\n
Unloosing Oxen<\/p>\n
Luke 13:10\u201317 is another Sabbath healing narrative. Here, Yeshua healed a handicapped woman, and was opposed by the chief synagogue official.<\/p>\n
But the president of the synagogue, indignant that Yeshua had healed on the Shabbat, spoke up and said to the congregation, \u201cThere are six days in the week for working; so come during those days to be healed, not on Shabbat\u201d (v. 14).<\/p>\n
This official understood that one could only receive healing on a weekday (Hebrew, \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc, yom hol). On the Sabbath, healing was forbidden. This, in particular, reflects a pro-Shammaite view of healing on the Sabbath. Remember that Rabbi Shammai founded one of the Pharisaic schools of thought in Jerusalem, a generation or so before Yeshua. Here, Yeshua was teaching again on the proper priorities during the Sabbath. Probably, Yeshua is opposing the Shammaite school\u2019s understanding of the Sabbath. Commenting on Yeshua\u2019s healings on the Sabbath, Rabbi Safrai stated, \u201cThere was no halakhah against it!\u201d17 In fact, Safrai suggested that perhaps the head synagogue official was not as learned in the Sabbath halakhah as was Yeshua. Safrai observed that only if Yeshua had made medicine on the Sabbath would healing have been forbidden. Yeshua, however, made no medicine on the Sabbath. Again, let us note Yeshua\u2019s presence in the synagogue on the Sabbath, worshipping with local Jews according to local custom.
\nVerses 15\u201316 portray Yeshua\u2019s teaching on proper Sabbath observance. On this occasion, he again used the rabbinic kal vachomer style of argumentation in stating:<\/p>\n
\u201cYou hypocrites! Each one of you on Shabbat\u2014don\u2019t you unloose your ox or your donkey from the stall and lead him off to drink? This woman is a daughter of Avraham, and the Adversary kept her tied up for eighteen years. Shouldn\u2019t she be freed from this bondage on Shabbat?\u201d<\/p>\n
The reaction of the Jewish worshippers was one of joy and delight at the Sabbath healings of Yeshua. \u201cBut the rest of the crowd were happy about all the wonderful things that were taking place through him [Yeshua]\u201d (v. 17). The common Jewish citizens embraced Yeshua\u2019s actions and teachings. This should not surprise us. The people wanted to be met by a God of grace and mercy on the Sabbath. This is precisely what they encountered in Yeshua.
\nMy conclusion from this section of Luke is that Yeshua did end up arguing with some authorities that were in the synagogue. He was found keeping the Sabbath, however, and his arguments concerned how to properly keep the Sabbath, not if the Sabbath should be kept. His teaching was that of a concerned, compassionate rabbi. Yeshua did indeed transgress the synagogue ruler\u2019s understanding of what it meant to observe the Sabbath. However, this was a typical rabbinical halakhic argument, which occurred all the time in Israel. The argument should not affect our view of Yeshua\u2019s zealousness to observe the Sabbath. Yeshua contested the synagogue ruler\u2019s interpretation of how to observe the Sabbath, a ruler most likely from the school of thought founded by Rabbi Shammai.
\nIn John 5:1\u201316, Yeshua healed a crippled man on the Sabbath. This occurred at the Beyt Zata pool by the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. There was a particularly negative reaction to this Sabbath healing by an unidentified group of Judean religious authorities (see vv. 10, 16). Problems have arisen from oversimplifying this text, and it is wrongly believed that this opposition was on behalf of the entire Jewish people. This recorded opposition was from a particular group of religious leaders. Possibilities as to their identification include a specific wing of pro-Shammai Pharisees, or certain Sadducean priests, or a mixture of both. The early portion of this text indicates that the point of contention was not necessarily that Yeshua healed on the Sabbath. The problem was that because of his healing, the once crippled man broke some group\u2019s understanding of the avot 18 of the Sabbath by carrying his rug or mattress. As Fischer noted, \u201cBecause He [Yeshua] might depart from some of the competing or varying traditions they departed from God\u2019s purpose in the Law.\u201d19
\nSafrai observed that even here, Yeshua broke none of the written Torah. In a closed place such as this particular site, one could pick up a mattress and walk without actually transgressing the Torah. Not everyone would do so, but it was not a transgression of the Torah.20 Vermes said, \u201cIn sum, whether in the domain of the Sabbath laws or in that of dietary regulations, it cannot be maintained that Jesus opposed their observance.\u201d21
\nYeshua, then, was fiercely battling here for the correct observance of the Sabbath. It is in this light that we must see all of his arguing regarding the Sabbath.
\nIn conclusion, the evidence shows that Yeshua fervently contended for the Sabbath to be observed correctly. In his teaching and practice of the Sabbath, he strove for an understanding of the correct priorities. He observed the Sabbath with the same desire to fulfill this Mitzvah as any religious leader of his time. In short, Yeshua\u2019s attitude toward keeping the Sabbath reflects his attitude toward the Torah\u2014one of respect and reverence with a passion to fulfill it. This is entirely consistent with what he taught in Matthew 5:17\u201318, to which I refer the reader.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER THREE<\/p>\n
YESHUA AND
\nTHE KOSHER
\nDIETARY LAWS<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance is also shown in his relationship to the kosher dietary regulations of the Torah. Although there is no teaching of his that is entirely devoted to expounding on the Torah\u2019s dietary proscriptions, there is evidence of his practice in this matter.
\nFirst, why is it important to single out the kosher dietary Mitzvot and to observe Yeshua\u2019s relationship to them? Throughout the past 3,000 plus years, the Jewish people have looked at \u05db\u05e9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea (kashrut) as a crucial part of Torah observance. If Yeshua kept the Torah, it would be evidenced by his diet. Leviticus 11 denotes the types of animals and sea creatures the Jewish people were allowed to eat; conversely, it lists the types of animals and sea creatures that were disallowed. By looking at this chapter of the Torah, one sees that any split-hoof, cud-chewing mammal was allowed for food, and that any scaled and finned water creature could be eaten. Other animals, such as rabbits, pigs, and camels are prohibited in this section of the Torah. The chapter concludes with these words:<\/p>\n
For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.\u2026 Make a distinction between the unclean and the clean [kosher and non-kosher animals], and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten, (vv. 44, 47 NASB)<\/p>\n
The Torah concept of holy is encompassed in the Hebrew word \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9 (kadosh), which is used in this Torah portion. It connotes a separation between things set aside for God and things set aside for other purposes. By means of the dietary Mitzvot, God was separating the Jewish people from the other nations for his special purposes. The dietary laws were part of God\u2019s call of separation to the Jewish people. We would then expect that Yeshua, as part of the Jewish people and the nation of Israel, would respect and keep the kosher dietary proscriptions along with the rest of the Torah. Yeshua\u2019s teaching, as reflected in the previously mentioned text of Matthew 5:17\u201318, confirms this.
\nWhen we do encounter Yeshua eating, we read of him treating only kosher foods as food. In his actions, and even in his teachings and stories, food consisted of grains, breads, seeds, fruit, and fish. His teachings and stories do not provide a total list of what he would have considered food, but they do give some insight into what he considered acceptable. Let us examine a few incidences.
\nIn Mark 11:12\u201313, Yeshua became hungry, and went to a fig tree to get some fruit. This demonstrates that Yeshua considered this particular fruit, a staple in first-century Israel, food. As a fruit, it was considered kosher.
\nIn Luke 7:36, Yeshua is asked to dine with a Pharisee, \u201cNow one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee\u2019s house and reclined at the table\u201d (NASB). Although this is all the information we learn from the text, again, we can accurately surmise that a Pharisee would only serve his guest kosher food. It is also accurate to assume that if this Pharisee knew that Yeshua did not keep a kosher diet, he would balk at the idea of inviting him to a meal in his house, since proper dietary rituals were an important part of Pharisaic practice.
\nLuke 22:7\u201338 records Yeshua and his students celebrating the Passover meal. The foods that were consumed are not specifically mentioned\u2014except for the ritual Passover matzah (unleavened bread) and wine. However, we can surmise what they ate from our knowledge of first-century Passover meals. These would have included fruits (such as dates and figs), nuts, matzah, wine, a variety of vegetables, lentils, and some type of meat, often lamb. At least, all of the food would have been kosher.
\nJohn 6:5\u201313 records an occasion when Yeshua multiplied the available food. Part of that text reads:<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish \u2026\u201d [Yeshua] then took the loaves, and having given thanks, He distributed [the bread] to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish as much as they wanted. (vv. 9, 11 NASB)<\/p>\n
Here, Yeshua passed out food to the people he was teaching. The food consisted of bread and fish. It is not stated in the text, but we can assume that the young man of verse 9 was Jewish, and therefore any fish in his possession would have been kosher. Yeshua fed the group of listeners with kosher fish and bread.
\nA similar incident occurred in Mark 8:1\u20139, where again, Yeshua multiplied the available food to feed his listeners. The text records that bread and fish were the foods consumed by everyone present:<\/p>\n
And He directed the people to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven loaves, He gave thanks and broke them, and started giving them to His disciples.\u2026 They also had a few small fish; and after He had blessed them, He ordered these to be served as well. (vv. 6\u20137 NASB)<\/p>\n
We can conclude that the bread and fish used were consistent with his practice, and thus were kosher.<\/p>\n
When they stepped ashore, they [Simon, Thomas, Nathaniel, James, John] saw a fire of burning coals with a fish on it, and some bread.\u2026 Yeshua said to them, \u201cCome and have breakfast.\u201d None of the talmidim dared to ask him, \u201cWho are you?\u201d They knew it was the Lord. Yeshua came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. (John 21:9, 12\u201313)<\/p>\n
These verses record that Yeshua and some of his closest students ate a meal together on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. In this incident, Yeshua prepared a meal for his students. It is totally logical to expect that he prepared kosher fish, and we note that the food consisted of fish and bread. Mendel Nun, in his work The Sea of Galilee and Its Fishermen in the New Testament, identified the types of fish that were caught in the Sea of Galilee during New Testament times, which is where John 21:9\u201313 takes place. Nun identified both kosher and non-kosher fish. Among the kosher fish are five species of the amnon (Hebrew, \u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05df, popularly known as St. Peter\u2019s Fish), three species of the carp family, and sardines, all popular food in ancient times, and all kosher. In keeping with his observance of the Torah, Yeshua would have prepared kosher fish for the meal described in John 21.
\nIn a number of other instances, Yeshua used food to illustrate his points. It is relevant for us to notice what he considered food.<\/p>\n
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea [the Kinneret, or the Sea of Galilee], and gathering fish of every kind; and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good fish into containers, but the bad they threw away. So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous. (Matt. 13:47\u201349)<\/p>\n
In this teaching illustration, why would fishermen throw away some of the fish from their catch? Logically, they would do so if the fish were too small, or somehow diseased. Clearly, most of the fish that were thrown away were those that were non-kosher (they did not meet the requirements of the Leviticus 11 list because they did not have fins and scales). The people from Galilee understood this illustration very well. They were familiar with the various types of fish that were caught daily in the Sea of Galilee. Some were kosher; some were not. In this teaching, people are likened to the fish. Some will be kosher (fit) for the kingdom of God, just as some fish are fit for consumption; some will be non-kosher for the kingdom of God, just as some fish are not fit for consumption. By using this illustration, it is evident that Yeshua understood and respected the kosher dietary laws. Otherwise, he would not have used them as a tool for teaching about the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n
\u201cOr what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?\u201d (Matt. 7:9\u201310 NASB)<\/p>\n
Yeshua and his first century Jewish audience considered a loaf of bread and a fish to be typical foods. The fish would have been kosher (according to Leviticus 11) and the bread would not have contained any non-kosher ingredients. Yeshua refers to bread in at least two other teaching illustrations. He instructed his students on how to pray effectively and acceptably to God: \u201cGive us this day our daily bread\u201d (Matt. 6:11).
\nAlthough one could argue for bread being symbolic of the general category of food, it is the food item that Yeshua chose to request from God. Using bread as his food item is consistent with the use of bread as a main staple in the ancient Middle East. In teaching his students to pray in this manner, Yeshua echoed Proverbs 30:8, \u201cFeed me with the food that is my portion\u201d (NASB).
\nThe primary example of Yeshua\u2019s using bread to represent food was when he taught his students to ask God to provide food for them on a daily basis. This illustrated the reality that bread was an important daily food item.<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Teachings and Kashrut<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s teachings have sometimes been misunderstood so as to cast doubt on the validity of kashrut. For example, Yeshua\u2019s teaching in Matthew 15:11\u201320 is often misunderstood regarding this issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.\u2026 Everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated.\u2026 But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.\u201d (NASB)<\/p>\n
In this passage, Yeshua nowhere negated the validity of kashrut. To do so would contradict his statement of Matthew 5:17\u201318, where he said he had not come to abolish the Law. Instead, Yeshua was teaching about the misconceptions of the \u05e0\u05d8\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd (Hebrew, n\u2019tilat yadayim, the ritual hand washing before meals). The group of Pharisees in this text always carried out this ritual hand washing before each meal, believing that not to do so according to their specific method would cause a person to be ritually defiled. Therefore, Yeshua said, \u201cTo eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.\u201d That is, not performing the ritual hand-washing ceremony according to the method of this group of first-century Pharisees did not make one impure before God, and thereby did not obligate the person to cleanse himself ritually. Matthew 15:1\u20132 describes the context of this incident:<\/p>\n
Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, \u201cWhy do your disciples break the traditions of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.\u201d (NASB)<\/p>\n
The exact identification of this group of Pharisees and scribes is difficult to determine. However, they scrupulously practiced the n\u2019tilat yadayim ritual before eating (much as Orthodox Jewry does today). Apparently, as today, this was not a universally practiced custom. At least we see that it was not so widespread among Galilean Jews. In Matthew 15:2, it is considered a type of \u201ctradition of the elders.\u201d In the Greek text \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd (paradosin ton presbuteron) reflects the Hebrew concept \u05de\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea (masortey ha\u2019avot, or \u201ctraditions of the fathers\u201d) and not a mandated Mitzvah from the Torah. This concept denotes the development of traditions, not necessarily found in the Torah, which deal with how to perform a certain Mitzvah. (Blessing God for food, however, can indeed be considered a Torah-mandated Mitzvah).
\nThis group accused Yeshua of breaking the Pharisaic tradition of n\u2019tilat yadayim and questioned his connection to the above mentioned masortey ha\u2019avot. They believed that Yeshua taught his students incorrectly, since he did not teach them to fulfill the Mitzvot in the same manner as their wing of Pharisaic teachers did. This reflects the fact that Yeshua did; not accept the authority of these particular Pharisees\u2019 traditions (or masoret ha\u2019avot). This fact, in itself, caused political problems with this branch of Pharisaism. Yeshua discoursed with these accusers and charged them with a far greater oversight. In the end, he taught his students that foods and their accompanying rituals do not make a person clean or unclean before God. Instead, he challenged his students to see that the thoughts and intents of their hearts make one clean or unclean before God. Before we conclude, according to this teaching, that kashrut is no longer valid, let us understand what Yeshua would have regarded as food. Yeshua, who honored and practiced Torah, would have considered the list in Leviticus 11 to be the appropriate designation of proper and improper foods.
\nWe need to determine what Yeshua was referring to in Matthew 15:11. In order not to defile a first-century Jew, the food would have had to be kosher according to the definition of Leviticus 11. If a Jewish person ate non-kosher food, it would have defiled him (also see Matt. 15:19). To sum up, Yeshua was teaching that when a Jewish person ate kosher food and did not perform the n\u2019tilat yadayim ceremony beforehand, he was not defiled. He then proceeded to show what did defile a man. This teaching in no way denies the validity of kashrut, and in fact supports it as part of the Torah\u2014if we understand food as being limited to the Leviticus 11 definition. This is the understanding that Yeshua would have had.
\nIn The Jewish People in the First Century,1 Safrai and Stern have provided us with an understanding of the first-century diet among Jewish communities in the Land of Israel. They list vegetables and fish as fundamental dietary items, along with bread, oil, wine, and sauces, and a variety of fruits as being part of the kosher diet. Lentil soup and dip were also popular food items. Of course, wealthier people would have access to more meat products, while poorer people would eat less meat and more vegetables and grains. Honey and vegetables were cultivated food items in the Land at that time, as well.
\nThe picture we have of Yeshua from the New Testament is one in which he ate the foods mentioned above. All of them would have been considered kosher.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
Yeshua kept a kosher diet. There is no particular emphasis on this in the New Testament because, at the time of its writing, it was a non-issue. We can determine Yeshua\u2019s dietary practices by paying attention to the use of food in the Gospel narratives. Every individual in Israel\u2019s Jewish communities normally maintained a kosher diet, which was defined by Leviticus 11. There is not one instance in the Gospels of Yeshua eating food that is not kosher. The things that we do see him eating and drinking (bread, fish, fruits, water, and wine) were kosher staples of first-century Israel. In fact, Israel was known for having seven species of produce that were abundant in the Land: dates, figs, olives, wheat, barley, grapes, and pomegranates. Since there is no sure proof, we can surmise that Yeshua (along with the rest of the Jewish people of that period) ate these species. In Matthew 8:28\u201334, the one time when Yeshua encountered swine (which are non-kosher animals), he gave no indication that he considered them to be food.
\nFinally, let us remember that Yeshua\u2019s dietary practices would have been in keeping with his teaching. Again, I refer the reader to Matthew 5:17\u201318, where Yeshua\u2019s words argue for a kosher diet, as designated in the Torah.
\nYeshua\u2019s dietary practices also confirm his Torah observance. Again, there is no major emphasis on this point in the New Testament because it was a non-issue. It was not a factor in recording the historical narratives of Yeshua\u2019s life because all of first-century Israel would have known (and even taken for granted) the fact that Yeshua kept a kosher diet, as did every normal Jewish citizen in first-century Israel.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER FOUR<\/p>\n
OTHER EXAMPLES
\nOF YESHUA\u2019S TORAH
\nOBSERVANCE<\/p>\n
In this chapter on Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance, we will look at Scriptures from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that testify to Yeshua\u2019s Torah-observant lifestyle. We will see that the four narrative recorders agree on the approach that Yeshua took toward the Torah. This chapter is arranged in the order of the Gospel narratives.
\nMatthew and John spent good portions of their lives with Yeshua as part of his inner circle of students. Therefore, their narratives and proofs are especially meaningful for us. In addition, Luke and Mark also belonged to the first generation of Messianic Jews, and therefore, were very closely tied to the people, events, and teachings of Yeshua\u2019s life. Their historical narratives are invaluable for us as sources to show Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance.
\nThis chapter is not an exhaustive study of the matter, but rather, it identifies some of the Scriptures that furnish proof of Yeshua\u2019s attitude toward the Torah. In addition, it is hoped that the reader will find more proofs in his\/her own study of the four historical narratives of Yeshua\u2019s life.
\nThe following table will refer the reader to portions of the book of Matthew, as well as show the various Mitzvot that Yeshua fulfilled.<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Torah Observance in the Book of Matthew<\/p>\n
The Scripture
\nThe Mitzvah
\n5:17\u201318
\nYeshua teaches that the Torah retains its validity until planet earth passes away.
\n7:12
\nThe Torah is the basis of Yeshua\u2019s teachings.
\n8:1\u20134
\nYeshua commands a healed Jewish man to fulfill a sacrificial Mitzvah (see Lev. 13 and 14).
\n8:19
\nA Torah teacher would only be willing to be Yeshua\u2019s disciple if Yeshua was Torah-observant.
\n19:16\u201319
\nYeshua encouraged a Torah-observant man to keep the Mitzvot.<\/p>\n
Matthew gave strong evidence that Yeshua was Torah-observant. Though he differed with some of his contemporary religious authorities on how to keep various Mitzvot of the Torah, the issue of observance, as a way of life, is not contested in the Gospels. I agree with the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, who noted, \u201cDid Jesus reject these [the Mosaic Laws]? The Synoptic Gospels, our primary witnesses, give no support to such a theory.\u201d1
\nIn summing up his view of Yeshua in the Gospels, Vermes observed, \u201cThe only logical inference is that Jesus freely insisted, even in a purely ritual context, on strict adherence to the Torah.\u201d2<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Teaching Regarding the Role of the Torah<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s teaching on the role of the Torah needs to be mentioned here, and the book of Matthew has a lot to tell us about this subject. An understanding of this will give us more of a complete picture of Yeshua\u2019s life and teachings. My colleagues, Ariel and D\u2019vorah Berkowitz, have accurately summarized the teachings of Yeshua on the Torah in their book Torah Rediscovered. Therefore, I will not give a long discourse on Yeshua\u2019s teachings, as I am in full agreement with their explanations on this matter. Two separate teachings of Yeshua on the Torah, however, have so profoundly struck me over the past few years that they bear mentioning here.
\nFirst, Matthew 5:17\u201319 is a powerful teaching that cannot be ignored by any serious student of the Torah-New Testament relationship. In fact, it may be considered an \u05d0\u05d1 (av)3 in understanding Yeshua\u2019s attitude toward the Torah, if I may borrow this category from rabbinic thought. Yeshua clearly taught on the time span of the Torah\u2019s validity:<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. Yes, indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah\u2014not until everything that must happen has happened. (5:17\u201318)<\/p>\n
The Messiah taught that his influence would be one of strengthening, not weakening, the Torah. The Greek word used in the text for complete is \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 (plerosai). It carries a sense of both fulfilling and establishing the proper meaning of the Torah. Israeli scholar David Bivin has accurately paraphrased the meaning of Yeshua\u2019s words in rendering the passage as follows:<\/p>\n
Never imagine for a moment, Jesus says, that I intend to abrogate the Law by misinterpreting it. My intent is not to weaken or negate the Law, but by properly interpreting God\u2019s Written Word I aim to establish it, that is, make it even more lasting. I would never invalidate the Law by\u2026 removing something from it through misinterpretation. Heaven and earth would sooner disappear than something from the Law. Not the smallest letter in the alphabet, the yod, nor even its decorative spur, will ever disappear from the Law.4<\/p>\n
Yeshua was teaching that he had profound respect for the Law, that is, the Torah. The Greek word often translated in this verse as Law is \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, nomon, and without a doubt, it means the Torah. Therefore, we must see all of Yeshua\u2019s teachings and actions, as well as those of his students, as being consistent with his teaching in Matthew 5. The foundation that has been laid is one of love and respect for the Torah. As Fischer noted:<\/p>\n
Matthew 5:17\u201319 is the crucial passage in understanding Jesus\u2019 perspective. In it he uses the term \u201cfulfill\u201d [plerosai] to describe his relationship to the Law\u2026 here it implies to cram full, bring to full expression, show forth the intended meaning. The idea is to give fulness and provide true meaning, as opposed to destroying, overthrowing or abolishing.5<\/p>\n
The best educated guess for the Hebrew word Yeshua spoke here for fulfill is \u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd (l\u2019kayyem). In its vernacular and rabbinic usage at that time, l\u2019kayyem connoted to teach correctly regarding a subject. Fischer was therefore correct when he said, \u201cThe idea is to\u2026 provide true meaning.\u201d
\nIn addition, Matthew 24:12 holds profound significance for us. In this verse, Yeshua was teaching on the signs of the end of the age (the Hebrew concept of \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, acharit hayamim).6 The NIV translates this verse as: \u201cBecause of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.\u201d The Complete Jewish Bible does more justice to the verse: \u201cMany people\u2019s love will grow cold because of increased distance from Torah.\u201d The Greek text states:<\/p>\n
\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd(kai dia to plethunthenai ten anomian psugesetai he agape ton pollon).<\/p>\n
This literally refers to the growth of lawlessness as causing the love of one\u2019s brother to die down as a social norm in the last days. The word anomian is what captures our attention here. It literally means \u201cwithout law, or Torah.\u201d It is rightly translated \u201cdistance from the Torah.\u201d The lawlessness being referred to here is best understood in its biblical and Jewish context. When Yeshua talked about Law, there was only one Law to which he was referring, and that is the Torah. The Complete Jewish Bible captures the essence of Yeshua\u2019s point, which is that the world as a whole will be moving away from the ideals of the Torah as set down in the Scriptures. This will cause cruelty to abound on an international scale. We see examples of this in the modern world, and in societal breakdown in many cultures, where violent crime and sexual immorality (two issues addressed by the Torah) are rampant.
