Whose Halachah?
And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse Him. Matthew 12:10 NASB
Is it lawful – Sometimes you can’t understand the text of the gospels without first understanding the context of the rabbis. This is one of those times. The issue here is not about healing. There is no prohibition about healing on the Sabbath. The issue is about which school of rabbinic halachah Yeshua will endorse. Will it be Shammai’s views or Hillel’s views?
In the first century, two schools of thought dominated the world of the Pharisees. The school that followed the teachings of Shammai made up the majority of rabbinic leadership. The school of Hillel was the other recognizable branch of the Pharisees. Nearly all of Yeshua’s debates with the Pharisees are really debates with the followers of Shammai. Harvey Falk’s book, Jesus the Pharisee,[1] makes the case the Yeshua was closely associated with the minority opinions and halachah of Hillel. In fact, Falk argues that Yeshua was probably also related to the Essenes. Shammai’s halachah rulings were far stricter than Hillel’s, driving a deeper wedge between Gentiles and Jews. Flak comments on this particular incident:
Since Jesus evidently healed through prayer, this incident appears to refer to a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over whether it is permitted to pray for the sick on the Sabbath (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14); Bet Hillel permitted such prayer, and Bet Shammai forbade it. In the Gospel according to Mark (2:27), Jesus concludes his argument with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath by stating, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” In addition for prayer for the sick, this would allude to other disputes between the two schools, such as were Bet Shammai rule that is it forbidden on the Sabbath to promise charity for the poor in the synagogue, even for the marriage of orphans, nor may betrothals be arranged, nor may any discussion be held for a youngster’s education, nor may mourners be comforted or the sick visited, while Bet Hillel permit all of these . . .[2]
As you can easily imagine, Yeshua would have objected to all of these restrictions. The famous discussion of divorce is really about the same issue, that is, which school of thought will Yeshua endorse.
We learn two very important lessons from Falk’s work. The first is that the gospels use of the term “Pharisee” does not refer to all men associated with that theological branch of Judaism in the first century. Christians have almost uniformly ignored this important distinction. The result has been a wholesale misrepresentation of all religious Jews and Jewish leadership as opponents of Yeshua. This is simply not true.
The second important lesson we learn is that the Jewish way of life often depends on which rabbi you follow, and the rabbis are not always in agreement. What this means today is that whenever halachah is the basis for your behavior, that behavior depends on the ruling of the rabbi(s) of that particular community. Halachah for one community might not be the same for another community, as the differences between Shammai and Hillel clearly demonstrate. By the way, that does not mean that one way is wrong and the other right. It only means that life is complicated and decisions must be made.
Some commandments are not negotiable. Those are the ones clearly defined in the written revelation of YHVH. Some commandments are interpretations of the written Torah for the community. They are binding upon members of the community because members of the community have decided to make them binding, but that does not mean there are no alternatives. In the end, whether I wear tzitzit on my belt loops or not should never keep us from fellowship and mutual submission. Paul constantly argued fro unity, not conformity. We must do the same wherever Scripture leaves the decision up to us.
Topical Index: halachah, Pharisee, Harvey Falk, Matthew 12:10, Shammai, Hillel
[1] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus, Wipf and Stock, Publishers, 2003, originally published by Paulist Press, 1985.
[2] Ibid., p. 149.
Interestingly, the Essene Halacha was the strictest of any sect of Judaism and placed Sabbath observance above human life:
“No man shall eat on the Sabbath day aught save that which is prepared or perishing (in the field). Nor shall one eat or drink unless in the camp. (If he was) on the way and went down to wash he may drink where he stands, but he shall not draw into any vessel. … No man shall walk after the animal to pasture it outside his city more than two thousand cubits. None shall lift his hand to smite it with (his) fist. If it be stubborn he shall not remove it out of his house. No man shall carry anything from the house to the outside or from the outside into the house, and if he be in the vestibule he shall not carry anything out of it or bring in anything into it. … Let not the nursing father take the sucking child to go out or to come in on the Sabbath. … No man shall help an animal in its delivery on the Sabbath day. And if it falls into a pit or ditch, he shall not raise it on the Sabbath. … And if any person falls into a place of water or into a place of… he shall not bring him up by a ladder or a cord or instrument. No man shall offer anything on the altar on the Sabbath, save the burnt-offering of the Sabbath, for so it is written `Excepting your Sabbaths’.” (Damascus Document 10:14-11:18)
Josephus writes of the Essenes: “…they are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they not be obliged to kindle a fire on that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go to stool thereon.” (Wars 2:8:9)
Where the Pharisees would loosen the Sabbath to preserve human life, Yeshua would in addition, under
Hosea 6:6 [For I desire mercy (CHESED), and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of Elohim, rather than burntofferings.] loosen it for a matter of CHESED, and for a matter where “the knowledge of Elohim” is at stake.
