Part 7. Historical Reality Concerning What Yahushua and His Followers Believed

To better understand the faith that the Bible teaches, we need to go back to the time of Yahushua and Paul. First century Judaism was dominated by a group called the Pharisees whose affairs and leadership were both supported by, and limited by, the Roman government.

The first issue that must be addressed is the term "Pharisee" itself. A modern dictionary (46) gives two definitions:

1. A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.
2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.

Our western culture equates #1 above with #2. Pharisees are "the bad guys," and the beliefs they held were wrong too. After all, didn't "Jesus" call them hypocrites, evil, sons of snakes, etc.? Unfortunately, this view is the product of hundreds of years of anti-Jewish bigotry and stands in contrast with the facts of history and the Bible

Typical examples of Christian teaching in this area can be found in the works of the famous apologist and author, J. Dwight Pentecost, in his famous book, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. In showing how Yeshua taught different doctrine than the Pharisees, and instructed the people to follow His teachings and not theirs, Pentecost supports his argument with the words of two other Christian writers:

Pentecost, quoting J.W. Shepard writes:

"Specimens of these discourses in the Mishna and Gemara (the two sections of the Talmud) show that they were dull collections of disjointed comments on many subjects. Their teachings were narrow, dogmatic, second hand, having no freshness, force, or power to move the heart to emotion or the will to action ... The sermon of Jesus quite to the contrary, with a swift intuitive insight pierced to the depths of the human heart, stirring the concience and moving the will to action. ... Such words of grace fell from His lips, spoken in such a gracious manner, that the world said: "Never man spoke as this man."

Pentecost, quoting Frederick Farrar writes:

Much has been written lately in exaltation of the Talmud. Now the literature to which the general name of Talmud is given, occupies twelve immense folio volumes; and it would be strange indeed if out of this vast encyclopaedia of a nation's literature, it were not possible to quote a few eloquent passages, some beautiful illustrations, and a considerable number of just moral sentiments which sometimes rise to the dignity of noble thoughts. But what seems to me absolutely indisputable, and what any one may judge of for himself, is that all that is really valuable in the Talmud is infinitesimally small compared with the almost immeasurable rubbish heaps in which it is imbedded. (47)

Let's make it clear -- Pentecost, Shepard and Farrar leave no doubt as to the Christian position on the Talmud (the teachings of the Pharisees). They all agree that:

1. The teachings of "Jesus" differered completely from those of the Talmud
2. There are no moral teachings of value compared to those of "Jesus"
3. The words of the Talmud were "second hand" in value
4. There is precious little in the Talmud of worth

For centuries the Church has held this opinion of the Talmud. Historically, whenever there has been Jewish persecution at the hands of Christians, "Talmud bonfires" were often a common part of the events.

There is a two-fold problem with the common Christian opinion of the writings of the Pharisees:

1. Few Christians have ever looked for themselves to see what the Talmud says.
2. Even fewer would know how to approach these texts as they are not written in a "western" style of literature. (Hence the comments by J.W. Shepard that it is, "dull collections of disjointed comments on many subjects." Like all ignorant people, he condemns what he doesn't understand.)

The Talmud is indeed the quintessential piece of Pharisaic literature, most of it predating Yahushua. Examining some of its teachings and comparing them to the words of the Messiah, (48) we find something quite contrary to what Christianity teaches:

A comparison of the verses in this table (which is by no means exhaustive) reveals;

a) Much of what Yahushua said was not "original"

b) Yahushua directly quoted and supported the teachings of the Talmud

How then do Christian teachers and authors get away with such false statements as the ones quoted by Mr. Pentecost?

For one thing, who is going to challenge them?

Christians have no need to, as they are comfortable being fed whatever comes from the pulpit that supports what they're told to believe. Jews who do not follow Yahushua certainly have no desire to build a case that supports His Messiahship. Who does that leave to tear away the cloak of deception? Fortunately, God has a remnant, and truth has a way, albeit slowly, of finding its way into view.

Yahushua was a Pharisee

Referring to Yahushua as a Pharisee would sound utterly ridiculous to just about any Christian. Unfortunately, this shows how far removed Christianity is from the historical reality of the Bible, the Messiah and the faith of His earliest followers.

Yahushua did criticize some of the Pharisees for not practicing what they preached, for hypocrisy, and for making the "fences" they placed around the Torah greater than the Torah's commands themselves. (Though there is nothing inherently wrong with making such "fences" as Yahushua did this Himself.) What Christians don't understand is that vehement criticism was common between the various factions within Pharisaism, and was considered a normal part of discourse.

For instance, the Pharisees themselves noted that not all among themselves were good, in fact saying there were "seven types of Pharisees." (49) As for Yahushua calling some of them names such as "sons of Satan," this was not unfamiliar dialogue among religious Jews at that time. The same term was used by the disciples of Rabbi Hillel to describe a disciple of Rabbi Shammai, just before Yahushua's time. (50)

It is critical to note that Yahushua never rebuked the Pharisees for teaching Torah correctly, a good example being Matthew 23:23. Here Yahushua says to them, "It's fine if you want to add things to your lives that you feel bring you closer to God." (Tithing on dill and cumin were not required by Torah). But He then says, you should keep what the Torah says is required first, then do these optional things." Yahushua did not tell them to stop doing Torah -- He told them to do it right.

