So Boaz, Gene, UMJC, many others all repeat the mantra "The Rabbis hold the authority of Moses" (paraphrase). But is this really what Yeshua meant in Matthew 23?
To answer this question, let's first consider how Yeshua approached halacha. We'll look at Shabbat as an example:
"As Phillip Sigal has observed, 'The important point to notice in all of this is that Jesus does not simply negate the challenge by rejecting the Sabbath, or by countering that the Pharisaioi offer arguments of no validity.' Jesus does not simply dismiss them or shrug them off. He does not concede that either he or his disciples are in violation of the sabbath; instead he presents alternative interpretations, often citing prooftexts. Neither Jesus, nor his disciples and followers took the sabbath laws lightly. This is borne out by the fact that after the crucifixcion they postponed taking care of him until after the sabbath." pgs 76-77 of Judaism in the Time of Jesus by Irving Zeitlin.
and:
"The impression is therefore unavoidable that Jesus' outlook was highly distinctive. For him the chief criterion for the validity of a specific halakhah (ordinance) is its compatibility with the love command. When Jesus refers to the well-known verse from Hosea 6:6, 'For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings' (Matt.12:7), Jesus is asserting that David took the freedom to violate sacred food but that the priest had to overlook the breach because God requires hesed, i.e., love and mercy. Analogously he implies that the PHariesees ought to overlook his disciples' plucking (or rubbing grain, or both) to assuage their hunger. Jesus also applies the well-known hermeneutical rule of the rabbis called in Hebrew Kal vehomer, which deduced the weightier from the less weighty and vice versa. He argues that if one will waive the sabbath to save an animal, then one may certainly do so to heal a human. Apparently the man who suffered from dropsy (Luke 14:1-6) was in no immediate danger of losing his life; he had been ill for some time, and he could have waited for treatment one more day. But it was Jesus' attitude that on should never delay an act of mercy," pg. 76 ibid.
What can we conclude from this? That Yeshua DID NOT really think people should obey the Pharisees as if they are actually Moses himself. Yeshua, in line with more liberal Pharisees, saw some flexibility in the halachah.
But, in case you don't think Yeshua's opinion is good enough. Here's a little Nachmanides to sweeten the deal:
Citing a disagreement between Maimonides and Nachmanides regarding the source of rabbinical authority, Abraham Chill (this dude is so chill) writes:
"According to Maimonides, the command 'You shall not turn aside' implies acceptance by the jew of (1) the traditional (Masoretic) text of the scriptures, (2) the laws deduced from scripture by the thirteen hermeneutical rules of R. Ishmael (shelosh-esreh middot she-ha-Torah nidreshet bahem), and (3) the decrees (gezerot), ordinances (takkanot), and customs (minhagim) instituted by the sages. Nachmanides regards the first two categories only as included in the biblical injunction. Laws which are of rabbinical origin are not, in his view, enforceable by the same sanctions as those expressly stated in or directly derived from the Torah," pg. 425 of The Mitzvot by Abraham Chill.
Peter Out
"Laws which are of rabbinical origin are not, in his view, enforceable by the same sanctions as those expressly stated in or directly derived from the Torah"
ReplyDeletePeter, you are confusing rabbinic instituted laws (e.g. celebrating Sukkot for 2 days instead of one, if outside of Israel) with halachic / rabbinic interpretation of how Torah is to be practiced. Punishments for violating laws that are clearly rabbinic (like the example I gave above) are halachically NOT the same as the ones for violating clear Torah commands (which still must be performed according to interpretation of sages and rabbis.) I am sorry, Peter, you really need to brush up on this stuff before pontificating on it.
Gene,
DeleteThat's funny. The truth is that for any statement I make I'm capable of citing to Rabbinic literature to support it. For example, when I talked about Yeshua's approach to halacha being similar to liberal Pharisaic halachah, this comes from pg. 74 of Judaism in the Time of Jesus by Irving Zeitlin:
"Both Jewish and Christian scholars, basing themselves on the earliest strata of the Talmud, have argued convincingly that Jesus' religious philosophy was congruent with that of the liberal Pharisees."
So, Gene, are we all confused? Or is it that you are clinging desperately to an untenable bias?
"That Yeshua DID NOT really think people should obey the Pharisees as if they are actually Moses himself."
DeleteWhat you are arguing Peter is another case of "don't believe your own lying eyes" - that is, yes, sure anyone can read in Matthew 23 Yeshua telling his Jewish disciples to obey Jewish leaders because it says so in a very plain language. But that can't be possibly the true meaning Because it disagrees with my One Law take on history and theology!