Hello Pieter
I concur that the Essenes had a more strict Halacha. I will provide an example myself.
Scrolls were discovered in the caves of Qumran, a desert community west of the Dead Sea where many of the Essenes (a sect of aka “Judaism”) lived. This collection included not only Old Testament Scriptures, but also commentary on how one was to obey YHVH’s Torah. In one of the caves, a manuscript named Miqsat Ma’ase haTorah (4QMMT—an acronym of the Hebrew words Miqsat Ma’ase haTorah) was found. Martin Abegg, a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, explains that Ma’ase haTorah is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek phrase “ergon nomou” that Sha’ul uses in Galatians and Romans, which is translated “works of the law.” Furthermore, Abegg points out that this phrase is used not just by BOTH Sha’ul and 4QMMT, but more significantly, it is used ONLY in Sha’ul and 4QMMT (“Paul, ‘Works of the Law,’ and MMT,” Biblical Archaeological Review, November/December 1994). As Abegg says, “In all of antiquity, only [4QMMT] and Sha’ul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans discuss the connections between works and righteousness” (Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 358).
Just what were the “works of the law” in the Essene writings found in Qumran? Here is Abegg’s description:
Following a thesis statement that identifies the central problem—the impure are being allowed to mix with the pure (the profane with the holy)—the author lists some two dozen examples to prove his point (B:3-C:4). The addressee (and secondarily, the reader) is then encouraged to follow the author: separate from those who practice such things (ibid).
The writer of 4QMMT is stressing the importance of not intermixing with the impure (i.e. the Gentiles) and lists a number of rules to prevent this mixing. Right away, this should resonate with the issues Sha’ul is addressing in his letter to the Galatians. Reflect on the Antioch incident in the NT in Galatians The false teachers in Galatia were teaching that Yehudim believers were not to fellowship and eat with uncircumcised Gentile converts.
Yet the most significant part of the 4QMMT document comes in the writer’s final exhortation:
Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel. (ibid, 364)
Here, the writer says that by obeying the works of the law set forth in 4QMMT, one would be counted as righteous. Abegg says, “The final exhortation presses home the author’s true point: to be accounted righteous, one must obey the Law as interpreted in [4QMMT]” and for this reason Abegg concludes “probably the ‘false brethren’ (Gal. 2:4) that Sha’ul opposed held a doctrine on justification much like that of the present writing” (ibid, 359).
My point in presenting these findings is not to say that the false brothers in Galatia were necessarily Essenes. Rather, it is to show that the doctrine of justification by works (including obeying man’s interpretation and additions to YHVH’s written law) was present and active in first-century aka “Judaism”, despite the fact that Torah does not teach justification by works. The Essenes held to this doctrine, and clearly Sha’ul’s opponents in Galatia did as well.
Shalom
Michael
Thanks Michael,
I agree that “Works of the Law” as used by Sha’ul, has nothing to do with the “Levitical Book of the Law” which forms part of TORAH, and was a rebuke of the teachings / halacha of the Essenes. Rabbi Sha’ul was especially sensitive about this as his own erroneous “way of life that was from before, which was in Judaism… and [made him] especially zealous in the teaching of [his] fathers” resulted in him “especially persecuted the assembly of Eloah and was destroying it.” [Gal.1:13-14]. Therefore he earnestly tried to return people to Covenant TORAH and away from the halacha of the Rabbinic, and later the “church” “fathers”. Alas, as is HaSatan’s way, Sha’ul’s words were misinterpreted with his tranlation into Greek and even worse adulterated into Latin.
Apparently some or all of the Qumran Essene community fled to Damascus, which is where Sha’ul studied with them for 3 years before he went to Arabia (?). Later the Essene community split into the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, which may explain the issue with the “false brothers”. The Ebionites returning to some of their old ways and Sha’ul becoming known as “of the sect of the Nazarenes”.
