A Living Hermeneutic

There is no section of the (written) Torah which does not imply the doctrine of Resurrection, but we have not the capacity to expound it in this sense. Sifre Deuteronomy Section 306; 132a

We have not the capacity – Abraham Cohen makes a telling remark in his discussion of the Talmud. “No aspect of the subject of the Hereafter has so important a place in the religious teaching of the Rabbis as the doctrine of the Resurrection. It became with them an article of faith the denial of which was condemned as sinful; . . . The prominence which this dogma assumed was the effect of religious controversy.”[1]

Pay attention. These days we assume that the idea of the resurrection of the dead was a universally accepted article of faith by the Jews. But this is certainly not the case. This dogma came into existence because the Pharisees first accepted the foundation of reward and punishment in the afterlife, and that idea rests on the further foundation that there actually is an afterlife. As you know, the Sadducees, who accepted only the five books of Moses as authoritative, probably rightly claimed that there is no explicit statement of an afterlife in these documents and therefore it should be rejected. In other words, in the time of Yeshua, the great thinkers of the Jewish way of life were divided over this most basic belief. Since this is clearly the case, we must ask, “What interpretative method was used to establish the doctrine of the resurrection and where did the idea come from?”

Today I will not answer this question. I want to focus on something else, something implied in this question and in the formulation of the doctrine. Today we would claim, without hesitation, that the Pharisees were right. Yeshua is our undeniable evidence. But I want you to notice something else. I want you to notice how this controversy arose and how it was settled without Yeshua’s evidence.

How did this controversy arise? It was the result, as Cohen notes, of two different ways of considering the Scriptures. The reason there was any argument at all was because each party held a different view of interpretative authority. The Sadducees were the biblical conservatives, claiming that only the official Torah (the books of Moses) could be absolutely trusted as God’s word on the matter. The Pharisees held a more liberal position, believing that the documents we now call the Writings and the Prophets were just as legitimate for doctrine. Therefore, the Pharisees were open to the commentaries and explanations of the Sages. In other words, they added a piece to the puzzle that the Sadducees did not. And, not surprisingly, they came to a different conclusion.

Now ask yourself, “If the Sadducees had not been eliminated in the Roman destruction, would Judaism today still retain this alternative way of looking at Scripture?” Did the Pharisees win the argument because they were theologically persuasive, or did they win the argument because the Sadducees were dead? Please don’t pull out the apostolic evidence. If the Sadducees had won the day, no one would have believed the claims of the disciples about Yeshua’s resurrection. It would have been biblically impossible.

In other words, ultimately the Scriptural idea of the resurrection of the dead became the official idea because the opposing party ceased to be. It was the social/political fallout that cemented the Pharisees’ theology, a theology that allowed the disciples to interpret Yeshua’s resurrection as orthodox within the boundaries of God’s word.

Why is this so important? Because this is precisely what happened in the eventual victory Athanasius’ formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. When Arius and Athanasius began the debate about the Trinity, Christendom was equally divided as to which doctrine was the truth. Over the course of nearly a century, doctrinal dispute led to civil violence, political intrigue, murder and inquisitions. In the end, Athanasius won because his opponents either died or where executed. But the Church as a whole once was a 50/50 split over this now-cardinal doctrine. And all of it comes down to how you interpret that text. Underneath all the arguments, for both the Sadducees and the Pharisees as well as the two Christian camps, the real issue is hermeneutics. As Cohen so aptly notes, in the end it is “dogma,” a principle of faith laid down by authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogma, not exegetical evidence. And the winner takes all.

Topical Index: doctrine, dogma, resurrection, Trinity, hermeneutics, Talmud, Sifre Deuteronomy Section 306; 132a

[1] Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, P 357.