Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jesus the Jew
March issue, 1995 pages 1-6 [I typed it in.] | Arthur Zamboni----Catholic Digest--condensed from Catholic Update

Posted on 11/06/2001 10:13:10 AM PST by JMJ333

*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The Essenes, whose name may come from an Arabaic word meaning "pious," had already withdrawn from Jerusalem and Temple participation by the time of Jesus.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.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-303 next last
To: ArGee
Read Romans 11-13.

Read Hebrews. You can't have two covenants.

61 posted on 11/06/2001 12:08:55 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hila
You need to know that Your God says about Israel, repentance is available to you for judging them as discarded, praying for the peace of Jerusalem and for God's plans to be established Israel is wisdom and obedience to the One who saved your soul.

Well, He said to preach the gospel to all nations, which includes Israel (I refer to the people Israel, not the state of), so don't get offended at proselytizers. ALL people must repent of their sins, anti-semitism being but one. And I owe my faith and existence to Jesus and God alone.

I know you were responding to someone else, and that person was too much in one direction, but you sound like the other side of the same coin.

62 posted on 11/06/2001 12:10:28 PM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
63 posted on 11/06/2001 12:11:30 PM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Are you forgetting the second of the two great commandments? Love your neighbor as yourself. We owe them our friendship and to stand up for them when they are in danger of being eradicated from the planet by people who hate. I won't turn my back on them.

I didn't say to hate them. To the contrary, I said we owe them the truth. Not the fairy tale that they can be saved in spite of rejecting the Messiah.

64 posted on 11/06/2001 12:12:35 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
I was gonna give it a "HUH?" also, but was to stupified to do so...
65 posted on 11/06/2001 12:12:50 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
He was accurate though, as Jesus did the same thing when he condensed the 613 commandments into two with "Love G-d with all your heart, mind, and soul--and Love your neighbor as yourself."

I mentioned the Hillel quote, because he lived shortly before Jesus and the school he founded was still flourishing, so Jesus would likely have been familiar with Hillel and his teachings. There is a similar Talmudic passage from shortly after the time of Jesus (around the year 100), in which Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarphon debated which single verse in the Bible was the most important; Akiba argued for Leviticus 19:18 ("love your neighbor as yourself"), and Tarphon for Genesis 5:1 ("God created man in the image of God").

66 posted on 11/06/2001 12:13:31 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Nephi must uses the "Weekly World" translation of the Bible. :=)
67 posted on 11/06/2001 12:14:17 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Christianity is the oldest religion, with Judaism being the oldest Christian splinter group, followed by Islam the modern pagan religion that remains as a thorn to keep Christians humble.

Excuse me? It's possible that you may want to rethink that.
I believe that Judiasm came before Christianity.

68 posted on 11/06/2001 12:15:11 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat

Mormon babblings. The glasslooker (or one of his followers) maintained that Americans were one of the tribes of Israel.

69 posted on 11/06/2001 12:16:23 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I would have to agree on Rabbi Akiba's assessment in that particular exchange.
70 posted on 11/06/2001 12:17:15 PM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
And I, in turn, didn't say you said to hate them. I was referring to radical Islamic fanatics who won't be satisfied until the Jews are erased from the earth. We, as Christians, owe them our support and not to turn our backs on them.
71 posted on 11/06/2001 12:17:31 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Thank you for this posting.

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, all so VERY TRUE. Jesus of Nazareth as a child showed a profound understanding of scripture. He, the author of creation chose not only to inspire Hebrew prophets but to visit the descendants of Abraham directly. Who, but the author of scripture could expound with perfect precision upon its meaning?

To understand the message of Jesus Christ fully one has to understand that His message to ALL of humanity is/was built upon the foundation of truth which had already been revealed to the Jews. From the time of the garden onward God had faithfully provided examples of the need for an atoning sacrifice for sin. Each passover lamb has been a picture of 'the lamb' who would be slain for the sins of His people, His creation, us. It was God's plan from the beginning of time. It has been entirely wrong to direct anamosity toward the Jewish religious leadership................

Did Isaiah not prophecy that "the stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone and it is wonderous in our eyes?" Did not Peter declare that this scripture applied directly to the Sanhedrin? Did not Paul make clear in the letters the predominately Jewish church of His day that it was God's plan to extend mercy to non-Jews through their rejection of the 'chief cornerstone'? Does not Paul's letter to the Romans clearly indicate that there will be a time in the future when ALL of Israel will come to recognize their Messiah?

No, historically many who thought they were serving God by persecuting the Jews were actually heretics of the worst kind. They are and were the one's referred to in the Book of Revelations as 'the synagogue of Satan'. The Catholic religious monster which arose out of the supposed 'conversion of Constantine' has done much to blind the eyes of Jews who would have possibly recognized the divine nature of 'The Man from Galilee'. Who can honestly say that the Vatican has not reproduced the very religious institutional abomination which many of the teaching of Jesus addressed?

The main misunderstanding which caused the Jewish religious leaders to not percieve their time of visitation involved a limited understanding of the Hebrew prophets. The Jewish theology has never fully percieved that there are TWO roles that the Jewish Messiah would/will accomplish. They were looking for 'The Conquering King' and not percieving that His first visitation would be as the 'Suffering Savior'.

At the end of the tribulation period which is coming upon the entire earth the 'hope of Israel' will be accomplished and 'all the enemies of God will become His footstool.' He will rule the nations with a rod of iron from Jerusalem and "the knowledge of The Lord will cover the earth, as the oceans cover the sea."

72 posted on 11/06/2001 12:18:00 PM PST by God_isa_Jew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333; BibChr
The article is mostly fair but there seems to be a presuppositional weakness in the author's mind to which the Catholic Church might object:

Jesus didn't "pick up" on any element of Pharisaism nor did he proof-text. To accuse the author of proof-texting is to deny his divinity.

73 posted on 11/06/2001 12:18:37 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Thanks, interesting info! :)
74 posted on 11/06/2001 12:19:31 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Read Hebrews. You can't have two covenants.

I don't know why you say that. Most scholars I have heard about recognize seven separate covenants. Since they are established with different groups they are all in force at the same time.

I'm not sure I can name them all. There's the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and Christian. I'm missing one.

But that doesn't have anything to do with what we owe the Jews. Look at Romans 11-13. Paul lays it out that we owe them a debt of gratitude.


75 posted on 11/06/2001 12:20:36 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Well, in all fairness, I think the article did state that Jesus had a unique position as the Only Begotten Son of G-d. I don't think the author was trying to slight Jesus. But, thanks for your input. :)
76 posted on 11/06/2001 12:21:55 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
I think Yeshua would not agree with either. He would have selected:

Shema, Israel, Adonai elohenu. Adonai ehad.

Mark 12:29.


77 posted on 11/06/2001 12:42:04 PM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Well, here's my take, amigo: tendentious.

There y'go. (c;

Biblical Christianity message board

78 posted on 11/06/2001 12:42:27 PM PST by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Hey, I knew what you said without looking it up! With all due respect, Jesus hit it on the nose better than the two rabbis. I was only choosing between the two that were offered in their debate.
79 posted on 11/06/2001 12:51:16 PM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Jesus as a Jew...and Martin Luther as a Roman Catholic--buggy whips in the Amish religion forever too!

Yeah George Washington as an English officer--what happened?

80 posted on 11/06/2001 12:51:53 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-303 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson