Analyzing-the-Gospels-by-Xus-Casal-

http://beneiavraham.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Analyzing-the-Gospels-by-Xus-Casal-January-2017-1.pdf


However, among the many historical situations that caused the separation between Christianity and Judaism, one of the major events was certainly the Third Jewish revolt against Rome (c. 132-136 CE), where Jews and Yeshua’s followers - as one single religious group - were massacred in a genocide56 and expelled from Jerusalem. 57 In that time separation began due to Bar Kokhva’s arrogant Messianic self-proclamation. 58 This leader of the rebellion was such a bloodthirsty dictator59 that even “commanded Christians to be severally punished if they did not deny Yeshua as Messiah and blaspheme him” (Justin, First Apology 31:5-6); thus causing Christians to completely depart from the tree that had been nourishing them. The so called Fathers of the Church began to see Christianity as a religion for gentiles (Origen contra Celsus VII:26), and they perceived Judaism sometimes as an exclusive religion for Jews, and sometimes as a withered religion, replaced by Christianity. The Jewish Rabbi Yaqov Emden saw in Christianity (as defined in the NT) a Noahide movement (i.e. a movement for gentiles, but within the rules and endorsement of Judaism) which broke down and went astray because of a lack of Jewish leadership. We will come back to this topic later (in chapter 10; see also note 110).

(3.1) Are the Gospels missionary? t has been widely assumed that the three synoptic Gospels were created with the intention to evangelize, or to convert people to Christianity. That cannot be the case because: (a) Christianity as the religion we know today didn’t exist when the Gospels were written down; the sect of the Nazarenes belonged to Judaism. (b) 90% of the material in the Gospels are preachings, sermons and details about Yeshua that prove nothing of his Messiaship; so evangelization cannot be the main purpose of the books. (c) If they were intended for converting a Jewish audience, their content is homiletically debatable and easily refutable, and if to heathens, the content is meaningless since they didn’t care about the Jewish Bible. The ‘evidences’ only make sense to the initiated. (d) Specifically Luke, in the introduction of his book declares that his intention is to organize traditions about Yeshua that were being taught among the believers (Lk 1:3). In the following paragraphs let’s briefly examine how each Gospel presents its content and what can we learn about the writers.
(3.2) About Mark Of the Synoptic Gospels, Mark is the earliest. Messianics refer to the Gospel of Mark as the Besorah al Pi haPeshat (the Gospel according to its literal level of interpretation), and I understand why. Mark is the most straight-forward of the Gospels. He simply records the tradition as he received it without adding any further opinion or midrashic explanation. 60 Mark’s Greek is very poor, actually the worst as far as Greek Biblical literature is concerned, and at times it makes use of common Latin words (5:9; 6:27, 37; 12:42; 15:16). There are few instances in the Koine manuscripts where the narration is interrupted with clarifications of Jewish words or Jewish tradition (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22). 61 This indicates that probably the author and the final audience of the Greek manuscripts were gentiles; maybe Romans. It can’t be missed that in Mark there are many accounts where Yeshua’s references to the Tanakh62 are taken from63 Aramaic Sources64 (cf. 1:15; 4:12, 9:47-48; 12:1-12)
As mentioned above, the traditional view states that the Gospel was the product of Mark recording the sayings of Keifa (a.k.a Peter). This is very difficult to demonstrate but a few scholars65 find traces of this claim in the confused Markan geography. The Gospel gives a detailed and precise list of the geographical locations where Yeshua travelled, but it’s very complicated to make sense of the journeys and trace them into a map, especially in the 60 There are a few exceptions (such as verse 15:28) where later scribes added verses from Luke or Matthew, but those verses are not part of the original text. 61 It also happens in John, in an absurd incident in which a Samaritan teaches Yeshua that Messiah means “anointed” (Jn 4:25). One concludes that these clarifications were added by translators. 62 TaNaKh, acronym for: Torah + Neviim + Ketuvim; i.e. the Hebrew Bible. 63 His quotes agree or follow the same style with the Targumim. 64 After the reading of the Torah in the Synagogue, it was customary since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah to give or read Aramaic interpretations (i.e. Targumim) (Neh 8:8). Targum means ‘translation’. 65 Prof. Richard Bauckham, ‘Mark’s Geography and the origin of Mark’s Gospel’. I 15 Galilean chapters; one could easily say the places are chaotic and even erroneous. The solution comes when we don’t think of Mark’s itinerary in cartographic terms – after all, he more than likely didn’t have a map or reference books – instead he had a functional cognitive map of the area which is the way he (and every common people of that time) perceived their environment.Today’s mental maps are very contaminated with the cartographic maps, but in the past that was not the case, especially in areas where one travelled regularly. Ask different people to describe for you an itinerary from one place to another without a map, and the answers will surprisingly vary based on their personal orientation point and how they perceive their environment.
Yeshua met Keifa and his first disciples while they were fishing in the Sea of Galilee (1:16, 20), and the first half of Mark’s Gospel is largely located around the shores of this lake. Only in other Gospels we learn of places beyond the shore. Yeshua travels the lake (4:35-36), even separates himself from the oppressing multitudes getting into a boat (3:9, 4:1), and their common meal was fish (probably Sardines). The point being made is that the Gospel of Mark seems to be composed by a fisherman of Kefar-Nahum who offered a mental functional map of those places he was familiar with and Yeshua used to pass by.  p15
(3.4) About Matthew Both Matthew and Luke supplement Mark from written or oral sources (cf. Yosef Klausner, Yeshua miNatzaret p. 80). Matthew adds new traditions and new sermons. Furthermore, he develops these stories, returning to them from a retrospective point of view, giving them homiletic values, similar to what the Midrashim do with the Torah text.

It’s especially notorious the sermon of the Mount, where Yeshua cites (at times word by word) teachings of the Pharisees – especially from the school of Hillel, which shows us Yeshua's Jewish background. This also makes us consider the author of the Gospel: tradition says it was originally composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic) by Mattai, one of the twelve disciples. We can’t prove that, but it’s interesting how this book was attributed specifically to him practically from its inception. On the other hand (we already talked about it) some believed the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” was the original of Matthew, also named “the Gospel of the Twelve”.

 Apparently, Matthew seeks to demonstrate that Yeshua is the Messiah by quoting several verses of the Tanakh which he says were fulfilled in Yeshua’s life-time. However, if that was his intention he would have focused on the attributes or events that evidence that Yeshua fits the criteria for being Messiah; he would do so using literal exegesis on actual Messianic prophecies, so that other Jews could not deny. But instead, he focuses on sermons and parables that demonstrate nothing of Yeshua’s Messiaship66 and as a matter of fact most of the verses he quotes from the Tanakh are not messianic prophecies, or are not prophecies at all, or simply, they do not speak of Messiah in their literal meaning. 67 So why does he quote them?

On its use and attribution of Scriptural quotes to Yeshua (in form of Pesharim, see note 68), the book presupposes a background and understanding of Jewish homiletics by both the writer and the reader, and consequently it expects the new reader to develop the exegetic connection 66 Even his introductory genealogy is filled with homiletic riddles, arranging it intentionally in three sets of 14 names; being that 14 is the Gematria (numerical value) of David דוד. 67 One of the famous stories is when Herod slew all the children under 2 of Bethlehem and the coasts nearby (Mt 2:16). Matthew claims that this event fulfilled the words of the Prophet Jeremiah, but if you read the Prophet’s verse in context, it is about Israel’s exile; not about Messiah’s birth (cf. Jer 31:15-16). 16 between the Biblical reference and the narration that is taking place. Taking those references as actual or literal prophecies simply damages the composition and causes the Orthodox Jew to reject the book. No wonder why Messianics say that Matthew is known as “Besorah al pi haDrash” (the Gospel according to its homiletic level), because in deed one has to understand that Matthew delves into the Pesher68 (profound visionary interpretation) of the verses.

(3.5) About Luke Luke is a narration consisting of two books: Luke and Acts. Although anonymous, the idea that Luke wrote this Gospel is based on internal hints of the N”T. Paul talks about a certain Luke who was his close companion (2Ti 4:11; Col 4:14; Flm 1:24) and there are several brief sections in the book of Acts where the author speaks of Paul’s travels in first-person perspective, as if he was a direct eyewitness of those events (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1- 28:16). However, the author never identifies himself as Luke, so we are still relying on Oral Tradition. He calls his Gospel “a diegesis” (i.e. a narration of legends) and claims to be a receiver of those traditions and not an eyewitness (1:2); he had been collecting different (written and oral) material about Yeshua – which he says is reliable (1:1) – and his main purpose was to organize it (Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1). The book is addressed to someone called Theophilus – which some scholars claim (only because of the name) to be a Roman authority. However, there are two things to take into consideration: (a) There are Jews called Theophilus – for instance Theophilus ben Anas; the High Priest. (b) Theophilus in Greek means “lover of God” and it might refer to any believer in general.

 Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels: Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels: Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels: Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels: Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels: Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels: Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels:
Messianics say Luke is the Besorah al Pi haRemez (Gospel according to its alluded meaning). I can’t find a good reason for it, since Luke uses the same techniques of Matthew, and Matthew uses Remez as well. Neither he speaks of Yeshua in hints, quite the opposite. If at all, I would suggest that the book in itself is an allusion to other Gospels:



68 Pesher is a method of personal midrashic revelation, especially used in the Qumran community but also in the Zohar and other Midrashim. Its name comes from Eccl 8:1 and from Daniel’s interpretations [pesharim] of dreams, and is based on the idea that every verse in the Bible conceals a deeper message for the present generation that can be revealed by the righteous Master (cf. George Brooke: Qumran Pesher: Toward the Redefinition of a Genre. In: Revue de Qumran 10, 483-503). The Essenes (ebionites) would probably add that all the prophets spoke only of Yemot haMashiakh – the days of Messiah (see Sanhedrin 99a [notice it doesn’t say “Messiah” but “days of Messiah”; which includes all his footsteps]). Being that Pesher is a form of Midrash, there are Midrashim that reflect its characteristics. Let’s see the following example: A Midrash (Tanhuma Toldot) says that Messiah will be greater than Moses based on the verse (Nm 11:12): “that you say to me, carry them in your bosom”. While the verse doesn’t speak of Messiah at all, and there seems to be no context for such a claim, this is a deduction based on homiletic study. Once Rabbi Huna was attacked by a mad dog and he stripped off his clothes and ran away, and according to the Gemara he fulfilled the verse: “wisdom preserves the life of him who has it” (Yoma 84a). Similarly, the Zohar applies to Shimon bar Yohai the verse: 'you shall rest in peace, and arise again for your lot at the end of the days’ (Zohar III:296b) – even though we know the text is talking to Daniel. When Rabbi Yohanan and his friend Ilfa decided to leave Torah study to find a job because of poverty, they fulfilled the verse: ‘there shall be no needy among you’ (Taanit 21a). Rabbi Israel Ber Oddeser of Breslev said that Rebbe Nahman fulfilled the words of Isaiah: “The world will be filled with the knowledge of God” (Song of Redeption pg 31-32). In modern times, Rabbis and Kabbalists use Pesher for example to identify Adolf Hitler with Amalek, or Edom with Christianity (cf. Ephraim Oshry, “the Annihilation of Lithuanian Jewry”, p. 172; Abarbanel on Ovadiah)



(3.6) About John John is very interesting because collectively describes Yeshua’s debaters as “the Jews” (as if Yeshua himself was not a Jew). This lead to many scholars to believe that the Gospel of John is highly anti-Semite. But the content is radically the opposite. It’s in this Gospel that Yeshua says: “salvation is of the Jews”. The Gospel uses several methods of Jewish Scriptural interpretation and is aware of both Judea’s geography (Jn 5:2) and Jewish literature (such as the Solomonic books); the main source of the text is therefore Jewish. So the better way to solve this paradox is to realize that the term ‘Yehudi’ 69 can refer to Jews (those who practice Judaism) or to Judeans (those who lived in Judea, unlike Samaritans or Galileans). Contextually speaking, most of the times the “Yehudim” appear in the Gospel of John, it refers to Judeans70 and their mindset and not to the Jews in general (comp Jn 7:1, 11:7-19). About John’s historical accuracy, there are two issues: First, the Gospel is mystical in essence (or spiritual71 if you prefer that term). And second, it’s a completely different tradition.

John is mystical in essence: it begins with a mystical poem and continues with extensive sermons filled with mystical riddles, and the seemingly historical events in the book are based on seven signs that were done on certain Jewish holidays. John challenges us to see beyond the text; 72 it’s obviously not meant for historical accuracy. Based on the metaphorical expression: “the beloved disciple” (Jn 21:20-24) a tradition attributes the book to John the apostle, but this is simply another spiritual riddle that someone took literally. Of course, the author never identifies himself, and the chances that John actually wrote it are very few. The estimated time of writing is very late (80-110 CE), and the narration has traces of having been written by more than one hand: the Greek text changes its style sometimes and (at least the version we have) contains a great number of late glosses. 73 The words: “This is the disciple which testifies…. And we know that his testimony is true” (Jn 21:24), can be seen as an allusion to the plural authorship of the book. In fact there’s an oral tradition that says that the book is a compilation of revelations that the disciples gathered together after fasting for three days; 74 which brings me to the next point.

 It’s a completely different tradition: One could say that any similarity with the synoptic Gospels is just the confirmation of a reliable oral tradition. While all the gospels serve a theological and religious purpose, so historical accuracy is just secondary, it is evident that John was intended as a mere spiritual book. For centuries Christian theologians have tried to harmonize the Gospels (some better than others), but it is evident and undeniable that at times John contradicts the Synoptic. 75 The contradictions are intentional though, serving a 69 Gr. Iουδαĩοσ; Ar. יהודאי. 70 cf. Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 38, pp. 1-56. cf. Shaye Cohen, "Ioudaios" 219. 71 Even the Fathers of the Church call it: “a spiritual Gospel” (cf. Eusebious: Ecclesiastical History 6:14:7). 72 That’s also a characteristic of Thomas, which in no way was intended as a historical book. 73 such as 5:3b-4, 7:53-8:11 and the whole chapter 21 – which presupposes that Keifa had already died by that time. 74 “When his fellow disciples and elders were urging him, he said: Fast with me for three days beginning today, and whatever will have been revealed to us, let us recount it with each other” (Muratorian Canon; cf. Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. I, p. 107). 75 I mean from a critical point of view. 18 theological purpose. But of course, one of the rules of critical analysis is that the earlier material is likely more reliable.    p18

- In John Yeshua cleanses the Temple at the beginning of his ministry which lasts at least one year more. In the other Gospels the disturbance at the Temple was one of the major reasons for his detention and execution. It happened, necessarily, at the end of his ministry. - In the synoptic gospels Yeshua meets his two first disciples – Andres and Keifa – in a fishing after his 40 days fasting in the desert (Mrk 1:16; Mt 4:18; Lk 5:3). In the book of John he meets Andres and another disciple one day after his baptism, and Keifa is brought later by Andres (Jn 1:35-41). - In the synoptic Gospels Yeshua is arrested after Pesakh76 (Mrk 14:12-14,26,46; Lk 22:15), he clearly celebrates a Passover meal before his detention. But in John he is executed before Pesakh in order to make of Yeshua ‘the Lamb of God’ (Jn 1:29; 18:28; 19:31). - In the synoptic gospels Yeshua prays with suffering: let this cup pass from me (Mt 26:39); he is in such an agonic tension that he sweats drops of blood (Lk 22:44). But in John there’s no mention of suffering; on the contrary, Yeshua is in total control of the situation (Jn 18:4) and when the guards come to arrest him, they fall before him (Jn 18:6). - The main theme of the synoptics is the kingdom of God. In John it seems the main focus is Yeshua himself, who incarnates the Torah and Messiah's Soul.

