Jesus the Jew

*I know this is an extremely old article [I dug it out of the back of my closet} but it is well worth the read.

Jesus was a committed Jew of his day. And to truly understand Jesus, we need a solid background in Jewish religious, social, and political history.

Jesus, a rural Jew, lived in Galilee, in the northern part of Palestine. And in Jesus day, Galilee was divided into an upper and lower region. The lower region, where Jesus lived was a rich valley that stretched from the Mediterranean to the sea of Galilee, a distance of about 25 miles.

As far as we know, in Jesus' time there were four principle Jewish sects: The Essenes, the Zealots, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.

The Essenes, whose name may come from an Arabaic word meaning "pious," had already withdrawn from Jerusalem and Temple participation by the time of Jesus. In isolated monastic communities established in the Judean wilderness, they studied scriptures and developed a rule of life. Essenes were known for their piety--daily prayer, prayer before and after meals, strict observation of the Sabbath, daily ritual bathing, emphasis on chastity and celibacy, wearing white robes as a symbol of spiritual purity, and sharing communal meals and property. Nowhere in the Gospels, however, is Jesus presented as adhering to the Essenes way of life.

Jesus was not a zealot either. Zealots were Jews who vehemently opposed the Roman occupation of Palestine. But there is no evidence in any of Jesus' teachings that he encouraged revolt against Rome.

Jesus also was clearly set apart from the Sadducees, whose name in Hebrew means "Righteous ones." These Jews believed in a strict interpretation of the Torah and did not believe in life after death. Jesus, of course believed in bodily resurrection (Mark 12:18-27)

Contrary to common understanding, Jesus may well have been close to the Pharisees, even if he did debate them vigorously. Many of Jesus' teachings and much of his style was similar to theirs. To understand this, we need to compare the central teachings of the Pharisees to Jesus' teachings.

The Pharisees were a lay reform group within Judaism. The name Pharisee itself means "separate ones" in Hebrew, which refers to a ritual observance of purity and tithing; the word Pharisee can also be translated as "The interpreter," referring to this group's unique interpretation of Hebrew scripture.

As reformers, the Pharisees did not oppose Roman occupation; rather their focus was on reforming the temple, especially with respect to its liturgical practices and priests. And the Pharisees turned their attention toward strengthening Jewish devotion to the Torah, which, they said, had to be continually readjusted within the framework of the contemporary Jewish community. While the Pharisees insisted that the 613 commandments found in the written Torah remained in effect, the commandments had to be carefully rethought in light of new human needs.

The temple priests, though, looked upon the precepts of the Torah more literally and primarily in terms of sacrificial observances at the Temple. The Pharisees, on the other hand, taught that every ordinary human action could become sacred--an act of worship. Doing a "good deed" for another human, a "mitzvah" in Hebrew, was accorded a status that in some ways, surpassed Temple worship. This was truly a revolution in religious thinking.

In addition, a new religious figure in Judaism--the teacher--or Rabbi--emerged within the Pharisaic movement. For their part, rabbis fulfilled a twofold role in the community: They served as interpreters of the Torah and, more importantly, they helped make its teachings relevant. Their principle task was instructional, not liturgical.

From the Pharisaic reform emerged what was later called the synagogue ("assembly of people"). The synagogue became the center of this movement, which quickly spread throughout Palestine and the cities of Jewish Diaspora. Unlike the Jerusalem Temple, the synagogues were not places where priests presided and sacrifices were offered; rather they were places where the Torah was studied, rabbis offered interpretations, and prayers were said. Thus, synagogues became not merely "houses of God" but far more "houses of the people of God."

The Pharisee also emphasized table fellowship--a way of strengthening relationships within a community. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Temple altar in Jerusalem could be replicated at every table in the household of Israel. A quiet but far reaching reform was at hand. There was no longer any basis for assigning to the priestly class a unique level of authority.

The Pharisees saw God not only as creator, giver of the Covenant, and much more, but in a special way, as the Parent of each individual. Everyone had the right to address God in a direct and personal way, not simply through the temple sacrifices offered by the priests.

The Pharisees also believed in resurrection. Those whose lives were marked by justice would rise once the Messiah had come. Then they would enjoy perpetual union with God.