Yahushua not only quoted and supported Pharisaic teaching, as seen in the chart above, He also upheld the religious authority of the Pharisees. He told the people to obey the Pharisees, as they "sat in Moses' seat," meaning their authority came from God. (Matthew 23:1-3)

When Yahushua spoke, He often was expressing His opinion on an existing interpretation of the Scriptures, supporting someone else's opinion. Much of Judaism's doctrine was "worked out" before Yahushua's time by the Pharisaic schools of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai. For instance, in Matthew 7:12, we find His famous "golden rule":

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Yahushua is reiterating what Hillel had taught years before:

"What you do not like, do not do to anyone else; this is the whole Torah and everything else is explanation." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabat 31a)

In most cases, Yahushua upheld the teachings of Hillel (who was the grandfather of Gamliel, who instructed Paul). Hillel's opinions were actually considered more "liberal." On rare occasion, such as His ruling on divorce (Matthew 5:31), Yahushua upheld the teachings of Shammai, which taught more to what may be called "the letter of the Law."

Examples of where Yahushua agreed with Hillel are found in all four of the Gospels (51)

The evidence is overwhelming. The Talmud, when compared to Scripture, shows that Yahushua upheld its Pharisaic teachings. Scripture shows He also upheld the Pharisaic authority in religious matters. When properly understood, (bias aside) His criticism of the Pharisees was within the framework of Pharisaic discussion with them as they were always critical of themselves. (This could best be called "a family argument" -  the Talmud is loaded with such a wide array of opinions -- it is known as "arguing for the Kingdom," or, "arguing for the cause of HaShem [God].)

History and the Bible show that Yahushua identified Himself as a Pharisee. In fact, when the Pharisees went out to question John the Baptist about who John was, he said that one among THEM (the Pharisees) was the Messiah to come (John 1:26-27).

Yahushua was a Jew, a rabbi and a Pharisee, who wore tzitzit (Numbers 15:37-41), always upheld Torah, often quoted Talmud, and was Orthodox in His practices.

Is this the "Jesus" of Christianity?

Sha'ul (Paul) was a Pharisee

Returning to Paul, (properly named Sha'ul), he also read, understood, taught, and wrote about the Hebrew Scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah from a Pharisaic Hebrew mindset. Paul was personally taught by Gamliel -- a Pharisee and the head of the Sanhedrin -- probably for the purpose of taking over the Sanhedrin's leadership, which would have made Paul the equivalent of "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

Paul said he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews," a term that means he was not a Hellenistic Jew (Jews that had largely abandoned much of the Torah in order to be "more accepted" in the Greek/Roman culture they lived in). Scripture shows that none of this changed when Paul became a believer -- he remained a Torah observant rabbi and a Pharisee until the day he died. Twenty years into his ministry for Yahushua, he still identified himself as a Pharisee. (Acts 23:6, 26:5) Once you shake off the anti-Jewish mindset that "Pharisee = bad," then the supposed conflict vanishes.

All of this creates a serious problem for those who wish to understand Paul's epistles today.

How can a Christian, reading Paul's letters, in the 20th century westernized, anti-Torah culture and religion that he has been raised and taught in, understand the deep meanings of Second Temple-period Jewish religious texts, written by a first century Rabbi, Pharisee and advanced Torah expert?

And you wonder why Paul sounds so confusing, hard to follow, and even contradictory to many people who read him. For instance, in the Christian Bible commentary, "The Daily Study Bible Series; the Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians," by William Barclay, it says of Galatians 3:19-22:

"This is one of the most difficult passages Paul ever wrote, so difficult that there are almost three hundred different interpretations of it!" (52)

I would suggest that there are 300 interpretations not-grounded-in-Torah.

Make that 301 with Barclays. He goes on to say that God gave the law for the sake of transgressions. True, but then Barclay says what this means is, "... where there is no law there is no sin. A man cannot be condemned for doing wrong if he did not know that it was wrong." (53) This is a nice sentiment, but not what the Torah, or Yahushua or Paul teaches. God provided sacrifice to make atonement for sins done in ignorance of Torah, thus showing there was sin in ignorance to the Law that needed atoning for. Paul supported Torah when he taught that those ignorant of the Law stand condemned with those aware of it (Romans chapters 1-3).

Oddly enough, in the same Galatians commentary by Barclay, he correctly states that,

"... we have to remember that Paul was a trained Rabbi, an expert in the scholastic methods of the Rabbinic academies. He could, and did, use their methods of argument, which would be completely cogent to a Jew, however difficult it may be for us to understand them." (54)

Peter warned that Paul was hard to understand. Peter also wrote that there would be those who would twist Paul's words to mean something wrong. What kind of people would do that? Peter said these are lawless men (2 Peter 3:17). By "lawless," did Peter mean people who were without Roman law? Of course not. Lawless, in this religious context (understanding Paul's writings and other Scriptures correctly), refers to being without God's Law - the Torah. Peter is saying that those who twist Paul's writings are those who don't have (know/follow) Torah. They will approach these letters, in (often willful) ignorance, and incorrectly interpret them.

This is the legacy of the Christian church. As early as 187, the Christian Bishop Iraneus counted twenty different varieties of Christianity. By the year 384, Epiphanius counted eighty. (55) The lack of grounding in Torah allowed for every heresy to creep in under the guise of "love" and "liberty." The "New Testament" Scriptures warn about this in several places. Of course, no group who thinks they are "right with God," (especially if they are the "dominant voice") would consider themselves to be the false teachers spoken of in these texts.

Continue to Part 8.