\nWhat does this teach us regarding Yeshua\u2019s attitude toward the Torah? The obvious answer is that Yeshua greatly respected it, stating that the world situation in the acharit hayamim will deteriorate because people will not respect the Torah or its teachings.
\nThese two sections of Scripture (Matthew 5 and 24) give us a consistent picture of the teaching of Yeshua regarding the Torah. His message is that the Torah is valid and is to be respected and observed. In fact, such a conclusion is held by a growing number of Jewish and Christian scholars. In his work Jesus and Early Judaism, Dr. Fischer noted eight outstanding scholars who believe in the Torah observance of Yeshua. These include Jewish scholars David Flusser, Jules Isaac, Shmuel Safrai, and Pinchas Lapide; Christian scholars Robert Lindsey, David Bivin, and Brad Young assert the same. It is heartening to note that in our day, both Jewish and Christian scholars clearly see that Yeshua observed the Torah.
\nWe can also see Yeshua\u2019s respect for and adherence to the Torah in Luke 24. For example, in verse 27, Yeshua was walking with some of his students after he rose from the dead: \u201cThen starting with Moshe [Moses] and all the prophets, he explained to them the things that can be found throughout the Tanakh concerning himself.\u201d In Luke 24:44, Yeshua was in Jerusalem with his students when he said, \u201cWhen I was still with you\u2026 [I] told you that everything written about me in the Torah of Moshe, the Prophets and the Psalms had to be fulfilled.\u201d
\nIn both of these occasions, using the Torah, Yeshua explained to his students what had to happen to him. In verse 44, he made the point that the Torah was a correct source for knowing about the Messiah. This tells us something about his attitude toward the Torah, does it not? Certainly, if Yeshua were not Torah-observant or respectful towards the Torah, he would not have said what he did.
\nAnother example is found in Matthew 7:12, where Yeshua gave a summary teaching of the message of the Scriptures: \u201cAlways treat others as you would like them to treat you; that sums up the teaching of the Torah and the Prophets.\u201d The words of the Torah and the Prophets were the source of Yeshua\u2019s main teachings. Many people have brought out the similarity between this teaching and that of Rabbi Hillel, who, in his prime, was a generation before Yeshua. Hillel taught, \u201cWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary\u2014go and study\u201d (Shabbat 31a). It is easily surmised that both Yeshua and Hillel, in their summary teachings, were commenting upon Leviticus 19:18 (which Yeshua mentioned in another New Testament text as one of the two most important Mitzvot). No one doubts Hillel\u2019s Torah-observant lifestyle. There is no difference between Hillel\u2019s source and Yeshua\u2019s source regarding their similar teaching here. Hillel was commenting on the Torah, and Yeshua was commenting on the Torah. This tells us that they both greatly respected the Torah. It was the source for their summary statements on behavior.
\nTo sum up, Matthew presents us with teachings of Yeshua that demonstrate his Torah observance, as well as his great respect for the Torah.<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Torah Observance in the Book of Mark<\/p>\n
We have previously seen in the book of Mark how Yeshua observed the Sabbath (see 1:21; 3:1\u20136; 6:1\u20132) and upheld the Torah\u2019s ritual cleansing Mitzvot (see 1:44). In Mark 1:39 we read: \u201cSo he traveled all through the Galil [Galilee], preaching in their synagogues and expelling demons.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Healer<\/p>\n
Mark 1:39 would be a doubtful scenario if Yeshua were not Torah-observant. He would not have been received into a group of Galilean synagogues in the role of a rabbi and a healer if he were not Torah-observant, at least by Galilean standards. As Lee pointed out in his work, this was most certainly the case.7 In Mark 5:21\u201343, we have a relevant scenario in which to see Yeshua\u2019s attitude toward the Torah. Jairus, as the head official of his synagogue (see v. 22) approached Yeshua in his role as rabbi and healer and begged him to heal his daughter (see v. 23). Yeshua was given the right as rabbi and healer to enter Jairus\u2019 house (see vv. 38\u201339). Yeshua was accepted in his role as a rabbi by a leading synagogue official who was Torah-observant himself. It is reasonable to assume that Jairus would not have asked Yeshua for help if Yeshua were not also Torah-observant, in spite of the fact that Jairus had a desperate need.<\/p>\n
Honoring Parents<\/p>\n
In Mark 7:10\u201313, Yeshua showed his respect for the Torah when he stated, \u201cMoshe said, \u2018Honor your father and your mother,\u2019 and \u2018Anyone; who curses his father or mother must be put to death.\u2019 \u201d These are direct quotes from the Torah: \u201cHonor your father and mother so that you may live long in the land which ADONAI your God is giving you\u201d (Ex. 20:12; see also Deut. 5:16). Yeshua also quoted Exodus 21:17: \u201cWhoever curses his father or mother must be put to death.\u201d
\nYeshua used these verses to reprove certain Pharisees and teachers who, through their interpretation of Scripture, negated the Mitzvah of honoring one\u2019s parents. Yeshua referred to the above verses as the final, authoritative principles upon which children should relate to their parents. By doing this, he clearly showed his great respect for the Torah.<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Torah Observance in the Book of Luke<\/p>\n
A Glimpse Through Luke\u2019s Eyes<\/p>\n
Dr. Fischer, of Netzer David Yeshiva, suggests the possibility that Luke was a relative of Paul and a Torah-observant Jew himself. If so, we have a new set of eyes with which to view this Gospel narrative. Although all scholars do not agree on this point, I sympathize with Fischer and will work from the premise that Luke was either a Torah-observant Jew or a Torah-observant Godfearer. (See \u201cTorah Observance in Philippi\u201d in chapter 5, for a full explanation of the term Godfearer.) Dr. David Flusser also suggested that Theophilus, the recipient of Luke and Acts, was a member of the High Priest\u2019s family. If so, we can see Luke\u2019s writings with renewed eyes.8
\nFor example, Luke 1 makes it very clear that John the Baptist\u2019s family, of priestly heritage, was strictly Torah-observant. If Flusser\u2019s idea that Theophilus was a high-ranking priest is correct, Theophilus would have been favorably impressed if there was a strong connection between Yeshua and the Temple ritual. In addition, Theophilus would most likely have been a Sadducee. To a Sadducee, the Temple rituals, carried out by the priests, were the backbone of true Judaism. Although Yeshua himself did not belong to the Aaronic priesthood, his family had priestly ties in it through John\u2019s branch of the family. In fact, John himself was a priest. Certain other priests may have looked upon the fact that John, a priest, supported Yeshua\u2019s claim to Messiahship, with some favor. To a twentieth-century Western reader, this may seem like an irrelevant fact, not worthy of emphasis, but in the first-century world of Israel, establishing noteworthy family ties was very important. One\u2019s reputation and ability to be accepted by others (especially in the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem) was linked to family genealogy.
\nThe picture (Luke 2) of the humble Torah observance of Yeshua\u2019s immediate family would also have made a positive impression upon Theophilus. At the very least, Theophilus would have had no grounds on which to doubt the good lineage and Torah observance of this extended family. In today\u2019s world, such a family lineage may not count for much, but in the world of first-century Israeli Judaism, it was one of the most important aspects in proving one\u2019s character, honor, reputation, and social standing. Let us not discount the power of the picture painted in the first two chapters of Luke concerning Yeshua\u2019s family. A Torah-observant background is there for us to see.
\nLet us now examine some important examples of Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance. Then, we will conclude our sketch of Luke\u2019s evidence by providing the particular observance with its corresponding reference in the Torah.<\/p>\n
His Relationship with the Torah<\/p>\n
Shortly after these events in the book of Luke, we again see the great respect with which Yeshua held the Scriptures of the Torah. In Luke 4:1\u201313, Yeshua was tempted with difficult trials. In each matter, he dealt with the temptation by quoting from the Torah (Deut. 8:3; 6:13\u201314; Ps. 91:11\u201312). These verses represent the truth, and they became Yeshua\u2019s spiritual, emotional, and psychological defense against the evil he faced. Notice that the first two Scriptures come from the Torah. Words from the Torah sustained Yeshua at this time of need. This helps us see how important the Torah and its truths were in his life. This incident in Luke\u2019s narrative gives more power to Rabbi Falk\u2019s statement, quoted previously, that \u201cHe [Yeshua] strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically \u2026 not one of our sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah.\u201d9
\nAs an adult, Yeshua continued in the Torah-observant ways of his youth: \u201cHe taught in their synagogues, and everyone respected him\u201d (Luke 4:15). Yeshua continued to worship and take part in the Torah-centered education of the local synagogues. According to this verse, he was well respected by the public as a teacher (rabbi). This could only be possible if he continued to be Torah-observant. Luke 4:16 confirms his continual participation as an adult in synagogue worship and learning\u2014\u201cOn Shabbat he went to the synagogue as usual.\u201d
\nHere, we see that Yeshua\u2019s participation in local synagogue worship and custom was his usual activity. Yeshua was educated in the Torah in his local synagogue. As every Galilean Jew, Yeshua learned the Torah\u2014how to read it, memorize it, and its principles and customs, from both his family and his local synagogue. It was part of his life as a Jew.
\nIn 4:16b\u201317, Yeshua is shown as taking an active part in a Sabbath worship service. He was given the traditional role as \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e6\u05d9\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 (shaliach tzibbur).10 He read the section from the Prophets and expounded on the verses, a role reserved in his day for a rabbi or rabbi in training. His participation should be seen as a normal Galilean Jewish expression of worship to God. Here, the description of Yeshua fits the normal lifestyle of a Torah-observant teacher of his era. In Luke 4:31, Yeshua continued with his Torah teaching in the village of Capernaum. There, too, he took part in normal Sabbath worship and ritual: \u201cHe went down to K\u2019far-Nachum (Capernaum) \u2026 and made a practice of teaching them on Shabbat.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dealing with a Skin Disease<\/p>\n
In his role as a rabbi and healer, Yeshua was careful to keep the Mitzvot of the Torah and to instruct his students and kinsmen to do the same. An example of this is found in Luke 5:12\u201316 where Yeshua healed a Jewish leper.<\/p>\n
Immediately the tzara\u2018at [skin disease] left him. Then Yeshua warned him not to tell anyone. \u201cInstead, as a testimony to the people, go straight to the cohen [priest] and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moshe commanded.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here, Yeshua healed a sick man and instructed him to offer the sacrifice given in the Torah for such a healing, as well as to be pronounced healed by the priest on duty, according to Leviticus 14:1\u201332. Yeshua was instructing his healed kinsman to keep the Mitzvah of the Torah.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is to be the law concerning the person afflicted with tzara\u2018at on the day of his purification. He is to be brought to the cohen [priest].\u2026 If he [the cohen] sees that the tzara\u2018at sores have been healed \u2026 then the cohen will order that two living clean birds be taken for the one to be purified, along with cedar-wood, scarlet yarn and oregano leaves. \u2026 He who is to be purified must wash his clothes, shave off all his hair and bathe himself in water. Then he will be clean; and after that, he may enter the camp; but he must live outside his tent for seven days. \u2026 On the eighth day he is to take two male lambs without defect, one female lamb in its first year without defect and six-and-a-half quarts of fine flour for a grain offering, mixed with olive oil, and two-thirds of a pint of olive oil. (Lev. 14:2\u20134, 8, 10)<\/p>\n
Yeshua was instructing this man to report to a priest, be examined and pronounced healed, make an immediate offering, be quarantined for a week, and then offer the final sacrifice. Yeshua upheld these Mitzvot of the Torah. His actions and instructions were in line with a Torah-observant lifestyle.<\/p>\n
Fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tzitzit and Other Mitzvot<\/p>\n
When sick people approached Yeshua for healing, they tried to touch the fringes (Hebrew, \u05e6\u05d9\u05e6\u05d9\u05ea, Tzitzit) on his clothes. The fringes were attached to the garments of every Jewish male in accordance with the Mitzvah found in Numbers 15:37\u201341: \u201cMake \u2026 tzitziyot [plural] on the corners of [their garments], and \u2026 put with the Tzitzit on each corner a blue thread.\u201d
\nBy wearing the fringes on his clothes, Yeshua was directly fulfilling a Mitzvah from the Torah. The Israeli scholar Shmuel Safrai noted, \u201cI suppose that he [Yeshua] and his students used both of them [Tzitzit and t\u2019fillin].\u201d11
\nIn Luke 8:43\u201348, Yeshua is approached by an ill woman who grabbed the \u201cfringe of His cloak\u201d (NASB), thereby seizing his Tzitzit, also. We are not told whether this was an incidental or purposeful grabbing of the Tzitzit. (In more modern times, it has become a custom for a few groups to touch a sage\u2019s Tzitzit as a sign of great respect.) However, what is relevant is the fact that Yeshua wore the fringes of Numbers 15, and Luke gives us a picture of that here.
\nThere are additional examples of Yeshua teaching other Jews to keep the 613 Mitzvot of the Torah. In Luke 18:18\u201330, a wealthy leader approached Yeshua and asked, \u201cGood rabbi, what should I do to obtain eternal life?\u201d (v. 18). Yeshua, not surprisingly, cited certain Mitzvot from Exodus 20: \u201cYou know the Mitzvot\u2014Don\u2019t commit adultery, don\u2019t murder, don\u2019t steal, don\u2019t give false testimony, honor your father and mother\u201d (v. 20). Yeshua reviewed what the man already knew and practiced\u2014the Mitzvot of the Torah. This is clear from the man\u2019s reply: \u201cI have kept all these since I was a boy\u201d (v. 21).
\nIn this passage, Yeshua upheld the sanctity of the Mitzvot in the Torah. Seeing the condition of the man\u2019s personal life, however, he added a stipulation that could have caused the man to dedicate his life more fully to God. While upholding the place and authority of the Torah, Yeshua explained to the man how to establish the Torah (i.e., how to fulfill the Mitzvot of Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18).12 The point is that Yeshua upheld the importance of fulfilling the Mitzvot, while applying an accepted and Torah-observant teaching to this situation.
\nThe following table from Luke\u2019s narrative shows Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance and the Mitzvah he was keeping.<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Torah Observance and Keeping of Mitzvot
\nLuke
\nThe Mitzvah
\n8:44
\nYeshua wore fringes according to Numbers 15:37ff.
\n9:16
\nYeshua blessed food according to Exodus 23:25.
\n10:25\u201328
\nYeshua encouraged a Torah-teacher to keep Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18.
\n11:27\u201328
\nYeshua taught that they who keep the \u201cword,\u201d which includes the Torah and its Mitzvot, are blessed.
\n16:16\u201317
\nYeshua taught that the Torah will not pass away until physical planet earth passes away.
\n17:11\u201315
\nYeshua encouraged receivers of God\u2019s mercy to obey Torah by carrying out the Mitzvot pertaining to skin diseases.
\n18:18\u201324
\nYeshua encouraged a man to observe the Exodus 20 Mitzvot.
\n19:28ff.
\nYeshua arrived in Jerusalem, fulfilling Exodus 23:17.
\n22:14\u201320
\nYeshua recited the story of Passover and kept the festival (see Exod. 13:14\u201316).
\n23:56
\nYeshua\u2019s students kept the Sabbath, even on such a tension-filled day, thereby reflecting their rabbi\u2019s attitude toward the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
These verses describe Yeshua\u2019s devotion to the Torah. My conclusion, then, is that the gospel of Luke also confirms Yeshua\u2019s Torah-observant lifestyle. This is particularly significant in that there has been a historical, theological stereotype that Luke is the most Gentile of all Gospel writers in his tone, narrative, and picture of Yeshua. The evidence, however, does not support this stereotype. In fact, it does quite the opposite.<\/p>\n
Yeshua\u2019s Torah Observance in the Book of John<\/p>\n
The book written by Yochanan ben Zavdai (John, son of Zebedee), one of Yeshua\u2019s closest friends, also attests to Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance. We will; look at four fascinating examples of such observance.<\/p>\n
The Rabbi<\/p>\n
In John 3:1, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and rabbi, approached Yeshua and called him \u201crabbi.\u201d Only a Torah-observant Jew who was well educated and\/or ordained merited this title, especially in the world of the Pharisees. The title rabbi, in first-century Israel, attested to a person\u2019s role as a recognized teacher (by a particular wing or sect of Judaism). Nicodemus then testified to the fact that he believed Yeshua\u2019s miracles to be acts of God.<\/p>\n
This man came to Yeshua by night and said to him, \u201cRabbi, we know it is from God that you have come as a teacher; for no one can do these miracles you perform unless God is with him.\u201d (John 3:2)<\/p>\n
Yeshua had to have been a Torah-observant rabbi in order for a Pharisaic rabbi such as Nicodemus to respect him, as the text indicates. Otherwise, the text would not fit the context. The only other possibility is that Nicodemus called Yeshua rabbi in mockery, but that is hardly possible because Nicodemus is portrayed as a sincere person. The scribe who wrote the book of John used the Hebrew word rabbi in Greek, without trying to find a similar Greek word. The Greek word \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (didaschalos, teacher), which is sometime used for a rabbi, is not used in the text. This preserves the original Hebrew context and shows us that Yeshua\u2019s title portrays him as part of the world of first-century Israeli Judaism. Yeshua was not just Torah-observant; he was a Torah-observant rabbi. He was a teacher of the Torah, and was recognized as such by people in his native area.
\nLater in the book of John, Yeshua is quoted as having defended the honor and position of the Torah. In a discussion with some unidentified Judean leaders, he stated:<\/p>\n
\u201cBut don\u2019t think that it is I who will be your accuser before the Father. Do you know who will accuse you? Moshe, the very one you have counted on! For if you really believed Moshe, you would believe me; because it was about me that he wrote.\u201d (5:45\u201346)<\/p>\n
Yeshua illustrated the great importance of the Mosaic revelation in God\u2019s plan. He stated that the leaders to whom he was speaking ought to have believed the revelations and prophecies of Moses. Because they did not, they misunderstood Yeshua\u2019s role. Thus, Yeshua again upheld the truth and relevance of the Torah by emphasizing the importance of knowing and believing the Torah. Only a Torah-observant Jew would have said and taught this. He is described here as zealous to uphold the truth of the Torah\u2019s message.
\nJohn 6:11 affirms Yeshua\u2019s observance:<\/p>\n
Then Yeshua took the loaves of bread, and, after making a b\u2019rakhah [blessing], gave to all who were sitting there, and likewise with the fish, as much as they wanted.<\/p>\n
It appears that Yeshua gave the contemporary blessing over a meal with bread, as it was known to exist at this time.7 In doing so, he knowingly fulfilled a Mitzvah from the Mosaic Covenant. \u201cBut you shall serve the Lord your God, and He will bless your bread and water; and I will remove sickness from your midst\u201d (Exod. 23:25 NASB).<\/p>\n
Keeping the Mitzvah of Sukkot<\/p>\n
John 7:2ff. reveals another example of Yeshua\u2019s loyalty to the Torah. In this case, we observe Yeshua participating in one of the pilgrimage festivals, Sukkot (Feast of Booths). The text states, \u201cBut the festival of Sukkot in Y\u2019hudah [Judah] was near.\u2026 [Yeshua], too, went up [to Jerusalem], not publicly but in secret.\u201d
\nBy going to Jerusalem, Yeshua was fulfilling the Mitzvah to observe Sukkot. This Mitzvah is commanded to Israel (Lev. 23:33\u201343; Num. 29:12\u201339; Deut. 16:13\u201316; Exod. 23:17). The Exodus version states, \u201cThree times a year all your men are to appear before the Lord, ADONAI.\u201d The Talmud\u2019s description of the pilgrimage parades with the great rejoicing in Jerusalem during first-century Sukkot celebrations attests to this festival\u2019s importance.
\nWhile he was fulfilling the Sukkot Mitzvah, Yeshua did a great amount of teaching in the Temple area. Teaching at festivals was an accepted rabbinic practice, but he did not go up to Jerusalem merely to teach crowds. The text indicates that he obeyed this Mitzvah to fulfill the Torah. In John 7:14\u201324, Yeshua criticized some Judeans for misjudging him during his Sukkot teaching sessions: \u201cDid not Moshe give you the Torah?. Yet not one of you obeys the Torah!\u201d (v. 19).
\nRebuking them, Yeshua implied that these authorities rightly understood the Divine authority and gift that God gave the people through the Torah. Yet, they did not keep the Mitzvot properly. Clearly, he indicated that the Mitzvot should be observed; however, they should be kept in the correct manner. This is similar to his statement in Matthew 23:1, \u201cThe Torah teachers and the P\u2019rushim [Pharisees] \u2026 sit in the seat of Moshe. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don\u2019t do what they do, because they talk but don\u2019t act.\u201d
\nYeshua emphasized that the main ideas of these teachers were to be carried out. Their primary teachings were derived directly from the Torah. He was upholding the authority of the Torah. His objection to these religious authorities (see Matthew 23) was not to their teaching, but to their hypocrisy (vv. 4\u20137; 27\u201328); their pompousness (vv. 23: 8\u201312); their mistreatment of people in general and converts in particular (vv. 13\u201315); their misinterpretation of some of the Mitzvot (vv. 16\u201324); and their pride (vv. 29\u201332). Earlier in this book, we noted that Yeshua\u2019s teaching was an integrated whole\u2014he practiced what he taught. This was not the case with this group of leaders in Matthew 23.