There is little doubt, then, that Jesus and the Pharisees shared many central convictions. The first was their basic approach to God as a parent figure. In story after story in the Gospels, Jesus addresses God in this way. And Jesus' central prayer begins by invoking God as "Our Father" (Matt. 6: 9-13). The effect of this emphasis was fundamentally the same for Jesus as for the Pharisees (although Jesus had a unique position as God's "Only begotten Son"). More than anything, this approach led to both an enhanced appreciation of the dignity of every person and ultimately to the notion of resurrection--and perpetual union with God.

Jesus' own public stance closely paralleled the evolving role of the Pharisaic teacher. Jesus on a number of occasions in the Gospels are filled with examples of Jesus teaching in synagogues.

Jesus clearly picked up on another central feature of Pharisaism as well, that of the oral Torah, which refers to interpretations given by the Pharisees to various Torah texts. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus offers interpretations of Scripture quite similar to those of the Pharisees.

Finally, Jesus also embraced the table fellowship notion of Pharisaism. The meal narratives in the New Testament are an example of this. In the end, He selected table fellowship for a critical of his ministry, the celebration of the first Eucharist.

Then why, in the Gospels, do the Pharisees appear as the archenemies of Jesus? Here is gets complicated. For one thing, some Pharisees were praised by Jesus (for example the scribe of Mark 12:32). And we know that Jesus ate with Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 14:1).

But there was still conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus, nevertheless. And here scholarship offers three possible explanations.

The first sees Jesus and his teachings as quite similar to the Pharisees. The animosity in the Gospel results from subsequent interpretations of Jesus' action. For example, Jesus' practicing healing on the Sabbath or his disciples picking grain in the holy day were actions clearly not supported by the Pharisees.

Another possible explanation results from our enhanced understanding of the Talmud, the collected teachings of the Pharisees and their rabbinic heirs. In the Talmud are references to some seven categories of Pharisees, which clearly shows that the Pharisaical movement encompassed a wide range of viewpoints and, more important, that internal disputes, often of the heated variety, were quite common. The Gospel portraits of Jesus disputing with the "Pharisees" were examples of "hot debates" that were common in the Pharisaic circles rather than examples of Jesus condemning the Pharisees.

A third scholarly approach stresses positive connection between Jesus' central teachings and those of the Pharisees. In light of these, one becomes suspicious about the so-called texts of conflict. Surely Jesus would not denounce a movement with which he had so much in common.

Hence, either Jesus was speaking in a very limited context, or what are commonly called "the conflict stories" represent religious tensions existing in the latter part of the first century when the gospels were written. The Christian community--now formally expelled from the synagogues--was engaged in intense competition for Jewish converts. The New Testament statements about conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees may reflect that competition.

Regardless, one fact remains. Jesus' own Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures. His attitude toward the sacred writings is summed up in the assertion "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish the Law but fulfill (Matt. 5:17).

On the whole, Jesus' teachings were wither literally biblical or filtered through the Pharisaic use of the scripture, or both.

The way the Pharisee and Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures becomes more clear when Jesus argues his position by using so-called "proof-texts." Here, Jesus quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove a point or refute a critic (See the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5, 6, & 7). In such instances, Jesus was drawing on a technique used by the Pharisees in trying to make a point.

The "Proof-Texting" that Jesus used did, at times, pit him against the Pharisees--such as when He challenged certain claims they made about the unwritten law and called them hypocrites for placing higher value on teachings of humans than of God (Matt. 23: 1-36).; such as when He used scripture to refute the Pharisaic teachings about plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matt 12: 1-8). or unwashed hands (Matt. 15:20).

At other times though, Jesus' "proof-texting" placed him on the side of the Pharisees. Once in an impressive debate with the Saduccees, He used Hebrew scripture to reinforce his belief, and that oft he Pharisees, in an afterlife. Jesus was so impressive he won the Pharisees' applause (Matt. 22: 23-33).

Possibly the best example we have of Jesus' use of Hebrew Scriptures is his teaching on love. "Teacher," one Pharisee asked, "which commandment is greatest?" And Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronamy 6:5, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment" (Matt. 22: 36-39). Them Jesus went on quoting Leviticus 19:18, "The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In brief, Jesus was proof-texting his answer.