Great points, keep'em coming!
ReplyDeleteThanks, you betcha!
DeleteThanks, you betcha!
DeleteI should have been more clear, but I was talking to myself. :P
Maybe I should start hanging out with South Koreans, who are much more interested in gleaning wisdom from the Talmud than throwing it under a bus.
ReplyDeleteThis is a "meta-comment," Peter (in other words, it's a comment on your process of blogging rather than the blogging content as such). Don't you think you'd get more mileage out of your blog by sticking to the issues (whether anyone agrees with your stance or not) rather than making every blog post personal and calling out people by name? I take it you don't commemorate Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. If you did, you'd be busy trying to repair relationships rather than tearing them down.
L’shanah tovah tikatev v’taihatem; May you be inscribed and sealed for a good year.
You and I disagree about the value of disagreements. : ) But that's okay.
DeleteThe healthier way to look at it is like this: if brothers have a disagreement they should be able to talk about it. Calling Gene out is my way of inviting him and others who believe in B.E. to talk about our differences--so that we can eventually work things out. I see it as a gesture of love; you see it as a gesture of ill will. This is your Christian background having a negative influence on you, the idea that it's wrong to talk about disagreements, etc.
I'll tell you something about me. When I used to attend Messianic synagogue, I was the guy who went around to all the tables at Oneg and introduced myself and talked with EVERYONE regardless of background. I LOVE people; I love talking to people; I love learning about their story.
But now, due to circumstances, I'm going to a Baptist Church. Guess what? I'm gonna do the same thing there. But I'll have to be more careful. Christians are extremely sensitive to hearing other points of view. However, this particular Baptist church hosts a Shabbat dinner once a month. So I'm trying to be optimistic that they'll be open to discussing disagreements at some point. Am I being naive? Probably. But it's my philosophy about life. I love to talk and I love closeness and so naturally I want to discuss any disagreements that come between me and the ones I love in order to resolve those disagreements and have closeness.
So, in this way, I have no aversion whatsoever to disagreements. You do though and that's your deal. But don't be so arrogant as to think that your way is the only way and that anyone who has a different approach must not appreciate Rosh Hashanah. Don't pretend like you know my heart. You don't. You're not G-d.
"I was the guy who went around to all the tables at Oneg and introduced myself and talked with EVERYONE"
DeleteOh, you were that guy?!
What can we conclude from this? That Yeshua DID NOT really think people should obey the Pharisees as if they are actually Moses himself. Yeshua, in line with more liberal Pharisees, saw some flexibility in the halachah.
ReplyDeleteI think that is important to note, Yeshua did agree with some of the Halacha as you pointed out, He did not argue against some of the Halacha, in the fact that he did not make a case of validity concerning some of their arguments, but it was also not carte blanche, as Gene and his buddy's want to propose.
But even then, after all of that is said, does the Talmud have the same authority as what is described in Matthew 23, as there is an obvious disconnect, and then what arguments would Yeshua agree with more.
Exactly! This is all I was trying to say. Notice how they jump on me for even suggesting that it might be a bad idea to have a rigid, monolithic halacha.
DeleteAbraham Chill wrote "To deny the entire tradition of rabbinic influence on Jewish law or to stultify it by not acknowledging its continuity is tantamount to abrogating the entire legal system. In other words, either we believe that contemporary rabbinic authority is as binding as was that of Moses and the Written Law, or we reject Jewish law in its entirety."
Obviously Yeshua disagreed with this! He flat out rejected halacha that was used to contradict the spirit of Written Torah. His actions show that He refused to accept "the entire tradition of Rabbinic influence on Jewish law".
Why can't they see this rather obvious fact about Yeshua's approach to halacha? It seems so unreasonable to conclude from Yeshua's approach that we should accept everything the Rabbis say without question. HE QUESTIONED.
"Obviously Yeshua disagreed with this!"
DeleteHe obviously did not! He did not deny the entire tradition nor did he fail to acknowledge its continuity with Moses.
"Why can't they see this rather obvious fact about Yeshua's approach to halacha?"
Yeshua's approach to halacha is nothing like the One Law approach, that's for sure. Yeshua confronted not the halacha but the hypocrisy among individual leaders who were misusing halacha or put certain things ahead of love for G-d and others.