\nHowever, Yeshua upheld the source of their teaching and its authority. Again, this demonstrates that his attitude toward the Torah was respectful. He indicated that it was an obligation for the people to observe and fulfill the Mitzvot of the Torah. Although he had problems with some of the Torah\u2019s teachers, he had none with the Torah itself. In fact, he affirmed that it is valid to keep the most detailed and minute agricultural tithing Mitzvot.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou pay your tithes of mint, dill and cumin; but you have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah\u2014justice, mercy, trust. These are the things you should have attended to\u2014without neglecting the others!\u201d (Matt. 23:23)<\/p>\n
Even in the midst of giving a stern rebuke, Yeshua upheld the validity and truth of the Torah\u2019s Mitzvot\u2014all of them!<\/p>\n
Keeping the Mitzvah of Passover<\/p>\n
In addition to Sukkot, John provides an additional opportunity to see how Yeshua observed another one of Israel\u2019s holy days, Passover. By examining Yeshua\u2019s observance of Passover, we can again see his positive attitude toward the Torah. The original Mitzvot on keeping Passover are found in Exodus 12:11\u201348, Exodus 23:14\u201315, Numbers 9:2ff., Deuteronomy 16:1 ff., and Leviticus 23:4\u20136, which reads:<\/p>\n
These are the holy times given by God. \u2026 In the first month on the fourteenth day in the evening is God\u2019s Passover. On the fifteenth day of this month is God\u2019s festival of unleavened bread. You will eat unleavened bread for seven days (vv. 4\u20135, author\u2019s translation).<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 16:16 states, \u201cThree times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God \u2026 [this includes] the feast of Unleavened Bread\u201d (NASB). Passover was another pilgrimage festival. It took place in the spring during the month of Nisan. Again, huge numbers of Jewish pilgrims would ascend to Jerusalem to sacrifice, retell the Passover story, and eat the Passover meal (Hebrew, \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8, seder). While the New Covenant does not emphasize the matter, it shows that Yeshua fulfilled these Passover Mitzvot. According to John 2:13, \u201cIt was almost time for the festival of Pesach [Passover] in Y\u2019hudah [ Judah], so Yeshua went up to Yerushalayim [Jerusalem].\u201d Yeshua went up to Jerusalem in order to fulfill the Passover Mitzvot, as all Israel\u2019s men were commanded to do (see Exod. 23:14\u201315). In John 2:13, Yeshua was fulfilling the Passover Mitzvot. Again, even if it can be said that he engaged in teaching as his primary activity on the trip to Jerusalem, it is no coincidence that he went there during Passover. He fulfilled the Mitzvot regarding the festival.
\nJohn records additional information about Yeshua and Passover. In John 11:55, we read that it is Passover again, two years after the John 2 narrative. In Jerusalem, the pilgrims are expecting the Galilean rabbi and prophet Yeshua to come and teach them (see v. 56). The ruling Temple priests and some Pharisees also expected Yeshua to come and fulfill the Mitzvot, as well as teach (see v. 5:57). This shows that both common people and rabbis expected Yeshua in Jerusalem during Passover. To no one\u2019s surprise, he arrived in Jerusalem to fulfill the Mitzvah and to teach (see 12:12\u201316).13<\/p>\n
His Authority<\/p>\n
There is one final example of Yeshua\u2019s Torah faithfulness that we will examine from John\u2019s Gospel. In John 8:12\u201320, Yeshua was challenged as to the validity of his witness (his teaching and authority): \u201cYou\u2019re testifying on your own behalf; your testimony [according to Torah] is not valid.\u201d This means that some people were accusing Yeshua of having no one else in a place of authority who could back up what he said about himself.
\nPart of Yeshua\u2019s defense was taken directly from the Torah, thus upholding its importance and truth. Yeshua responded to the charge in 8:13 by saying, \u201cAnd even in your Torah it is written that the testimony of two people is valid. I myself testify on my own behalf, and so does the Father who sent me\u201d (vv. 17\u201318). Yeshua quoted directly from Deuteronomy 19:15: \u201cOn the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter will be confirmed [legally]\u201d (NASB).
\nYeshua rested his argument on one of the Torah\u2019s Mitzvot. He made the point that he had two valid witnesses to his authority\u2014his father and himself. The point is that Yeshua used the Torah to argue for his own validity as prophet, teacher, and Messiah.<\/p>\n
Conclusion from the Four Historical Narratives<\/p>\n
We have seen ample evidence from the four Gospels that Yeshua was a Jewish man who lived his earthly life in absolute loyalty to the sacred covenants that God made with his people, Israel. Yeshua was a Torah-observant Jewish man. By taking the Scripture in a literal-historical sense, this is the only conclusion we can come to. Any other conclusion flies directly in the face of all of the facts. As Fischer noted:<\/p>\n
He [Yeshua] affirmed the important principles of Jewish faith: belief in God the Creator \u2026 the Jewish people as chosen by God, the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative and divine, reward and punishment from God, resurrection, creation under God\u2019s care, and Gehenna.14<\/p>\n
I will sum up this section with the words of the Israeli scholars Dr. Safrai and Dr. Flusser. Safrai noted, \u201cYeshua filled up the Law and Jewish traditions of the Second Temple Period.\u201d15 Flusser commented:<\/p>\n
Jesus adhered to the standard Judaism of his time, and from this point of view it is natural that his disciples, and after them the Jewish Christian community, should have lived according to the Law.16<\/p>\n
This short exploration of the four Gospels upholds Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance.<\/p>\n
PART TWO
\n____________<\/p>\n
YESHUA\u2019S
\nTALMIDIM
\nAND THE
\nTORAH<\/p>\n
CHAPTER FIVE<\/p>\n
HOW DID
\nPAUL LIVE?<\/p>\n
It is important to establish a link in Torah observance from rabbi to students. We have seen that Yeshua was Torah-observant. Therefore, we should expect to see a Torah-observant lifestyle in the lives of his students. This chapter will focus on Yeshua\u2019s most famous follower, Paul of Tarsus, or as I will refer to him, (Rabbi\/Rav) Sha\u2019ul. If my thesis about Yeshua is correct, then Sha\u2019ul must replicate the same zeal for Torah observance that his rabbi, Yeshua, had.
\nMany modern scholars have proven that Rabbi Sha\u2019ul lived as a Jew, never leaving his people or the teaching that Messianic Jews should continue to be obedient to the Torah. Clearly, to carry out the call of God, Rabbi Sha\u2019ul needed to continue his life as a Torah-observant Jew. As has been noted, \u201c\u2026 if he was not scrupulous in his observance of the Torah, he would quickly have been \u2026 disregarded\u201d (in his validity and authority).1 \u201c\u2026 The facts of Paul\u2019s continuing conformity to the practices of traditional Judaism are there plainly on the face of Scripture for those willing to find them.\u201d2
\nThis chapter examines the practices of Rabbi Sha\u2019ul. I will concentrate on demonstrating his Torah observance during his journeys outside the land of Israel. Many people take this fact for granted; others think that when Rabbi Sha\u2019ul began to believe in Yeshua he abandoned keeping the Torah, especially during his foreign journeys. Still others give Rabbi Sha\u2019ul a type of schizophrenic existence, where sometimes he kept the Torah (when with Jews), and sometimes he didn\u2019t (when with non-Jews).<\/p>\n
Sha\u2019ul and Hananyah<\/p>\n
When we first meet Rav Sha\u2019ul as a Messianic Jew, he is prayed for by another Messianic Jew named Hananyah (Ananias; see Acts 9:10\u201319). Hananyah was a strict, Torah-observant Messianic Jew, as we see in Acts 22:12\u201313: \u201cA man named Hananyah, an observant follower of the Torah who was highly regarded by the entire Jewish community there [of Damascus], came to me, stood by me and said, \u2018Brother Sha\u2019ul, see again!\u2019 \u201d
\nBy using a known, strictly Torah-observant Messianic Jew to pray for Sha\u2019ul, respect, acceptance, halakhic validity, and an immediate rapport were established between the two of them. Hananyah\u2019s background made him all the more acceptable to Rabbi Sha\u2019ul as a bearer of God\u2019s message.
\nHananyah\u2019s example also demonstrates that it was possible to live a Torah-observant Messianic Jewish life. We should expect, then, that Rabbi Sha\u2019ul, with a similar background to Hananyah, would continue, as Hananyah did, to strictly observe the Torah according to his own Pharisaic background. We can make another logical observation here: Hananyah continued to observe the Torah when he became a Messianic Jew. If Hananyah did this, then Sha\u2019ul, who came to faith in Yeshua after Hananyah, would have also continued to observe the Torah. Therefore, Hananyah\u2019s lifestyle served as a model for Rabbi Sha\u2019ul.<\/p>\n
Sha\u2019ul the Messianic Pharisee<\/p>\n
Did Sha\u2019ul continue his Torah observance after he became a believer in Yeshua? This is a critical question to consider. Rabbi Sha\u2019ul made a number of statements that prove his Torah-observant lifestyle.
\nOne of the most important passages to study on the subject is Acts 23:6, where Sha\u2019ul says of himself, \u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 (Greek, ego Pharisaios eimi, \u201cI am a Pharisee\u201d). A growing number of people believe that Sha\u2019ul never ceased being a Pharisee with regard to his Torah observance. We do not know whether the Pharisee party ever formally expelled Sha\u2019ul for his Messianic beliefs. However, according to this passage, Sha\u2019ul continued to call himself a Pharisee well after his believing in Yeshua. Let us observe some support for this claim.
\nFirst, Sha\u2019ul speaks in the present tense. If he had wanted to say that he was no longer a Pharisee, he could have easily done so, but the Greek grammar used here clearly indicates the present tense. In Acts 23, the Pharisees, as a group, stood up for Sha\u2019ul when they saw that he shared their doctrinal beliefs and had Pharisaic training. Certainly, this would not have been the case had he no longer been Torah-observant.
\nMoreover, let me surmise, following the lead of Dr. John Fischer,3 that Sha\u2019ul continued to dress in the recognized Pharisee\u2019s \u201cuniform.\u201d This would explain why he was easily recognizable as a rabbi and Torah teacher, and thus was invited to speak at a synagogue gathering in Pisidia (see Acts 13:13\u201343). This is not specifically mentioned in the text, but it does make perfect sense and would be consistent with the picture that we have of Rabbi Sha\u2019ul.
\nIn addition, a statement Sha\u2019ul made in Acts 28:17 reveals his Torah observance. Either this statement is true, or Sha\u2019ul is lying.<\/p>\n
Sha\u2019ul called a meeting of the local [Roman] Jewish leaders.\u2026 He said to them, \u201cI have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Greek text renders \u201cthe traditions of our fathers\u201d as \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (tois hethesi tois patroois). Clearly implied in this wording, are the Mitzvot of the Torah, and even possibly, the methods of fulfilling the Mitzvot as developed by the Pharisees. In that era, it would have been considered as acting against the Jewish people if someone practiced and taught an anti-Torah lifestyle. Sha\u2019ul states that he did not have that type of an attitude. Furthermore, the record in Acts 21:21\u201324 clearly confirms that Sha\u2019ul kept the Torah, and that the Messianic leaders in Jerusalem expected him to do so. The Messianic leaders instructed Sha\u2019ul as follows:<\/p>\n
We have four men [from the Messianic Jewish community in Jerusalem] who are under a vow. Take them with you, be purified with them, and pay the expenses connected with having their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to these rumors which they have heard about you [that he teaches against Messianic Jews keeping the Torah]; but that, on the contrary [everyone will know that] you yourself stay in line and keep the Torah. (vv. 23b\u201324, emphasis added)<\/p>\n
The text reveals that Sha\u2019ul was Torah-observant, and that Messianic Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (who included James, their head rabbi) expected this of him. This leadership insured that Sha\u2019ul proved his Torah observance by participating in the ending rituals of a Nazirite vow. This would kill the lie circulating in Jerusalem that he was \u201cteaching all the Jews living among the Goyim [Nations] to apostatize from Moshe, telling them not to have a b\u2019rit-milah [circumcision] for their sons and not to follow the traditions\u201d (Acts 21:21).
\nThis is significant. The Messianic Jewish leadership in Jerusalem had Sha\u2019ul participate in a Nazirite vow sacrifice at the Temple in order to prove that he was Torah-observant. The book of Acts tells us that the rumor that Sha\u2019ul taught against the Torah was a lie. Certainly, if Sha\u2019ul believed that observing the Torah was wrong, he would not have followed the recommendation of James and the other Messianic Jewish leaders of Jerusalem. He would not have participated in rituals which took place at the end of Nazirite vows.4 This is strong proof of his attitude toward the Torah. In addition, it demonstrates that he shared the position of the Messianic Jewish leadership, including James, regarding the validity of the Nazirite vow, which is a Torah-mandated Mitzvah (see Num. 6:1\u201323).<\/p>\n
Sha\u2019ul the Emissary<\/p>\n
Let us now look at the foreign journeys of Rabbi Sha\u2019ul. First, it is relevant to say that, as a Pharisee, Sha\u2019ul would have been familiar with the concept of traveling far and wide to share a religious message. The first-century Pharisees were active in sending emissaries abroad (outside of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee) to share their teachings with Diaspora Jewish communities. In addition, they also traveled around the Land of Israel, teaching and recruiting students for their yeshivas in Jerusalem. For that reason, perhaps, it was not strange for Sha\u2019ul to be asked to teach, in Acts 13, at Antioch in Pisidia, where he arrived at the synagogue and was identified as a Pharisee, and perhaps, immediately thought of as a Pharisaic emissary.
\nAt the beginning of his first journey as a Messianic Jewish emissary, Rabbi Sha\u2019ul and his companion, Barnabas, traveled to Cyprus. First, they sought out the local Jewish community in order to share their message: \u201cThey began proclaiming the word of God in the synagogues\u201d (Acts 13:5).
\nNot only in Cyprus, but also later on during the same journey in southern Turkey, Sha\u2019ul first sought to share the Gospel message with his own people. This is, again, consistent with the Pharisaic practice of teaching in Diaspora Jewish communities. He kept the Sabbath according to local custom, as we see in Acts 13:14b\u201315: \u201cOn the Sabbath they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the synagogue officials sent to them, saying \u2026\u201d
\nFischer points out that Sha\u2019ul\u2019s very attire attested to his keeping of Jewish custom: \u201cIn Acts 13:15, he [Sha\u2019ul] is invited to speak in the synagogue because he is recognized as a religious leader \u2026 by his [Pharisaic party] dress, a matter of tradition.\u201d5
\nSha\u2019ul then continued with his \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 (Hebrew, d\u2019rashah, sermon).6 The point is that Rabbi Sha\u2019ul (and also Barnabas) kept the Sabbath while sharing the message of Yeshua as the Messiah. In keeping with the local Jewish custom, the Jewish community gathered on the next Sabbath. Sha\u2019ul and Barnabas were among them, observing the Sabbath with them (see Acts 13:44\u201347). Due to the nature of his Torah-based message, as well as being a visiting Pharisee from Israel, Sha\u2019ul was again given the honor of speaking freely to the people on this particular Shabbat. This highlights the pattern of Rabbi Sha\u2019ul and Barnabas in the book of Acts\u2014they kept the Sabbath. They freely shared the Gospel with non-Jews (see Acts 13:48; 14:1, 11ff.). This was in keeping with what had happened previously (see Acts 10).
\nThe evidence confirms that Sha\u2019ul and Barnabas continued to live as Torah-observant Messianic Jews. They were sent to Cyprus to share the news of the Messiah with their Jewish kinsmen, as well as with non-Jews. Again, the Pharisees were very much an emissary type of organization, believing in winning proselytes to Judaism. This was not a new concept to Sha\u2019ul. He was sent out as an emissary in Acts 13 by Messianic Jews, as a Messianic Jew, sharing the message of Israel\u2019s Messiah. Therefore, it follows that we would expect him to live as a Jew.
\nIf Rabbi Sha\u2019ul had any problem with the validity of Torah observance, we would expect to see him shunning the observance of the Sabbath on his journeys. Instead, the record reveals a constant keeping of the Torah, both at Antioch and at Iconium. To have kept parts of the Torah and to have shunned others would be tantamount to an inconsistent, dishonest approach by Sha\u2019ul. Therefore, we may conclude that he and Barnabas kept not only the Sabbath, but the other Mitzvot of the Torah as well.
\nOn Rabbi Sha\u2019ul\u2019s second journey as an emissary, this pattern of Torah observance continued. We first see this in the circumcision of Sha\u2019ul\u2019s student, Timothy. Acts 16:3 gives us Sha\u2019ul\u2019s rationale for the circumcision. It states that Sha\u2019ul wanted Timothy to accompany him on his journey as an emissary. He took him and performed a circumcision because of the Jews living in those areas, for they all knew that Timothy\u2019s father had been a Greek.
\nThe given rationale has nothing to do with Timothy\u2019s entrance into the kingdom of God. Timothy was already identified as a follower of Yeshua in Acts 16:1. However, the local Jewish custom and interpretation of the Torah identified Timothy as a Jew, since his mother was Jewish. Therefore, Timothy needed to be brought into the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in order to live his life as a Messianic Jew, not giving any offense to the local Jewish communities. Professor L. H. Schiffman noted that, according to both the Mishnah (Kiddushin 3:12\u20134:14) and first-century rabbinic consensus, if a Jewish male fathered a child with a non-Jewish mother, the child was not Jewish. Conversely, if a Jewish mother gave birth to a child by a Gentile father, the offspring fit into the legal category of a \u05de\u05de\u05d6\u05e8 (Hebrew, mamzer, an illegitimate child) according to Tosefta Kiddushin 4:16.<\/p>\n
If a non-Jew or slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, and she gave birth to a child, the offspring is a \u201cmamzer\u201d [the legal category quoted above].<\/p>\n
Professor Schiffman dated this mishnah from approximately 125 C.E., and held that its halakhah was valid during the first century. A mamzer was thus a Jew, though one not given full legal rights. Schiffman noted, \u201cWe must remember that mamzerim [plural] are considered full fledged Jews from all points of view except that of marriage law.\u201d7
\nAnother proof of Jewish identity being determined in this era by the mother\u2019s identity is given to us in the Mishnah:<\/p>\n
King Agrippas stood and received the decision of the sages. And when it arrived, it was not able to be given to him, as a foreigner. His eyes welled up with tears. But they said to him, \u201cDo not fear, Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother, you are our brother.\u201d (Sotah 7:8)<\/p>\n
This mishnah speaks of King Agrippa II (d. 92 C.E.), who was half Jewish through his mother, Cypros. He is clearly pronounced Jewish in this mishnah by the sages, who would not have done so if the halakhah was not decided in this direction. Schiffman even theorized that this halakhah had been accepted for 400 years by the first century C.E. He summarized his finding as follows: \u201cBy the time of the rise of Christianity, the halakhah had clearly defined the Jew by birth as one who was born to a Jewish mother.\u201d8
\nWith Timothy falling into this category, Powlison noted, \u201cJewish custom identified Timothy as Jewish, and his circumcision as a violation to be rectified. From the point of view of the Gospel alone, there was no need to bring Timothy into the Covenant.\u201d9 Since Timothy was a Jew according to first-century interpretation of the Torah, he was summarily circumcised and obliged to fully live as a Jew (see Gal. 5:3). As Powlison further noted:<\/p>\n
Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of the Jews \u2026 (of) Derbe and Lystra. They were \u2026 aware of the fact that Timothy\u2019s Greek father had not allowed him to be circumcized. In doing so, Paul was showing his respect for Jewish rabbinical opinion, which \u2026 held that since Timothy\u2019s mother was Jewish, Timothy was also: and that it was Paul\u2019s responsibility, as Timothy\u2019s Jewish authority, to circumcise him. If rabbinic opinion had no authority for Paul, he would have refused to allow Timothy to be circumcised, as he did with Titus.10<\/p>\n
If Rabbi Sha\u2019ul did not respect the Torah, then he would have had no reason to circumcise Timothy. The Torah is clear that every Jewish male needs to be circumcised (see Gen. 17:10\u201314). Sha\u2019ul, in circumcising Timothy, was respecting and keeping the Torah. He was also being sensitive to the consensus of the local Jewish community, which formed its opinion on this issue according to its interpretation of the Torah.
\nSha\u2019ul was upholding the principles he brought forth in his teachings. In 1 Corinthians 7:17\u201318, Sha\u2019ul called upon believers to continue being a part of their people after coming to faith in Yeshua as the Messiah. For Timothy to do this, circumcision was required. If Sha\u2019ul believed that it was wrong for Messianic Jews to observe the Torah, he would not have circumcised Timothy. In this act of circumcision alone, we see Sha\u2019ul\u2019s continued observance of the Torah.<\/p>\n
Torah Observance in Philippi<\/p>\n
In Acts 16, we find Sha\u2019ul in the city of Philippi, in the northeast corner of Macedonia. We read in 16:13 that while at Philippi, Sha\u2019ul and his entourage again observed the Sabbath: \u201cThen on Shabbat, we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we understood a minyan [Jewish prayer group] met.\u201d
\nSimply put, while sharing the message of Yeshua\u2019s Messiahship in Philippi, Sha\u2019ul kept the Sabbath according to local custom, meeting outside the city. His Sabbath observance continued on this journey as an emissary. The passage describes Rabbi Sha\u2019ul\u2019s sojourn in Philippi with a woman named Lydia (see vv. 14\u201315). Questions have been raised as to whether Sha\u2019ul and his entourage could have kept ritually clean while staying at Lydia\u2019s house. Many people will say that Sha\u2019ul had to compromise his Jewish lifestyle and would have been forced to stop eating only kosher food (as found in Lev. 11). However, as I will discuss later, Lydia was called a \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd (Greek, sebomene ton Theon) in Acts 16:14b. The meaning of this Greek phrase, Godfearer (Hebrew, \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e2\u05e8, gerey hasha\u2018ar), is crucial to our understanding of both Lydia\u2019s identity and of Sha\u2019ul\u2019s Torah observance. In her essay on first-century categories of Gentiles and converts, Patrice Fischer identified this term as referring to \u201cthat special group of Gentiles who worshipped in synagogues and adopted a Jewish belief system and a Jewish lifestyle for themselves, stopping just short of formal conversion.\u201d11
\nThis term, then, refers to Gentiles who had faith in the God of Israel, and who maintained a ritually clean and kosher environment in their homes. Fischer also noted that they were a very important part of Diaspora Jewish communities (that is, Jewish communities existing outside of the Land of Israel). This is evident from Lydia\u2019s important role in her Jewish community. Powlison also noted that there is no recorded protest from the Jewish community of Philippi, or the surrounding area, over their (Sha\u2019ul and his entourage\u2019s) behavior.12 Had Sha\u2019ul and his entourage stayed in a ritually defiling environment, we would expect that some kind of protest over their disregard for the Torah and Jewish customs would have been lodged by the local Jewish community. At the least, this would have been a major hindrance to their ability to communicate their message to their kinsman.