Jesus' use of the Hebrew Scriptures, therefore, was unabashedly Jewish. And it was similar to that of his contemporaries, particularly the philosophy of the Pharisees.

Knowing and appreciating the Jewish origins has at least three advantages: First, it helps us revise negative understandings of the Pharisees. It also helps us to avoid anti-Semitism. Finally, it allows us to better appreciate the Jewish roots of Christianity. Ultimately, understanding Jesus as a Jew will help us to better understand both our own faith and that of the contemporary Jews.

Yes, I read the article. I don't find the superficial similarity between Christ's methods of teaching and the Pharisees' methods all that surprising. In a way the Pharisees were the liberals of the day, reinterpreting the commandments. Christ freed his followers from the Law altogether, even though he is quoted as saying otherwise, replacing them with the new Covenant, so, no, he was not a Pharisee, he went way beyond.

The Pharisees said everyone has the right to address God directly. Christ said no one comes to God except through him.

Paul was wrong. Can you even tell me what passage from Genesis Paul was referring to in Galatians 3:16?

Gen Chap 12, & 17. Then your argument is with Paul.

So Abraham really didn't need to circumcise himself and his sons, did he? Nor did he have to follow the commands given to Noah.

Abraham's faith produced his obedience, not tablets of stone. (Gen 26:5). Abraham didn't circumcise himself into the Levitcal (Aaron) priesthood, but rather into the Melchisedec (Heb 7).

How, exactly, do you think that Israel obtained forgiveness for sin in the time between the first and second temples?

Why worry about about temporal forgiveness when there is eternal forgiveness. The blood of bulls & goats was just a covering, and did not take away sin (Heb 10:4)

You really have no understanding of the Jewish concept of qorbanot (sacrifice), what its purpose was, and what it accomplished.

With your demeanor, this comment does not suprise me.

I don't find the superficial similarity between Christ's methods of teaching and the Pharisees' methods all that surprising.

Well I disagree. I don't find anything superficial about the similarities at all. And I would add that if the Father considered the Jews to be so horrible he wouldn't have sent the Messiah [his son] through Abraham's line. You can say whatever you like, but you haven't refuted the New or Old testament here today.

The Pharisees said everyone has the right to address God directly. Christ said no one comes to God except through him.

Apples and oranges. The first part is a reference to how only the priests were allowed to address God directly, not saying that anyone could get to heaven through any path. What the Pharisees did was personalize the relationship with God--one on one--and that is directly how it is with Christ also. Ever heard the phrase "Personal relationship with Christ?"

Gen Chap 12, & 17. Then your argument is with Paul.

Can you narrow it down to a verse or two please? I want to look at the Hebrew to see where Paul finds a 'singular' 'offspring'. My argument may be with Paul, but you are the one repeating his argument here and now.

Abraham's faith produced his obedience, not tablets of stone.

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him (Genesis 12:4)

You cannot separate out Abraham's faith from his obedience. It was his obedience to God which demonstrated his faith.

Why worry about about temporal forgiveness when there is eternal forgiveness.

Jews have eternal forgiveness, and always have had, when they repent from sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

The blood of bulls & goats was just a covering, and did not take away sin (Heb 10:4)

Wrong. The Hebrew scriptures repeatedly describe sin as being "washed away", "blotted away", "remembered no more" etc. You have been misinformed.

And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. (Leviticus 4:26)

I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)

None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him (Ezekiel 33:16)

I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you. (Isaiah 44:22)

With your demeanor, this comment does not suprise me.

And this refutes my point how? Perhaps you would like to explain to me your understanding of the purpose and function of the Jewish sacrificial system.

My argument may be with Paul, but you are the one repeating his argument here and now.

You're taking yourself too seriously. It wouldn't matter what evidence was produced, you've proved you'll argue with anybody in the bible who refutes your beliefs. (i.e. "Paul was wrong").

You cannot separate out Abraham's faith from his obedience. It was his obedience to God which demonstrated his faith.

You're splitting syntax hairs....

Jews have eternal forgiveness, and always have had, when they repent from sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

Got a passage that supports that ?