Also, apparently a scroll was find at Qumran containing “New Testament” material. As well as a grave with a headless skeleton… wonder who that may be 😉
Shalom
“Paul constantly argued from unity, not conformity. We must do the same wherever scripture leaves it up to us.” Great summary for me. I love being in unity with Paul’s community! Pieter, thank you so much for the summary and the quotes. That helps me so much! I like to put the most weight on source documents, and wish I had access to more. I am truly grateful whenever anybody goes to the effort to share. I like your ending summation the best: “loosen it for a matter of CHESED, and for a matter where “the knowledge of Elohim” is at stake.”
To me, Sabbath is a taste of eternity, where we do not have to get a living by the sweat of our brow, and survival is not the primary focus, and Sabbath is also a chance to learn what it means to put holiness before the Lord FIRST. When I stop letting reality shove me around, then I can remember that it is supposed to be what I make it, and when I remember that, then I can adjust my focus back so that I am able to. Sabbath helps me remember that my choices create reality (faith), and I must not let what was control what shall be. Sabbath is also where I can put the business of the Kingdom first. All lovingkindness and knowledge of Him is his business, and Sabbath is where I make such mine. Again. And I remember.
Skip, you make such a great point. If unity and conformity are in conflict, choose unity! How many marriages, churches, and communities have split up over not being able to agree with each other. (I know I used correct grammar on that last sentence, but did it make any sense? Must be trying to describe evil again!) Pieter, I think Eph. 4:13 mirrors Hosea 6:6 where it says we are to stick together until “we all come into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” I have noticed that we are expected to culminate, (through lovingkindness and knowledge of Elohim, I bet!) in unity “unto a perfect man”. Singular. Moving as one. Military formation, 144, 000 strong. “Unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”. I notice that it is NOT addressed to single followers, but to the collective. We are supposed to become the full Body of Yeshua together. Well, time to start now! I figure I am part of the digestive system. Hey, is there a hand around here, and anybody got a mouth? Time to start eating! We gotta lotta growing to do!
Thanks Laurita, every morning I look forward to Skip, yours and the other’s arguments on scriptural understanding. With each interpretation statement we construct our own halacha ! … by which I understand we will be judged in that Day!! What a thought!!! Enough to abandon all fear of the nefesh and completely fear YHWH in humbleness with a mind imbibing CHESED. If you look at the way Yeshua fenced in the TORAH in Mat.5, it is again all about CHESED and unselfishness.
I agree on Sabbath: To me it is the remembrance unto the 7,000th “year”; The 1,000 years of rest we are to enter with the Messiah ben David. By the way, I understand that we are currently living the 6th “day” [time period / season] and that the 7th “day” is still to come, because the tenses has been miss translated. Here is my version, with a re-change in the tenses: Gen.2:1-3 – “And the heaven and the earth are being finished, and all the host of them. And on the sixth day, Elohim will finish His work which He is making. And He will rest on the seventh day, from all His work which He is making. And Elohim blessed the seventh day, and Set it Apart. Because that, in it, He will rest from all His work which Elohim in creating, is making.” My understanding is that the first “clay tablet” of Genesis / Bereshit, Gen.1:1 to Gen.2:4a, was written by Elohim himself / themselves (who exists outside of time as we understand it). With the toledoth (colophon) ending: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created,”. Gen.2:4b starts Adam’s writing, which ends in Gen.5:1a.
As an unfulfilled prophecy, the Sabbath is therefore very important.
When I came upon the understanding that the Sabbath is the token (engagement ring) given to the bride of the Messiah, I was very drawn to it. But further study which pointed out that the nations does not have to keep Sabbath because they are not going to be part of the bride has made me backpaddle from complete acceptance of this imagery. I am reserving my halacha on this one but would like to hear yours.
Here is another translation (purported to be directly from the Aramaic but effectively being the translator’s Halacha…by which he will be judged!?) of Eph. 4:13 “Until all of us become one and the same, [literally “one thing”] in the Trust and in the knowledge of the Son of Eloah: and one complete man, according to the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Messiah.” This implies a lot of unity and conforming. Probably not humanly possible without constant complete submission to “HaRuach” TORAH, who brings us wisdom, understanding and knowledge of Messiah.
Finally, to fence in Sabbath: Only interrupt matters where “the knowledge of Elohim” is at stake when CHESED requires it. As a Halacha: BOUND creative ‘generative’ endeavor, changes to the environment or any object and do not inflicting our own will on the universe.
And, for Skip, my effort to Halachise tzitzit… “Read and meditate on the 10 Statements (Ex.20; Deut.5) every morning and evening”
Thanks Skip! I love seeing more clearly, through culture & context the scriptures make so much more sense!!