\nAdditionally, why would Lydia have been one of those gathered at the riverside on the Sabbath if she were not Torah-observant? The narrative would not make sense if she were not Torah-observant as a \u201cGodfearer.\u201d Therefore, we see that Rabbi Sha\u2019ul upheld his Torah-observant lifestyle while at Philippi under the care and sponsorship of Lydia. After his release from prison, Sha\u2019ul returned to his ritually Jewish environment at Lydia\u2019s house. Finally, had Sha\u2019ul stayed in a non-kosher environment at Philippi, he could not, in good conscience, have stated what he did in Acts 28:17. The implications of that verse will be discussed in a subsequent section of this work.<\/p>\n
Torah Observance in Prison<\/p>\n
Acts 16:21\u201336 presents a problematic but not unsolvable situation regarding Sha\u2019ul\u2019s Torah observance. After his miraculous release from prison (see Acts 16:26\u201328) and the coming to faith of the jailer (see vv. 28\u201334), Sha\u2019ul was taken to the jailer\u2019s house and attended to (see vv. 33\u201335). On the surface, it appears that Sha\u2019ul willingly stayed in a non-kosher environment, and ate there as well. It seems as if he broke the Mitzvot of the Torah. However, Sha\u2019ul was following allowances from Jewish custom and first-century rabbinic interpretation of the Torah in his situation.
\nAlthough Sha\u2019ul was freed from his chains by a supernatural intervention, he continued to submit himself to the jailer as to his governmental authority. He did not flee from the jailer and escape. He also did not encourage the jailer\u2019s suicide attempt (see vv. 27\u201328). Verses 35 and 36 show that Sha\u2019ul considered himself to be a prisoner of the Roman authorities until he was officially released (the next day at dawn; see v. 35). Sha\u2019ul could have escaped, especially if the jailer had taken his own life, but Sha\u2019ul\u2019s respect for authority and for life itself, would not allow him to do so.
\nConcerning his motivation for his action, Sha\u2019ul did not deviate from acceptable Jewish practice by going to the jailer\u2019s non-Jewish house. According to this era\u2019s rabbinic halakhah, because Sha\u2019ul was a prisoner of Gentiles, he was allowed to eat non-kosher food as a concession, in order to preserve his life. Remember that he had been severely beaten (see v. 23), so eating was all the more necessary to prevent worsening of his physical condition. As Powlison observed, \u201cWhile in custody, Jews were allowed, if necessary, to eat forbidden food; if it were possible, however, they arranged to have food brought to them by Jewish friends\u201d (see Acts 14\u201316; 23:16; 24:23; 27:3; 28:10).13
\nSha\u2019ul would not have freely chosen to be in ritually unclean surroundings. Given the circumstances, this non-kosher environment did not cancel out Sha\u2019ul\u2019s commitment to his Torah observance. We continue to see a consistent, Torah-abiding lifestyle. In this case, a halakhically permissible option was taken, given the circumstances. If this were not so, in Acts 28:17, Sha\u2019ul could not have stated, \u201cI have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers\u201d (Greek, \u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c9 \u03b7\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, ego ouden henantion poiesas to lao he tois hethesi tois patroois).
\nIn Acts 17, Sha\u2019ul demonstrated his consistent Torah-observant behavior while in Thessalonica, \u201cAccording to his usual practice, Sha\u2019ul went in; and on three Shabbatot [Sabbaths] he gave them drashot from the Tanakh\u201d (v. 2). In this text, Sha\u2019ul\u2019s consistent pattern was to observe the Sabbath according to local custom. Likewise, upon arriving in Berea, it is recorded, \u201cAs soon as they arrived, they went to the synagogue\u201d (Acts 17:10). As a side benefit of going to the synagogue, they were often invited to Jewish homes, which provided a ritually fit environment (as with Jason in Acts 17:7 and the previously mentioned Lydia in Acts 13).
\nAt Sha\u2019ul\u2019s next destination, Athens, he continued his typical pattern by fellowshipping and teaching in the synagogue (see 17:17). In Corinth, his destination after Athens, this pattern continued. He \u201cstayed on\u201d with the Messianic couple Priscilla and Aquila (see 18:3). The Greek word used for \u201cstayed on\u201d is \u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd (hemenen), giving the sense of \u201cdwelling with\u201d or \u201cliving with.\u201d By having the same trade (see 18:3b) and Messianic Jewish faith, Sha\u2019ul was able to have a ritually kosher environment by living and working with Priscilla and Aquila. In Corinth, also, Sha\u2019ul kept his Torah-observant lifestyle. We read in 18:4, \u201c[Sha\u2019ul held] discussions every Shabbat in the synagogue.\u201d Verse 7 of this same chapter reveals Sha\u2019ul\u2019s concern for living in a ritually kosher environment: \u201cSo he left them and went into the home of a \u2018God-fearer\u2019 named Titus Justus, whose house was right next door to the synagogue.\u201d
\nThe Greek word for \u201cnext door\u201d in verse 7, is \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 (sunomorousa). It means to \u201cborder on (something).\u201d14 In the Mediterranean world of that day (as today), it was common for a synagogue to adjoin another building. I suspect that is the case here. If sunomorousa has its cognate in the Hebrew word, \u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05da (samukh), then Justus was a Godfearer who lived right next to the synagogue. Additionally, Justus would have lived as a Jew and kept the Mitzvot.15 Note the Greek term applied to Justus: sebomenou ton Theon (see 18:7). This is the same category to which Lydia and Cornelius belonged\u2014Gentiles who lived as Jews in ritually fit environments.
\nHere, some have seen that Sha\u2019ul departed from Priscilla and Aquila\u2019s company and lodging and moved in with Gentiles in order to begin his new ministry to the Gentiles (following verse 6). This idea is not consistent with the Scriptures and with what we have already seen of Sha\u2019ul\u2019s Torah observance. To say that Sha\u2019ul abandoned his people and customs is an inaccurate interpretation of this verse. Justus provided a ritually fit environment for Sha\u2019ul during his year and a half stay in that city. As Powlison noted, \u201cJustus\u2019 house was next to the synagogue.\u201d Second, Sha\u2019ul and his party stayed there for a year and a half with no recorded objections to their conduct [from the Corinthian Jewish community].\u201d 16
\nWe also see Sha\u2019ul ending his second journey as an emissary in Ephesus with further proof of his Torah observance. \u201cHe himself [Sha\u2019ul] went into the synagogue and held dialogue with the Jews. When they asked him to stay with them longer, he declined\u201d (Acts 18:19\u201321).
\nThe Jewish community at Ephesus would not have been impressed with a Torah-breaking Jew. If Sha\u2019ul had not observed the Torah, he would not have been invited back to speak and teach as a rabbi. This community\u2019s openness to Sha\u2019ul was related to his being Torah-observant. As a learned Pharisee from Israel with a message from the Torah, he would have been received with enthusiasm (at least initially).<\/p>\n
The Writings of Rabbi Sha\u2019ul<\/p>\n
In his writings, Sha\u2019ul also upheld the validity and dignity of the Torah. Dutch scholar Peter Tomson, who has thoroughly researched the New Testament writings of Sha\u2019ul, sees a number of interesting facts regarding Sha\u2019ul\u2019s letters. He noted that the book of Romans is structured in a rabbinic manner: \u201cThe basic structure of this mediating, interpretative way of thinking [in the book of Romans] is reminiscent of \u2026 Rabbinic midrash.\u201d17 Furthermore, \u201cJustification theology and halakhah exist independently in Paul, and do not exclude one another.\u201d18 In other words, Sha\u2019ul wrote about matters that a first-century rabbi would write about; he wrote in the same style that a first-century rabbi would employ.
\nTomson observed that the book of 1 Corinthians reflects Sha\u2019ul\u2019s respect for the Torah. He states, \u201cIn 1 Corinthians \u2026 the Law [Torah] is affirmed as an authoritative source of practical teaching.\u201d19 Tomson cited a number of places where Sha\u2019ul referred to the Torah to make his points in the letter to the Corinthians. He noted that Sha\u2019ul quoted eight times from the Torah. Twice, Sha\u2019ul cited verses from the Torah to support points, and twice he paraphrased sections of the Torah to illustrate his points. In 1 Corinthians, Sha\u2019ul referred to the Torah on at least twelve occasions. What kind of attitude would Sha\u2019ul have had in order to make so much use of the Torah in this letter? Additionally, Tomson observed similarities between Sha\u2019ul\u2019s writings and those of Rabbi Hillel, the famous first-century Pharisaic sage. Tomson stated, \u201cOf special significance for crucial elements of Paul\u2019s teaching are similarities with the Hillelite tradition.\u201d 20
\nThis should further cement our understanding of Sha\u2019ul\u2019s closeness to the Torah. The first five books of Moses were the foundation of the belief system of Rabbi Hillel\u2019s school of thought. That two Pharisaic rabbis, Hillel and Sha\u2019ul, had a strong connection to the Torah should not be surprising. The fact of Yeshua\u2019s Messiahship did not interfere with Sha\u2019ul\u2019s relation to the Torah. This would be an impossibility, as Sha\u2019ul looked at Yeshua as being promised in the Torah, and fulfilling the Torah (I stress the word fulfilling, and not canceling). Professor Santala saw Sha\u2019ul\u2019s love for the Torah, and his reliance upon it as his authoritative source, when he wrote:<\/p>\n
He based his entire thinking on the Old Testament writings, and again, he [Paul] accepted only Old Testament teachings as the sole authority [of his values].21<\/p>\n
The historic dignity of Rabbi Sha\u2019ul can only be upheld if he is seen as a Torah-observant rabbi. Any other view casts doubts on the statements he made about himself, and on the truth of Luke\u2019s writings. It is such Messianic Jews, believing Gentiles, and other Jewish writers (e.g., Rabbi Pinchas Lapide) who believe in the truth of Sha\u2019ul\u2019s statements. Attempts at portraying Sha\u2019ul as abandoning the Torah make Sha\u2019ul a hypocrite and a liar at worst, and an inconsistent person at best. Let us understand the Torah-observant Messianic rabbi in such a way as to establish the truth of his writings, personal testimony, and lifestyle. Along with Parkes, it is accurate to conclude, \u201cWe shall not have understood the meaning of \u2026 [Sha\u2019ul\u2019s writings] until we have found an interpretation consistent with Paul\u2019s own belief that he was throughout a loyal and observant Jew.\u201d22
\nSha\u2019ul remained a Torah-observant rabbi after he came to believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. Understanding this truth can help us interpret the writings of Sha\u2019ul. They do not contradict how he lived. This fact should help us see Sha\u2019ul with new eyes, for he loved the Torah and did not allow for its cancellation. In fact, as Yeshua did, he fought for its correct understanding and use.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER SIX<\/p>\n
SIMON PETER,
\nYESHUA\u2019S SPECIAL STUDENT<\/p>\n
Among Yeshua\u2019s students, no one captures my attention more than Shim\u2019on Kefa (Simon Peter). This loyal, yet fearful, student of Yeshua has similarly impressed many who study the New Testament writings. He is often seen as an outspoken, impetuous person and somewhat of a \u201cklutz.\u201d1
\nI see Shim\u2019on as Yeshua\u2019s Torah-observant \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05db\u05dd, (talmid hakham). Talmid hakham is a Hebrew technical term meaning the leading student (of a rabbi). Every famous rabbi who daily taught the same students had a talmid hakham, his chief student. This is the student who figured most prominently in narratives about his rabbi. In first-century Judaism, the chief student was trusted by his rabbi to learn and pass on the rabbi\u2019s teachings. The Talmud provides an example of this type of relationship:<\/p>\n
Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai had five [primary] students: They were: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananyah, Rabbi Yosi Hakohen, Rabbi Shim\u2019on ben Netanel and Rabbi Elazar ben Arak \u2026 He [Yohanan ben Zakkai] used to say: If all the sages of Israel were on one pan of a balance scale, and Eliezer ben Hyrkanos were on the other, he would outweigh them all. \u2026 If all the sages of Israel, with even Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos among them, were on one part of the balance scale, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arak were on the other, he would outweigh them all. (avot 2:10)<\/p>\n
Rabbi Elazar ben Arak was the talmid hakham, the foremost student of the late first-century sage Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. In another section of this Talmud tractate, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai posed questions to his students, much as Yeshua did to his disciples:<\/p>\n
Go out and discern which is the proper path for a man to cling to. \u2026 Rabbi Elazar [ben Arak] answered: A good heart. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said \u2026 I prefer the words of Elazar ben Arak [to the answers of the other students]. (avot 2:13)<\/p>\n
Rabbi Elazar is praised by his teacher, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, for his wise answers. Elazar was the talmid hakham, the one looked up to by the other students, and in some sense the favorite student of his rabbi. In a similar way, Shim\u2019on filled this customary role in the rabbinic world by serving in a like capacity to his rabbi, Yeshua. We see that Shim\u2019on was considered within the inner circle of Yeshua\u2019s best students in Luke 8:51, where Yeshua allowed only Shim\u2019on and two other esteemed students\u2014John and James\u2014to witness a miracle.
\nIn addition, Luke 9:28 gives us one example where Yeshua took only Shim\u2019on, John, and James to a secluded place to pray with him. In Luke 22:8, Yeshua sent Shim\u2019on and John to carry out a special task. It is Shim\u2019on who is given the rabbi\u2019s questions in John 21:15\u201320. It is also Shim\u2019on who is singled out by Yeshua as prominent among the students with these words, \u201c \u2018I also tell you this: you are Kefa [which means \u2018Rock\u2019], and on this rock I will build my Community, and the gates of Sh\u2019ol [Hell] will not overcome it\u2019 \u201d (Matt 16:18).
\nHowever we interpret this verse, it is clear that Shim\u2019on held a role, if not the role, of prominence among Yeshua\u2019s students. 2 I am not inferring that Shim\u2019on was a better human being by being a talmid hakham. None of the famous rabbis\u2019 students who functioned in this role were ever considered better human beings than their fellow students. In John 18:10, Shim\u2019on took upon himself, the role of defender (or bodyguard) of his rabbi, and thereby lopped off the ear of the High Priest\u2019s servant. Shim\u2019on considered himself the student who would stick by his rabbi at all costs, and even defend him through force.
\nAny rabbi\u2019s talmid hakham would have viewed his rabbi as a role model and would have closely followed his teachings. This is the way the world of rabbis and their students functioned in first-century Israel. If Yeshua taught that the Law and the Prophets were still valid (see Matt. 5:17\u201319), his students (especially the talmid hakham) would have learned and taught the same.<\/p>\n
Shim\u2019on\u2019s Torah Observance<\/p>\n
I will comment on a few examples from the life of Shim\u2019on regarding keeping the Torah commandments. One prominent situation is in Luke 22:7 ff. Here, Yeshua kept the pilgrimage feast of Passover. Shim\u2019on was with Yeshua, and so he kept the feast as well. The keeping of this feast is a Mitzvah of the Torah (see Lev. 23:4\u20138; Num. 9:1\u201314; Deut. 16:1\u20138). Let us also note that the Torah commandment of Exodus 23:17 was kept here (all males must make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover). By associating with Yeshua, Shim\u2019on kept a Torah-observant lifestyle.
\nIn Acts 2:1, we find Shim\u2019on keeping a Torah commandment by being in Jerusalem for the pilgrimage feast of Shavu\u2018ot (see Lev. 23:15\u201322). It may be argued that Shim\u2019on was keeping Shavu\u2018ot almost by coincidence, since he was in Jerusalem anyway, according to Yeshua\u2019s instructions (see Acts 1:4). Nevertheless, he fulfilled a Torah commandment by his presence in Jerusalem. It is also not coincidental that Yeshua filled the Messianic Jews with the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem during the Shavu\u2018ot festival.3 In Acts 3, Shim\u2019on showed his familiarity with the Torah when he used a verse from Deuteronomy in his public speech about the role of Yeshua as Messiah: \u201cFor Moshe himself said, \u2018ADONAI [God] will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You are to listen to everything he tells you\u2018\u201d (v. 22).
\nIf Shim\u2019on had a problem with the validity of the Torah after becoming a Messianic Jew, he certainly would not have quoted from it to prove his points. Additionally, Shim\u2019on showed his acceptance of the Torah when he stated, \u201cYou [Israel] are included in the covenant which God made with our fathers when he said to Avraham, \u2018By your seed will all the families of the earth be blessed\u2019 \u201d (v. 25).
\nShim\u2019on referred to the fact that the promises of God to Abraham were inherited by the Jewish people of his day. Where does one learn of this covenant, and of the subsequent Mosaic covenant that God made with the Jewish nation? In the books of the Torah! Clearly, Shim\u2019on would not have quoted from a body of Scripture that he did not accept as valid.
\nShim\u2019on\u2019s writings also give us an opportunity to see his attitude toward the Torah. In 1 Peter 1:15, Shim\u2019on quoted from the book of Leviticus, \u201cBe holy because I am holy\u201d (11:44; 19:2; 20:7).
\nAgain, by quoting from the Torah, Shim\u2019on showed that he accepted the Torah as God\u2019s revelation to Israel and all of mankind. Since Yeshua taught (see John 10:35) that all Scripture is to be received as a body and \u201ccannot be broken\u201d (Greek, \u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b7 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7, ou dunatai dunatai luthenai he graphe), it is certain that Shim\u2019on had the same attitude. By teaching this, Yeshua presented the Jewish concept of a book of Scripture that is not divided into valid and invalid parts. All Scripture, in Jewish eyes, is valid. In Yeshua\u2019s day, the Scriptures included all of the Torah, the Prophets, and the great majority of the Writings (Wisdom Literature). Sha\u2019ul taught, \u201cEverything written in the past [in the Scripture] was written to teach us\u201d (Rom. 15:4). The Torah, with all of its commandments, was considered to be valid Scripture by Yeshua, Sha\u2019ul, and by Shim \u2019on.
\nIn 1 Peter 1:17, Shim\u2019on said that God is the Father \u201cwho judges impartially according to each person\u2019s actions.\u201d He also stated this concept in Acts 10:34. Where would Shim\u2019on have learned this? From the Torah, for Deuteronomy 16:19 directs, \u201cYou are not to distort justice or show favoritism\u201d (Hebrew, \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05db\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, lo takir panim).
\nIn Hebrew, this particular concept of impartial judgment is called both \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd (maso panim) and \u05d4\u05db\u05e8 \u05e4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd (haker panim). Shim\u2019on showed his familiarity with this idea, which is based on the teachings of the Torah. The Jewish Scriptures contain many descriptions of the impartiality of God\u2019s judgments, and the need for people to give similar impartial judgments. For example, 2 Chronicles 19:7 declares, \u201cADONAI our God does not allow dishonesty, partiality or bribe-taking\u201d (Hebrew, \u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05d0 \u05e4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, maso panim).
\nWe have two more examples in Proverbs: \u201cShowing partiality in judging [Hebrew, \u05d4\u05db\u05e8 \u05e4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, haker panim] is not good\u201d (24:23); \u201cTo show partiality [Hebrew, \u05d4\u05db\u05e8 \u05e4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, haker panim] is not good\u201d (28:21a). Shim\u2019on would have understood this concept because of his familiarity with the Torah. This concept was unique to the God of Israel, as other Middle Eastern religious practices of the time did not emphasize the impartial judgment of God or man.4
\nShim\u2019on further reinforced what the Torah teaches by summing up a lesson from the lives of Abraham and Sarah (see 1 Pet. 3:5). This shows us his respect for the Torah and his use of its narratives as teaching tools.
\nIn 1 Peter 3:8 and 4:8, Shim\u2019on expounded on what the Torah teaches in Leviticus 19:18b. He was not making up a new commandment; rather, he was simply rephrasing one of the central commandments of the Torah.
\nCritics of Shim\u2019on\u2019s obedience to the Torah will argue that Shim\u2019on was told by God to stop keeping the kosher dietary laws in Acts 10. However, this is simply not what the text says. The narrative states:<\/p>\n
Kefa [Shim\u2019on] went up onto the roof of the house to pray. He began to feel hungry \u2026 he fell into a trance in which he saw heaven opened, and something that looked like a large sheet being lowered to the ground.\u2026In it were all kinds of four-footed animals, crawling creatures and wild birds. Then a voice came to him, \u201cGet up, Kefa, slaughter and eat!\u201d But Kefa said, \u201cNo, sir! Absolutely not! I have never eaten food that was unclean.\u2026\u201d The voice spoke to him a second time: \u201cStop treating as unclean what God has made clean.\u201d This happened three times, and then the sheet was immediately taken back up into heaven. Kefa was still puzzling over the meaning of the vision he had seen. (vv. 9b\u201317)<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that Shim\u2019on did not, immediately, interpret this dream literally. He did not, according to the text, draw the conclusion that he should stop eating kosher food. Instead, he was puzzled about its meaning. We can be thankful that the book of Acts interprets his vision for us in the continuation of the text. Acts 10:28 describes Shimon\u2019s conclusion of the message of the vision:<\/p>\n
He [Kefa] said to them, \u201cYou are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have close association with someone who belongs to another people \u2026 is something that just isn\u2019t done. But God has shown me not to call any person common or unclean [non-kosher], (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
The vision, according to Shimon\u2019s own words, had everything to do with showing Shimon\u2019s that he should share the message of Israel\u2019s Messiah with Gentiles. It had nothing to do with breaking the kosher dietary laws of the Torah.5 Shimon\u2019 said that he had never broken the kosher dietary laws. This would certainly mean, at a minimum, that he had never eaten any food that was prohibited in Leviticus 11. By Shimon\u2019 own words, he had scrupulously kept the Torah with regard to his diet.
\nIn fact, this situation is all the more interesting in that Cornelius, according to the Acts 10 text, was a Godfearer. Again, these were Gentiles who worshipped Israel\u2019s God and kept Jewish customs to the extent of having fully kosher (halakhically fit) homes. As I brought out with Lydia and Justus, one had to keep the kosher dietary laws in order to be in this class of Godfearers. Therefore, for Shimon\u2019 to stay at Cornelius\u2019 house and eat there would not have posed any dietary problems for him. Patrice Fischer stated:<\/p>\n
The \u201cbottom line\u201d of observance for Gentiles in the Jewish world of Second Temple Judaism would have been the seven Noachide commandments. Godfearing Gentiles, however, went even further, observing the Sabbath, keeping dietary laws (as they were understood then), plus other Jewish observances that they had been taught by their local Jewish leaders.6<\/p>\n
Shim\u2019on demonstrated his respect for the Torah by using it as a source for his teaching. In 1 Peter 2:9 he used the terms \u201cchosen people, the King\u2019s cohanim [priests], a holy nation.\u201d These terms are first found in the language of Exodus 19:5\u20136. The following table illustrates how Shim\u2019on used the Hebrew words and terms from Exodus 19:5\u20136 in 1 Peter 2:9.<\/p>\n
Comparisons from Shim\u2019on\u2019s Letter<\/p>\n
Exodus 19:5\u20136
\n1 Peter 2:9
\nHebrew term
\nGreek term
\nEnglish term
\n\u05e1\u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05de\u05d9\u05dd (s\u2018gulah mikol ha\u2019amim)
\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (genos eklekton)
\na chosen people
\n\u05de\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05ea \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd (mamlekhet kohanim)
\n\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 (basileon hierateuma)
\nkingdom of priests
\n\u05d2\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9 (goy kadosh)
\n\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (ethnos hagion)
\na holy people<\/p>\n
The words used in 1 Peter 2:9 are quotes that show an intimate familiarity with the Torah. Additionally, Shim\u2019on used quotes in 1 Peter from Isaiah on at least seven occasions, and from the Psalms on at least five occasions. He quoted from the book of Proverbs on another three occasions. The conclusion we must draw is that his source for his letter (1 Peter) is the Torah, as well as the Prophets and the Writings. There is great similarity in terminology and concepts between 1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 19:5\u20136. This demonstrates that the letter of 1 Peter, although preserved in Greek, is filled with Torah concepts. Shim\u2019on\u2019s second letter (2 Peter) reveals much the same pattern. At three points he quoted from the Scriptures (Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah). He spoke of the \u201cvaluable and superlatively great promises\u201d that God has given Israel (1:4). Where were these promises given? In the Torah!