Wrong. The Hebrew scriptures repeatedly describe sin as being "washed away", "blotted away", "remembered no more" etc. You have been misinformed.

Talk about me being "wrong", and "misinformed". I can't find any of those terms you placed in quotes in the OT. Got a verse ?

I have a feeling you're flying by the seat of your pants in this exchange. The verses you quoted in no way support your premise. You're confusing temporal with eternal...

I don't see anything in your post that refutes Jesus being a Jew. Interesting, but it doesn't support your assertion.

There are also a set of minor characters in the Gospels that I have been wondering about. They include Lazarus, Salome, John the Baptist, Magdalene, and Simon Magus.

I wouldn't call John the Baptist a 'minor' character. But if you're wondering about them, why don't you read the Bible again to find out more about them?

Also, what was Peter's problem with Magdalene?

If you knew the answer, would it make any difference?

Don't forget the 3 wise men whom some claim to be Persian but could just as easily be Egyptian.

There's nothing in the Bible that says there were three wise men; only that there were wise men from the East, countries not specified. Tradition gives a name to three men, probably because they were bearing three gifts; gold, frankincense and myrrh. But the Bible mentions only wise men from the East.

Where did the multitude that Jesus fed come from just after John's death?

They came from their homes. (Ask a silly question.....)

There are a lot of hints and gaps, which is probably what Mohammed seized upon to promulgate his own version of religion, not to mention the Cathars, Manichaeans, and who knows what other heresies and Gnostics.

There is a big problem these days, and we better get our Christianity straight or this Pagan religion of bin Laden is going to be in our face for some time to come.

There is a big problem these days, but the problem isn't with 'hints and gaps'. It is with unbelief in God and people thinking they know more than God how the world should work. You seem to think that if Christianity made more intellectual sense, it would hold up better against Islam. You could poke just as many, if not more, holes in Islamic theology and history as you could Christianity and Judaism.

The Jews didn't follow Jesus, and aren't going to. In fact, they take offence at the conversion attempts and are actively opposing it and assimilation. What Jesus hoped would be continuation of the Jewish Law, didn't come to be.

You make it sound like Jesus failed in some way. And he didn't come to continue the law, or to refute it in any way, but to fulfill it. I agree with our Catholic host on this one. Don't forget, it ain't over yet.....:)

You're taking yourself too seriously. It wouldn't matter what evidence was produced, you've proved you'll argue with anybody in the bible who refutes your beliefs. (i.e. "Paul was wrong").

I'll let you in on a little secret: Paul's letters are not in my bible. Jews do not consider the gospels and epistles to be part of scripture. Do you have a verse for me yet, or can't you find the source of Paul's assertion? Doesn't it bother you at all that you cannot find the reference in Genesis that Paul is supposedly quoting?

You're splitting syntax hairs....

You said that "Abraham was justified solely by his faith", and I provided evidence that this is not accurate. Thus I am 'splitting syntax hairs'. A nice way to try to dismiss my point, but it doesn't address what I said.

Got a passage that supports that

The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalm 51:17)

Talk about me being "wrong", and "misinformed". I can't find any of those terms you placed in quotes in the OT. Got a verse ?

Uh, I gave you the verses. Did you read them?

The verses you quoted in no way support your premise. You're confusing temporal with eternal...

What makes you think there is any distinction between temporal and eternal in these passages? Sin is sin. It is forgiven or it is not. If it is forgiven, it is wiped away completely (as my citations illustrated). If it is "forgiven...wiped away...not remembered...swept away..." then it is not counted against us either temporally or eternally. What makes you think otherwise?

God said that His covenant with Israel would be EVERLASTING. Is God a liar?

God's covenant with Israel is a spiritual thing and it is with the spiritual Israel. Unspiritual people just can't see or appreciate it so they have to apply it to anything called Israel.

They would claim God had a covenant with a ham sandwich if you named it Israel.

Those Jews who were faithful became Christians. Together with the Gentile Christians, they are Israel. The rest rebelled against God and broke the covenant.

How many punishments in the old law call for the offender to be cut off?

Unfortunately, Hal Lindsey and his ilk have made a living telling sensational stories and deceiving people.

But we were warned about that too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.