Gene,
DeleteAbraham Chill is saying one must "accept everything or reject everything" (paraphrase). Yeshua DID NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING. He accepted SOME and rejected SOME. He rejected those traditions which "set aside the commandments." This is obvious, yes?
Abraham Chill is saying one must "accept everything or reject everything" (paraphrase). Yeshua DID NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING. He accepted SOME and rejected SOME. He rejected those traditions which "set aside the commandments." This is obvious, yes?
DeleteExactly, when saying that some of the Halacha negates the commandments of God, we are dealing with a problem of Halacha, than simply a hypocritical approach as Gene is claiming.
In other words, neglecting the commandments of God, is not simply a hypocritical approach to Halacha, that does not make any sense. Granted I believe Gene is right in other areas, that many of the arguments were a hypocritical approach as we see in Matthew 23, instead of simply being false.
"He rejected those traditions which "set aside the commandments." This is obvious, yes?"
DeleteOK, Peter - now, please give me some specific Pharisaic halachic precepts that Yeshua rejected that set aside a specific Torah commandment. Then, please specify the where I can find that halachic precept in the Oral Law today (so that we know that was indeed a codified halacha, and not simply a sinful behavior of individual). Let's see how many you can come up with from the New Testament.
Gene,
DeleteMatt. 12:5.
Yeshua clearly states that what David did was unlawful. Period!
The Rabbis on the other hand tried to exonerate David.
(Mishnah Meila 1.1) Rambam Sefer Ha'Avodah: Hilchot Meila 2:8; Mishnah, Zevachim 9.5.
would you think that yeshua would approve a Tzitzit without a blue thread because they could not find a chilazon?
"Yeshua clearly states that what David did was unlawful. Period!"
DeleteThe principal of saving a life applies, which permits breaking Torah under some circumstances. Which means that either halacha was not yet codified or that some of the Pharisees were not using halacha properly - they should have applied life saving exceptions across the board, not just for David.
"would you think that yeshua would approve a Tzitzit without a blue thread because they could not find a chilazon?"
The ones hanging from the belt loops?
"would you think that yeshua would approve a Tzitzit without a blue thread because they could not find a chilazon?"
DeleteDan, you mean to suggest that the rabbis actually rebelled against G-d's commandment to use a specific color and that their stated reason of not having a correct type of die that does not fade or change color (which in itself would break the commandment) was never the true reason?
Also, you do know that some of the Orthodox, satisfied with the proper characteristics, have started to use the blue dye, right?
From the Orthodox Union website:
"There is also a factory in Eretz Yisrael that produces “Techeilet” from this modest creature [Murex snail], this species of snail, as its source for the beautiful dye described in Menachot 43b as resembling the sea, which resembles the sky, that resembles HaShem’s Throne of Glory."
http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/chilazon.htm
"The principal of saving a life applies, which permits breaking Torah under some circumstances. Which means that either halacha was not yet codified or that some of the Pharisees were not using halacha properly - they should have applied life saving exceptions across the board, not just for David."
DeleteI rest my case.
"The ones hanging from the belt loops?"
You asked a question, I answered it, and now you are looking for a fight...So, OK, here is a fight for you: YOU ARE AN IDIOT...
Have a great Shabbat, even idiots deserve it.....
Dan, what can I say, you are a class act.
DeleteOK, Peter - now, please give me some specific Pharisaic halachic precepts that Yeshua rejected that set aside a specific Torah commandment. Then, please specify the where I can find that halachic precept in the Oral Law today (so that we know that was indeed a codified halacha, and not simply a sinful behavior of individual). Let's see how many you can come up with from the New Testament.
DeleteAre Yeshua's words not good enough for you?
When He said they negated the commandments, He did not mean they were hypocritical... or He would have said such. In Matthew 23, He claims their hypocrisy, but in Mark, he claims a neglecting of commandments, and that was due to halacha.
"Are Yeshua's words not good enough for you?"
DeleteZion, your words are not enough for me. If you are going to slam modern Judaism as invalid and not an authority on Torah, you should at least provide examples of New Testament-mentioned Pharisaic Halacha that directly contradicts Torah and that Yeshua is said to have overturned.