\nShim\u2019on gave the example of Balaam to illustrate the character of false teachers in the early Messianic movement (see 2 Pet. 2:15\u201316; cf. Num. 22\u201324). Shim\u2019on used another Torah narrative to illustrate a point.<\/p>\n
It was by God\u2019s word that long ago there were heavens, and there was land which arose out of water and existed between the waters, and that\u2026 the world of was flooded with water and destroyed. (2 Peter 3:5\u20136)<\/p>\n
Shim\u2019on paraphrased from the narratives in the book of Genesis in order to make his points, again showing his respect for the Torah and his belief in the literal truths of the narratives.
\nMy conclusion is that Shim\u2019on practiced Torah observance. He learned this from his family, and followed in the Torah-observant footsteps of his rabbi and Messiah, Yeshua. Shim\u2019on also showed us his great respect for the Torah in his two letters in the New Covenant\u2014though he did not directly address the question of the role of the Torah in the life of Messianic Jews. This should not surprise us. It is totally consistent with what we should expect, and fits the pattern we have already seen and will continue to see in the lives of the fledgling Messianic Jewish movement of the first century.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER SEVEN<\/p>\n
TORAH OBSERVANCE
\nIN THE WRITINGS
\nOF JOHN<\/p>\n
This next section will focus on the writings of Yochanan ben Zavdai (John, son of Zebedee). John\u2019s writings are important because he was an eyewitness to Yeshua, a first generation student of the Messiah. Therefore, we can assume that John taught what Yeshua, his rabbi and Messiah, taught him. Note 1 John 1:1, \u201cWe have heard him, we have seen him with our eyes, we have contemplated him, we have touched him with our hands!\u201d The eyewitness, firsthand account of John has special significance for us.<\/p>\n
We have Yeshua the Messiah, the Tzaddik [Righteous One], who pleads our cause with the Father. Also, he is the kapparah [atonement] for our sins\u2014and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
Our discussion will focus on the Greek word dikaion, used in the text to describe Yeshua as the Tzaddik, the Righteous One (\u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, Iesoun Christon dikaion). Does John use the word dikaion to suggest the cognate Hebrew word tzaddik, a technical term for a righteous, strictly Torah-observant man?
\nFirst, let us understand that John was raised and steeped in Galilean Jewish culture. He was familiar with the usage and meaning of the word tzaddik, as understood in the rabbinic circles of his time. He applied this term to his rabbi, Yeshua. He was calling Yeshua righteous before God. Should a proper rendering of this text be example A or B below?<\/p>\n
A. We have an advocate with the Father, Yeshua the Messiah, who is righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins<\/p>\n
B. We have an advocate with the Father, Yeshua the Messiah, the Tzaddik, and he is the propitiation for our sins<\/p>\n
The Greek text of verse 1 states:<\/p>\n
\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd.<\/p>\n
(parakleton echomen pros ton patera, Iesoun Christon dikaion, kai autos ilasmos estin peri ton hamartion hemon.)<\/p>\n
At first glance, the difference between A and B may seem to be minimal, only a matter of semantics. However, let me argue that in John\u2019s culture, such a distinction was important. Although the Greek text has no definite article preceding the word dikaion, it is not clear if we are looking at a Greek translation of a Hebrew term and concept. Nevertheless, I will argue from context, usage, and logic, that we are. This is important, in that the Hebrew word tzaddik was understood to mean a person who kept a strict Torah-observant lifestyle. In calling Yeshua a tzaddik, John was using a technical term that was pregnant with meaning. The Hebrew translation of the New Testament, though a modern one, does justice to this idea when it states:<\/p>\n
\u05d9\u05e9 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05e1 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d1 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e2 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05d9\u05d7 \u05d4\u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05db\u05e4\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5<\/p>\n
Yesh lanu melis lifney ha\u2019av\u2014Yeshua hamashiach, hatzaddik, vehu kapparah \u2018al hata\u2019eynu. (1 John 2:2)<\/p>\n
In English, this is rendered, \u201cWe have Yeshua the Messiah, the Tzaddik, who pleads our cause with the Father. Also, he is the kapparah [atonement] for our sins.\u201d By using the definite article in Hebrew before the word tzaddik, the translators are conveying an understanding of Yeshua as The Tzaddik, which therefore implies that he can cover the world\u2019s sins (see 1 John 2:2). Let us now look at what a tzaddik is, and note how Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance enabled him to fit this description.
\nThe Even-Shoshan Hebrew Biblical Concordance lists 206 uses of the term tzaddik. In most cases, it is used as a noun, though some instances exist where it is used as an adjective. The following chart lists the characteristics of a tzaddik, according to the Bible\u2019s descriptions. This will help the reader understand the meaning of this word to a first-century Jew. The typical Jewish person of Yeshua\u2019s time, especially in Israel (and definitely in Galilee) was familiar with these characteristics, uses, and meanings. In all these instances, the word tzaddik, and no other, is used in the original Hebrew text.<\/p>\n
The Biblical Verse and the Characteristics of a Tzaddik<\/p>\n
Ezekiel 18:5\u20139
\nDoes not commit idolatry, is not a habitual adulterer, does not break family law Mitzvot (5:6).
\nDoes not economically oppress others, is generous (5:7).
\nFulfills Exodus 22:25, fulfills Mitzvot regarding social relations (5:8).
\nObserves Mitzvot of the Torah (5:9).
\nEzekiel 13:22; Proverbs 13:5
\nSeeks the truth in all matters.
\nEzekiel 3:21
\nLives according to the Mitzvot (does not live lawlessly).
\nIsaiah 26:7
\nPrinciples of living come from God.
\n1 Kings 8:32
\nA legally innocent (of breaking the Mitzvot purposely) Jew.
\nHabakkuk 2:4
\nLives a life of faith in God.
\nProverbs 12:5
\nThinks of the message of the Torah, and how to apply it in life.
\nPsalms 32:11; 33:1; 58:10\u201311; 64:10
\nRejoices in God.
\nProverbs 18:10; 24:16
\nRelies on God when in distress.
\nProverbs 10:7, 16; 11:30; 23:24; Proverbs 29:2
\nHis\/her life blesses others.<\/p>\n
In contrast to a tzaddik, the life of an unrighteous man reflects the deeds mentioned in Ezekiel 18:10\u201313 (murder, theft, defrauding the poor and needy, etc.). Therefore, we can expect that a tzaddik was the opposite type of person from the one portrayed in these verses. Instead, a tzaddik would live as in verses 15\u201317. These verses praise the man who \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d4\u05dc\u05da (Hebrew, mishpatai \u2018asah b\u2019chukotai halakh, Ezek. 18:17b). In English this is rendered \u201cexecutes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes\u201d (18:17b).
\nIn the Bible, the main characteristic of a tzaddik is that he is a Torah and Mitzvah-observant person. The above table is not exhaustive. Yet, we clearly see the characteristics of a tzaddik. To summarize, these characteristics were: a Jewish man who kept the Mitzvot, and who turned to God as his source of life, especially in distress. His life was an example and blessing to others. He was generous with his resources, and sought the truth in all matters. According to this description, it is easy to see how Yeshua fits into this category. He truly was a tzaddik.
\nJoseph ben Ya\u2018akov, Yeshua\u2019s earthly father, is also identified in Matthew 1:19 as a tzaddik (Greek, \u0399\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c6 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf \u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c9\u03bd, Iosef de ho aner autes, dikaios on, Joseph, her husband, who was righteous). The Hebrew translation of this verse states, \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7 (Yosef ba\u2018alah shehayah tzaddik, Joseph her husband, who was a tzaddik).
\nNotice, again, the use of the Greek word dikaios. Joseph, according to the text, embodied the qualities that made him a tzaddik. I am paralleling the Greek word dikaios with the Hebrew word tzaddik. Louw and Nida defined dikaios as \u201cpertaining to being in accordance with what God requires.\u201d1 This is an excellent definition of tzaddik, which according to the Scriptures was a Torah-observant person. That a tzaddik became a developed and recognized category in rabbinic literature is shown in the Talmud, in tractate Sanhedrin 97b. There is a section that discusses the lamed vavnik.2 In a rabbinic discussion on the subject of why the Jews wait upon God for redemption, Rabbi Abaye (d. 339 C.E.) taught, \u201cThe world must contain not less than thirty-six righteous men [tzaddikim] in each generation who are trusted with the Shekinah\u2019s countenance.\u201d3
\nAlthough Rabbi Abaye lived some three centuries after Yeshua, like Yeshua, he lived in an atmosphere steeped in the Torah. We can see that in Abaye\u2019s day, discussion about the influence of a tzaddik was very much alive.
\nIt is my conclusion that in calling Yeshua a tzaddik, John meant that Yeshua was Torah-observant and that he fully embodied the characteristics given in the above chart. Similarly, we find that John\u2019s writings reveal his own Torah observance. This is logical, since he portrayed Yeshua as being Torah-observant. John wrote, \u201cHere is how we know that we love God\u2019s children: when we love God, we also do what he commands. For loving God means obeying his commands\u201d (1 John 5:2\u20133).
\nThe Greek word used here to mean \u201ccommands\u201d is \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 (entolas). The question we need to answer is whether John uses entolas to portray a Greek rendition of the Hebrew concept of Mitzvah. If so, the meaning is tied to the keeping of the Torah\u2019s Mitzvot. Entolas carries the meaning of Mitzvot in John\u2019s usage here. Six examples from the Septuagint demonstrate this direct entolas-Mitzvot connection.4 When Jewish scholars translated the Torah into the Septuagint, they carefully chose the cognate Greek words that expressed the concepts embodied in the Hebrew Scriptures. The following table will demonstrate the comparisons.<\/p>\n
Hebrew and Greek Word Usage<\/p>\n
Bible Verse
\nSeptuagint Word Used
\nTorah Word Used
\nExodus 24:12
\nentolas
\nMitzvah
\nDeuteronomy 6:25
\nentolas
\nhaMitzvah
\nDeuteronomy 8:1
\nentolas
\nhaMitzvah
\nDeuteronomy 11:2\u20138
\nentolas
\nMitzvot
\nDeuteronomy 30:8
\nentolas
\nMitzvotav
\nDeuteronomy 30:10
\nentolas
\nMitzvotav<\/p>\n
Even if the reader has no knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, the English transliteration reveals much. Each time the term entolas is used in the Septuagint, in these six examples, it parallels the Torah\u2019s use of the word Mitzvah. It appears that the Jewish scribes and sages who translated the Septuagint had the concept of the Torah commandments in mind when using the Greek word entolas. There is good reason then, for concluding that John used a Hebraic understanding of the word entolas in 1 John 5:2\u20133. He was saying that the proof of showing one\u2019s love for God is to keep the Mitzvot of the Torah.
\n1 John 5:1 is a passage of Scripture that encourages Messianic Jews to love God in a practical manner. The \u201chow\u201d of loving God is taken up in verses 2\u20133. He encouraged the Messianic Jewish believers to live out the love God had poured upon them through Yeshua by keeping the Mitzvot of the Torah. The New Testament authors were not deep mystics with a Hellenistic way of looking at the world. They were Torah-observant Jews, who looked for practical ways to live out the love that was placed in their hearts by their Messiah. Their foundation for living was the Torah. In order to write 1 John 5:1 as an instruction for others, John himself, would have had to have been Torah-observant.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER EIGHT<\/p>\n
OTHER
\nTORAH-OBSERVANT
\nMESSIANIC JEWS<\/p>\n
There are a number of other Messianic Jews in Scripture who were Torah-observant. Although they are not major figures, their lives fit the pattern of Messianic Jewish Torah observance that we have examined. Let us see who these people were, and note their Torah observance.<\/p>\n
Hananyah<\/p>\n
Hananyah (Ananias) appeared in Acts 9. He was the Messianic believer who delivered the message from God to Rav Sha\u2019ul. In recounting the incident, Sha\u2019ul stated, \u201cA man named Hananyah, an observant follower of the Torah who was highly regarded by the entire Jewish community there [in Damascus], came to me\u201d (Acts 22:12).
\nThe Greek text describes Hananyah as \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd (eulabes kata ton nomon). A good Hebrew rendition would be a \u05e9\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 (shomer haTorah).1 In English, this simply means an \u201cobserver of the Torah.\u201d Hananyah, described by Luke as a Torah-observant Messianic Jew, had no problem with keeping the Torah and believing in Yeshua. His devout Torah observance was probably a reason for the Jewish community\u2019s admiration of him (see v. 12). Hananyah is a typical example of a Torah-observant Jew in the first Messianic Jewish communities.<\/p>\n
The Torah Zealots<\/p>\n
Another powerful text describing the presence of Torah-observant Messianic Jews is Acts 21:17\u201326. In verse 20, the Messianic leaders received Sha\u2019ul in Jerusalem, and declared to him, \u201cYou see, brother, how many tens of thousands of believers there are among the Judeans, and they are all zealots for the Torah.\u201d
\nThe Greek text calls these thousands of believers \u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 (zelotai tou nomou), which the Complete Jewish Bible correctly renders \u201czealots for the Torah.\u201d It is estimated that the population of Jerusalem in the first century C.E. was approximately 100,000 to 120,000 people. In Acts 21:20, the Greek text literally tells us that \u201ctens of thousands\u201d (\u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, muriades, myriads) of Torah-observant Messianic Jews lived in Jerusalem. Using the least case scenario, at least 20,000 people in this population were Torah-observant Messianic Jews. There were possibly even more, according to the text. The common perception of first century C.E. Jerusalem is that the population was hardhearted toward Yeshua and the Messianic movement. However, I believe that whenever close to twenty percent of a population believes in Yeshua, a revival is at hand.<\/p>\n
Two Messianic Pharisees<\/p>\n
Two prominent Pharisees who were Torah-observant and Messianic were Joseph from Arimathea and Nicodemus. Of Nicodemus we read, \u201cThere was a man among the P\u2019rushim [Pharisees], named Nakdimon [Nicodemus], who was a ruler of the Judeans\u201d (John 3:1). At the very least, we know that Nicodemus was a Pharisee. As such, he would have been a scrupulous keeper of the Mitzvot of the Torah, probably according to the teaching of either Hillel or Shammai.2 He would also have been a strict keeper of Jewish customs and the kosher dietary laws, according to the oral tradition of the Pharisees. John 19:39\u201342 shows that this man was a believer in Yeshua. Moreover, there is no record of him renouncing his Pharisaic ways, nor would we expect him to have done so.
\nJoseph is mentioned in a number of places in the Gospels. One of them is Luke 23:50, where we learn that he was a member of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Therefore, he had to have been a strictly Torah-observant Jew. Luke used the Hebrew technical term, tzaddik (in the Greek text, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, dikaios). As we have seen previously, the use of this term implies that Joseph was a scrupulously Torah-observant Jew. Again, this is consistent with the picture of the first generation of Messianic Jews. Matthew confirmed that Joseph was \u201chimself a talmid [disciple, student] of Yeshua\u201d (27:57).<\/p>\n
Messianic Women<\/p>\n
In Luke 23:56b, we are presented with an interesting fact:<\/p>\n
On Shabbat [the Sabbath] the women [who had come with Yeshua from Galilee] rested, in obedience to the commandment.<\/p>\n
Also note Mark 16:l\u20132a<\/p>\n
When Shabbat was over, Miryam [Mary] of Magdala, Miryam the mother of Ya\u2018akov [James], and Shlomit [Salome] bought spices in order to go and anoint Yeshua. Very early on Sunday, just after sunrise, they went to the tomb.\u201d<\/p>\n
Although a crisis had just occurred in their lives, these women believers in Yeshua observed the Sabbath. They did not attempt to work on Yeshua\u2019s corpse until after the Sabbath had passed. We would expect this, as Yeshua would have lived a life consistent with such Torah observance and they would have followed his example. Had Yeshua not lived a life consistent with such Torah observance, so many Jews would not have recognized him as the Messiah.<\/p>\n
The evidence of Hananyah, the tens of thousands of Messianic Jerusalemites, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus the Pharisee, and the women disciples of Yeshua confirm the existence of Torah-observant, Messianic Jewish communities.<\/p>\n
PART THREE
\n_______________<\/p>\n
REACTIONS TO
\nTHE TORAH
\nOBSERVANCE
\nOF YESHUA
\nAND HIS FOLLOWERS<\/p>\n
CHAPTER NINE<\/p>\n
THE
\nCOMMON
\nPEOPLE<\/p>\n
As noted previously, at this time, the common people of this region .were also Torah-observant. The methods of Torah observance would have varied in each area of Israel, due to both geographic differences and educational emphases. Clearly, if Yeshua had not paid attention to the Torah, he would have found little favor in the eyes of the common people of his country.
\nHow, then, did the common people\u2014the laborers, agricultural workers, fishermen, merchants, tanners, builders and their families\u2014react to Yeshua\u2019s life? First, there is no simple answer to this question. There are some notable instances in the New Testament where we can see a reaction. If the common people 1 found fault in Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance, we would expect to see some sign of this in the New Testament. Conversely, if Yeshua\u2019s Torah observance found favor in the eyes of the common people, we might also hope to see some evidence of this, as well. Therefore, let us take a brief look at the reactions of the common people.
\nIn Luke 4, we see the reaction to Yeshua\u2019s teaching by typical Galilean Jews. Luke reported that Yeshua taught in Galilean synagogues in his role as a rabbi. Luke also recorded the people\u2019s reactions. Verse 15 notes, \u201cHe taught in their synagogues, and everyone respected him.\u201d
\nAdditionally, Luke recorded an incident in Nazareth, which was Yeshua\u2019s hometown. After he read a passage in the synagogue on a Sabbath, the synagogue attendees had this reaction: \u201cEveryone was speaking well of him and marveling that such appealing words were coming from his mouth\u201d (v. 22).2
\nIn verses 31\u201332, we see the common synagogue attendee\u2019s reaction to Yeshua: \u201cHe went down to K\u2019far Nachum [Capernaum], a town in the Galil, and made a practice of teaching them on Shabbat. They were amazed at the way he taught, because his word carried the ring of authority.\u201d
\nLater in this chapter, we see again, how the common people felt toward Yeshua: \u201cWhen day had come, he [Yeshua] left and went away to a lonely spot. The people looked for him, came to him and would have kept him from leaving them\u201d (v. 42).
\nIn the next chapter, Luke presents a similar picture to us. \u201cThe news about Yeshua kept spreading all the more, so that huge crowds would gather to listen and be healed of their sicknesses\u201d (5:15). After healing a crippled man, the crowd reacted to Yeshua\u2019s actions and teachings. \u201cAmazement seized them all, and they made a b\u2019rakhah [blessing] to God; they were awestruck, saying, \u2018We have seen extraordinary things today\u2019 \u201d (v. 26).
\nIn Luke 6, Yeshua received a positive reaction from the crowd of Jews that had gathered from various parts of Israel. It is written, \u201cGreat numbers of people from all Y\u2019hudah, Yerushalayim and the coast around Tzur and Tzidon\u2026 had come to hear him and be healed of their diseases\u201d (v. 17).
\nThe reaction Yeshua received from a Jewish crowd in the Galilean city of Nain after performing a miracle is also recorded in Luke. \u201cThey [the citizens of Nain] were all filled with awe and gave glory to God, saying, \u2018A great prophet has appeared among us,\u2019 and, \u2018God has come to help his people\u2019 \u201d (7:16).
\nThese passages in Luke reveal the positive responses of the crowds that followed Yeshua the rabbi. They believed that God was working through Yeshua to encourage them. He was even deemed a great prophet.
\nIn modern Western society, we get a glimpse of how well respected an individual was by attending the funeral and hearing the eulogies of family, friends, and colleagues. It is interesting to note the reaction of the common Jewish pilgrims who were going up to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover at the time of Yeshua\u2019s crucifixion. Luke noted the crowd\u2019s reaction by writing, \u201cLarge numbers of people followed [the Roman death procession to Golgotha], including women crying and wailing over him.\u2026 And when all the crowds that had gathered to watch the spectacle saw the things that had occurred, they returned home beating their breasts\u201d (23:27, 49). Beating the chest area with one\u2019s fists was a sign both of mourning and that an unjust act had occurred. It is noteworthy that this was the reaction of people who were identified as Jewish \u201ccommoners.\u201d
\nIn contrast, some of the derisive reactions toward Yeshua at his death are recorded\u2014mockers taunted him; Roman soldiers ridiculed him; men called \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Greek, archontes, unidentified rulers) said negative things about him (see Luke 23:35\u201338); and a dying criminal insulted him (see v. 39). Most of these people were not part of the common class of people\u2014certainly, the Roman soldiers, unidentified rulers, and condemned criminals would not be included in this group.
\nOther positive reactions are noted: another dying criminal reacted positively to Yeshua (see vv. 40\u201342), and a Roman officer who witnessed the crucifixion had a positive reaction (see v. 47).3
\nThe incident recorded in Luke 24:13\u201332, again, demonstrates a positive reaction to Yeshua by two Judean Jewish men, one named Cleopas. The particular standing these men had in Judean society is not mentioned. However, their reaction to Yeshua\u2019s life is typical as recorded by Luke: \u201cYeshua from Natzeret\u2026 was a prophet and proved it by the things he did and said before God and all the people\u201d (24:19). If these men were common Jews from the Judean village of Emmaus, their reaction to Yeshua is significant.
\nThese positive reactions would not have occurred if Yeshua had been ignorant of the Torah. If he had taught or practiced against the Torah, the common people from both the Galilee and Judea would have dismissed him, his teachings, and his miracles. A Torah-observant rabbi who taught and healed would have been heard and followed. That is precisely the picture we have of Yeshua\u2014a well-respected rabbi, teacher, and healer, as well as a great prophet and the Messiah (see Luke 22:66ff.).