Skip – do you feel that the commandment to wear tzitzit is just a suggestion? I’m trying to understand your comment from the article.
No, that wasn’t my point. The commandment is to wear tzitzit on the CORNERS of your garment. That assumes the way clothes were made in the ancient past, not today. I don’t have corners on my shirts (usually) so the commandment doesn’t fit me (pun) but it certainly doesn’t fit belt loops. However, if someone wishes to wear tzitzit on belt loops, does it really matter? Would you refuse fellowship with that person because they didn’t get it right? And if I don’t wear tzitzit because I am wearing a Dry-fit corner-less shirt, am I to be excommunicated? You see that HOW I honor the commandment will depend on my community, its authority and the culture I live in now. But the commandment is still valid if the circumstances apply.
So, extend this to other aspects of our religious particulars. What if I don’t believe that Yeshua died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin. What if I believe that he is the Messiah, he did die on the cross, but for the purposes of defeating death since the sacrifice for sin was accomplished before the foundation of the world. Can you still tolerate me?
And what if you and I don’t agree on the Trinity idea? What then?
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify that with you. However as I’m sure you’ve noticed the word “corners” or “borders” in that passage from Num 15:38 is the same word used in Isaiah 11:12 describing the “four corners of the earth”. We know the earth doesn’t have corners, right? So I think it’s safe to say the commandment is to wear the tzitzit regardless of there being corners or not. The claims that it has to do specifically with corners seems like an excuse or a loop hole, IMO.
Of course this shouldn’t affect one’s desire to fellowship with one another. But I don’t think we can tailor the commandments to fit “our community”. We should tailor our community to fit YHWH’s commandments.
In my opinion, disagreements help each other grow. It gives us cause to research further, dig deeper, and while we may never agree on a specific thing, we can definitely still grow together. I get that point entirely. BTW, I believe wearing tzitzit on belt loops is completely inline with the commandment to WEAR them. The focus being on to WEAR them and not so much on CORNERS based on my explanation above.
And did Isaiah and the people of his time believe that the “four corners of the earth” really was a euphemism for “round”?
We can continually search for loop holes, or we can submit to His will. The word also means “wings” in many places such as in how YHWH bore them on eagle’s “wings” from Egypt (Ex. 19:4). Do you really think the people thought they were riding eagle’s wings? Or did they understand that euphemism at the time? If they understood that one… that would lead me to believe they understood other ways in which this words could be used as a euphemism. So my answer would be “yes”.
Peshat requires that we take the text as it is, understood within the culture and time it was written. Any exegesis that violates that plain meaning of the text is suspect. For example, the exegesis that treats the great bear in Revelation as if it is Russia.
So, “four corners of the earth” means just that, four corners of the earth. Something that ancient civilization would have understood according to their cosmology. It is not a euphemism for “round” since it is quite unlikely that the Hebraic view of the world is the same one that WE have. The fact that the same word is used in connection with eagles wings only means that the Hebrew term has a wide umbrella of application, as do most Hebrew words since the language itself is terse. But it seems quite obvious that eagles’ wings is a metaphor, not a literal view, whereas four corners is a common idea for the shape of the world in ancient times. Even our designations, North, South, East, West, support the idea of four corners.
Finally, belt loops are not corners, so the peshat means what it says, even if the motivation is honorable. Garments were made with corners so it makes perfect sense in that time, but today the application is not quite the same. If I want to follow the commandment literally, I will wear garments with corners (as orthodox Jews do). But that doesn’t mean I am not ALLOWED to wear them anyway just to show my respect. That, however, does not precisely fulfill the commandment.
By the way, mezuzahs present the same problem. The commandment says to write them on the doorposts, not inside a little ornamental box that it affixed to the doorpost, but I know of no orthodox Jew who actually follows this commandment to the letter. Mezuzahs have become an acceptable substitute. I suspect belt loops will one day also become an acceptable substitute.
Technically, scientifically, the earth DOES have ‘four corners’, see:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19650609&id=32pQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3hAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7380,1218930&hl=en
We are kind to each other, allowing freedom for the person we disagree with, and continue to do our part in keeping peace with one another, and asking the Heavenly Father, the creator of the Universe to show us if we are wrong in due season. And as the teacher do not hammer away constantly on the subject! My small advice from an 82 year old lady that has been on this blog, nearly since the beginning, and have learned so much, and been blessed that Skip did not cut me out for not tithing to Skipmoen.com. In our retirement years; my husband and I been very busy giving much more than a tithe, but our time, resources to a ministry we were called to do, and have done exceeding well; but not involved in receiving any cash at all. We each have our part in the Lord’s Kingdom, and I am so thankful there is such a variety of work to be done on earth.