Don’t take me wrong, I’m not saying there’s no truth in John. What I mean to say is that (a) it narrates an independent oral account and (b) the book is focused on concealed truths – deeper and mystical things – which should be our focus too when we read it, instead of taking everything at face value. From a critical point of view, chances are many that its historical narration is a legend (aggadah) that serves merely to connect one teaching with the next.77 It perfectly fits the name given by Messianics: Besorah al Pi haSod (the Gospel according to its secret meaning). This way, each Gospel corresponds to one of the four levels of Jewish exegesis. 78

In John’s narration there are two important characters: one of them is the beloved disciple; a figure that appears after the eleventh chapter resting at his master’s chest (Jn 13:23), staying where others run away (19:26), arriving to the sepulchre faster than Keifa (20:4), and who remains until Yeshua comes back (21:23). 79 He’s a metaphor for the perfect believer and the Messianic community. The other figure is Nicodemus, a leader Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin (7:50) who incarnates in the Gospels the not-so-well known group of “righteous Pharisees” against whom Yeshua does not target80 (cf. Lk 13:31). His mention by name probably indicates a real 1st century historical figure of renown. We will talk about it

76 Pesakh; the Hebrew for Passover. 77 Such is the case in the book of the Zohar, where the narration is an Aggadah about Shimon bar Yohai and his students coming up to Jerusalem, and meeting different people in the path. We know that the Zohar was composed by more than one hand in different time periods; yet, we call it ‘the Holy Zohar’ and attribute all of it to Rav Shimon. 78 Pshat, Remez, Drash and Sod; called by the acronym of PaRDeS (which means paradise). 79 Tradition says it’s John, and other critical theologians argue that he might be Eleazar (Lazarus), who is the one of whom the Gospel says “Behold how he loved him” (Jn 11:5, 36). However, the evidence indicates that this is not the work of one individual. 80 There’s the popular and yet erroneous belief among Christians that the term “Pharisee” equals ‘hypocrite’ and/or ‘legalist’ because Yeshua attacked them all. Such a claim is not supported by historical or religious external sources, and not even by the Gospels themselves, as I will show later.


The Gospels make constant allusions to the religious and political situation of Israel in the first Century, but the information they offer is quite insufficient for building a proper perspective. So let’s begin to make sense of each element. • ‘The Second Temple era’ began when the king Cyrus of Persia allowed the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple (Ezr 1:1-3) (515 BCE – 70 CE). 81 • The rebuilding of the Temple and the cleansing of pagan assimilation was possible due to the efforts of Nehemiah (Neh 3:38, 4:15) and Ezra the Scribe (Ez 7:6, 10), who created the ‘Great Assembly’, 82 canonized the Hebrew Bible83 and began to popularize the relatively new BateiKnesset (congregational houses; later known as Synagogues). • From the time of Ezra and Nehemiah until the time of the Zugot, 84 the Torah was taught and interpreted to the citizens by the Scribes (Sofrim) (cf. Neh 8:3, 7-8) – term that became synonymous with teachers, sages and scholars – and the Temple was ruled by the priests, in lack of a Judean monarchy. The students of the Scribes were highly respected and known as Hassidim (pious ones)

Alexander the Great conquered Israel (c. 330 BCE) and after his death his vast territory was divided by his officers. From these grew a wicked offshoot: Antioch Epiphanes (167 BCE) who wanted to eradicate Judaism and impose Hellenism by murdering every family that observed Torah and by desecrating the Holy Temple85 . But Judah Maccabee86 , son of Matityahu the priest, led a revolt against the Greeks that surprisingly succeeded, rejecting secularism and purifying the Temple. The dedication of the Temple is commemorated every year in the festival of Hannukah87 .

It was about this time that the period of the Zugot began, when the Hassidim Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yohanan became the heads of the Sanhedrin and declared the impurity of the pagan nations (cf. Shabbat 15a-b). • But the story doesn’t end there. The world was still in war, and the Hellenes were yet over Israel, so Yonathan, brother of Judah Maccabee, in order to protect the Jews began to make diplomatic negotiations with the enemies; reason by which the ruler of the Seleucid kingdom (Alexander Balas; 150 BCE) made him the political leader and high-priest. 88 Sadly, his negotiations with the heathens became the cause of his death. 89 It was his successor and brother Shimon who gained the independence of Judea and purified Israel from secularism (143-142 BCE) 90 , hence being chosen as the next High Priest and governor of Israel, pending the advent of a rightful prophet (Elijah or Messiah) (1Mac. 14:41-42). Here begins the Hasmonean period. • The son of Shimon, Yohanan Hyrcanus, in a terrible mistake, decided to force by sword the conversion of the Idumeans; his descendants became thirsty of power, to the point of incarcerating their own family members and striving for the throne in civil wars; this caused the Roman empire to easily take the control of Israel (63 BCE). The Hasmonean bureaucracy was filled with men of Greek names, and the dynasty eventually became very Hellenized. Then, an Idumean descendant – Herod the Great – brought the Hasmonean dynasty to an end, having been proclaimed the new king of the Jews by the Roman senate91 (37 BCE). All the above reflects how the Jewish people were exposed to different philosophies and politics; thus causing a major diversity in schools of thought and political interests. Now we can enter into the 1st Century.




About 20 years before Common Era, the king Herod would remodel the Temple making it bigger. 82 Cf. Avot 1:1; Berakhot 33a; Megilah 2a, 17b. 83 Cf. Bava Bathra 15a. It was known as “Torah, Prophets and Hagiographra” (B. b. 13b); or “Torah, Prophets and Psalms” (Lk 24:22); acronym: Tanakh; alternatively: Scripture (Miqra). 84 Zugot refers to a five generations period during the time of the Second Temple in which the Sanhedrin was overseen by a couple of rulers known as Nasi (president) and Av Beit-Din (vice-president of the court). 85 cf. 1 Maccabees 1: 5-10, 37-39, 54-57; 3:1-3. Josephus “War of the Jews” 1:1-2. 86 cf. 1 Maccabees 3:1-3. Josephus, “Antiquities” 12:7.7. 87 cf. Shabbat 21b; 2Mac 1:18+. 88 cf. 1 Maccabees 10:20. 89 cf. Josephus “Antiquities” 13:5.10; 1Macabees 12: 46-49, 13:19.

(4.2) Geographical situation 1 st Century Israel was divided into different provinces: • In the North, near Syria (in the area that corresponds to the tribe of Naftali), we have Galilee, where Yeshua mostly lived and taught. Kefar-Nahum and Nazareth belong to it. • On the East side of the river there were gentile (and Roman controlled) areas: Caesarea of Philippi and the Decapolis; an area with ten cities (the land of the Gadarenes and Gergesenes). • At the South of Galilee was Samaria (Ephraim and Menashe’s area), where Yeshua healed ten lepers and visited Yaqov’s well (Gn 33:18-19). • At the South of Samaria was Judea (or Judah), where Roman domination and influence was way stronger. Its capital was Jerusalem; Yeshua went in pilgrimage here for the annual festivals, and stayed at the end of his life for his ministry.

(4.3) The Pharisees Apart from Hellenistic philosophers, Romans, Samaritans and many other individuals, there were three major Jewish movements: (a) The Pharisees (b) the Sadducees (c) The Essenes. 92 • The Pharisees (Perushim) apparently began as a ‘separatist’ party when the aristocracy of the priestly families began to rule arrogantly over Israel, without taking into consideration the house of Judah, of whom it’s written that: “legislator shall not depart from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet” (cf. Gn 49:10)

• Two Pharisees: Shammai and Hillel, ended the Zugot era giving way to the Tannaim period. The only difference between the schools of Hillel and Shammai was in matters of legal normative (known as hallakha), in which Hillel was generally more lenient and Shammai more strict; but in theology they were one and the same (ie. Pharisees). They believed and taught the same traditions as they received them from the ancient Scribes. Among them emerged the ‘sages of Israel’ (HaZaL)

By this time most Scribes (Sofrim) were considered part of the School of Hillel. 93 In the New Testament they are involved in the judgment of Paul, and after debating with the Sadducees they pleaded him not guilty (Acts 23:9). But let’s not forget that there were also Herodian Scribes (scribes that worked for Herod, and consequently for the Romans) (Mt 2:4). •

The New Testament speaks positively of two members of the School of Hillel. One of them Gamaliel (Hillel’s grandson), a sage that is depicted as the Rabbi of Paul (Acts 22:3), and the one who defended the Nazarenes when they were in trouble (Acts 5:34). According to the Talmud he was a saint (tzaddiq) who observed with purity the Torah (cf. Sotah 49a) – and took Shammai’s charge as head of the Pharisees

The second Pharisee that is depicted as a pious person, specifically in the Gospel of John, is Nicodemus, the Pharisee who came to learn from Yeshua, defended him in the false trial and also helped to bury him in the tomb of another rich Pharisee (Jn 7:50-51, 19:40). He very much fits the description of Naqdimon94 --Nicodemus ben Gorion of Ruma, Galilee -- the wealthiest and most respected member of the peace party during the Jewish rebellion of 66, described as a saint. 95 A blur statement96 in the Gemara might evidence that this Nicodemus was in fact a follower of Yeshua. A Baraita (Sanhedrin 43a) says that Yeshu had five disciples who were executed together: two of them named Naqai and Boni, and in the Gemara we are told that “Boni” was Nicodemus’ original name (Taanit 21a)

• In the Shammai group there were sages of good heart, but (because of Shammai being more strict and conservative) some radicals used his school for their political agendas. Especially this is the case of the Qanaim97 (ie. the zealots); a group that rose against anything that seemed to compromise Judaism – that is: Hellenizers, Romans, intermixed marriages… etc) – one of Yeshua’s disciple was called Shimon ‘the Zealot’ (Lk 6:13). Within the zealots there was a terrorist group called the sicarii (the assassins), and in one occasion they killed dozens of Hillel students in order to manipulate the votes to favor Shammai’s decrees98. The historians say during Jerusalem’s fall the Zealots’ behaviour was crueller than the Romans’.

(4.4) The Sadducees • The Sadducees (Tzeduqim) were considered heretics. They were (for the most part) rich people of the priestly family who degenerated into Hellenism and corrupted themselves with the Roman bribes. They were the “Sola-Scriptura” people of their time 99 with their own (materialistic) doctrines. They rejected the Resurrection of the dead, the immortality of the Soul and many other things that (according to their own interpretation) 100 are not directly mentioned in the Written Torah. In fact their interpretation of the Torah was so strict and  literal that the day their code was abolished Israel celebrated a festival (Megilat Taanit 4). The Pharisees had become so loved by the people that the Sadducees felt obligated to observe certain Pharisaic traditions as well. 101

93 cf. Rosh haShana 19a, Yerushalmi Berakhot 1:7. 94 cf. Eiruvin 51b; see Kefar Shikhin (Asochis) in Josephus’ Antiq. 13:337. 95 cf. Josephus, “wars of the Jews” 2:20, 4:3, 9; cf. Levick B, Vespasian, 29-38; Taanit 21a, 19b; Gittin 56a. 96 prof. Yosef Klausner demonstrates (in ‘Yeshu miNatzeret’) that this story is more an Aggadah than an historical event; since the Baraita in Hebrew only says the name of the 5 disciples, while all the story and details that follow are Aggadic additions of the Amoraim in Aramaic. Besides, the later sages dealt with Yeshua and with a Yeshu contemporary of Rabbi Aqiva as if they were one, reason by which there are contradictions in his time period, his parent’s name, and the way he was executed (cf. Sanh 67a, 43a, Shabbat 44b. cf. Ariel Cohen Alloro’s Yimakh Shmo). 97 While they are assumed to be Pharisees, Josephus and the Talmud count those in the later period as a fourth independent party (cf. Antiq. 18:1.1, 6; Gittin 56b). 98 cf. Shabbat 17a. 99 cf. Josephus, “Antiq.” 13:10. 100 cf. Sanhedrin 90b; Josephus Refutatio 13:10

 The New Testament quite often refers the Sadducees as: ‘the chief priests’ – a term that remarks their aristocratic position. They are responsible for Yeshua’s detention (Mt 26). It’s mentioned that the high priests in the false trial of Yeshua were the Sadducees Annas and Qayapha (Jn 18:24). Historians tell us that these two received their position by the Roman governor of Syria. 102 The sages talk about them as wicked and corrupt, who never wanted to abandon their position (cf. Pesakhim 57a) - reason by which a "King of the Jews" would be considered a threat.  The book of Acts mentions the Sadducees working together with the Zealots to stop the Nazarene movement - in their case, because they felt offended with the doctrine of the ‘resurrection of the dead’ [the Nazarenes were claiming that their Rebbe had resurrected, and such a claim was threatening the credibility of the Sadducee's doctrines].103 In fact, a great number of problems recorded in the book of Acts come from the Sadducees

• Paul of Tarsus – a Pharisee son of Pharisees (Acts 23:6) – raised as a former disciple of Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), had apparently embraced a zealot-like philosophy – working under the Sadducees supervision – to imprison the Nazarenes and to kill them if necessary (Acts 8:1, 9:1, 9:13-14, 26:10; Gal 1:14). p22


 The Essenes (Isiyim) were, together with the Pharisees, another branch of Judaism that emerged from the original Hassidim. They, since the Hasmonean period, opposed the corruption in the Temple, and with the time formed separated communities in the desert. There were sub-groups among the Essenes too, but we don’t know much of them because of their seclusion and because their texts are incomplete and abstract. But we know that some of them were known for having Divine revelations of the future,they expected the end of the pagan government, interpreted the Scriptures in an esoteric manner, most were vegetarians and many of their traditions and beliefs were very similar – if not identical – with that of the Pharisees, although their Hallakha (i.e. their way to walk in the Torah) was way more strict. We also know that the House of Hillel was friendly with the Essenes. Before Shammai, the first ‘pair mate’ of Rabbi Hillel was Menahem the Essene. 104 Some scholars theorize that John the Baptist might have been part of an Essene community at some point, but we only have speculations.