\nMatthew recorded similar reactions to Yeshua. \u201cHuge crowds followed him from the Galil, the Ten Towns, Yerushalayim, Y\u2019hudah, and Ever-HaYarden [towns east of the Jordan River]\u201d (4:25). We are twice told that Yeshua had large crowds following him during his teaching in Galilee (see Matt. 8:1, 18). Other verses confirm that Yeshua had a constant crowd around him in Galilee. \u201cWhen he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them\u201d (9:36). \u201cMany people followed him; and he healed them all\u201d (12:15b). \u201cSuch a large crowd gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there while the crowd stood on the shore\u201d (13:2). \u201cSo when he came ashore, he saw a huge crowd; and, filled with compassion for them, he healed those of them who were sick\u201d (14:14). Matthew continued to develop this picture in stating, \u201cLarge crowds came to him, bringing with them the [sick]\u2026 and many others\u201d (15:30).
\nAs stated previously, the people\u2019s reaction to this is recorded: \u201cThey said a b\u2019rakhah [thanksgiving blessing] to the God of Israel\u201d (15:31). Crowds also were common for Yeshua during his time in the area east of the Jordan River. Matthew stated, \u201c[He] traveled down the east side of the Yarden [Jordan] River.\u2026 Great crowds followed him, and he healed them there\u201d (19:1\u20132).
\nMatthew recorded that many Jewish residents in Galilee and in the Jordan Valley were extremely impressed with Yeshua. This reaction could not have occurred unless Yeshua was Torah-observant.
\nJohn (Mark), Barnabas\u2019 relative, also wrote of Yeshua\u2019s life. He describes crowd scenes, much as Matthew does, and is actually more graphic in his portrayal of the intensity of the crowd\u2019s fervor to hear and see Yeshua. In Mark 1:37, he recorded that Shim\u2019on said to Yeshua (in Galilee), \u201cEverybody is looking for you,\u201d in describing the aftermath of a series of healings that Yeshua carried out. He also noted that, \u201cYeshua could no longer enter a town openly but stayed out in the country, where people continued coming to him from all around\u201d (1:45).
\nIn Mark 3:7, it is recorded that \u201cYeshua went off with his talmidim to the lake [Sea of Galilee], and great numbers followed him from the Galil.\u201d Mark 3:19b\u201320 adds to this picture of Yeshua\u2019s immense popularity with the people of Galilee: \u201cThen he entered a house; and once more, such a crowd came together that they couldn\u2019t even eat.\u201d Mark\u2019s description of the setting of the Sermon on the Mount adds to the picture: \u201cThe crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat on the lake and sat there\u201d (4:1).
\nOther verses in Mark\u2019s narrative tell us that crowds accompanied Yeshua wherever he went (see 5:21; 6:34, 44, 54\u201356; 8:1, 9; 9:14; 10:1, 46; 12:37b). Again, this type of crowd response would only have occurred if Yeshua had been Torah-observant.
\nWe have already discussed how Yochanan ben Zavdai portrayed Yeshua. In his narrative of Yeshua\u2019s life, he also showed us the common people\u2019s positive response to the life and message of Yeshua. He did not, however, emphasize this particular point. We see Yeshua and his students invited to a wedding (see John 2:2). We see a large crowd following him (6:2, 5). These people proclaimed Yeshua as \u201cthe prophet\u201d (6:14), a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18\u201319. \u201cI will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their kinsmen. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I order him.\u201d This crowd was so impressed by Yeshua that they wanted to make him a king (see John 6:15). John also wrote of the people\u2019s desire to pursue Yeshua (although Yeshua questioned their motivation): \u201cThey themselves [the crowd] boarded the boats and made for K\u2019far-Nachum in search of Yeshua\u201d (6:24).
\nJohn, in particular, related that Yeshua was popular in Galilee. He recorded the fact that the crowd reaction in Judah was more mixed (see 7:10\u201312). Clearly, there was a positive reaction to his teaching and message in Judah.<\/p>\n
Many in the crowd [in Jerusalem] put their trust in him and said, \u201cWhen the Messiah comes, will he do more miracles than this man has done?\u201d (John 7:31)<\/p>\n
On hearing his words, some people in the crowd [in Jerusalem] said, \u201cSurely this man is \u2018the prophet\u2019 \u201d4; others said, \u201cThis is the Messiah.\u201d (7:40)<\/p>\n
Additional passages in John\u2019s narrative that speak of a positive popular reaction to Yeshua are 8:30, 9:16 (where some of the Pharisees react positively), and 10:41\u201342. John described mixed reactions to Yeshua by noting, at length, the discussions between Yeshua and some of the religious leaders of Judah (the Sadducees, the High Priest\u2019s allies, and those Pharisees who allied themselves with the High Priest\u2019s political policies). However, the reaction to Yeshua in Galilee was overwhelmingly positive. In Judah, the reaction to Yeshua ranged from curious to positive among the people, and was mixed among the religious leaders.
\nTo summarize my findings from the four narratives of Yeshua\u2019s life, we find that he is portrayed as a popular teacher, rabbi, and healer, particularly in Galilee. Only a Torah-observant rabbi would get such a reaction from the common people.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER TEN<\/p>\n
JERUSALEM\u2019S
\nRELIGIOUS
\nLEADERS<\/p>\n
This chapter will examine the response of the first-century Jerusalem religious authorities to Yeshua and Messianic Judaism. Previously, I commented that a number of scholars view Yeshua as having been in the mold of Pharisaism, particularly that of Beyt Hillel. Therefore, it is relevant to examine the reaction of Pharisaic leaders. Additionally, we should look at other religious parties of the time.
\nFor centuries, all of Jerusalem\u2019s religious authorities have been stereotyped as enemies of Yeshua. Jacob Neusner notes such stereotyping concerning the Pharisees.<\/p>\n
The New Testament\u2019s negative picture [of the Pharisees] was widely produced in Christian preaching, writing, and scholarship.\u2026 \u201cPharisee\u201d became a synonym for [a] hypocrite, and \u201cPharisaism\u201d for formalism.1<\/p>\n
This chapter will also look at the reaction of Jerusalem\u2019s Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and priests to the message of Yeshua\u2019s Messiahship. It is important to mention that this is a difficult subject to address\u2014for two reasons. First, it is not always easy to precisely identify each group mentioned in the Gospels. A second difficulty is that it is not simple to place each religious leader mentioned in the New Testament into a neatly defined group. However, I will draw general conclusions based on specific evidence.<\/p>\n
The Pharisees<\/p>\n
In the New Testament, much has been written regarding the Pharisees\u2019 reaction to the Gospel message and to Yeshua himself. Who made up this group, the Pharisees? Neusner concluded that the Pharisees were a sect within Judaism whose main criteria were to eat in a state of ritual purity, maintain careful tithing, and observe agricultural offerings. In addition, they held to specific interpretations of how to keep the Sabbath and festival commandments. They showed \u201ccult centered piety\u2026 [which was reproduced] in the home; [they] attempted to effect the Temple\u2019s purity laws at the table of the ordinary Jew.\u201d2
\nThe Pharisees understood themselves to be the valid interpreters of the Torah, which they saw as the sole basis for governing the Jewish people. They thought of themselves as the inheritors of the authority of Moses, Joshua, the seventy elders, the prophets, and the leaders of the Jewish people in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. The historian Josephus mentioned that their number prior to 70 C.E. was about 6,000 men.3 Additionally, they put themselves in the line of those teachers who had been developing the Oral Law well before the first century. Although this sect\u2019s founders had been deeply involved in the political life of the Hasmonean Jewish kingdom (about 160 to 66 B.C.E.), by Yeshua\u2019s time, they had hoped to restore the people\u2019s fortunes through spiritual means.4 They had been stripped of much of the political power they wielded in the days of Queen Alexandra,5 who used them as advisors and policymakers. Neusner accurately noted, \u201cIt seems likely that to be a Pharisee was not a profession, but an avocation.\u201d6
\nIn other words, being a Pharisee was not a full-time paid occupation. Rather, the Pharisees were strictly Torah-observant Jews who had certain ritual and philosophical understandings among themselves. Some of the first century\u2019s most famous religious teachers came from this sect, such as Hillel, Shammai, and Gamliel. These teachers are still honored today for their brilliant interpretations of the Torah, for their service to their people, and for their dedication to teaching the Torah.
\nThe Pharisees looked upon themselves as a continuation of the Torah-teaching profession that was initiated in Israel by the biblical figure Ezra in the fifth century B.C.E. The Talmud tractate, Pirke Avot, gives a genealogy of Pharisaic development. It notes that a historical line of Jewish religious leaders upheld and taught the Torah. The following list traces this line.<\/p>\n
Historical Line of Teachers According to Tractate Pirke Avot<\/p>\n
1. Moshe (Moses)
\n2. Joshua
\n3. The Elders
\n4. The Prophets
\n5. Men of the Great Assembly (the leaders\u2019 council initiated by Ezra)
\n6. Shim\u2019on Ha-Tzaddik
\n7. Antigonus from Socho
\n8. The pair of Yossi ben Yoezer and Yossi ben Yohanan
\n9. The pair of Yehoshua and Nittai
\n10. The pair of Yehudah ben Tabbai and Shim\u2019on ben Shetach
\n11. The pair of Shemayah and Avtalyon
\n12. The pair of Hillel and Shammai<\/p>\n
This list demonstrates how the Pharisees viewed their roots. They believed that the Torah, in both written and oral form, was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. These teachings were passed on to succeeding generations. When Ezra came to Israel, he developed a religious leaders\u2019 council (the Great Assembly), which, among other things, was responsible for developing Torah teaching for the returning exiles in Israel. Shim\u2018on Ha-Tzaddik (number 6 on the list) was a member (or a student of a member) of this Assembly. The methods and principles of Torah study were developed and handed down over 500 years. Hillel and Shammai, the last pair listed, were in their prime as the two leaders of the Sanhedrin just a generation before Yeshua. It is even possible that there were a small number of overlapping years in the lives of Hillel, Shammai, and Yeshua.
\nIt is difficult to pinpoint the exact beginning of the Pharisees, as we know them in the New Testament, functioning as an independent religious party. According to Josephus, their actual beginnings were in 160 B.C.E., during the reign of the Hasmonean ruler, Jonathan.
\nOf importance is the fact that the Pharisees believed their methods of interpreting the Torah were handed down to them through successive generations of Torah teachers, starting with Moses. Although the actual number of Pharisee party members during Yeshua\u2019s lifetime was only a few thousand, they were influential as religious leaders and Torah teachers.
\nThe Pharisees had several beliefs that segregated them from other Judean groups, such as the Sadducees. They held the popular belief in the resurrection of the dead and life in the \u201cworld to come\u201d and accepted the existence of the unseen spirit world and angelic beings. The Sadducees believed in a physical world that could be seen and not in a \u201cworld to come.\u201d Additionally, they rejected the authority of the Prophets. The Pharisees accepted the writings of the Prophets as part of the Scriptures.
\nAs previously mentioned, the Pharisees had their own system of ritual purity. Other Jewish groups from this period, such as the Essenes and\/or the Qumran community, also had their own systems of ensuring ritual cleanliness. The Pharisees considered ritual purity to be a serious aspect of Torah practice. It was certainly an outstanding feature of their party.
\nAdditionally, the Pharisees were primarily involved in providing Torah education for the layman. Learning and teaching the Mitzvot (and their interpretation of how to practice the Mitzvot) was their raison d\u2019etre. In their view, every Jewish family was able to learn and practice the Torah. They considered it their place to serve their people in Torah education. It was a grass-roots movement in its beginnings. The Sadducees\u2019 raison d\u2019etre, on the other hand, was based on the role of the priesthood in Israel. This party included many priestly families of wealth and status. They believed themselves to be the best interpreters and teachers of Torah. They also maintained authority over the Temple rituals. Because of the central role of the Temple and its rituals in the life of Israel, the Sadducees felt they were the legitimate authorities regarding the essence of the Torah.
\nThere was, then, a type of rivalry between the two parties, although they both worked together in the Sanhedrin, sometimes more smoothly than at other times.<\/p>\n
Pharisaic Reaction in the New Testament<\/p>\n
To sum up, the reaction of this sect was mixed. We find much Pharisaic opposition to the person and message of Yeshua. However, we also find individual Pharisees who were true believers in Yeshua, and who were Messianic Jews. If Dr. Fischer\u2019s conjecture 7 that Acts 21:20 includes many Messianic Jews who were Pharisee party members is accurate, then our whole picture of their reaction must change. I, along with many other scholars, believe that the Pharisees were divided along political lines on the issue of Messianic Judaism. Those Pharisees from the Hillelite wing of this sect were more favorable toward Yeshua, and those from the Shammaite wing were more negative toward Yeshua. However, the historical picture remains ambiguous. The New Testament does not provide a clear picture of one unified group reaction of the Pharisees toward Yeshua.<\/p>\n
Positive Reactions to Yeshua and Messianic Judaism<\/p>\n
The New Testament indicates that individual Pharisees were sympathetic to, and followers of, Yeshua. What actually happened to their membership in the sect after their belief in Yeshua is not mentioned. However, it is significant that in Acts 23:6, Sha\u2019ul described himself as \u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9 (Greek, ego pharisaios eimi). This literally reads, \u201cI am a Pharisee\u201d (emphasis added). The Greek language is flexible enough to have offered Sha\u2019ul the opportunity to write, \u201cI was a Pharisee,\u201d if that is what Sha\u2019ul intended to say\u2014however, he chose to state this in the present tense. It appears, then, that Sha\u2019ul did not sever himself from the Pharisees because of his belief in the Messiah. We will see another instance of this when we focus on Sha\u2019ul later in this chapter.
\nIn John 3:1\u201321, Nicodemus is described as \u201ca man among the P\u2019rushim [Pharisees]\u201d (v. 1). He had asked deep and sincere questions of Yeshua. This same Pharisee is presented as one of the two Pharisees who insured a ritually proper burial for Yeshua (see John 19:38\u201342). This act by Nicodemus was a sign of sympathy toward Yeshua. In addition, John 7:37\u201352 portrays Nicodemus as arguing in defense of a proper hearing for Yeshua in the midst of considerable opposition. Thus, according to John, Nicodemus was, at least to some extent, a follower of Yeshua. His colleagues\u2019 reaction to his actions on behalf of Yeshua is not mentioned in the New Testament. We know of no consequences to Nicodemus\u2019 sympathies for Yeshua, such as expulsion from the sect.
\nActs 15:5 gives evidence of favorable reaction to Yeshua by some Pharisees. In this text, an unspecified number of Pharisees are included in the Messianic Jewish community at Jerusalem. It states, \u201cSome of those who had come to trust [in Yeshua] were from the party of the P\u2019rushim.\u201d Again, we have no further mention of these men, nor any information as to what happened to their membership in the sect.
\nA most interesting reaction is recorded of Rabban Gamliel. In Acts 5:34 ff., the beloved sage advised against trying to snuff out the Messianic movement by force in stating:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf this idea or this movement [Messianic Judaism] has a human origin, it will collapse. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them; you might even find yourselves fighting God.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Sanhedrin accepted this sage\u2019s opinion. Although Rabban Gamliel is not mentioned as a Messianic Jew, he is portrayed as a voice of moderation among the Pharisees. Thus, the stereotype that portrays all Pharisees as opposed to Yeshua is not accurate.
\nIt is also noteworthy that a group of Pharisees warned Yeshua of the danger of his death at the hands of King Herod Antipas (see Luke 13:31ff). It is possible that these men were Pharisees from Beyt Hillel and, out of a sense of kinship and sympathy to Yeshua, felt it was their duty to warn him. To help us understand how one sect could have such a diverse reaction to Yeshua, let us remember that the Pharisees were not homogeneous in their religious and political belief systems. As Fischer noted, \u201cIt must be kept in mind that the Pharisees allowed for considerable diversity among themselves.\u201d8
\nIn like manner today, it is possible for individual members of the Democratic or Republican parties in the U.S.A. to be on opposite sides of issues such as tax increases, forced busing, quotas in education, and abortion rights\u2014yet, they would all belong to the same political party.
\nAlso significant is the fact that during Yeshua\u2019s teaching career, he was welcomed in his role as rabbi-teacher into the house of certain Pharisees, Luke noted three such incidents (see 7:36; 11:37; 14:1). This is revealing, as table fellowship with the Pharisees was a sign of acceptance. The fact that Yeshua was given table fellowship and was even called \u201crabbi\u201d by the Pharisee Simon confirms that his host considered him legitimately Torah-observant. We can conclude that Yeshua was accepted as Torah-observant and worthy of fellowship by at least some of the Pharisees.
\nThe Pharisees\u2019 reaction to the death of James\u2019 (Yeshua\u2019s brother, Ya\u2018akov) is most interesting. The historian Josephus tells us (Antiquities 20:9:1) that the Pharisees defended James\u2019 righteous memory and reputation after he was murdered by a conspiracy of Sadducees and Herodian allies. As previously mentioned, James functioned as the chief rabbi of the Jerusalem Messianic community. The fact that there were Pharisees who defended him demonstrates, again, that there was sympathy in their midst for Messianic Judaism. Josephus noted:<\/p>\n
Ananus [the Sadducean High Priest] took before them the brother of Jesus \u2026 whose name was James \u2026 he had formed an accusation against [him] as breakers of the Torah, and \u2026 delivered [James] \u2026 to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at [this] breach of the Torah, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the King [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified\u2026 Agrippa took the high priesthood from him [Ananus, due to his murder of James].<\/p>\n
Finally, we must include Sha\u2019ul among the Pharisees who believed in Yeshua, though his circumstances are different than those of all the other Pharisees mentioned. Sha\u2019ul, again, did not give up his identification as a Pharisee, even after his belief in Yeshua. In fact, in Acts 23:6\u201310, Sha\u2019ul stated that he considered himself a Pharisee, and the Pharisees who were in the audience showed sympathy for him.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. \u2026\u201d There occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees. \u2026 [T]here occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly [against the Sadducees], saying, \u201cWe find nothing wrong with this man [Paul].\u201d (Acts 23:6, 7, 9)<\/p>\n
Again, in Acts 28:17, Sha\u2019ul stated, \u201cBrethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.\u201d If Paul had severed himself from the Pharisees, their customs, and their under standing of the Torah, it is doubtful he could have made the above statement. The point is that he lived consistently throughout his lifetime. He remained the Pharisee of Pharisees. While still considering himself a Pharisee, he fervently believed in the Messiah, Yeshua.<\/p>\n
Negative Reactions to Yeshua\/Messianic Judaism on Behalf of the Pharisees<\/p>\n
Pharisaic opposition to both Yeshua and Messianic Judaism appears in the New Testament. Opposition to Yeshua, as found in the New Testament, fits loosely into two categories: that which is based on doctrinal differences, and that which is based on political differences. These differences are demonstrated in the following table.<\/p>\n
Table of Opposition<\/p>\n
Opposition Built Upon Differences of Torah Interpretation
\nOpposition Built Upon Political Alliances and Powers Struggles
\nMatthew 9:11ff. (Luke 5:29\u201332)
\nMatthew 16:1ff.
\nMatthew 12:1\u20138 (Mark2:23ff.)
\nMatthew 21:45
\nMatthew 15:1\u201314 (Mark 7:1ff.)
\nMatthew 22:15
\nLuke 1:21
\nMark 3:6
\nLuke 7:36\u201349
\nMark 8:11
\nLuke 11:37\u201338
\nMark 10:2
\nLuke 15:1\u20132
\nMark 12:13ff.
\nLuke 17:20
\nLuke 11:39\u201353
\nLuke 19:38\u201340
\nLuke 16:14
\nJohn 9:13\u201317
\nJohn 7:32ff.
\nJohn 7:45\u201349
\nJohn 8:3ff.
\nJohn 9:39
\nJohn 11:46\u201352
\nJohn 12:19, 42 (implied)
\nJohn 18:3<\/p>\n
The New Testament gives ample examples of Pharisaic opposition to Yeshua, with both political and doctrinal motivations as the cause. Some Pharisees had theological and interpretational differences with Yeshua. Others had political fears and pressures that were their motivation in relating to him.
\nIn the great majority of cases cited above, the individual Pharisee\u2019s motivation determined Yeshua\u2019s reaction. Nicodemus is pictured as sincerely asking questions. Yeshua answered this Pharisee by sharing the truth of each matter with him. Often, Yeshua left the questioning Pharisee(s) with a strong suggestion to learn how to correctly interpret the Torah, while not directly answering their inquiry. Other Pharisees, who wanted to test, tempt, or embarrass Yeshua, were left without answers to their inquiry, and with rebukes for their improper motivation.<\/p>\n
Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him [Yeshua] in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians\u2026 [They said to Yeshua], \u201cTell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?\u201d (Matt. 22:15\u201317 NASB)<\/p>\n
We learn much by reading about the makeup of this group. These particular Pharisees were politically allied with King Herod Antipas, an enemy of Yeshua. Therefore, the motivation of this group does not surprise us. They did not ask the question in order to genuinely seek the rabbi\u2019s answer, but to trap Yeshua into saying something that would be viewed as negative to his image and reputation. He could not answer the question without being accused of some type of an anti-Jewish position.
\nJohn 11:46ff. is a crucial passage for understanding Pharisaic opposition of a political nature:<\/p>\n
The chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council [of the Sanhedrin], and were saying, \u201cWhat are we doing? For this man [Yeshua] is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.\u201d (vv. 47\u201348 NASB)<\/p>\n
These Pharisees had accepted the fact of harsh Roman occupation. However, they were afraid of a Roman reprisal against a religious or grass-roots movement. This fear motivated their relations with Yeshua. The Sadducees also had similar reasons for their political fears, which will be explained later in this chapter.<\/p>\n
We see that the Pharisees who opposed Yeshua in the harshest manner did so out of fear of Roman reprisals, and out of their political leanings. Those Pharisees who differed with Yeshua on Torah interpretations are not pictured as his fierce enemies. Such differences of Torah interpretation were quite normal for this period in Israel. Additionally, it is possible that some of these Pharisees belonged to both groups, and opposed Yeshua on the grounds of political opposition and Torah interpretation. It cannot be proven conclusively that the Pharisees of Beyt Hillel were more sympathetic to Yeshua, and those of Beyt Shammai expressed political opposition to Yeshua, but the evidence that exists points in that direction.<\/p>\n
The Reaction of the Priests<\/p>\n
The New Testament paints a very spotty picture of the overall reaction of the priests to the Messianic movement. The great majority of priests are not shown as reacting either favorably or unfavorably. Rather, the New Testament focuses on the reaction of the family of the High Priest. Additionally, there is at least one New Testament proof of priests becoming Messianic Jews.<\/p>\n
The number of talmidim in Yerushalayim [Jerusalem] increased rapidly, and a large crowd of cohanim [priests] were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7)<\/p>\n
The makeup of this crowd is unclear. We simply do not know to what extent there was a favorable reaction to Messianic Judaism among the descendants of Aaron. However, we can be assured, according to the evidence of Acts 6:7, that a following existed among the priests.