I am still where we have been the last 15 years, trying to find & help others with downsizing 61 years of married items. Including the genealogy materials that I used to work on, off and on since 1960. Finding people even in your own family that will appreciate and care for your years of work in any area is in itself one of the biggest chores possible! Think I am about to complete that part of it! And all now without a family near me, but there is a large family out there, but doing their callings, they encourage me, and a husband that worked up until he departed this earth in June, 2013. I am meditating a lot on those that write about old age, and have not yet entered it! Very interesting to say the least to do that.
I try to image what the Godly Poet, Robert Browning, was saying when he penned, ” come and grow old with me, the best of life is yet to me, the last for which the first was made.” — I do know some of the history of his invalid wife, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and her own gifts. I am speaking of life on earth now, here, not our believes in the world to come. All, changes, at some point in the older years, and when we are older, past the average death age, ALL changes.
I cared for my own precious father until he died at age 99 years and 8 months, in his right mind until he was called to Olam ha’ba’ , waiting to be served his lunch. BUT HE was not the same as even in his 70’s.
Thanks for reading and thinking through this, if you have read this far. Where are some of the people that started out years ago with Skip? Speak up, if you are still reading! Blessings to all in every area of your lives. LaVaye Billings
Great points Skip …. well done.
A direct quote regarding Shabbat, when Yeshua said the Shabbat was given to man, not man to the Shabbat more or less can be found regenerated a couple generations later as is recorded in Mechilta the Rabbi Akiva and his compadres concluded the same thing. It is interesting to find Yeshua’s debates with the P’rushim showing up in the Talmud and often the conclusion agrees with him. Considering the cultural/historical perspective, such is not a surprise.
[ the ] ” …. use of the term “Pharisee” does not refer to all men associated with that theological branch of Judaism in the first century. Christians have almost uniformly ignored this important distinction. The result has been a wholesale misrepresentation of all religious Jews and Jewish leadership as opponents of Yeshua. This is simply not true. ”
I could not agree more. And some times the term Pharisees is outright erroneously asserted in the text and translations. We can see in the Greek texts where Φαρισαῖος Pharisaios far-is-ah’-yos G5330 is asserted in Mark 12:13 . Reading the Greek versions of our pericope is somewhat problematic. There is a problem to be solved with regard to why the Greek translations say P’rushim in Mark. review this article http://torahfocus.com/2011/06/18/confusing-scribes-and-prushim-mark-1213/
My contribution : Before Yeshua was born, the two prominent fathers of Pharisaic philosophy, Shammai and Hillel, differed on the subject of circumcision with the former arguing that if a Gentile was born without a foreskin, he would still have to yield a drop of blood for the covenant, while the latter said no such thing was required (Bab. Talmud, Shabbat 135a/Gerim 2:2).
In the Jewish Midrash, the rabbis discussed the necessity of circumcision for those born of a Jewish mother. The Midrash reads, “If your sons accept My Godhead [by undergoing circumcision] I shall be their God and bring them into the land; but if they do not observe My covenant in regard either to circumcision or to the Sabbath, they shall not enter the land of promise” (Midrash: Genesis Rabbah 46). “The Sabbath-keepers who are not circumcised are intruders, and deserve punishment,” (Midrash: Deut. Rabbah 1).
The Talmud, on the other hand, takes the opposing view: “A male convert who has been immersed but not circumcised, or circumcised but not immersed, is a convert.” (Bab. Talmud, Yevamot 46a/Gerim 1:6).
This brief listing, far from exhaustive, demonstrates that the requirement of circumcision for converts to Judaism was controversial during the first century CE. Further, Sha’ul’s prior teacher in Judaism was Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), the grandson of Hillel. Therefore, even in Sha’ul’s former life as a Pharisee, he had been trained in the school of Hillel, and thus was well informed as to why a Gentile did not have to undergo circumcision to be a convert to Judaism.
Some of you might be wondering, how can this be? The answer lies within the Torah itself. You will find no passage requiring a foreigner to be circumcised. They could offer sacrifices at the temple through the hand of an Israelite, but they could not eat of them. If a foreigner desired to eat of the sacrifices at the Temple, he could do so, but only if he underwent circumcision (Ex 12:48).