In the Gospels (and N”T in general) there are 1 st Century religious expressions and ideas that for centuries remained somehow obscure, but today can be contextualized since they have been found in the Qumran scrolls, attributed to the Essenes.

101 cf. Sanh 33b. 102 cf. Antiquites 20:9. 103 Acts 4:1-2. 104 cf. Hagiga 16b; Antiquities 15:10.5. האיסיי מנחם

CHAPTER 5: Yeshua’s Judaism (5.1) to fulfil or to abolish? orah (a.k.a Pentateuch), has become in most Christian circles something opposed to God’s will. They see the Torah as something that should be avoided, they claim it is legalist, prehistoric, unnecessary... and they refer to it with the derogatory name of “the Law” 105 as something opposed to ‘God’s Grace’. They claim that Yeshua annulled it and replaced it with pure Grace. This predominant view is summed up in the words of the 5th century Christian philosopher Socrates Scholasticus: “When Judaism was changed into Christianity, the obligation to observe the Mosaic law and the ceremonial types ceased”. 106 The claim doesn’t make it true though. This approach makes impossible a reconciliation with Judaism. So what was Yeshua’s real relationship with the Torah? • Yeshua was raised in an orthodox Jewish family and was circumcised on the eighth day. His parents were observant Jews who did everything according to the Torah of Moses (Lk 2:22- 24, 27) and celebrated the Jewish holidays in Jerusalem every year (Lk 2:41-42). Yeshua went on pilgrimage as well, even for lesser and post-biblical festivals, such as Hannuka (Jn 5:1, 10:22).

He said to a Samaritan107 that Salvation is of the Jews (Jn 4:22). He taught from Torah and his disciples called him ‘Rabbi’ (meaning ‘Teacher’; a pharisaic title). He was therefore a good observant Jew. Did he change later? • Do the Gospels depict a Yeshua that has the intention to reject, annul, or replace the Torah of Moses with something else? 108 If we ask him what would he answer? “Do not even think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I didn’t come to abolish but to fulfil” (Mt 5:17). He says that the mere idea should not even pass through our mind. It must be noticed that “fulfil” refers to obedience, 109 to fully obey and to cause others to obey. Fulfilling is the very opposite of ‘abolishing’. Rabbi Yonathan taught: “whoever fulfils the Torah in poverty, his end will be fulfil it in wealth” [i.e. he will be rewarded for his obedience] (Avot 4:9). • Yeshua believed that each single Hebrew letter of the Torah was meaningful. “It is easier for Heaven and Earth pass than one apex of the Torah to fail” (Lk 16:17). “In no way one Yod (י) or one apex from the Torah pass until all be fulfilled” (Mt 5:18). Notice that the Heaven and Earth passing away is a reference to the end of times in Isaiah 51:6, which hasn’t happened yet.

__________________________________________________________________________________
105 Josephus demonstrates that Greek-speaking Jews expanded the meaning the word “nomos” (Law) as to refer the Torah. Josephus defines it as ‘Theocracy’: not only including laws against sin, but also ethical morals, universal love of humans, perseverance, and piety (cf. contra Apion 1:8, 2:15, 17). 106 Socrates Scholasticus; book 5:22. 107 Samaritans (Shamerim) are probably a hybrid of Ephraimites, Menashites and pagans brought to Samaria in the Assyrian deportation (2Kings 17; 2Chr 34:9); they worship in Mount Gezirim instead of Jerusalem and their Torah differs with the Jewish one on the worship place chosen by God. 108 For centuries Judaism has believed this based on Rambam’s words: “he [Yeshua the Christian] caused Israel to be killed by the sword, their remnants to be dispersed and humiliated, the Torah to be switched for something else, and most of the world to worship a god other than the God of Israel” (Hilkhot Melakhim 11:4). There are two options: (a) Rambam refers to the Christian Jesus (Yeshua as he is perceived by Christians and as was misused by the Catholic Inquisition) (b) Or Rambam learnt this by Christians and never read the Gospels by himself. An unbiased reading of the Gospels shows a completely different scenery from what Rambam describes. 109 Despite the Christendom’s attempt to give it a different meaning
_______________________________________________________________________________
• He commanded his disciples to adhere to the Torah of Moses. 110 He said: ‘Whoever breaks one of these little commandments [of the Torah] and teach men to do so, he will be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does and teaches the same will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven’ (Mt 5:19). Our sages taught in the same manner: “Whoever thinks that the Torah is Heavenly except for one verse, because they think that verse was added by Moses, of that person is written (Nm 15:31): he has despised the word of the Lord” (Sanhedrin 99a).

• Yeshua’s love for the Torah is especially notorious when he’s directly asked what the greatest commandment was. He responded with the ‘Shema’ (Mr 12:28-31) “Hear Israel the Lord is your God the Lord is One, and you must love the Lord…etc” (Dt 6:4). Considered the heart of Judaism, it is recited twice per day by all Jews from the moment they are able to speak until their very death. It defines the perfect monotheistic creed of Judaism and the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. Another command is equally important: “Love your neighbor as yourself”, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Hillel, “This is the greatest principle of the Torah”. 111 Once a gentile asked Rabbi Hillel what’s the essence of the Torah, he answered with one single principle: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah; the rest is the commentary. Go and study it" (Shabbat 31a). In the same manner Yeshua taught: “In everything, you do to others what you would have them to do to you, for this sums up the Torah and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12). The similarity of phraseology is not a mere coincidence. 112

(5.2) The ‘You have heard… but I Say’ Antithesis After saying: “I didn’t come to abolish but to fulfil”, the next thing Yeshua does is to teach what we call the ‘Antithesis of the Sermon of the Mount’, which consists in extracting Mussar – i.e. moral principles from the Torah (Mt 5-6). In some cases here Yeshua is imposing ‘fences’ on the commandments, based on the moral principles and ethics inherent in the Torah (which are called ‘Mussar’). Because of the formula: “You have heard… but I say” some believe that Yeshua is attacking the interpretation of the sages (others say: interpretation of men); so “You have heard” refers to the sages of Israel, and “But I say” is a Divine revelation that corrects the sages. Others believe that this is a radical new interpretation of the Bible (never seen before in Judaism); in other words: “You have heard” is the ‘Law’, and “But I say” is the New Covenant that replaces and/or overtakes the Law. 

But both approaches are mistaken. Let’s see the truth of this: (a) ‘But I say’ has its parallel in the Qumran texts, 113 where the rules of different schools are juxtaposed with the expression ‘But we say’ (אומרים אנחנו .( 110 Yaqov Emden (a great authority in Judaism) after quoting Matthew chapter 5 says: ‘It is therefore exceedingly clear that the Nazarene never dreamed of destroying the Torah’ and a few paragraphs before he quoted Paul (Gal 5:3) saying that even according to Paul the circumcised ones are still bound to obey the entire Torah (cf. Emden, Seder Olam Rabba vezuta).  111 sifra, kedoshim 4:12 [89b]; Bereshit Rabbah 24:7. 112 It’s worth to notice that, although in Matthew’s account the Scribe who asks about the greatest command is depicted as someone testing Yeshua, Mark’s account actually describes a friendly attitude and both Yeshua and the Scribe praise each other for their words at the end (Mrk 12:28-34). 113 cf. 4QMMT B55, 65, 68, 73.

(b) Nothing of what Yeshua said in the sermon of the Mount was ‘New’. Rather, everything he said is word by word Pharisaic theology, and that can’t be a coincidence. So, let’s analyze the Antithesis in the Sermon of the Mount.    P25


(5.3) You shall not murder (Mt 5:21) Yeshua teaches that one is not only guilty of murder for literally killing someone, but also for insulting and enraging against his brother, and such person deserves punishment either by the Sanhedrin or by the fire of Gehenna (5:22-25). 114 The statement doesn’t contradict the Torah, since it's based on its ethical principles (cf. Lv 19:17). Similarly the sages taught: ‘he who embarrasses his neighbour openly, it’s as if he spilled blood’ (Bava Metzia 58b) and also: "An evil eye… and hatred of men put one out of the world" (Avot 2:16).

(5.4) Do not commit Adultery (Mt 5:27) Yeshua says that adultery can be committed by lusting after a woman. In this very context he adds that the eye and the right hand can be instruments of sin and is better to cut them off than to go to hell with the full body (Mt 5:27-30). Equally the sages taught: ‘Adultery can be committed with the eyes’ (Vayikra Rabbah 23). And “A man must not have sexual thoughts during the day, so that he would not become unclean wasting his seed at night” (Avodah Zara 20b). As a matter of fact, the Mishna uses a strong and hyperbolic language by saying that the hand of a [Jewish] man that frequently touches his genitals should be chopped off (Nidda 13a), and also: “it is preferable for the belly to be split than going down to the pit of destruction” (Nidda 13b).


(5.5) the certificate of divorce (Mt 5:31) He taught that the valid reason for divorcement is fornication and otherwise the couple is still considered married (Mt 5:31-32). This interpretation is based on a Hebrew word in the Torah: “If a man… has found Ervah [in his wife], he must write for her a Letter of Divorcement” (Dt 24:1). What does ‘Ervah’ mean? Ervah means nudity or pudenda. But can also mean shame or disgrace. Uncovering the Ervah of a woman is an idiom for 'cohabiting' with her (Lv 18:6). It’s from this word that the school of Shammai ruled that “a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found some unseemly thing”, while the school of Hillel interpreted that any reason that causes disgrace or shame to her husband can be a reason of divorcement (Mishna Gittin 90a). This debate took place during Yeshua’s life-time, and he clearly took a side. 115 This is one of the few times, if not the only one, where Yeshua sides with the school of Shammai116 instead of Hillel’s. But of course, this was for Hassidut's sake. He chose the most ideal principle for the members of the messianic kingdom, where our righteousness must go beyond what is legally allowed or forbidden.

 114 ‘Fire of Gehenna’ is ‘the anger of God’ (cf. Is 66:16, 24). Gehenna is the Rabbinic name of the place where the imperfect Soul gets purged after death (Pesakhim 54a). There are seven levels of purification, depending the status of each soul (Sotah 10b). If a soul can’t be purged it falls in the state of Avadon (destruction) (Zohar I:62b Noah; cf. Eiruvin 19a; Pesakhim 118a; Shabbat 33b; Bava Metzia 58b). The ‘fire of Gehenna’ also refers to judgment in this world as well, which is shown in the Great Flood and in Sodom (Midrash Eduyot 2:10; Jud 1:7). 115 It must not be seen as an isolated absolute law; there are other sceneries where divorcement is permitted and/or necessary (cf. Ex 21:11). But that’s beyond the scope of this essay

116 ‘School of Shammai’ does not equal Shammai himself, and neither ‘school of Hillel’ is Hillel himself.

 The Torah allows to swear, in fact it is one of the requirements in the investigation of an adulterous woman (Nm 5:19), but the words of an oath are not taken lightly by God (cf. Lv 5:4). It specifically commands not to swear falsely by God’s Name (Lv 19:12). Yeshua taught not to swear at all, but rather “let your yes be yes and your no be no”. Because even if you don’t swear in the name of God directly, God is included in every oath, and it’s a grave sin not to keep an oath (Mt 5:33-37). Our sages of blessed memory raised a fence on the command by saying: “Do not swear at all, not even if it’s true” (Tanhuma Vayikra). They also taught: “the characteristic of a Righteous person is that his Yes is yes and his No is no” (Bava Bathra 49b). 
(5.7) An Eye for an Eye (Mt 5:38)
 Keeping in mind that Shammai outlived Hillel and probably his school was more influential than that of Hillel in Yeshua’s days, maybe some Shammaite Pharisees (as well as Sadducees and probably Samaritans) applied literally the command ‘an eye for an eye’ (Ex 21:24; Lv 24:19). But most Pharisaic schools interpreted that verse differently, 117 among other things, because the Torah does not allow personal revenge (Dt 19:16-21; Prov 20:22; 24:29) so the ‘eye for an eye’ command must make sense in the context of Jewish judicial courts. To better express the idea that the command is not allowing for personal vendettas, Yeshua paraphrases the words of the Prophet: “Let him offer his cheek to the one that strike him” (Lam 3:30). Yeshua’s teaching, “do not resist an evil person” is also a Pharisaic teaching (Yoma 23a) which is beautifully reflected in the words of Rebbe Nahman of Breslev, who said: “The true sign of a person who has returned to God is the ability to hear himself insulted and remain silent… Repentance essentially depends on humility. One must make oneself into nothing… pay no attention whatsoever to opposition or abuse from others” (Likutei Moharan I, 6). In addition to this there are the words of the Torah: “If you see your foe’s donkey lying under its load… you shall help him to release it” (Ex 23:5). “Hillel said: Be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving creatures and bringing them closer to the Torah” (Pirkei Avot 1:12), as it is similarly stated in Scripture: “If your enemy is hungry give him bread” (Prov 25:21).

(5.8) Love your Neighbour, hate the enemy (Mt 5:43) “Hate your enemy” does not appear in the Torah; it’s not a Torah commandment. Rather, it was an opinion raised in several circles. For instance, hating the children of darkness was one of the laws of the Essenes. Also, (although is not the case) one might think of this rabbinical account: Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhak was expounding on the verse “If you see your foe’s donkey…” (Ex 23:5), and made use of Proverbs 118 (8:13) to infer that “it is a duty to hate [a Jewish person that transgressed the Torah and was found in indecency]” (Pesakhim 113b). But commentators are careful to explain that in this case ‘hate’ refers not to the feeling of hatred, but to a rejection and separation in order to cause the sinner to repent. 119 And Ibn Ezra stresses that in the Exodus verse, the literal meaning is ‘one who hates you’ and not ‘one whom you hate’. 120 


117 The Pharisees understood that ‘an eye for an eye’ (עין תחת עין (can be paid with an equivalent monetary compensation of the harm done (Bava Kama 83b-84a), or in cases of conspiracy, with lashes (Makot 1:1). In the Talmud each school argument is challenged by… other Pharisees? 118 “God's commandment is to hate wickedness” (Prov 8:13). 119 cf. Rashi on Arakhin 16b. Rambam on Hilkhot Rotzeiakh 13:14. 120 See the same idea depicted in Mt 18: 14-17


And concerning the Psalms of David where he says he hates God’s enemies, it must be noticed that he says this from a nationalist point of view, in the context of wars and his own persecutions and not in the context of personal relationships. In fact one of the most notorious characteristics of King David was his love for his enemies (2S 1:17, 19:4, 6), so Rabbi Nahman of Breslev taught that “when reciting Psalms one should imagine that King David’s battles are one’s own personal battles against his Evil Tendency” (Likutei Moharan II:125). So what does Yeshua say? He says “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44-48). 121 The Talmud gives a similar point of view: “There were once some thugs in the neighborhood of Rabbi Meir who caused him a great deal of trouble. Rabbi Meir therefore prayed that they should die. His wife Beruria said to him: What, do you think that it is written: Let sinners cease? (Psal 104:35) Is it really written sinners? It is written ‘sins’! (Khataim!) Further, look at the end of the verse: ‘And then the wicked will be no more.’ Once the sins cease, then the wicked will be no more! Rather pray for them that they should repent, and the wicked will be no more. He did pray for them, and they repented”. (Berakhot 10a) Mar Zutra used to pray when climbed into his bed: "I forgive those who have vexed me" (Megillah 28a). After all, “If you hate any man, you hate God who made man in his image” (Midrash Tanhuma).