Gene,
DeleteHere are some examples:
In John 5, it's Shabbat and Yeshua and a man are in a public domain. Yeshua tells him to pick up his bed and walk. This was a violation of first century halacha because it says:
"so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, 'It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”
It's also a violation of modern halacha:
"82:1 In the public domain and in a semi-public domain it's forbidden to carry (on Shabbat) any object four cubits.3 Whether one carries it, or throws it or passes it. To carry it, in several stages, each one less than four cubits, is also forbidden." (Shulchan Aruch)
I could go on. Shulchan Aruch says:
"91:1 One who feels discomfort, but makes an effort to carry on like a healthy person, it's forbidden for him to receive any medical treatment even something that doesn't involve (biblical) prohibited activity. Even to apply oil whether by himself or by another or even by a Gentile."
But Yeshua violated this all the time, healing people who didn't have immediately life-threatening illnesses. In Luke 14, Yeshua healed someone who had dropsy. Dropsy is not immediately life-threatening and Yeshua didn't cite to the principle of pikuach nefesh in order to heal him. Rather, he points out the flaw in the Rabbinic rationale by showing that even they would help out an animal on the Sabbath so how much more should they help out a human being. Nevertheless, as cited above, when pikuach nefesh doesn't apply, Rabbinic halachah (law) says that YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO GIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT.
These are a few examples for you. Does this satisfy you?
Zion, your words are not enough for me. If you are going to slam modern Judaism as invalid and not an authority on Torah, you should at least provide examples of New Testament-mentioned Pharisaic Halacha that directly contradicts Torah and that Yeshua is said to have overturned.
DeleteFirst of all, I never said Judaism has no authority, that is absurd. In fact I have not seen anyone make that claim, instead there is an argument over unconditional authority, and there is an argument over how much or what exactly is applicable for followers of the Messiah, I do not believe that Judaism is infallible, like the Roman Catholic Church believes about themselves, and hopefully you are not just as arrogant.
Second, I did not write Yeshua's words, He is the one who said that their halacha in the context of Mark 7 was "neglecting the commandments of God". Whether I come with an example for you or not to deal with, does not at all change the very words He spoke. If you can't accept that, you have no argument at all.
Concerning Matthew 23, I agree with you that Yeshua is not invalidating the Halacha there, instead He is pointing out those who are being hypocritical with the Halacha.
But you have a bone to pick with Yeshua's words, it would be your duty to prove that Yeshua did not mean what He said in Mark 7, so lets hear you prove Yeshua wrong. :D
Peter, instead of telling me what commandments Yeshua supposedly broke, please provide me with what I asked - which TORAH commandments did Pharisaic halacha mentioned in New Testament violate?
Delete"Thus saith the L-RD: Take heed for the sake of your souls, and bear no burden on the Sabbath Day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem, neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day" (Jeremiah 17:21-22)
Also, did G-d contradict himself in Jeremiah?
Gene,
DeleteI'd be happy to help you there. Actually, I'm going to write this response under the new blog post. I thought your question merited a separate post. One moment...
Hi Gene,
DeleteI'm a part of the Orthodox Jewish community who was raised a Christian (not Jewish), and I'm interested by the approach you had to 'Messianic Judaism' when you wrote these things. I'd really value talking with you and learning about it. My email address is anneliseholwerda@gmail.com if you ever have time to write.
Every blessing, very much :)
Annelise
So, in this way, I have no aversion whatsoever to disagreements. You do though and that's your deal. But don't be so arrogant as to think that your way is the only way and that anyone who has a different approach must not appreciate Rosh Hashanah. Don't pretend like you know my heart. You don't. You're not G-d.
ReplyDeleteThe door swings both ways. You don't know me, either, yet you said, "This is your Christian background having a negative influence on you, the idea that it's wrong to talk about disagreements, etc."
You don't know anything about my "Christian background." You only know my behavior which, in this venue, is my text-only communications. This is the only way I can know you as well. As I've previously explained to you, I don't buy what I call the Chavruta Illusion as applied to Internet conversations. On the other hand, I do support people talking about differences without personalizing conflict. While some of the things you say may inspire me to write a blog post, I'll never call you out by name in the title of a blog post.
I also previously suggested that you have a look at John 13:34, Romans 12:18, Philippians 4:2-5, and Hebrews 12:14 and to see if the Bible is really telling us to communicate with each other primarily through "disagreement." You get to call me "arrogant" when I address aspects of your behavior, yet you feel perfectly free to call Gene, Boaz, and anyone else on what they say and do. There's a basic inconsistency in this you might want to work on, Peter.
Good Shabbos.
James,
DeleteYou're talking about my heart, my intent. I'm talking about your background which is public knowledge. Big difference. Stop acting like these things are correlative as in a "door that swings both ways." You're slamming a door in my face and then claiming it swings both ways. Honestly, James.