\nThere is a vivid picture, however, of the High Priest\u2019s family and the priestly Temple authorities reacting negatively to Yeshua and to Messianic Judaism. This negative reaction was political, not doctrinally based.9 (See Matt. 20:18; 21:15\u201316, 23, 43\u201345; 26:3, 14, 47, 59, 65; 27:1\u20132, 12, 20; 28:11ff.; Acts 4:1ff; 5:4; 7:1ff.; 9:1ff., and others).
\nIn all of the these Scriptures, one sees no genuine dialogue regarding doctrinal differences with Yeshua and with Messianic Jews, as in the Yeshua-Pharisee discussions. Instead, action to stop Yeshua\u2019s influence was taken by the priestly officials on a number of occasions (see Matt. 21:45\u201346; 26:3\u20134; and especially John 11:46\u201352; Mark 11:18; Acts 5:17).
\nAn examination of these Scriptures reveals that Yeshua\u2019s presence was thought of as a threat to the ruling Temple establishment (the High Priest and his family, Temple officials). During Yeshua\u2019s lifetime and during the initial growth of Messianic Judaism, there was continual political opposition to Messianic Judaism from this wing of the priests. We do not know whether there were Messianic priests beyond those mentioned in Acts 6:7. The previously mentioned Theophilus may have been one such Messianic priest, but we have no way of knowing for certain.<\/p>\n
The Reaction of the Scribes<\/p>\n
The scribes were members of an actual profession. This differentiates them from the Pharisees. However, it is likely that many scribes were Pharisees. The Complete Jewish Bible identifies these scribes as \u201cTorah teachers.\u201d Neusner asserted that the scribes were a professional caste of Torah teachers, commentators, interpreters, and lawyers who developed legal theories and taught them to their students. The New Testament singles them out as a separate group, and I will treat them as such in this chapter. Though often allied with the Pharisees, as Neusner noted, \u201cWe have no reason to believe that all scribes were Pharisees.\u201d10
\nNumerous Scriptures in the Complete Jewish Bible refer to the scribes (Matt. 7:29; 12:38; 15:1ff.; 20:18; 21:15ff.; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; 27:41; Mark 3:22; 11:18, 27; 12:28; 14:53; John 8:3ff .; Acts 4:5; 6:12; 23:9). Sometimes the scribes appear to be allies of the priests (see Matt. 20:18; 21:15). At other times, they appear to be allies of the Pharisees (see Matt. 15:1; 23:13). They appear to give nothing but negative input to Yeshua in the above mentioned Scriptures. However, again, the scribes were not one homogeneous group. They were divided as to both doctrinal and political sympathies. Therefore, it is difficult to make one overall statement about their opposition to Yeshua.
\nTwo Scripture passages portray a positive response from the scribes. In Acts 23, we read the account of Sha\u2019ul\u2019s questioning before the Sanhedrin and the struggle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Sha\u2019ul, as previously mentioned in this chapter, identified himself as a Pharisee, and stated that he was being interrogated \u201cconcerning [his] hope of the resurrection of the dead\u201d (23:6). When this doctrinal point emerged in the interrogation, the Pharisees and Sadducees split over Sha\u2019ul\u2019s guilt. The scribes sided with the Pharisees (and by implication, with Sha\u2019ul). Verses 9\u201310 state:<\/p>\n
So there was a great uproar [over Paul\u2019s defense at the interrogation], with some of the Torah-teachers [scribes] who were on the side of the P\u2019rushim [Pharisees] standing up and joining in\u2014\u201cWe don\u2019t find anything wrong with this man; and if a spirit or an angel spoke to him, what of it?\u201d The dispute became \u2026 violent.<\/p>\n
Although we cannot be sure that the scribes mentioned here were sympathetic to Paul\u2019s Messianic beliefs, they do appear to give him support. Paul and the scribes seem to have shared common beliefs in the resurrection of the dead and in the existence of spiritual beings.
\nAgain, in Mark 12:28\u201334, one of the scribes asked Yeshua a sincere question regarding the greatest commandment in the Torah. Yeshua\u2019s favorable response to him was, \u201cYou are not far from the Kingdom of God\u201d (v. 34). Hence, it is evident that there were some sincere reactions to Yeshua among this group.
\nAnother positive response to Yeshua was voiced by some of the scribes present at his discussion with some Sadducees (see Luke 20:39). Whether it meant that these scribes were satisfied that Yeshua silenced some Sadducees or whether it was a sincere sign of sympathy with Yeshua, is not stated. Remember, the scribes, as a whole, were not sympathetic with the belief system of the Sadducees. Luke 20:39 states, \u201cSome of the Torah-teachers [scribes] answered [Yeshua], \u2018Well spoken, Rabbi.\u2019 \u201d This followed Yeshua\u2019s answer to these Sadducees\u2019 trick question regarding the resurrection of the dead. The scribes\u2019 reaction, for whatever reason, was sympathetic.
\nMy conclusion is that this professional caste of scribes was primarily opposed to Yeshua and to Messianic Judaism. However, we do not know if some individual scribes became Messianic Jews. We have seen two instances of recorded scribal sympathy toward Yeshua. On some occasions, the scribes are portrayed as allied with the Pharisees; at other times they are shown to be aligned with the Sadducees. The question remains, \u201cHow homogeneous was this group of scribes?\u201d
\nThe scribal opposition is sometimes doctrinal, and sometimes political, paralleling the reaction of the Pharisees. There are gaps in our understanding of the exact nature of the scribal reaction. Therefore, I will not draw any additional conclusions.<\/p>\n
The Reaction of the Sadducees<\/p>\n
The Sadducees, another first-century, Jerusalem-based sect of Judaism, are also shown as having reactions to Yeshua and to Messianic Judaism. The evidence concerning their reactions is minimal, but consistent. Bright noted that the Sadducees were made up of wealthy priests of Jerusalem, \u201cThey drew their strength from the priestly aristocracy, and the secular nobility associated with them.\u201d11
\nIt has not been conclusively proven that all priests of the Jerusalem area belonged to the Sadducee party. Nevertheless, I will treat the Sadducees as a smaller group within the category of the priests. If later scholarship can show that this was not the case, I will gladly accept such findings.
\nDoctrinally, along with not believing in spirit beings or in the resurrection of the dead, the Sadducees \u201c[gave] authority only to the [written] Torah, and granted [no authority] to the body of oral law developed by the scribes.\u201d12 They focused on the Temple service as the heart of true Judaism. This sect advocated a strong, continual, sacrificial practice, which was to be carried out by the priesthood. This was central to their hope for the continuation of true Judaism. The Sadducees were rivals to the grass-roots, synagogue-centered, oral-law developing scribes and Pharisees. They believed that their practice of Judaism preserved the heart of the faith.
\nIn Matthew 16:1, some Sadducees (allied here with some Pharisees) came to Galilee and tried to trap Yeshua. We see political opposition, based on something other than doctrinal differences. Yeshua and the Pharisees present actually had more common doctrinal ground than did these Sadducees and these particular Pharisees.
\nIn Matthew 22:23\u201340, Yeshua confronted these doctrinal differences between himself and some Sadducees. These Sadducees were leading him into a doctrinal trap concerning the resurrection. This conflict was not an actual discussion of doctrine, since both sides held their beliefs quite strongly and were well aware of the leanings of the other side. This was an attempt to silence Yeshua by exposing his illogical thought, but the attempt backfired (see vv. 33\u201335).
\nThe book of Acts consistently portrays the Sadducees as opposed to the growth of Messianic Judaism. In 4:1\u20133, the captain of the temple guard arrested John and Peter. This happened because they \u201cwere teaching the people the doctrine of resurrection from the dead and offering Yeshua as proof\u201d (v. 2).
\nWe know that the Sadducees strongly opposed the doctrine of resurrection from the dead, as well as any grass-roots movement among the Jewish people that could upset the status quo. They feared a new movement like Messianic Judaism could gain popularity, drawing Roman attention.
\nMuch of the Sadducees\u2019 ability to function as they did depended upon their political capitulation to the Roman and Herodian authorities. The reasons behind their opposition to the spread of Messianic Judaism are logical and understandable. Cooperation with Roman authorities existed among the Sadducees. As Bright noted:<\/p>\n
Being practical men \u2026 they were willing to go to considerable lengths of compromise, readily cooperating with the secular rulers, whether \u2026 king-priests or Roman procurators \u2026 fearing above all things any disturbance that might upset the balance. For them \u2026 the future of Judaism was \u2026 as a cult community under the Pentateuchal law.13<\/p>\n
By using the phrase \u201ccult community,\u201d Bright was referring to the Temple as the center of Sadducean life. In Acts 5:17\u201318, again, the High Priest and some Sadducees arrested some Messianic Jews. The text states that these religious officials were \u201cfilled with jealousy\u201d (17b). As this movement was gaining members among the people (see 5:14\u201315; 4:4, 32\u201335), again, its potential to upset the political status quo threatened the Sadducees.
\nReturning to a previously cited passage, Acts 23:1\u201310, we see the Sadducees in opposition to both Sha\u2019ul and the Pharisees. Again, this makes sense, given the great fear this popular new movement caused in the Sadducees. Add to this fear, the doctrines of Messianic Judaism, which allied it with the Pharisees, and it is understandable that the Sadducees would have had a negative reaction to any spreading of this faith.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
Although evidence is not plentiful, I conclude that the prejudice that stereotypes the Jerusalem religious leaders as having totally rejected Yeshua and Messianic Judaism is not accurate. We have seen how various Pharisees and priests became Messianic Jews. We have noted some sympathetic reactions by religious authorities that showed tolerance (such as that of Rabban Gamliel).
\nFrom the evidence, we can assume that most of the Pharisees, priests, scribes, and Sadducees, reacted negatively to Messianic Judaism. Yet, we cannot over-generalize concerning these groups, as if everyone reacted in the same way. The evidence concerning this matter points to the fact that all religious sects and parties in Jerusalem did not universally oppose Yeshua. When he was opposed, the opposition focused on the issue of whose authority he followed in interpreting the Torah, not whether he kept the Torah. Therefore, we can conclude that the recorded opposition to Yeshua does not change our Torah-observant picture of him.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER ELEVEN<\/p>\n
THE BOOK
\nOF ACTS
\nAND BEYOND<\/p>\n
The Early Years<\/p>\n
It is worthwhile to examine the reasons why there was opposition to the Messianic Jewish community. If breaking the Torah or the Mitzvot was a main reason for antagonism against the movement, we should expect to see this recorded in the New Testament. If no such opposition is recorded, it will help to prove the main thrust of this book. The table below will show the reasons given for various persecutions in the inaugural years of the movement.<\/p>\n
Recorded Opposition in the Book of Acts<\/p>\n
Text
\nSource of Opposition
\nReasons Given
\nActs 4:1\u20134
\npriests, Temple guard, Sadducees
\ndoctrine of resurrection
\nActs 4:5\u201322
\nelders, teachers, the High Priest Yosef (Caiaphas), John, Alexander
\nto prevent spread of doctrine teaching Yeshua as Messiah
\nActs 5:17ff.
\nhigh priest, Sadducees
\njealousy, fear
\nActs 6:8ff.
\nsynagogue of the Freedmen
\nfalse charges of Torah-breaking
\nActs 8:3; 9:2
\nSha\u2019ul
\nno Torah-breaking charge
\nActs 9:23
\nDamascene religious officials
\nno Torah-breaking charge
\nActs 12:1ff.
\nthe Herodian king
\nno Torah-breaking charge
\nActs 21:27\u201329
\nimmigrant community from Asia
\nfalse beliefs about what Sha\u2019ul taught, due to false rumors<\/p>\n
This table demonstrates that there was no valid charge of Torah-breaking in any of the above passages. If any type of Torah-breaking had been advocated, either in teaching or lifestyle, we would have read of protests against it. We simply do not see this (outside of one false charge that is not investigated any further according to the text). Whatever reasons are given for the prejudices against the first-century Messianic movement, Torah-breaking was not one of them.
\nThese prejudices and persecutions were caused by the political infighting of this era, coupled with the heavy pressure of Roman occupation. I devote a section of chapter 7 of my essay \u201cThe Relationship of Yeshua and the First Century CE Messianic Jewish Community to the Mitzvot of the Mosaic Covenant: Demonstrating a Torah-observant Lifestyle\u201d to this very point. Therefore, I refer the reader to that work. The Messianic movement had the potential to threaten the status of the Sadducees and other political powerbrokers of this time. This was the main motivation of the persecutions that occurred. We clearly see this in Acts 5:28, where the High Priest Hananyah said to the Messianic Jews, \u201cYou have filled Jerusalem with your teaching; moreover, you are determined to make us responsible for this man\u2019s death.\u201d By using the word us, the High Priest was referring to either his direct family or the Sadducees. In addition, the desire to preserve the status quo and not upset the Roman goal of the Pax Romana 1 was strong. This also helped lead to the previously mentioned persecutions.
\nThere is no internal evidence from the New Testament that any persecutions occurred because of Torah-breaking. This, in and of itself, tells us much about the type of Torah observance practiced by the early Messianic Jewish community.<\/p>\n
The Early Church Fathers<\/p>\n
A number of early church fathers commented on the Torah observance of Messianic Jews. Their comments were primarily negative. They could not see the validity of Torah observance. However, their comments show us that Torah observance was flourishing within the early Messianic Jewish communities. For that purpose, it is worthwhile to look at some of their comments.
\nIgnatius of Antioch (d. 107 C.E.), the early Church authority, encountered Messianic Jews who continued to be Torah-observant. He did not regard their Torah observance as something positive. Concerning some Messianic Jews, he stated, \u201cWe have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope, so that they have given up keeping the Sabbath [on Saturday], and now order their lives by the Lord\u2019s Day instead [Sunday].\u201d In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius wrote, \u201cTo profess Jesus Christ while continuing to follow Jewish customs is an absurdity. The Christian faith does not look to Judaism, but Judaism looks to Christianity\u201d (1:11).2
\nAlthough Ignatius did not live in Israel and was not able to see the Messianic lifestyle there, he did have opportunities to observe Messianic Jews from Antioch to Philippi, where he had journeyed. His attitude was remarkably different from that of Rav Sha\u2019ul, who traversed the same geographical area some forty years before Ignatius. In general, his letter to the Magnesians opposed the practices of the Torah, yet his opposition indicates that Torah-observant Jews existed in Asia Minor at about the year 100 C.E.
\nThe church father, Justin (late second century), described Messianic Jews who kept the Torah. Some tried to persuade Gentile believers to do the same, while others did not.
\nPritz noted that the church father, Epiphanius (late fourth century), knew of Messianic Jews whose Torah observance divided them from the mainstream of non-Jewish believers in Jesus. \u201cIt is their observance of the Law [i.e., the Torah] and this alone which for Epiphanius separates the Nazarenes from the main Church.\u201d3 Epiphanius described these Messianic Jews in the following manner:<\/p>\n
Jews [who] dedicate themselves to the Law and submit to circumcision. \u2026 They remained wholly Jewish \u2026 they use not only the New Testament, but also the Old, like [all of] the Jews \u2026 [they] live according to the preaching of the Law as among Jews. They do not agree with the Christians because they are trained in the Law [i.e., Torah], in circumcision, the Sabbath and the other things.4<\/p>\n
The early church father, Eusebius, provided an important witness of Torah-observant Messianic Judaism as being the norm in the first century C.E. \u201cThe apostolic men of his [Shim\u2018on\u2019s] day, who it seems were of the Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs.\u201d5 He further described first-century Messianic Jews in these words, \u201cThey observed the Sabbath [on Saturday] and the whole Jewish [halakhic and legal] system.\u201d6
\nIn Ignatius\u2019 view, Messianic Jews were not to be regarded as Jewish. Additionally, he felt that it was wrong for them to continue in their Jewish lifestyle. Interestingly, no record exists in the New Testament of Messianic Jews not being considered Jews due to their belief in Yeshua as the Messiah. Indeed, Professor Lawrence Schiffman indicated that this would have been a halakhic impossibility at that time. According to his findings, there was nothing the first Messianic Jews could do or believe that would disqualify them from being Jews.7 If Schiffman was accurate, with no danger of losing their Jewish status, we would expect the Messianic community to continue to keep their Jewish lifestyle and customs, based on God\u2019s revelation through the Torah.
\nTomson summed up the opinion of the early church fathers toward Messianic Torah observance by stating, \u201cThe apostolic fathers were of the opinion \u2026 that the Jewish Apostles naturally observed the [Torah] commandments.\u201d8 In spite of the negative attitude that prevailed among the early church fathers toward Judaism and Messianic Jews, there is evidence from their writings that Messianic Jews continued to be Torah observant. This fact adds to our perception that Torah observance was the norm for early Messianic Jews.<\/p>\n
PART FOUR
\n_______________<\/p>\n
TORAH
\nOBSERVANCE:
\nLEGALISM
\nOR LOVE?<\/p>\n
CHAPTER TWELVE<\/p>\n
LOVE, GRACE, AND
\nMERCY IN THE
\nFIRST MESSIANIC
\nCOMMUNITY<\/p>\n
It has been clearly demonstrated that Yeshua and the first-generation of Messianic Jews were Torah-observant. They lived their lives guided by the Mitzvot of the Torah. Yet, it is extremely important for us to observe the manner in which they kept the Torah. Namely, what was the role of love, grace, and mercy in their Torah observance? Did the first Messianic Jewish communities keep the Torah in a pushy, legalistic manner? Did they attempt to prove anything by their keeping of the Torah? In this chapter, we will look at the attitude with which the first Messianic Jews observed the Torah.
\nFirst, let me explain my use of the word love in describing Torah observance. By this, I do not use a contemporary definition where love is an intense emotional feeling. Instead, I prefer to look at love in light of the Torah. In Leviticus 19:18b, it is written, \u201cLove your neighbor as yourself\u201d (Hebrew, \u05d5\u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05da \u05db\u05de\u05d5\u05da\u05b0, v\u2019ahavta l\u2019reyekhah k\u2019mokha). Often, the Torah explains itself by giving examples of concepts such as love. If we look at how people are to treat each other according to the Torah, we have a practical definition of the Hebrew word ahava (love). To briefly summarize what the Torah describes in great length, to love means to care for the welfare of your neighbor. The word used for neighbor in biblical Hebrew means friend. When I ask if the first Messianic Jews kept the Torah with love, I am asking if the Messianic community cared for people with their true welfare in mind. Did they relate to others, and to their own, as friends? This definition will be kept in mind as we look at this question.
\nIn addition, we must define the word \u201cgrace\u201d as I use it above. Did the Messianic community observe the Torah in a grace-full manner? By using the word grace, I am asking if their Torah observance reflected the true personality of God, or did it pervert the character of God, who revealed himself to Moshe as a God of grace (see Exod. 20:6; 34:6; Num. 14:18)? Did their keeping of the Mitzvot help to bring people closer to God? The Hebrew concept of grace is most clearly reflected in a two-word Hebrew phrase, \u05d7\u05df \u05d5\u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 hen v\u2019chesed. This phrase may best be translated as \u201cgrace that is tied to a covenant.\u201d The true definition of grace, then, is one that is based on the covenants that we have received from God. These are the covenants to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Shim\u2018on showed how important the covenants were to his faith when he described God as \u201cThe God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers.\u201d (Acts 3:13). He directly tied in the covenants made with the Fathers to the promise of Yeshua\u2019s salvation, which he spoke about in this same verse. We will be looking for evidence to see if the Messianic community kept the Torah in a way that reflected God\u2019s covenant love and faithfulness.
\nFinally, by using the term mercy, I am asking if the Messianic community kept the Torah by doing good deeds and compassionately relating to those in need. The Hebrew concept often rendered into English as mercy is the word \u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, rachamim.1 The word rachamim conveys a wonderful word picture in biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew word for womb comes from the same root as mercy\u2014rachamim. The concept of mercy reflects the loving care and nourishment that a mother gives to her unborn fetus, leading to its ultimate birth. A beautiful picture of this sort of tender mercy is provided in Isaiah 49:15.<\/p>\n
\u201cCan a woman forget her nursing child, And have no compassion on the sons of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you!\u201d (NASB)<\/p>\n
In this verse, the Hebrew word \u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05dd, m\u2019rachemis used for compassion. It comes from the same root as the word for a womb, and is one of the present tense verb forms for the noun rachamim.
\nDid the Torah observance of the early Messianic Jews cause the doing of good deeds and the performance of merciful acts? Did it reflect this merciful side of God, these \u201cwomb\u201d mercies? These are questions that we will seek to answer in this chapter. There is no clear and easy division between these three concepts. Love, grace, and mercy are all tied closely together in the Torah, both as concepts and, more importantly, as practical actions.<\/p>\n
Luke Writes to Theophilus<\/p>\n
The book of Acts gives us the best opportunity to see the daily lifestyle of the first Messianic Jewish community (in Jerusalem). Acts is the historical record of the development of both the Messianic Jewish movement and of the spread of belief in Yeshua among non-Jewish peoples. Therefore, it becomes the crucial text for us in understanding how the early Messianic Jewish community kept the Torah. Remember also, that the person receiving both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, Theophilus, would have paid strict attention to how the first Messianic Jews related to the Torah.2
\nAs a priest (probably a Sadducee), and a possible relative of the High Priest, Theophilus would have had a negative reaction to any demonstration of Torah ignorance by the first Messianic Jewish community of Jerusalem. Luke presented the Messianic movement to Theophilus as one that carried out the Mitzvot of the Torah in love.
\nLuke and Acts should be best understood as a pair of books written by Luke to Theophilus. The two books form a whole, with one author and one purpose: to explain the Messianic movement\u2019s beliefs and history to Theophilus. As Luke put it, \u201cI, too, should write you an accurate \u2026 narrative, so that you might know how well-founded are the things about which you have been taught\u201d (Luke 1:3b\u20134).
\nLuke presented Yeshua as part of a lineage of good, Torah-observant Jews. In the ancient Middle East, particularly in Jewish society, one\u2019s family lineage was an extremely important aspect of an individual\u2019s identity. If a family was known for its devout Torah observance, then it was considered to be of good quality. Theophilus would only have considered the Messiahship of Yeshua as a possibility if Yeshua came from a devout, Torah-observant family with a connection to King David. This was a crucial point!
\nIn the 21st century Western world, this concern with lineage may seem foreign to us. However, even today, these considerations are prevalent in the Middle East, and among many Jewish communities worldwide. If Luke could present Yeshua\u2019s family as devout and Torah-observant, Theophilus would be favorably impressed. Proving that there was a connection to the priesthood in Yeshua\u2019s bloodline would have lessened any hostility Theophilus may have felt toward Yeshua\u2019s beliefs. Luke is careful to point out to Theophilus that many priests had become Messianic Jews (Acts 6:7).