(5.9) To be seen by men (Mt 6:1) In the next three paragraphs Yeshua talks about Charity (6:1), Prayer (6:5) and Fasting (6:16). He insists that none of the three things must be done “to be seen by men”. He is talking of the intention of the heart – what in Judaism we call Kavanah. 122 Giving charity or praying or fasting without proper Kavanah is not meritorious. Our sages similarly taught that giving charity without the beggar knowing from whom he receives, delivers a man from unnatural death (Bava Bathra 10a-b). And about prayer: “He who prays loudly in order to be heard is a person of little faith” (Berakhot 24b). Yeshua also taught that extending the prayer doesn’t make it better. Our sages taught in the same manner: “If one extends his prayer expecting fulfilment in the end will receive vexation of heart” (Berakhot 55a). He added: “because your Father knows what you need even before you ask for it” (Mt 6:8). Our sages taught as well: ‘God knows our thoughts before they were formed’ (Bereshit Rabbah 9).

(5.10) The Avinu Yeshua concludes the prayer section by teaching the “Our Father” (Avinu); the most famous prayer ever, also known as ‘the lord’s prayer’. Although it might be totally new, the truth is that its content resembles very much (with its variations) the 3 rd, 5th, 6th, 9th and 15th blessings of a prayer established by the Great Assembly, known as the Amidah (I’m not saying it’s the Amidah, which is not, but I’m addressing the similarity of content). The ambiguous phrase: 121 Here it must be noticed that he refers to personal and individual relationships in the highest level of piety (Hassidut) which will be the standard in the Messianic era. In no way this annuls the Torah principles of defending one’s own life if required, or defending someone else, or even your country in a national level; because Torah never commands to encourage passively the wickedness of the wicked. Sadly most people cannot conceive the harmonization of these two seemingly paradoxical principles. 122 See the Rif (on Rosh haShana 28) where he quotes the Gemara (114a) to prove that the Hallakha goes according to those who ruled that it is required to have a proper intention when performing commandments (also Raavad on the Rif and Ramban in Milkhamot HaShem).


“forgive our faults as we forgive our debtors” has its parallel in ancient Jewish books: “forgive the hurt done by your neighbour and you’ll be forgiven when you pray” (Sirakh 28:2).123 The community of disciples established that the Avinu should be prayer three times per day (cf. Didache 8:3), which implies it goes together with the Amidah. Yeshua was not the only Rebbe to teach his disciples his own Prayer: John the Baptist also taught his disciples a personal prayer (Lk 11:1-2). In fact there were so many sages who would compose a personalized supplemental prayer for his students, which they would attach at the end of the Amidah (cf. Berakhot 16b-17a). This way, each school was distinguished by their master's prayer. For example, “Upon concluding his prayer Rabbi Yohanan would say: May it be your will, Adonai our God, that you look upon our shame and behold our evil. Then dress yourself in mercy, cover yourself with strength, wrap yourself in kindness and gird yourself in grace. May the attribute of goodness and gentleness come before you”. 


Mar bar Hanina composed the following prayer for the Amidah: “My God, guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking deceit. To those who insult me may my soul be silent. May my soul be like dust to everyone. Open my heart to your Torah so that my soul will look for your commandments. Deliver me from harm, from evil inclination, evil women, and all evil that occurs in this world. As for those who think evil of me, speedily annul their counsel and frustrate their plans. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before you, Adonai, my rock and my redeemer”. Other Rebbes such as Shelah haKadosh (Horovitz), Rabbi Isaac Luria or Rebbe Nahman of Breslev also composed Prayers that their followers would include in their list of daily prayers

I could go on drawing parallels between the Sermon of the Mount and Jewish literature, such as: “do not store for yourselves treasures on earth” (Mt 6:19) which is found in Bava Bathra (11a), but enough to say that having reviewed the Antithesis portion I have found nothing that contradicts the Torah or the sages of Israel. On the contrary, I have found that Yeshua happens to reflect word by word the teachings of the Pharisees. And the hints that Yeshua himself might have been a Pharisee do not end here.

(6.1) He wore Tzitzit rthodox observance is a modern expression, used to refer to those who follow or observed the Torah according to the traditional mainstream Judaism. Yeshua’s Judaism was not limited to moral values; he was an "orthodox" in every sense of the word, and his disciples were trained under the very same standards. Some Christians are of the opinion that Yeshua didn’t abolish the Torah, but that his disciples did. If they did, then they didn’t follow their master, did they? Yeshua wore Tzitzit. We all have heard the story of a diseased woman with a permanent issue of blood who came near Yeshua and was healed by touching the “Hem of his garment” (Mt 9:20), and also many other sufferers who were healed by touching Yeshua’s “hem” (Mt 14:36). A Jew reading this portion automatically knows what the text is saying, but for a gentile the meaning is lost in the translation. Torah commands Jews to wear fringes in their four corner garments in order to bring to memory all the commandments of God and prevent them from doing something immoral in their daily routines. 124 The fringes in Hebrew are called: Tzitziot, or simply Tzitzit. Originally Tzitziot were dyed with a specific blue dye called: Tekhelet. This became another name for the fringes and, incidentally, it appears in the Aramaic manuscripts of the N”T. 125 Every observant Jew wore Tassels or Tzitzit; Yeshua was not an exception. But he was of the opinion that one should not enlarge the Tzitzit in order to be noticed by others, which he considered hypocrisy (Mt 23:5). The prophecy in Zechariah says that in the future ten men out of every nation and tongue will hold the border of the garment of each Jew and say: we want to go with you (Zech 8:23). It’s therefore assumed in the prophecy that Jews will still wear Tzitzit in the future. And no, nowhere in the Gospels or the N”T Yeshua abolished this command. (6.2) He wore Tefillin When Yeshua attacks the hypocrisy of those who lengthen their Tzitzit in order to be noticed, he includes in that statement those who make board their “phylacteries” (Mt 23:5). What are the “Phylacteries”? They are two small boxes which contain a scroll of the Shema prayer and are put on the forehead and on the arm, tied with a leather strap. Archeologists discovered ancient boxes from many different sects that also included the Decalogue, and priestly ones which contained the priestly blessing. Their real name is “Tefillin”. Now “Phylacteries” (amulets) is an unfortunate translation because the Tefillin were NOT amulets, and there’s no historical record that they were at any time used as such. “Tefillin” is the plural of Tefillah, which means prayer – because (1st) the boxes contain a prayer and (2nd) they are worn during prayer. The story of the Tefillin goes back to the Torah itself, to the Shema Prayer itself: “These words [ie. The Shema]… you shall bind them as a sign (לאות ,symbol, mark) on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (לטטפת ,Dt 6:8). Other portion says: “as a memorial (לזכרון ,ie. something that makes you remember) between your eyes” (Ex 13:9). I understand that those who have never had contact with Judaism might believe that Yeshua was against Tefillin, but if we look closer to the text, we’ll find the opposite: 124 Nm 15:38-39; Dt 22:12; cf. Menahot 41a 125 “They lengthen their Tekhelet” - “תכלתא ומורכין) “Mt 23:5 in the Peshitta).
Yeshua does not criticize people who wear Tefillin; what he criticizes is the hypocrisy of those who make them bigger in order to be noticed in public. (b) Yeshua includes in the same critic “those who enlarge their tassels”, and as we have seen, Yeshua himself wore tassels. So he can’t be against the use of tassels and phylacteries; rather against a hypocritical use of them. (c) In the context in which Yeshua says this, he is commanding his disciples to obey the Pharisees and the Scribes. All together implies that Yeshua and his disciples wore Tefillin too, but in modesty. It’s similar to the Sermon of the Mount, when he commands his followers not to pray loudly in order to be noticed by others. Even the Christian Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho affirms that Deuteronomy 6:8 commands to wear “phylacteries” and he defines them as “Holy” (cf. Dial. 46).


(6.3) He encouraged Temple sacrifices Yeshua was passionate about the Temple. As we have seen, he made pilgrimage to Jerusalem for every Jewish festival and went to the Temple, where he taught (Mr 14:49). His disciples apply to him the verse: “the zeal of your House consumes me” (Psal 69:10 [9]; cf. Jn 2:17). When Yeshua foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, he lamented on it (Lk 19:41, 46). He loved the Temple and what the Temple represents. He healed ten lepers (Lk 17:12-13) telling them to go to the high priest as established in the Torah, and as per the Torah, the cleansing of leprosy includes the offering of sacrifices in the Temple (Lv 14:2). Yeshua was perfectly aware of this and never censored offerings in the Altar (Mt 5:24). Did he abolish the Levitical service after his death? Many years after Yeshua’s passing away his students were still a temple community (Lk 24:53), who entered the Temple every day for the worship times [with their respective daily sacrifices]. 126 Even more! Keifa and the other disciples from Galilee moved to live in Jerusalem in order to be in the Temple. It’s true though that some groups accused Paul of going against the Temple. But he defended himself and said he didn’t do anything against the Torah or the Temple (Acts 25:8), and that the people who accused him have no proof of their accusations (Acts 24:13-14). In fact, to prove he didn’t stop his Torah observance, he did a nazarite vow for him and others (Acts 18:18, 21:24) and such a vow requires sacrifices in the Temple (Nm 6:2-18), which he offered (Acts 24:17). The event gives us two choices: Or Paul was honest in his claim that he was not against Torah observance, or he was a complete hypocrite, but this essay is not about Paul.

 As a matter of fact, the Temple will be reestablished for the Messianic era and sacrifices will be re-established - at least for a while (Zech 8:3; Ez 37:26-27; Is 2:2-3). It is clearly stated that "I will make a righteous branch sprout from David [i.e Messiah]... because David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor will the levitical priests ever fail to have a man to... continually offer burnt-offerings, to burn grain-offerings and to present sacrifices" (Jer 33:15-18). Our sages explain that in some moment in the Messianic era, when the generation is ready and doesn't want to offer animals anymore, the priests will be solely dedicated to grain-offerings, as it is written: "And the grain-offering will be acceptable to HaShem" (Mal 3:4). (cf. Tanhuma Emor 19, Vayikra Rabbah 9:7; Arakhin 21a; cf. Olat Reiyah vol. I, p. 292) 126 Acts 2:46, 3:1, 5:21, 24:18; cf. Psa 55:18 [17]; Dn 6:11; Mishna Berakhot 4:1; Berakhot 26b

CHAPTER 7: The Oral Torah (7.1) He was not Sola-Scriptura ne of the most notorious reforms among those of the Protestant movement was the inclusion of Karaism (Or Sola-Scriptura). The Gospels… in fact the entire N”T is filled with Jewish Oral Traditions. One thing we can know for sure: Yeshua and his disciples were not Karaites (Sola-Scriptura). They followed Oral Tradition in both senses: (1) Jewish legend: Aggadah. (2) and Jewish Law of behavior: Hallakha. One thing I must stress in this essay: Modern Jews tend to judge Yeshua in light of our modern Hallakha. But that should not be the case considering (and scholars agree on this) 127 that our modern Hallakha does not apply to the mid 1st Century. Most of Rabbinic Hallakha was developed between 2nd and 5th centuries. 1st century Judaism was not a monolithic religion (if has ever been). We have already mentioned that even among Pharisees there was disagreement concerning Jewish Law, and there were differences between Judean and Galilean Jews as well. Nevertheless there’s a pattern in the Gospels that pretty much reflects the Hallakha of that time.


(7.2) Hallakha • On Baptism. If you were a Sola-Scriptura Jew and you met for the first time ‘John the Baptist’ 128 baptizing other Jews for the remission of their sins (Mrk 1:4) – you would literally freak out about what is he doing. The Torah does not say anywhere that I have to immerse in water as part of my repentance! NO WHERE. Yet, the first thing Yeshua did in his ministry was to get baptized by John the Baptist (Mt 3:13). Later he commanded his disciples to do the same with every new disciple and every new convert (Mt 28:19; Acts 8:38). The question is: why? Christianity believes that John the Baptist invented the doctrine of baptism. But that’s simply not true. The answer is that the Pharisees and Essenes immersed in water to (1) the new converts and (2) those who had been defiled in some way. They taught: “[the proselytes] shall enter the covenant [of Judaism] only by circumcision, baptism and [in the time of the Temple] with a sacrifice” (Kritot 9a). And also: “On good days a person may be baptized to become pure” (Shulkhan Arukh 511:3; cf. Beitza 18).


• Yeshua recited blessings before meals (Mt 14:19, Mr 8:7, 14:22), but the Torah only commands to pray grace AFTER meals – not before (Dt 8:10). However, our sages taught that: “A man is forbidden to taste anything before saying a blessing over it” (Berakhot 35a). In addition, he always broke the bread after the blessing and shared it with his people (Mr 8:6; Mt 26:26; Lk 24:30). His disciples did this as well (Acts 2:42, 20:7, 27:33-35) because it is a common Jewish practice that the host who makes the blessing over the bread will also break it and give it to the others, as our sages say: “the guests may not eat anything until the one who breaks the bread has tasted it” (Berakhot 47a) and also: “the one who acts as a host may not break the bread until the guests have finished responding Amen [to the haMotzi prayer (which is the blessing over bread)]” (ibid). Pharisees and Essenes followed this tradition; Yeshua did too.
127 “What we're seeing more and more through the research and the archaeological discoveries is how diverse Judaism was in this period” (Michael White “from Jesus to Christ” part I). 128 Or ‘John the Immerser’ – ‘Yohanan haMatbil’ – המטביל יוחנן .Ar. Yuhanon Ma’amdana – מעמדנא י


• He said it’s not appropriate to fast in the presence of the bridegroom (Mt 9:15). 129 Although he is speaking allegorically, this idea comes, not from the Bible, but from our sages, who taught: “A bridegroom and his friends are free from the obligation of the Sukka [during the feast of tabernacles]… because they have to rejoice… and there’s no real rejoicing except where the banquet is held” (Sukka 25b).   p32


During the Passover meal it’s written that Yeshua “sat reclined together with the twelve” (Mt 26:20). [some Bibles render it as “sat”, but the original says: “reclined”]. Why did he “recline” to eat the Passover? Because our sages established: “Even the poorest man in Israel must not eat [the Passover meal] until he reclines” (Pesakhim 99b [Mishna 10:1]).

During the Passover meal it’s also written that he “took THE cup of wine” (Mt 26:27), as if we knew which cup of wine the text is referring to. It’s because our sages established that “a man… should be given no less than four cups of wine [on Passover night, representing the four redemptions of Israel]” (Pesakhim 99b [Mishna 10:1]). • After the Passover meal they sang a hymn (Mrk 14:26). It is customary and even decreed to accompany the Passover meal with praising songs such as the Hallel (praise).130 Additional songs are sung after the meal (in this case the hymn varies depending on the local custom of each community). It’s especially interesting to notice that in this Passover meal Yeshua tells his disciples he’s going to be betrayed, arrested and executed, a topic that might have been brought as a revelation (pesher) of some portions of the Hallel song. 131

• It’s noteworthy that throughout the entire New Testament the Sacred Name is not pronounced not even once. Instead it’s replaced with circumlocutions such as: Heaven, Father, God, the Lord.. etc. The reason the Name does not appear is not some kind of hidden plot to erase God’s name (as the Sacred Namers claim) – That would make no sense considering there’s not even 1 manuscript (out of more than 5000) with the Sacred Name on it. The reason is that the sages of the Great Assembly (4 th Century BCE) imposed a gezeirah (ie. a fence) during the exile, based on the command: “Do not pronounce the Name of the Lord your God unnecessarily” (Ex 20:7). In Judaism and in Jewish books the exact very same thing is done. When reading the Torah, they say Adonai (ie. the Lord) instead of the Sacred Name. So if Yeshua and his followers adhered to this fence, I suggest you do the same.

The Gezeirot (cf. Yevamot 21a) are fences around a command, built by the Rabbis, in order to not violate the actual command. Their use is deduced from verses such as: “Protect my statutes and my judgments” (Lv 28:16). • Yeshua used Pharisaic methods of Biblical interpretation. Especially – but not only – the seven rules of Hillel. 132 These are seven methods of hermeneutics that (despite the name) are considered part of the Oral Torah given to Moses at Sinai. Yeshua uses them all, but especially the first one called: Kal vaKhomer.


29 cf. Thomas #104. 130 cf. Pesakhim 95a [Mishna]. Hallel is a verbatim recitation of the Psalms 113-118. 131 “The anguish of the grave came upon me; I was overcome by trouble and sorrow. Then I called on the name of HaShem: O HaShem, save me… For you, HaShem, have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling that I may walk before HaShem in the land of the living… Precious in the sight of HaShem is the death of his saints” (Ps 116:3-15). 132 cf. Avot D’Rabbi Nathan 37; cf. Samson of Chinon, “sefer haKritot”

Kal vaKhomer (lit. light and weighty) is a method of exegesis that states: “what is exceptionally true on small cases, must apply in more serious cases too”. It can be inferred from Moses’ words: “If you have been rebellious while I’m still alive, how much more after my death?” (Dt 31:27). So the Kal vaKhomer arguments always use the same tagline: “If this is so… how much more….etc”. Yeshua and Paul constantly use this method of exegesis. “If wicked humans give good gifts to their children, how much more the Heavenly Father… etc” (Lk 11:13). “If God clothes the grass... how much more will he clothe you?” (Lk 12:28). “If you were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?” (Rom 11:24). 



• As stated, he uses many other Jewish methods such as Midrash (Pesher), or the so called 32 rules of Aggadic exegesis of Eliezer bar Yosi the Galilean; 133 through these methods one can see the underlying reason for his continuous use of Parables and non-verbatim paraphrased Scriptural verses (cf. Jn 6:31, 19:37; Rom 11:26-27; 1Co 15:45).134 For instance, Yeshua’s famous saying: “Whosoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whosoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk 14:11) is a paraphrase of Psalm 113, verses 5b & 6a. 135 The Midrash quotes this Psalm in the exact same manner in the mouth of Rabbi Hillel, as a proof-verse of his saying: “my self-abasement is my exaltation, and my self-exaltation is my abasement” (Vayikra Rabbah 1:5)• As stated, he uses many other Jewish methods such as Midrash (Pesher), or the so called 32 rules of Aggadic exegesis of Eliezer bar Yosi the Galilean; 133 through these methods one can see the underlying reason for his continuous use of Parables and non-verbatim paraphrased Scriptural verses (cf. Jn 6:31, 19:37; Rom 11:26-27; 1Co 15:45).134 For instance, Yeshua’s famous saying: “Whosoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whosoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Lk 14:11) is a paraphrase of Psalm 113, verses 5b & 6a. 135 The Midrash quotes this Psalm in the exact same manner in the mouth of Rabbi Hillel, as a proof-verse of his saying: “my self-abasement is my exaltation, and my self-exaltation is my abasement” (Vayikra Rabbah 1:5)


(7.3) Theology • Yeshua is depicted as performing in a daily manner miracles similar to those of the prophet Elisha (2K 4:4-7, 20-36, 42-44, 5:14, 13:20-21). He uses these healing miracles as proof that the Kingdom of Heaven is among us, and redemption is at hand (Mt 11:4-5; Lk 4:18; 11:20; Jn 10:38; Acts 2:22). The miracles happened because of people’s faith or worthiness as we are told there were places where Yeshua could not perform them (Mr 6:5). We don’t necessarily identify Messiah by his capacity to perform miracles because (a) Bar Kokhva was a potential Messiah yet he didn’t perform any miracle, and (b) wizards and false prophets also perform miracles.136 Some sages such as Pinkhas ben Yair, Nahum of Gamzu, Honi and R. Hanina performed miracles (Hulin 7a; Taanit 21a, 23a, 25a), and Yeshua’s disciples performed miracles as well (Mr 16:20). So obviously, miracles don’t show per se that he who performs them is the Messiah. But according to Rambam Messiah will surely perform wonders and silence kings (Iggeret Teiman XVII). Our sages have this saying: “As it was with the first redeemer so will it be with the last redeemer” (Bamidbar Rabbah 11:3), and we know that Moses offered three signs to Israel to prove he was sent by God (cf. Ex 4:2).

Rabbi Abraham ben David (Rambam’s commentator) argued that there’s a tradition in which Bar Kokhva was put to death by the sages themselves when he failed to produce the signs of Messiah, the example being Messiah’s faculty to judge by the smell (cf. Sanh 93b), as it is written: “And he will smell with the fear of HaShem” (Is 11:3). On the 1st Century the Psalm 146 was interpreted as testifying that the Kingdom of God (or the Messianic redemption) is accompanied with “sight to the blind” “justice for the oppressed”… etc. The last verse says: “HaShem will reign forever, your God, Zion, for all generations”, and Rashi comments: “He will perpetuate his kingdom with the redemption of his children”. Isaiah 35 (5-10) was interpreted in the same manner. Among the 1st century Qumran Scrolls there’s an Apocalypse that combines Psalm 146:6-7 with Isaiah 61:1 and attests just like in the Gospels that in the Messianic Redemption God “liberates the captives, restores the sight of the blind… heals the wounded, revives the dead and brings good news to the poor” (cf. 4Q521, F2). It seems Yeshua’s number of miracles was so overwhelming that people began to believe because of them (Mt 11:23, 21:15; Jn 2:23, 3:2, 7:31) and this left the Sadducees perplexed (Jn 11:47). So, while the official opinion is that Messiah doesn’t need to perform miracles, it is sufficiently attested that the Gospels depict an authentic 1 st Century expectation concerning the signs of Redemption that existed in many Jewish circles of that time

133 cf. Rashi on Gn 2:8 &Horayot 3b; Samson of Chinon “Sefer Keritot”. 134 e.g. Rabeinu Tam uses these methods paraphrasing Isaiah 2:3 to apply it to the Italian Rabbinate “For from Bari shall come forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Tà
ranto” (Sefer haYashar, responsa, 46). 135 When put together they read: “The exalted is [to be made] to sit down; he who humbles himself is [to be made] to be seen”. 136 cf. Hilkhot Melakhim 11:3. On the early diversity of Messianic expectations cf. Jacob Neuser, “Judaisms and their Messiahs at the turn of the Christian era”.

• The Nazarenes taught the theology of the “resurrection of the dead”. We take for granted that is something mentioned in the book of Daniel and therefore Scriptural, but the ‘SolaScriptura’ Jews in the first century did NOT believe in this doctrine. In their personal interpretation of the Bible, ‘the resurrection of the dead at the end of times’ is not mentioned anywhere. This shows how far a ‘personal interpretation’ can go when there’s no Mesorah (i.e. Oral tradition). The resurrection of the dead stands as an ‘Oral tradition’ because it does not appear explicitly in the book of the Torah (cf. Mt 22:23-33; Sanh 90b; Antiquities 10:11.7).

Paul (in 2Ti 3:8) mentions that Yanes and Yamberes opposed Moses. You will never know who these two guys are from the Bible alone. Yanes and Yamberes is the name the Oral tradition gives to the wizards who foretold the birth of Moses (Sotah 11a), emulated Moses’ miracles during the plagues (Menakhot 85a), and became the leaders of the Erev Rav (ie. the mixed multitude) in the building of the golden calf (cf. Sefer haYashar, Onqelos, Zohar). If Paul mentions their names from the Oral tradition (names that do not appear in Scripture), it’s obvious that the whole Oral tradition goes with them, and not only their names. • Shimon Keifa writes that: “God did not spare the angels that sinned [in Noah’s time], but cast them down in chains of darkness” (2P 2:4). No need to say this does not appear anywhere in Scripture. Nevertheless, the source for this statement is a Midrash in the Oral Torah, which states that in the time of the flood fallen angels (Uzza, Azael and their armies) came to the Earth and God bound them in chains of iron to a mountain of darkness. 137

• Yeshua’s disciple Yehuda (a.k.a Judas) says that Enoch prophesied, and he quotes the prophecy word by word (Jud 1:14-15). How can it be when the Torah does not record one single word from the mouth of Enoch? Can it be a quote from external literature? Yes, it is. Judas is directly quoting from Oral Tradition, and concretely from the ‘Book of the Watchers’ (cf. Hanokh 1:9); a mystical Aggadah that tells the story of the fallen angels and Enoch’s revelations in Heavenly realms. The Oral tradition supports the idea that Enoch received hidden revelations while in the Upper Realms (cf. Shemot Rabbah 11:4, Bava Metzia 114b), and Kabbalistic literature also quotes Enoch (cf. Targum Pseudo Yonathan on Gn 5 & 6; Zohar I:37b; Sefer Heikhalot). And it’s proper to mention that the book of ‘Enoc’ has never been considered part of the Bible.

• In the same book Judas mentions a story in which the archangel Michael contends with the devil [ie. Samael] for the body of Moses (Jud 1:9). Once again, that’s not written anywhere in the Bible. This is another oral tradition mentioned in some ancient Jewish books (cf. Devarim Rabbah 11:6; Assumption of Moses 10).

• The Gospels speak of “Hell” and the “Lake of fire”. The word “Hell” in the original is “Gehenna”. Gehenna happens to be a Rabbinic word, from the Oral Torah. There’s no  mention of “Hell” (or Gehenna) in the plain text of Scripture. We could dig it out by some exegetical inferences such as the verse that speaks metaphorically of the Assyrian king’s defeat: ‘Since yesterday a bonfire has been prepared for the king’ (Is 30:33), but as I said, in the literal level there’s no any mention of “Gehenna”. As a matter of fact the Sadducees - having the very same Bible - didn’t believe in Hell. So every mention of “Gehenna” in the New Testament is rooted on the Pharisees’ oral tradition, and it would be ridiculous to assume that the Nazarenes spoke of the same place, with the exact same phraseology, but believed in a completely independent tradition.

 137 cf. Jubiless 5; Pirkei Eliezer 22; Zohar 3:208a.    p35

• One of the greatest claims of the N”T is that a righteous person (in our case Yeshua) can atone for the sins of the entire world with his suffering and death. Yes, the apostles deduced it from Isaiah 53, but the words of Isaiah had to be rooted in the Torah; otherwise he could be considered a false prophet. In fact, according to our most influential exegetes, Isaiah 53 - in its most literal meaning - talks about the suffering of Israel as a nation at the end of the exile, since the prophet continually calls them (Is 41:8; 44:1; 49:3): “Israel my Servant” and “Yaqov my Servant” (Rambam, Igeret Teiman; cf. Rashi & Ibn Ezra on Is 53; Targum Yonathan). So the interpretation that identifies Isaiah 53’s Servant with the Messiah or with a righteous person is essentially Midrashic, and therefore, an element of the oral tradition. Yeshua said it is written in “The Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Lk 24:44) but where is it written in the Torah? Nowhere! In the plain text there’s nothing about it. On the contrary, quite often the counter-missionaries offer verses from the Torah that suggest that no vicarious atonement is possible.138 Yet, the sages of Israel consider it possible; but the whole concept is rabbinical in essence, and therefore some clarifications are required: (a) The word ‘atonement’ has more than one meaning in Judaism. (b) They don’t mean that if a righteous person dies, you have free access to the World-toCome with no need to do your part. Quite the opposite: the death of the Righteous opens for you the possibility to gain atonement by doing your part. This is the reason that the Gospel of Yeshua emphasizes the need to make penitence (Acts 3:19), because without Repentance there’s no atonement (Heb 10:26). 

▫"The death of the righteous atones [for the generation]” (Moed Katan 28a). ▫ “Rabbi Hiya Bar Abba said: The sons of Aaron died the first day of Nisan. Why then does the Torah mention their death in conjunction with the Day of Atonement? It is to teach that just as Yom Kippur atones, so also the death of the righteous atones” (Vayikra Rabbah 20:12). ▫ Following the previous statement: “Death and Yom Kippur atone when accompanied by penitence” (Yoma 85b [Mishna]). "Why is the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the laws of the Red Heifer? This teaches that just as the Red Heifer brings atonement, so too, the death of the righteous brings atonement" (Moed Katan 28a). 