\nLuke showed Theophilus that Yeshua had a devout family lineage with roots from King David (see Luke 3:31) and from Judah (see v. 33). The connection to King David was important because the Messiah was believed to be a descendant of King David by all Jews. Therefore, the genealogy (chapter 3) was an important part of Luke\u2019s message to Theophilus. To a modern-day Western reader, this genealogy may seem boring and irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth! This genealogy was purposely placed in the beginning of the book for Theophilus to examine. It was an important part of Luke\u2019s picture of Yeshua. For our purposes, it also helps to establish the fact that the first Messianic community valued Torah observance. One of its spokesmen, Luke, presented the Messiah as Torah-observant, using his genealogy as partial proof of this fact.<\/p>\n
An Example from the First Messianic Community<\/p>\n
Let us examine the evidence of love in the first Messianic community. As defined above, love means caring for the welfare of one\u2019s neighbor. Given that the first Messianic community was Torah-observant, evidences of their active love will help us see how they kept the Torah.<\/p>\n
All those trusting in Yeshua stayed together and had everything in common; in fact, they sold their property and possessions and distributed the proceeds to all who were in need. Continuing faithfully \u2026 to meet in the Temple courts daily, and breaking bread in their several homes, they shared their food in joy and simplicity of heart, praising God and having the respect of all the people. (Acts 2:44\u201347)<\/p>\n
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. (Acts 4:32)<\/p>\n
It is evident that caring for one\u2019s neighbor was a top priority in the young Messianic movement. Three separate community actions are mentioned here: having all possessions in common, selling property and possessions and giving the money from the sales to the needy, and sharing meals with others. The effect of living out the concept of love was that the early Messianic Jews had the respect of the entire population of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
Acts 6 further affirms that the first Messianic Jews vigilantly cared for each other.<\/p>\n
Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving [food distribution], (VS. 1 NASB)<\/p>\n
Here, we learn that one group of Messianic Jews was being neglected. In the community, this was perceived as a wrong\u2014and this wrong was quickly rectified (see verse 3). By tending to the needs of the widows in their midst, the first Messianic Jewish community was fulfilling the Torah. Caring for widows is a high priority in the Torah (see Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 26:12; Ps. 23:10; Isa. 1:17). Yeshua\u2019s brother James, the chief rabbi of the first Messianic community, summed up the proper attitude, \u201cPure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world (James 1:27 NASB).
\nAgain, we see the priority given to helping widows. Let me emphasize: that Ya\u2018akov was saying exactly what is written in the Torah. He was teaching his community to fulfill a Mitzvah. He would only have done this if he saw it as an important teaching from the Torah.
\nIn Acts 3, we see another example of the early Messianic Jews helping a disadvantaged person in their city. Peter and John healed a handicapped man on the way to the minchah (afternoon) service at the Temple (vv. 1\u20137). Physical healing was a common occurrence for the first Messianic Jews. The benefactors of these healings were citizens from Jerusalem and surrounding areas.<\/p>\n
Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits; and they were all being healed. (Acts 5:16 NASB)<\/p>\n
From this verse, we see that healing flowed from the Messianic community to those in need. The believers followed the example of Yeshua by giving as he gave.
\nIn Acts 5, Rabban Gamliel makes an interesting comment. Rabban Gamliel was considered a great sage in Judaism. He was a Pharisee, and was renowned for his fervent and compassionate Torah observance. According to the Talmud:<\/p>\n
When Rabban Gamliel died, the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and abstinence died. (Sotah 9:15)<\/p>\n
His proposition to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin\u2014that time would tell if Messianic Judaism was a movement that was initiated by God or by man\u2014is recorded in Acts 5:38\u201339.<\/p>\n
In the present case [of the Messianic Jews], I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God. (NASB)<\/p>\n
It is interesting that Rabban Gamliel never once leveled a charge of Torah-breaking against Messianic Jews. We should expect that such a devout teacher of the Torah would have done so if there had been any validity to this charge, but he wisely left room for the movement to prove itself. I can only surmise that a major way in which Rabban Gamliel would have judged the validity of Messianic Judaism was by observing whether the community kept the Torah mercifully and without using violence as a means of reaching their goals. (See Acts 5:36\u201337, where Gamliel judges the violent [yet Torah-following] movements of Theudas and Judah to have not been by God\u2019s initiation.)
\nFurther proof of the merciful, loving way in which the Torah was kept by the fledgling movement is shown in Acts 8. There, an immigrant Greek-speaking Messianic Jew, Philip (see Acts 6:5) traveled to Samaria to teach that Yeshua was the promised Messiah. This was in accordance with instructions given to Yeshua\u2019s students in Acts 1:8, \u201c \u2018\u2026you will be my witnesses both in Yerushalayim [Jerusalem] and in all Y\u2019hudah [Judah] and Shomron [Samaria], indeed to the ends of the earth!\u2019 \u201d The result of Philip\u2019s ministry to the people was that \u201c\u2026there was great joy in that city [Samaria]\u201d (Acts 8:8). The text tells of Philip\u2019s teaching, performance of signs and wonders, physical healings, and freeing people of demonic spirits. Such actions, along with their results, can only be looked upon as a loving, merciful demonstration of God\u2019s presence.
\nAnother touching event took place in the early history of Messianic Judaism. It also displayed a merciful approach to keeping the Torah. Shim\u2018on brought a dead woman to life. This is a very similar act to that of the prophet Elisha (see 2 Kings 4:32\u201337). Elisha was devoutly Torah-observant. His actions and deeds flowed from his faith in the God of Israel. We should see Shim\u2018on\u2019s actions and deeds, as recorded here in Acts 9, as proceeding from the same source and motivation as those of Elisha.
\nActs 11:27\u201330 provides another example of the spirit with which the early Messianic Jews kept the Torah.<\/p>\n
During this time, some prophets came down from Yerushalayim [Jerusalem] to Antioch; and one of them named Agav [Agabus] stood up and through the Spirit predicted that there was going to be a severe famine throughout the Roman Empire. (It took place while Claudius was Emperor.) So the talmidim decided to provide relief to the brothers living in Y\u2019hudah [Judah], each according to his means; and they did it, sending their contribution to the elders in the care of Bar-Nabba [Barnabbas] and Sha\u2019ul.<\/p>\n
Here, the Messianic Jews in Antioch probably sent a monetary contribution to their fellow Messianic Jews in Judah, due to the beginning of a great famine. Barnabas and Rav Sha\u2019ul took their contribution to Judah\u2019s Messianic leaders.
\nLove, care, and concern for the welfare of Judah\u2019s Messianic community were foremost in the heart of Antioch\u2019s Messianic community. They cared for the welfare of their fellow Messianic Jews, although few, if any, of them had ever met any members of Jerusalem\u2019s Messianic community. Their giving was a sign of love for their fellow community members, and was given in the hope of relieving them of suffering. This incident demonstrates that early Messianic Jews saw love as a crucial part of keeping the Torah.
\nVolumes have not been written on this subject. However, the previously mentioned Acts 6 narrative, combined with this Acts 11 narrative, affirms that Messianic Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, cared for the welfare of their fellow Messianic Jews, regardless of whether they were known to them in person.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER THIRTEEN<\/p>\n
A SIGN OF
\nLOVE TO THE
\nNATIONS<\/p>\n
Perhaps the biggest example of the early Messianic Jews keeping the Torah in a merciful, loving way came as a surprise. This involved the opening up of the kingdom of God to non-Jews.
\nIn the world of the first century, non-Jews could be part of the Jewish community by belonging to one of at least two categories of persons: the Godfearer (see chapter 5), or the full convert (Hebrew, \u05d2\u05e8 \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7, ger tzedek). Other categories of non-Jews also existed and it would take a whole book to adequately explain all of them. Nevertheless, the idea was that a non-Jew could embrace the God of Israel by believing in one God and then undergoing circumcision, with a commitment to living as a Jew (keeping the Torah, including the Jewish calendar cycle). Such a person was a ger tzedek and was considered fully Jewish. A significant number of Messianic Jews were of the opinion that, in order to believe in Yeshua, a non-Jew would have to undergo conversion and become a ger tzedek, and from there embrace Yeshua as the Messiah. This category of Messianic Jews is described in the book of Acts (15:1, 5).
\nAccording to Acts 15:2, the question that urgently needed a halakhic ruling was, \u201cWhat should be required of non-Jews in order for them to take part in the Messianic Jewish movement?\u201d That is, what do Gentiles need to do in order to believe in Yeshua as the Messiah, and in the God of Israel? Should they be made to undergo full conversion to become a ger tzedek?. Should they be required to become gerey hasha\u2018ar and embrace just the Noachide commandments, the Sabbath, kosher dietary laws, and maintain regular synagogue attendance?1 If not, what should be required of them? This was a bold inquiry, and we should respect the courage and integrity of the Messianic Jewish rabbis\u2019 council that took part in the halakhic decision of Acts 15.
\nToo many Bible teachers have reproved the first-century Jewish people for hardness of heart\u2014but here is a situation where Jews made a halakhic decision to open the kingdom of God to non-Jews. The Messianic leaders had love for non-Jews, whom they heard were embracing belief in the one God of Israel and in Yeshua as the Messiah. The welfare of these new Gentile believers in Yeshua was of great importance to these Messianic Jewish leaders. Their halakhic ruling was in accordance with Ya\u2018akov\u2019s statement.<\/p>\n
James answered, saying, \u201cBrethren, listen to me. Simeon [Shim\u2018on] has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, \u2018After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, so that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,\u2019 says the LORD, who makes these things known from long ago. Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.\u201d (Acts 15:13\u201320 NASB)<\/p>\n
James was in the position to issue the summary statement, the halakhic ruling. He occupied the position of chief rabbi of the Jerusalem Messianic community. I have discussed his position in a previous portion of this book. By this statement, these courageous Messianic Jews opened the kingdom of God to all who would believe in Yeshua, regardless of ethnic background.
\nShim\u2018on served as a spokesman for the halakhic decision that was made (see Acts 15:7\u201311), and he became God\u2019s first emissary to Gentiles mentioned in the New Testament. Shim\u2018on was God\u2019s instrument for opening God\u2019s kingdom to non-Jews, as were Sha\u2019ul, Barnabas, and many others.
\nAccording to this decision, four things were prohibited to the new Gentile believers in Messiah Yeshua. The prohibitions (see Acts 15:20) concerned idolatry, fornication, eating strangled animals, and blood (either eating or shedding blood). One or both of the last prohibitions deals with kosher dietary laws, and possibly, one deals with murder. These prohibitions concerned matters of the Torah, as well as issues that could destroy fellowship between non-Jewish believers in Yeshua and Messianic Jews. Idolatry, sexual sins, basic kosher dietary laws, and murder were such crucial Torah-related issues that the halakhic decision required Gentiles to keep the Torah on these four points. Not to do so would have constituted a break in fellowship with both God and the mother Messianic Jewish community.
\nFor Gentiles in the category of Godfearers, this would not have been difficult, since they already were keeping these four Torah Mitzvot, and many, many more. A Gentile from a pagan, Hellenistic background, however, would have needed some re-education to understand the significance of these matters. Sha\u2019ul and the Messianic Jewish emissaries would have given such an education to new Gentile believers when they taught in their congregations.
\nTo summarize, Acts 15 demonstrates that through their halakhic decision, the Messianic Jewish leadership in Israel very much loved and cared for the new, believing Gentile world. In addition, their decision showed their love for their own Messianic Jewish community. The leaders considered the needs and situation of both groups in forming their halakhah. In keeping the Torah, the Messianic Jewish leaders loved their fellow man. Rabbi Sha\u2019ul stated it well:<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t owe anyone anything\u2014except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled Torah. \u2026 Love does not do harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fullness of Torah. (Rom. 13:8, 10)<\/p>\n
There should be no doubt that the early Messianic Jews, beginning with the Jerusalem leadership, kept the Torah\u2014with love as their motivation. In addition, we have seen this love manifested through good deeds and healings. The early Messianic Jews showed God\u2019s mercy to others. This is especially true in the opening of the kingdom of God to Gentiles, as narrated in Acts 15.
\nAs to the question of whether the expression of compassion through such deeds brought the recipient closer to God, let us look at the following chart. Here, I cite the reactions of the recipients to the aforementioned acts of love.<\/p>\n
Reactions to God\u2019s Workings<\/p>\n
Text
\nAction
\nReasons Given
\nActs 3:1\u201311
\nHealing
\nWalking and praising God (vv. 8\u20139)
\nActs 8:5\u20138, 14
\nHealings, freedom from demonic spirits, receiving the Word of God
\nThere was great joy.
\nActs 8:26\u201340
\nExplaining of the Prophets, immersion in a mikvah,2
\nHe continued on his way, full of joy.
\nActs 10:1\u201348
\nExplaining of who Messiah is to Godfearers, receiving of God\u2019s Spirit
\nEmbracing the God of Israel
\nActs 13:15\u201349
\nExplaining who Messiah is to Jews and non-Jews
\nSome embrace Messiah<\/p>\n
In these few texts, we see the recipients turning toward God. Whether they verbally praised God, repented, and trusted in Messiah Yeshua\u2014or were just full of joy because of God\u2019s mercy\u2014their reaction demonstrates movement toward God. Messianic Jews caused a turning to God on behalf of the recipient of the actions.
\nHad Shim\u2018on thought that God was merely telling him to stop keeping the Torah\u2019s dietary laws (see chapter 6), then many Gentiles in Caesarea would not have received the message about Yeshua. Shim\u2018on was obedient to God\u2019s will as revealed in the vision, and because of this the kingdom was opened to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER FOURTEEN<\/p>\n
THE TORAH ON
\nHOW TO OBSERVE
\nTHE TORAH<\/p>\n
We have seen several passages from the book of Acts, which demonstrate that the Messianic Jewish community kept the Torah with love, grace, and mercy. This fact should not surprise us. The Torah affirms the type of attitude that God wanted the Jewish people to have concerning its observance.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.\u201d (Deut. 6:5\u20137 NASB)<\/p>\n
All Israel\u2014through all its generations\u2014is instructed to love God by internalizing the Torah, and teaching it at all times and in all situations in life.1 The Messianic community kept the Torah as an expression of their love for God. They considered it God\u2019s gift of mercy and grace. By providing healing through the power of their faith in Yeshua the Messiah\u2014they were keeping the Torah in love. By giving monetary gifts to the hunger-stricken Messianic Jews in Israel\u2014they were keeping the Torah in love. Whatever the action, it was done with the compassion that flowed from Yeshua to the individual or the community, in order to live out the words of the Torah. This is the attitude and motivation described in Deuteronomy 6.
\nI do not mean to glorify or idolize the Torah, if that were possible. It is not God. God alone is God; but his will, his ways, and the very promises of the coming of the Messiah are all revealed in the Torah. To know and love the Torah is to know God better, and to better love him on his terms. If we look at Deuteronomy 6:5\u20137 with the above in mind, we can understand why learning and practicing the Torah is so crucial for our lives. This is true for both Messianic Jews and Gentiles who believe in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua. As it is written:<\/p>\n
Teach me Thy statutes.
\nMake me understand the way of Thy precepts,
\nSo I will meditate on Thy wonders. (Ps. 119:26b\u201327 NASB)<\/p>\n
From my experience in Israel as a Messianic Jewish leader, I am familiar with the kinds of responses toward Torah observance that may occur. Some may be fearful of doing anything connected with the Torah and Jewish tradition. Others may be so devoted to keeping the Mitzvot in a specific manner, that unhealthy attitudes develop, such as pride, one-upmanship, and losing sight of the mercy and grace of God.
\nWhile in Israel, I participated in a study group that, for three years, examined the relationship between the Mitzvot and the New Testament. We sought ways in which to apply the findings to our own lives. Our conclusion, ever resounding in my ears today, was to allow each family the freedom to decide how to keep the Mitzvot in their lives. No pressure to conform\u2014to keep the Mitzvot in a certain way\u2014would be placed upon anyone. We aspired to educate ourselves in order to make knowledgeable and responsible decisions regarding our lifestyles and the keeping of the Mitzvot.
\nNow, years later, I look back upon that conclusion and believe it to be the best starting point from which to embark upon a modern, Torah-observant Messianic Judaism. We can help each other learn the Torah, and understand the principles by which Yeshua lived out the Mitzvot. At the same time, we should not push each other to be conformed to our own standards. When Messiah returns, he will ultimately teach us the perfect way to keep the Mitzvot in the mercy and love of God. Until then, as the Torah-observant Messianic rabbi, Sha\u2019ul of Tarsus, stated, \u201cWe see through a dirty mirror\u201d (1 Cor. 13:12, author\u2019s translation). In other words, we struggle with what knowledge and love we have, in order to do our best to live correctly. This is not reneging on our responsibility to observe the Torah. We will differ in our interpretation of how to observe it. This is to be expected. We have seen that it was normative throughout Jewish history. Whatever differences we may have with other communities are probably healthy ones. We should not feel pressured or pressure others to quickly change.
\nThe prophet Micah spoke about the proper and loving way in which the Torah was meant to be kept:<\/p>\n
He has told you, O man, what is good;
\nAnd what does the Lord require of you
\nBut to do justice, to love kindness,
\nAnd to walk humbly with your God? (Mic. 6:8 NASB)<\/p>\n
The New Testament portrays the Messianic community as keeping the Torah according to the words of Micah. Justice, covenant love, and humility were to be the trademarks of a man who kept it. This first-century community kept the Torah in the way prescribed by God himself\u2014with the right heart attitude. May our observance of it honor God in the same way!<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
The evidence clearly confirms that the individuals studied in this book, including Yeshua himself, lived a Torah-observant lifestyle. Though the exact methods of To rah observance may have differed between people\u2014the Torah was not discarded as an invalid document. Their continued observance of the Torah implies its ongoing significance in their lives and their acceptance of this theological fact.
\nThroughout the regions of Jewish settlement, and within different religious movements of this time, various emphases and halakhic standards existed. This is reflected in the lives of Messianic Jews, as well as in the lives of all of Israel\u2019s population. There was no universally accepted understanding of the manner in which to observe the Torah. In some sense, this fact parallels the approach to the Torah of Jewry today.
\nYet, the Torah was, in one way or another, observed by the first-century Messianic Jewish movement. Some of these people had a pro-Pharisaic understanding of Torah observance, possibly allying themselves with followers of Hillel. Rabbi Harvey Falk argued for such an understanding in his work Jesus the Pharisee. It appears that Sha\u2019ul was this type of Messianic Jew. Others in the Messianic community would have approached the Torah with a more regionalized understanding.
\nSince the historical data confirms a Torah-observant first-century Messianic Judaism, how can we use this conclusion to inform our practice today? I have no easy answers, but I do have some observations. These are passionately felt observations, built on both my reading of history and my own experience over the past twenty-eight years.
\nIt behooves followers of Messiah to develop a theology that is true to the pattern of observance found in the Scriptures. While doing so, care must be taken to fulfill the Mitzvot in a merciful manner, without placing pressure on others to do as we do. Therefore, speaking, as one who believes in a merciful, grace-filled, and Torah-observant Messianic Judaism, I urge a closer study of Yeshua\u2019s practice of Torah observance. He is the perfect role model.
\nMay we who follow Messiah in this way do so with mercy and love as our guide. Consequently, our observance of the Torah will be a blessing to the memory of Yeshua, as well as serve to bring our friends and loved ones to the knowledge of God. Additionally, those of us in the Messianic Jewish community need to exhibit love and acceptance to non-Jewish believers in Yeshua. Whatever we decide our calling and special purposes are as Messianic Jews, we should never consider ourselves better or more loved by God due to our bloodline. We are not better, nor more loved. As Jews, we do have a special calling, function, and role (see Exod. 19: 5\u20136). Yet, together with Gentile believers, we are part of the redeemed people of God worldwide, throughout the history of mankind. May our words and actions reflect these truths.<\/p>\n
EPILOGUE<\/p>\n
Messianic Jews in the Future<\/p>\n
Only a few passages of Scripture speak of Messianic Jewish communities in the future. However, it is worthwhile to examine any indications of Torah observance.
\nRevelation 12:17 describes persecution against the \u201cchildren of the woman.\u201d<\/p>\n
The dragon was infuriated over the woman and went off to fight the rest of her children, those who obey God\u2019s commands and bear witness to Yeshua.<\/p>\n
These children are identified as those who \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (Greek, ton terounton tas entolas tou Theou kai echonton ten marturian Iesou). This verse speaks of the \u201cones who keep the commandments of God\u201d and \u201ctestify concerning Yeshua.\u201d As was previously noted, the word used for commandments (entolas) is often used as the Greek cognate word for Mitzvah. Therefore, it appears that the evil power in Revelation 12 seeks to destroy Messianic Jews who are observing the Mitzvot. No group meets these criteria better than the Messianic Jewish community. First, these are people who obey God\u2019s commands. Second, these people bear witness to Yeshua\u2019s identity.
\nMillennial-age texts also give evidence as to future Messianic Jewish Torah observance.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn those days ten men from all the nations will grasp [the corner of] the garment of a Jew, saying, \u2018Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.\u2019 \u201d (Zech. 8:23 NASB)<\/p>\n
What was on the corner of a garment of a Jew of Zechariah\u2019s day? In fulfillment of the Mitzvah, there were fringes. Numbers 15:37\u201340 describes this Mitzvah:<\/p>\n
\u201cTell them that they shall make for themselves tassels [fringes\/tzitziyot] on the corners of their garments throughout their generations \u2026 to look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord.\u201d (vv. 38\u201339)<\/p>\n
Here is a picture of Messianic Jews in the millennial age keeping the Mitzvah of wearing fringes. Men from the nations (Gentiles) will want to learn from them.
\nIn addition, the prophet Zechariah described a day in which all the nations of the world will come to the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot in Jerusalem, to observe the festival and worship God. Certainly, the Jewish nation would be present for this occasion, as recorded in Zechariah 14:16\u201321.<\/p>\n
Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths, (v. 16)<\/p>\n
The celebration of the Feast of Booths is a Mitzvah from the Torah. Therefore, that Yeshua and the first Messianic Jewish community kept Sukkot should not surprise us. The pattern is there, even for the future.
\nVery few portions of the Torah are dedicated to illustrating a picture of the Messianic Jewish community in the future, so we cannot draw many conclusions. However, it is noteworthy that Zechariah provides us with a picture of Torah-observant Messianic Jews in the millennial age.<\/p>\n
title={They loved the Torah: what Yeshua\u2019s first followers really thought about the Law},
\nauthor={Friedman, David},<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
FOREWORD When scholars can capture the complexities of theology and biblical content in down-to-earth language, there is power and beauty. This is one of the best characteristics of Dr. David Friedman\u2019s book, They Loved the Torah. The truth he is espousing is that the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) occupied a central … <\/p>\n