▫ The Rabbis say: “[Messiah’s] name is ‘the leper’, as it is written: Surely he has borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him leper, smitten of God, and afflicted... Those of the house of the Rabbi say: ‘the sickly’, for it says: Surely he has borne our sicknesses” (Sanh 98b). Also the Midrash says: “I will take one of their righteous men and retain him as a pledge on their behalf, in order that I may pardon all their sins” (Shemot Rabbah 35:4). 138 For example: Ex 32:33, Dt 24:16; Ez 18:20… etc

▫ “True Tzaddiqim atone for sins, as it is written (Prov 16:14): but the wise man will bring atonement” (Likutei Moharan I, 7:4). The way the Righteous one atones by his suffering and death is developed in different streams: ◊ He atones by the spiritual awakening that takes place after he passes away139 ◊ He intercepts suffering that should fall on Israel140 ◊ He makes corrections on higher and lower levels of the Soul141 ◊ He makes corrections on the world itself142 (All ideas being present in the New Testament) 


▫ “True Tzaddiqim atone for sins, as it is written (Prov 16:14): but the wise man will bring atonement” (Likutei Moharan I, 7:4). The way the Righteous one atones by his suffering and death is developed in different streams: ◊ He atones by the spiritual awakening that takes place after he passes away139 ◊ He intercepts suffering that should fall on Israel140 ◊ He makes corrections on higher and lower levels of the Soul141 ◊ He makes corrections on the world itself142 (All ideas being present in the New Testament)

(7.4) Reminiscences of Mysticism There are many more things in the Gospels as well as in the rest of the N”T143 that are found in Jewish Oral Torah -- For instance, the expression (Mt 7:3): “Why do you look at the little twig in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” 144 -- and others that belong to the Sitrei haTorah, 145 for example the Trinitarian formula: Father Son and Holy Spirit (or Father Mother and Son), 146 the Ten Sefirot (that Paul names in order) (Rom 11:33-36), 147 … etc. It’s all in Judaism

139 “The principal benefit that comes from the death of tzaddiqim is the spiritual and moral awakening that takes place after they pass away… In short, the death of tzaddiqim inspires us to imitate their personal conduct” (Rav Kook, “Gold from the land of Israel”, pp. 263-265). 140 “Know that while sometimes forgiveness of sins comes about through the collective merit of the community, there are times when the members of the community are not sufficiently worthy to have their sins forgiven in their own merit. The Tzaddiq is then obliged to undertake to suffer for the sake of the Jewish people (Is 53:4): ‘Surely he bore our diseases and carried our pains’. The community in general is saved from illness but not the Tzaddiq, because he undertakes to suffer on behalf of the Jewish people” (Likutei Moharan II, 8:6). 141 “One can receive [different soul levels] of a Tzaddiq as an ibur (impregnation period that causes the Soul’s growth) and it will act as their [higher soul… to help them attain perfection] (Shaar haGilgulim 2:4).

142 “Suffering and pain may be imposed on a tzaddiq as an atonement for his entire generation. This tzaddiq must then accept this suffering with love for the benefit of his generation, just as he accepts the suffering imposed upon him for his own sake. In doing so, he benefits his generation by atoning for it, and at the same time is himself elevated to a very great degree ... Such suffering also includes cases where a tzaddiq suffers because his entire generation deserves great punishments, bordering annihilation, but is spread via the tzaddiq’s suffering. In atoning for his generation… he saves these people in this world and also greatly benefits them in the World-to-Come. In addition, there is a special, higher type of suffering that comes to a tzaddiq who is even greater and more highly perfected than the ones discussed above. This suffering comes to provide the help necessary to bring about the chain of events leading to the ultimate perfection of mankind as a whole" (Ramhal, “Derekh HaShem” 2:3:8). 143 Like when Paul compares our perception of the world to Come with seeing from an opaque glass (1Co 13:12): “All the prophets gazed through an opaque glass, while Moshe Rabeinu gazed through a translucent glass” (Yevamot 49b); “the prophets could only grasp until the arrival of King Messiah; from here on they could neither grasp nor comprehend” (Zohar 1:171a).

144 From the sages: “What is the import of the words (Ruth 1:1): And it came to pass in the days of the judging of the judges?. It was a generation which judged its judges. If the judge said to a man: Take the little twig from between your eyes, he would retort: You take the beam from between your eyes” (Bava Bathra 15b).
__________________________________________________________________________________
145 Sitrei haTorah (Secrets of the Torah) today called Kabbalah. In 1st Century Maasei Merkavah uYetzirah were streams of mysticism based on the first chapters of Genesis and Ezekiel, passed down from the first Hassidim to the school of Hillel (cf. Sukka 28a)
_______________________________________________________________________________

146 For the relationship of Father and Mother applied to God and the Community: Berakhot 35b; Kidushin 30b; Bahir 104; Zohar II, 90a; Ramhal, “General Principles of the Kabbalah”, p. 45. For the relationship between Mother and Son: Sefer haPlia 4:2 (koretz 1784); Thomas 101, 105. For the spirit of the community related to the Holy Spirit: Shir haShirim Rabbah 1: 9 end; Vayikra Rabbah 35:7; Midrash Tanhuma, Naso 16 on


Quite interesting is the fact that Yeshua was hanged on a tree, in a place named Golgoltha (the skull) (Mt 27:33; Jn 29:17). Many theories have been speculated, even about the 5th century Golgoltha was identified with a mount. But the truth is that in the first Century there was not a place called Golgoltha. More surprising is what some Fathers of the Church say about it: that it was called Golgoltha because according to Judaism the skull of Adam is buried there. 148 This idea is very peculiar because (a) According to Judaism Adam’s full body is buried in Hebron (Sota 13a). (b) The only place where Golgoltha is mentioned in Judaism as the “skull of Adam” is in the mystical teachings of the Sefirot, where the Sefirot are allegorically represented with human form (Adam Qadmon) and the skull of this anthropomorphic tree is the highest Sefirah (called the skull of the Ancient One) from where the resurrection of the death will take place. 149 So this Christian tradition is a reminiscence of ancient Jewish mysticism that someone heard, misunderstood, and applied it literally to Adam, the first man.


 Ex 25:8; sefer Yetzirah 1:9, Zohar Pequdei 221 [19], Mishpatim 2:97b [66]. For Holy Spirit being Mother: Origen quoting ‘the Gospel of the Hebrews’ on Jn 2:12 and on Jer, “homily 15.4”; also Jerome on Micah 7:6. 147 cf. 1Chr 29:11. 148 Origen on Mt n. 126, p. 13. 149 "From this Golgoltha trickles dew to the Exterior one [i.e. the Son], filling his head every day... from this dew the dead will rise as it's written: for your dew is dew of Lights" (Zohar III:128b, Idra Rabba).


CHAPTER 8: The debates about Shabbat (8.1) So why attacking the Pharisees? the logical question to ask is: If Yeshua is depicted as having the same theology, morals and teachings of the Pharisees, and lived among them, why his sharply criticism against them? Some have properly noticed that in the Gospel of John, Yeshua is a Pharisee: (a) The Judeans in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to inquire about John (Jn 1:19). (b) Normally priests were Sadducees, but the text specifies here that these priests represented the Pharisees (Jn 1:24). (c) The Baptist then says that Yeshua is one that stands among them – i.e. among the Pharisees (Jn 1:26). Secondly, NOT all Pharisees had the same mindset (Jn 9:16). We have already seen that there were different schools of Pharisees and that there were sub-groups among them; even a group of them were believers (Acts 15:5). The reason this detail goes unnoticed is because – deprived of their historical and religious context – the Gospels seem to identify the Pharisees as Yeshua’s natural enemy, to the point of being called ‘sons of the devil’ (Jn 8:44). But when we turn to historical and religious sources, it becomes clear that in general Pharisees were pious people, so this enters in conflict with the common Christian understanding. 150 p38


The truth is that Pharisees were very critical with their own. For instance we read in their writings that the “Plague of the Pharisees brings destruction to the world” (Sotah 20a [Mishna]), that there are four classes that will not see the Shekhina (the Divine Presence after die): scoffers, liars, hypocrites and slanderers (Sanh 103a). Explaining the so called “Plague of Pharisees”, they say that there are 7 kinds of Pharisees: Of these, five are considered hypocrites or fools, and the other two may be considered either good or selfish, depending the point of view (cf. Sotah 22a; Yerushalmi Berakhot 9:5). The sages also said there were hypocrites who ape the Pharisees (Sotah 22b). Hypocrite Pharisees – they said – are “white pitchers full of ashes… whose inside is not like their outside” (Berakhot 28a). “They wrap their prayer shawls around them; they put tefillin on their heads, and they oppress the poor” (Kohelet Rabbah 4:1).

As you can see, the sages themselves attested that only one tiny portion of the Pharisees were perfectly good. So one must notice that when Yeshua harshly confronted the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he was doing the same thing the “good Pharisees” did to their own. The Gospels clearly reflect intra-Jewish disputes, between Jews with the same core beliefs, not between two different religions. In addition, Pharisees loved "debating for the sake of Heaven". Quite often they would throw insults to each other, at times even hurting each other's feelings (cf. Sanh 24a), and at the end of the day they were best friends. The 1st century sages of Israel would insult their Babylonian neighbours with phrases such as: "foolish Babylonians who have dark opinions" (Pesakhim 34b; Ketuvot 75a). Despite the words, these were types of intellectual discussion, and their purpose was to increase the faith of the participants. As it is written: "Happy is the man who has his quiver full [of arrows]. For they will not be put to shame when they speak with their enemies at the gates" (Psal 127:5). Once Rabbi Tarfon harshly attacked Rabbi Aqiva, saying, "I can't take it any longer! Until when will Aqiva continue developing his worthless teachings?" And a bit later he ends up agreeing with him and saying, "Rejoice, Abraham our father, that Aqiva came forth from your descendants. Whoever departs from the teachings of Rabbi Aqiva is as if he departs from his own life" (Sifri Bamidbar). 

150 Nowadays the term Pharisee has become among Christians a synonym of ‘hypocrite’ and ‘legalist’.


Now, I’d like to rise a reasonable doubt. The Pharisees quite often invited Yeshua to have lunch in their home, and to learn from him. Why would they do this if they thought he was an heretic from another religious group? Pharisees didn’t waste their time inviting Samaritans or Sadducees to their homes because they already knew they were heretics. Would the Protestants waste their time testing the veracity of a… Mormon leader for example? But about Yeshua one Pharisee says: “we [Pharisees] know that you are a teacher who has come from God” (Jn 3:2), and another one, Gamliel the elder, after naming other Pharisees with messianic expectations, says about the Nazarenes: “Leave them alone… let’s you’ll be found fighting against God” (Acts 5:39). Do you think he would have said this if he thought that Yeshua and his group had an heretical theology, completely contrary to that of the Pharisees?



(8.2) the Holiness of the Torah Here comes the problem: Unable to understand how Yeshua might very well be a Pharisee himself and at the same time attack them as he did, gentiles very early perceived that Yeshua was separating himself from Judaism and bringing forth a new religion. They see clear statements where Yeshua abolishes the dietary laws of the Torah, abolishes the observance of Shabbat, abolishes circumcision, and rejects the pharisaic traditions of ritual purification. For centuries these Christians with such a distorted reality have tried to "convert" Jews. This caused the Jews to reject the Christian figure of Yeshua, and a need to defend themselves from gentile ‘replacement’ doctrines and assimilation. This defensive movement within Judaism is known as the Anti-missionaries. There are serious quarrels between the two groups. Both interpret the New Testament with the very same lens, but the Counter-missionaries turn the Christian teachings against them. They easily demonstrate that Yeshua, according to Christian theology, was an heretic unable to be the Jewish Messiah. And by Christian reasoning the counter-missionaries are totally correct, for the following reasons: (a) The Torah was given by God – it is called the Torah of Moses because he was the mediator, but Moses didn’t write down his own ideas or philosophies; he just wrote what God told him to write – and this is stated in the whole Bible dozens of times. When people say that the Torah is not perfect they are calling God imperfect. King David said the Torah is perfect and has the power to convert the soul (Psal 19:7) – which is contrary to Christian theology, as most Christians reject the idea that the Torah has the power to convert the soul. (b) The Jew is permanently bound to the Torah in every generation: “And the statutes and ordinances, and the Torah and the commandment which he wrote for you, you shall observe all days” (2K 17:37). “Your Torah is truth” (Psal 119:142) and “His truth endures to all generations” (Psal 100:5). (c) “Sin” is defined as “Disobedience to God’s Torah” (Lv 4:2; see Rom 4:15). No one can come with their own definition of sin. Only the Torah defines Sin. Yeshua’s disciples taught that ‘Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness” (ie. lives without Torah) (1Jn 3:4). (d) Yeshua said: Which one of you can convince me that I have sinned? (Jn 8:46) How could they know if he sinned or not? The only way is the Torah; Torah defines Sin. To claim that the Torah has been abolished is like claiming that we are now allowed to murder, which we are not. (e) Therefore, Messiah must live according to the Torah and teach it (Dt 17:18). He who breaks or abolishes the Torah cannot be Messiah


f) Might one Jewish man appear out of nowhere making wonders, healing people, raising the dead, and saying he’s the Messiah… but the Torah states that a true prophet is only the one who obeys and teaches Torah. If one prophet goes against Torah he’s a false prophet (Dt 13:1-4). How can anyone say that Yeshua is the Messiah and at the same time try to justify their own theology claiming that Yeshua broke or annulled the Torah? Only by ignorance


(g) A very important rule of hermeneutics is that a verse cannot depart from its intended meaning. It can be interpreted with different lights, but not replaced with metaphors or spiritual fulfilments – which Judaism perceives as mere excuses. For example, if God tells you that you must dedicate the 7th day of the week to Him, he means it. You cannot say that the 1st day will do instead, because it doesn’t do. Seventh is not first. This leads me to talk about Shabbat

Shabbat is part of the Decalogue (Ex 20:8-11), and one of the most repeated commands in the Bible. God even says that is a “perpetual covenant for the children of Israel for ALL their generations” (Ex 31:16). It's kind of grotesque when people say that the only thing they care of the 'Old Testament' is the Decalogue, but even then they erase from the Decalogue the parts they don't like. If it’s true that Yeshua broke the Shabbat, or taught others to put it aside, then he sinned. Period. So, is this true? Did Yeshua abolish all those things that Christians claim he abolished and/or replaced them with Spiritual fulfilments? I say no; rather, all those accounts in which Yeshua seems to be contradicting Torah, actually what he is doing is debating his fellow Jews in internal disputes of Jewish law; hallakha. And of course I’m going to demonstrate this.

(8:3) The Shabbat observance Yeshua himself went to Synagogue every Shabbat (cf. Mrk 1:21, 6:2). When his students asked him about the destruction of Jerusalem, Yeshua told them to “pray that your flight will not take place on Shabbat” (Mt 24:20). This already testifies that Yeshua expects his disciples to keep Shabbat. Jews are forbidden to carry things outside of their area during Shabbat (cf. Shabbat 73a), so if they flee on Shabbat they would run away empty-handed – and that’s the reason for Yeshua’s warning.151 Interestingly, many Christians interpret that this verse refers to a tribulation before the coming of Messiah; if that were the case, the verse alone is proof enough that the observance of Shabbat is still expected even today. When Yeshua died, the women who had come with him from Galilee rested on Shabbat “according to the commandment” (Lk 23:56). • The book of Acts considers relevant to mention more than ten times that Yeshua’s disciples gathered on Shabbat (cf. Acts 13:14, 42-44, 16:13; 17:2; 18:4). Nothing, absolutely NOTHING hints or implies that Yeshua abolished the Shabbat or replaced it with another day – which would be a violation of the Torah (cf. Ex 20:10).


“Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Shabbat, observing the Shabbat throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever” (Ex 31:16-17).

• As a matter of fact the scholarly evidence is that early Christians gathered on Shabbat as they had learnt from their origins, when they gathered in Synagogues, 152 and independently also gathered on Sunday – which they called: “the 8th day” (which is a Jewish terminology for transcendence of this natural world. This natural world is based on patterns of sevens, and the 8th day is a shadow (reminiscence) of the World to Come). 153  

But some of the Fathers of the Church began to see Shabbat unnecessary and spoke about it with rejection; some even came to speculate that “Sunday” had replaced it. Ignatius of Antioch (110 CE) for instance wrote: “If we live Judaism we confess not having received the grace... those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day" (Letter to the Magnesians 8)


Ignatius ignores that the main reason that Paul didn’t impose the observance of Shabbat and circumcision on Greek believers is because according to Jewish Law gentiles are not obligated to observe these things; 154 it has nothing to do with abolishing the Torah. One of the worst reasons for not observing Shabbat came from the putrid theology of Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, who -- for some reason that I can’t even begin to conceive – said that he doesn’t observe Shabbat and the feasts because they were given to Israel “on account of your transgressions and hardness of heart… and unrighteousness” (Dial. 18, 21). Such was his biased perception of the Torah, without fundament, without understanding, contrary to the words of Isaiah (58:13-14). And sadly many came to believe the same way. Finally, in the Council of Laodicea (360 CE) Christians were forbidden to observe Shabbat, making it impossible for a Jew to become a Christian:

"Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians" (Canon 29).

(8:4) Shabbat general arguments Throughout the Gospels certain Jews try to find fault in Yeshua and accuse him of breaking the Shabbat. Yeshua always defends himself with Hallakhic expositions. This modus-operandi is nothing rare among Pharisees:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Later Catholic doctrine makes clear that Sunday became a replacement of Shabbat (a great violation of the Torah): "The Church of God has thought it well to transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday" (Cathechism of the council of trent; p 402, second revision). The abolition of Shabbat is therefore a later Christian forgery, and not something that might have come from Yeshua, so let’s see the disputed passages in the Gospels.

In one occasion Rabbi Ullah visited the School of Pumbedita and saw the scholars shaking their garments [he thought, to remove the dust] and told them they were desecrating the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah replied that they were not stringent about it (cf. Shabbat 147a; setama). In other words, in the time when our Hallakha was being established (between 1st and 5th Century) it was common to find debates in which a Pharisee would accuse another in order to cause the other to expound Hallakha (the way to obey the commands). There was not a clear binding hallakha yet, hence there were many opinions. That’s exactly what the Gospels depict. The validity of the Torah is never in dispute; what is at issue is the proper way to obey the commands. 

◊ It is written: “only, you must keep my Shabbat” (Ex 31:13). Our sages teach that the expression “only” (אך (in this verse is allowing for exceptions. So Yonathan ben Yosef said, Shabbat is committed to your hands, not you to its hand155 (Yoma 85b). Yeshua uses a very similar expression: “Shabbat is made for man, not man for Shabbat, therefore the son of man rules even over Shabbat” (Mrk 2:27-28; cf. Mt 12:8). An almost identical statement is found in the words of our sages: “Shabbat was handed over to man, not man to the Shabbat” (cf. Mekhilta Shabbeta I, on Ex 31:13). The above is precisely an important Rabbinic principle by which Shabbat can be relativised for the sake of people.

One day he entered a synagogue and healed a woman, and the ruler of the synagogue accused him of working as a doctor on Shabbat (Lk 13:10-14); he called him hypocrite and demonstrated he was permitted to do it by a Rabbinic method of exegesis (Kal vaKhomer): if an ox can be untied on Shabbat to give it water, how much more a woman should be untied from what bound her! (Lk 13:16). ◦ Certain Pharisees accused him of breaking the Shabbat by healing a sick person. He replied to them, “Is it lawful… to save a life on Shabbat?” (Lk 6:9). The question is not rhetoric; his opponents knew that “Pikuakh Nefesh (ie. Saving a life) supersedes Shabbat” (Yoma 85b).

In addition, our sages say (Yoma 85b): ‘If circumcision, which involves only one part of the body supersedes Shabbat, how much more the saving of the whole body”! Interestingly Yeshua used the exact same example: “If man receives circumcision on Shabbat… why are you angry at me for making a man[‘s body] whole on Shabbat?” (Jn 7:23).

 On another occasion, Yeshua’s disciples were hungry and picked some heads of grain. They were accused of desecrating Shabbat (Mt 12:1-2). Yeshua then offered an example from Scripture in which a starving person -- namely, king David (1S 21:6) -- in order to save his life, violated a command and ate food that is only permitted to the priests (Mt 12:5). In few words, Yeshua was comparing both cases, admitting that his disciples violated Shabbat, but for a good reason; they were starving just like David. To eat raw grain indicates that they must have been truly ravishingly hungry, as was David. In addition, they probably were fleeing from Herod, who sought to kill them. ◦ Now, interestingly, the example of David eating the showbread, is the VERY SAME example used by our sages when they decree that “every command of the Torah (except three) can be laid aside in times of danger”! (Menakhot 96a). Also the Mishna states: “Any matter of doubt as to danger to life overrides the Shabbat prohibitions” (Yoma 8:6). Coincidence?


(8.5) the carrying on Shabbat argument In the entire N”T, there’s only one account where one might think that Yeshua actually broke Shabbat, and incidentally this account is in the Gospel of John. Since we have demonstrated that Yeshua and his disciples are positive on Shabbat observance, why would he actually break Shabbat in this case? Scholars who believe that the Gospels were composed in different theological stages156 will easily dismiss John’s account for betraying Mark’s proTorah atmosphere and for gradually turning Yeshua into a non-observant Jew157 (or directly, a non-Jew). They would argue that this portion was a later thought interpolation, never written by any of Yeshua’s disciples. This explanation is reinforced by the fact that the story itself contains verses that are undoubtedly interpolations, and because that would not be the only place in John where a later scribe incorporated an entire new chapter. But given that the passage itself appears in every extant complete manuscript and is part of common Christian reading (and I believe Divine Providence is involved) I think there are different ways to deal with it, other than simply telling Christians to reject an entire chapter of John, which is a pill difficult to swallow.  p43

• Yeshua went to Jerusalem to celebrate a Jewish festival, and somewhere not too far from the Temple there was a pool: Beit-Hasda (Bethesda); where lots of sick people were there with the hope of being healed by the waters. 158 Yeshua went there on Shabbat and healed a man with the words: “rise, take up your mat and walk” (Jn 5:8). Some Judeans then saw the man and told him that it’s not permitted to carry things on Shabbat (Jn 5:10), and from our hallakhical point of view they are right. One of the few capital punishments of the Torah happened when a man carried sticks on Shabbat after God had establish it (Nm 15:32; cf. Neh 13:19; Jer 17:21-22); so this leads us to believe Yeshua broke Shabbat by commanding another person to desecrate it. However this is not the whole picture and there are many contextual factors that must be addressed before making such an accusation; after all, our sages taught that we must judge every person favourably (Avot 1:6b).

◦ First, let me repeat that we can’t judge a 1st Century Jew with our modern standards. In the 1 st century our Hallakha was still being debated and the Pharisees argued with each other even about Shabbat details.159 The Gospels insinuate differences between the Galilean and the Judean observances. ◦ Even though carrying objects out of your place is a Shabbat transgression, Pharisees are known for finding ways to circumvent the issue without altering the Torah, similar to how politicians make new laws without altering the constitution

The Jewish Law says that one cannot carry or transfer things into a public domain on Shabbat,160 but it also describes what is considered a public domain and what is considered a private or unitarian domain (Reshut haYakhid). According to the description, the pool was surrounded by 5 covered colonnades (Jn 5:2), thus implying that the place was surrounded by Tzurat haPetakhim (doorframes) and therefore was considered a communal area in which people could carry things on Shabbat, although maybe in that time some people disagreed. ◦ The way to by-pass the Shabbat prohibition is by raising an Eiruv161 around the area. The Gemara tells us that “Jerusalem would have been considered a Reshut haRabim (a public domain) if its city-gates were not closed at night” (Eiruvin 6b), and then Rashi162 explains that the custom was to surround the city with an Eiruv – hence everyone in Jerusalem could freely carry objects on Shabbat.

◦ Rashi might be right and the entire Jerusalem was surrounded by an Eiruv, or maybe that specific place was surrounded by the Eiruv of the Temple area, or by the symbolic Eiruv created by the five covered colonnades, this being the reason why John bothers to describe with detail the area in which this incident took place (Jn 5:2). In this case, Judeans noticed he was about to leave the boundaries of the Eiruv and were warning him not to do it while carrying his mat. If that were the case, Yeshua didn’t violate Shabbat, because he simply told him: “Carry your mat and walk”, but didn’t told him to “go beyond the Eiruv with the mat”. Or maybe the Judeans here were Sadducees who do not believe in the validity of the Eiruv

Or maybe the Judeans here were Sadducees who do not believe in the validity of the Eiruv. ◦ Notice from the context how those Judeans didn’t care for one second the miraculous healing, but were only concerned with technicalities, condemning the healer and the healed (they were what we call: radical legalists). Yeshua might have set aside on purpose all the technicalities of their Judean neighbours and out of mercy told the sick man to “Pick up his mat”, because he was an indigent who needed it to sleep at night, thus being part of Yeshua’s understanding of Pikuakh Nefesh (saving a life); after all, the Judeans opinion was not hallakhically binding. ◦ Verse 18 says: “Therefore the Judeans sought the more to kill him, because not only profaned Shabbat but also said that God was his father, making himself equal to God.” This verse reflects the point of view of those Judeans, and not necessarily Yeshua’s real behavior. They wanted to kill him because they “thought” he broke the Shabbat. It would be wrong to side with them; Yeshua didn’t break Shabbat, it’s a false accusation, and should it be true, then he sinned.

(8.6) The Ones behind the plot The last thing that must be noticed is how the Gospels depict Pharisees desiring to kill Yeshua for his Shabbat healings. As some scholars163 argue “Pharisees wishing to kill Yeshua for preaching Pharisee doctrine make no sense”. So they speculate that probably in the reedition of the Gospels the name ‘Pharisees’ was substituted for the original ‘Sadducees’; because, it was the Sadducees who in general were more legalists and literalists on Torah observance, and after all, the ones who sentenced Yeshua to death were the Sadducees. From the mouth of the Pharisees, ‘a tribunal that executes even one person in 70 years is a murderous court’ (Mishna Makkot 1:10). This doesn’t fit with the Christian preconceived ideas.

160 cf. Jer 17:21; Lv 34:21; Nm 15:32; Nehemiah 13:15-18, 10:31. cf. Shabbat 6a, 14b, 96b; Eiruvin 21b, 22b; Arukh Hayim 363:1. 161 A Jew cannot walk more than 4 cubits out of his area on Shabbat and cannot carry things in a public domain (cf. Eiruvin 41b [Mishna ch 4]). An Eiruv is a rabbinic enclosure of the neighbourhood – whether literal or symbolic – that transforms a public domain into private, thus allowing freely walking and carrying things (nowadays the whole city of Jerusalem is enclosed with an Eiruv). 162 Rashi on Eiruvin 6b; cf. Tosefta Pesakhim 66a. The tradition of the Eiruv is so ancient that the sages attribute it to Solomon (cf. Shabbat 14b). 163 Hyam Maccoby “Jesus the Pharisee” ch 10, p. 125  p44 

 However, given that there were so many different types of Pharisees, one must conclude that when the Gospels refer to “The Pharisees” cannot – and do not – mean “ALL the Pharisees”; even in context the logic is absurd. Rather there was a group of Pharisees who had corrupted themselves, and in their desire of having a first class position associated themselves with the Herodians (Hellenistic Jews who also worked with Sadducees), 164 as it is inferred from the following verses: “And the Pharisees… took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him” (Mrk 3:6), “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod” (Mrk 8:15), “And they sent to him certain Pharisees and Herodians to catch him in his word” (Mrk 12:13), but other Pharisees didn’t as it is written: “that day some Pharisees came and told him: Go and flee from here because Herod wants to kill you” (Lk 13:31).

How could we ignore the fact that in the false trial many false accusations were brought against Yeshua (Mrk 14:56), but desecrating Shabbat – which would have been a good excuse for his execution – was not one of them? In fact, in the same manner that John the Baptist was executed for giving the nation Messianic hopes (Antiq. 18:5.2), the sole reason Yeshua was sentenced to death was because he threatened the Pax Romana165 (the Roman peace cf. Jn 11:50) by proclaiming himself ‘King of the Jews’ which for the Sadducees threatened the peaceful authority they enjoyed under Roman rulership, and for the Romans was an attempt of sedition, 166 a crime punished with crucifixion.167 The high priest had already determined that in order to save the entire nation (from the harsh Roman reprisals) Yeshua had to die (Jn 11:50). The trial was only the excuse for the execution and had nothing to do with the Torah. I think the use of “Sunhedrion” (Mt 26:59; Mr 14:55) in this context can be misleading. 168 Sunhedrion means a ‘Joint session’ or tribunal (cf. Mt 5:22); not necessarily the main court of justice; i.e. the Great Sanhedrin of 70 sages. The Gospels say that the Romans were involved in the arrest (Jn 18:12), that the trial took place in Qayapha’s house, not in a court of justice, and that he was not judged according to Jewish Law. For example, it is forbidden to judge someone at night or at Passover’s eve. Giving a fellow Jew away to the gentiles is a sin known as “the selling of Yosef”, which not even the school of Shammai would have done. And obviously, if Yeshua was in fact a blasphemous, and the accusation had been justified, the Sanhedrin would had decreed or asked for his lapidation (something that rarely happened, since the sages always seeked legal loopholes and reasonable doubts before sentencing someone to death). So accusing the sages of killing Yeshua is a big mistake. It was gentile powers infiltrated in a corrupt group of Jews (which is called “Erev Rav” – the mixed multitude) the ones who really killed the Nazarene (Lk 18:51), and the process was led by the Judean Sadducees (Mr 15:3, 10). 

My final observation: Our sages said that the book of Esther was written with careful words and without an explicit mention of God for fear of their oppressive government. The choice of harsh words in the Gospels against Pharisees and the sweetened silence about Roman cruelty may have been the result of a similar scenery. 169 164 A similar scenery is depicted with Paul, who being a Pharisee, joined the Zealots and worked for Sadducees. 165 One might argue that his crime was that of blasphemy, but then he should have been lapidated under Jewish law; but instead he was hanged on a tree, under Roman law (cf. Mishna Sanhedrin 3:4). The farce began accusing Yeshua of instigation against the Temple, and it ended with a proclamation of blasphemy that is not so. The charge of blasphemy yelled by the Sadducee high priest was a blasphemy against Rome not against God, as they later proclaim: we have no other king but Caesar (Jn 19:15). Proclaiming oneself Messiah (or any synonymous title, such as son of God) is not any crime under Jewish Law. In fact there’s a Talmudic account where each school considers their Rabbi to be Messiah. 166 “Any challenge to Roman authority, any challenge to the peace of Rome, would have been met with a swift and violent response” (Michael White “From Jesus to Christ” part I). 167 Josephus, “Antiq.” 20:6.2, “Wars” 2:12.6. 168 Peshitta uses ‘Kanusta’ כנושתא which means ‘synagogue’ and/or ‘assembly’

69 A silence that is not absolute, as Luke dares to reveal that Pilate had mingled the blood of some Galileans with the blood of their sacrifices (Lk 13:1). All the historical sources attest that Pilate was in Judea with the sole purpose of keeping order at all costs, and any threat against his authority was quickly eradicated. His hand was especially severe with Jews and Samaritans (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18:4:1-2, 18:3:2). It’s therefore surprising from a historical point of view that in the Gospels Pilate refused to execute Yeshua (Mt 27:18; Lk 23:14; Jn 19:12), although it is still possible that this was the case. After all, Pilate was a real person and just like every real person, he could have had his good moments as well.

CHAPTER 9: Hand-washing and Dietary Law (9.1) different approaches for the same story ome Pharisees came from Jerusalem questioning Yeshua about his disciples, concerning why they break the rules of the elders by eating food without washing their hands (Mt 15:2). There are three major points of view for this text, I call them: “the Christian”, “the Karaite” and the “Orthodox” approach. In my opinion, none of them is completely 100% satisfactory, as there’s still something “missing” in the wholeness of the hermeneutic reading of the text. The question: “why your disciples break the tradition of the elders” seems to imply that these Pharisees are in fact talking of a Pharisaic tradition known as “Netilat-Yadaim” (the ritual washing of hands before meals). In fact, Mark’s version explains with a very neophyte language the Judean tradition of washing themselves many times before eating (Mrk 7:3). (a) In “the Christian” interpretation Yeshua opposes the Pharisees for substituting the word of God with their man-made traditions; they only care the legalism, while Yeshua only cares the inside. Yeshua says that nothing that enters from outside can contaminate the body, and therefore from that moment on, all foods became clean; i.e. the need to observe the dietary laws of the Torah ceased. So this Christian approach ends up with the surprising conclusion that Yeshua is giving free ticket for eating any kind of food (even pork or seafood); since “what goes into the mouth does not defile the man” (Mt 15:11). In other words, Yeshua is depicted as rejecting the traditions because they go against the Law, and then he rejects the Law itself and replaces it with his new point of view. (b) “The Karaite” approach similarly states that Yeshua was rejecting the man-made traditions as a whole, because they always invalidate the written text of the Torah. Thus Yeshua quotes: “they worship me in vain, for their teachings are but rules taught by men”. In short, the Karaite approach advocates for Sola-Scriptura – but we have already seen in the previous parts of this essay that he was anything but Karaite. (c) “The Orthodox” approach is contextually more plausible, makes more sense and it’s the necessary bridge into a correct interpretation. ‘The Orthodox approach’ simply questions the other two points of view and ends up with the conclusion that Yeshua was teaching a moral lesson, not necessarily going against the tradition. So let’s see their 7 arguments: - (1) First of all, how can a debate whose main subject is the ‘purity and defilement’ by washing the hands end up with a moral about Kashrut (ie. the permitted foods)? It doesn’t make any rational sense and doesn’t follow the logical flow of the narrative. The permission to eat forbidden foods is not even considered here – the rules of hermeneutic don’t allow for such a deviation from the context in such a manner. - (2) Why would Yeshua contradict himself, first saying that everyone who teaches against the Torah will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 5:19), and here he accuses those Pharisees of violating the Torah with their man-made traditions, and a few verses later he allows his Jewish disciples to eat what the Torah forbids? It doesn’t make any sense. - (3) How can Yeshua contradict God and teach his disciples to Sin? [because the Torah defines Sin]. Messiah is supposed to come to do the will of He who sent him (Jn 6:38). A Messiah that contradicts God is NOT a Messiah, but a false prophet (Dt 17:1-5). Those who pick and choose which command to obey and which command to ignore, of them it’s written: “they have cast away the Torah… and despised the Word of the Holy One”

(Is 5:24). So did he really, with one single phrase, get rid in one stroke of all the Laws of Kashrut? Very unlikely. - (4) How can Yeshua contradict himself, rejecting the Netilat-Yadaim and then telling his disciples to “do and observe everything the Scribes and Pharisees tell you to do”? Isn’t it inconsistent?


(5) Can the phrase: “what goes into the mouth does not profane a man” mean that foods forbidden by the Law are permitted? Certainly not, since we can prove that Yeshua’s own disciples refrained from eating such food – for example, when Shimon Keifa received the vision of the great sheet in which there were all kinds of beasts, reptiles and birds (cf. Acts 10:11) and a voice told him: “kill and eat”, Shimon answered and said: “NO WAY, Master, I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). This he said after being with the Master for three years and after the Master rose up from the grave. If Yeshua really taught that we can eat forbidden animals – why was Peter unaware of it? Peter (who in that moment had just finished his daily prayer and was very hungry cf. Acts 10:10) did not hasten to eat the first thing he found; on the contrary, he meditated on the meaning of the vision – he was convinced it WAS NOT LITERAL (Acts 10:17) – and finally found out that the vision didn’t have to do with food at all but it was a metaphor for the acceptance of gentiles to the community of Israel (Acts 10:28).

(4) How can Yeshua contradict himself, rejecting the Netilat-Yadaim and then telling his disciples to “do and observe everything the Scribes and Pharisees tell you to do”? Isn’t it inconsistent? - (5) Can the phrase: “what goes into the mouth does not profane a man” mean that foods forbidden by the Law are permitted? Certainly not, since we can prove that Yeshua’s own disciples refrained from eating such food – for example, when Shimon Keifa received the vision of the great sheet in which there were all kinds of beasts, reptiles and birds (cf. Acts 10:11) and a voice told him: “kill and eat”, Shimon answered and said: “NO WAY, Master, I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). This he said after being with the Master for three years and after the Master rose up from the grave. If Yeshua really taught that we can eat forbidden animals – why was Peter unaware of it? Peter (who in that moment had just finished his daily prayer and was very hungry cf. Acts 10:10) did not hasten to eat the first thing he found; on the contrary, he meditated on the meaning of the vision – he was convinced it WAS NOT LITERAL (Acts 10:17) – and finally found out that the vision didn’t have to do with food at all but it was a metaphor for the acceptance of gentiles to the community of Israel (Acts 10:28). - (6) Isn’t the text clear when at the end we read (Mrk 7:19): “This [he said] making all foods clean”? On the contrary, that’s a mistranslation and sadly in some Bibles [such as the NIV] the phrase is completely changed, modified and falsified as to say that ‘by saying these things Yeshua declared all foods clean – even those foods that the Law forbids’. But that’s not a logical conclusion for the discussion at hand. Now, the idea that something is called ‘food’ implies that is edible. Many of you wouldn’t eat rat, or human meat or a car’s wheel – you will say that’s not edible. In our context all the audience was Jewish and the food being discussed is the bread. For these Jews a dog for example was not edible; nor a Pig, nor Shrimps – and therefore not considered food, and excluded from the context

- (7) So the moral of the story170 is in Yeshua’s words: “eating with unwashed hands does not profane the man” (Mt 15:20). This means that the food is unclean only because God render it to be unclean but in essence it’s not intrinsically unclean. There’s a similar phrase from our sages: “The dead does not make you unclean, nor the water makes you clean [just because it’s water]; but rather it’s a Decree that the Holy One has decreed [and thus it’s God’s law what makes these things defile or purify you]” (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:8)

I would say the “Orthodox approach” solves most contextual and hermeneutical problems, but in its last clause it puts aside the still problematic fact that the main reason for the debate is in deed that some of Yeshua’s disciples “didn’t wash their hands” and that Yeshua’s final point of view is that there’s nothing wrong in eating without performing the hand-washing, something that the Orthodox approach evades. Now let’s bring the story back to its historical and religious context.

(9.2) two things to notice Once again I repeat that in the 1st Century the Hallakha was not monolithic. 171 Pharisees had their differences concerning purity regulations. There was a fellowship known as the (170 cf. Profiat Duran, Kelimat haGoyim 24-25; cf. Rashbatz, Kesher uMagen. 171 In fact even today (when Hallakha has been codified and standardized) isn’t yet as clear as some people hoped it would be. After the era of the sages, Rambam, in an attempt to preserve homogeneity during the Diaspora, tried to codify the Hallakha in the ‘Mishne Torah’ and Raavad spoke harshly 49) Khaverim: they adhered to the purity laws in ways that go beyond what the Jewish Law establishes, almost as meticulously as the High Priest (cf. Mishna Hagiga 2:7). And there was the opposite side: A great majority of Jews, who didn’t observe the purity laws more than what the Torah requires The Khaverim called them: Am-haAretz (people of the land) and in their opinion they were ignorant. 172 Another example, most Pharisees ruled that liquids that had been left in the open should be thrown away as they might be contaminated by snake poison – something common in that time (Mishna Teruma 8:4), while the Charismatic Pharisees (also called Hassidim) opposed to this view because they thought it shows a lack of faith in God (Yerushalmi Taanit 23a); the others replied that one should not rely on miracles for the things that are for us to do173 (Qiddushin 39b). 

 Second consideration: being ‘ritually unclean’ does not equal ‘sin’. Uncleanness only becomes sin when a person brings this uncleanness into the realm of what is forbidden. For instance one becomes unclean by burying a corpse, and it’s not a sin; it’s actually required in order to bury it. A woman becomes unclean by having Niddah (menstruation) and it’s not a sin. One can become unclean by touching a leper, and it’s not sin. But if they are in a status of uncleanness and enter in the Temple contaminating the priests’ consecrated food with their hands, then they sin. You can have an unclean animal as a pet (such as a dog) and is not sin, but if you eat it, then you sin. So, something unclean is something that cannot have a status of holiness (ie. cannot be set apart) for the Divine Service.

 (9.3) explaining the Netilat-yadaim Originally the ‘ritual washing of hands’ together with the washing of feet was something commanded to the priests before start their Service (cf. Ex 30:18-21) and before they touched the Terumah (the donations and tithes that Israel submits to the priests cf. Lv 22:7). Terumah belonged to the Temple – ie. to God (Lv 22:15) – so it could not be profaned. An ancient tradition states that in the first Temple Solomon decreed that the priests must perform NetilatYadaim before touching sacrifices (Qorbanot) as well, as to remind them the holiness of the place (cf. Shabbat 14b-15a; Maharsha). This Netilat-Yadaim was an act of holiness, not of hygiene (Lv 22:2-3). Even if the priest was already clean he had to ritually wash his hands before doing anything. It was a ritual ablution, not sanitary: just like the baptism (Tevilah) for repentance or for woman’s purification after menstruation. Shammai and Hillel required every one of us, priests and Israelites, to wash hands before eating bread, in order to familiarize the Priests (cf. Hullin 106a). According to Rashi, the only reason Jews perform the netilat-Yadaim is to ensure that the Priests will wash for the Terumah [something that will be important when the Temple be rebuilt]174 and Smag says in addition that the sages pretended to encourage cleanliness and holiness. “Why was the defilement (tumah) imposed on un-rinsed hands? It’s because a person’s hands are active (and apt to touch parts of the body and many dirty things) and then when he touches the terumah (i.e. consecrated food), it will be rendered inedible“ (Shabbat 14a).

 against him, saying that codifying it is destroying its spirit. Later Yosef Karo tried to do the same in the Sulkhan Arukh, and even today there’s a tiny debate between those who follow Rambam and those who follow Yosef Karo. Also there are those who follow the Tosafot (addendums), and those who don’t. If this is true in modern times, then can you imagine the 1st Century atmosphere of debates? 172 cf. Mishna Demai 2:3; Gittin 5:9; Pirkei Avot 2:6, 5:10. 173 There are similar ideas in the N”T: Yeshua says not to worry for the tomorrow; occupy yourselves with the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and the rest will be added to you. And Paul says: He who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat. 174 cf. Magen Avraham O.C. 158; Rashba    p50

 How did it become part of Jewish Law? The Netilat-Yadaim was one of the 18 ordinances adopted in accord with the School of Shammai the day of the zealots’ seizure, when they killed students of Hillel in order to outnumber him and impose Shammai ordinances. 175 175 cf. Shabbat 13b, 17a; Yerusalmi Shabbat 1:4“But it was not accepted from them” – the sentence: “it was not accepted from them” means that since the citizens were not observing this practice, it was annulled – because a decree that the nation does not accept upon themselves does not stand. 176 A generation later “their students re-established it and it became accepted” (Shabbat 14b). Not too much after that time, Rabbi Aqiva performed Netilat-Yadaim in prison, with the few water he had, in order not to contradict the majoritarian decree [even though he wasn’t necessarily in agreement to it] (cf. Eiruvin 21b).

 Yeshua’s years of ministry are in between the two periods. This means that there was no Netilat-Yadaim established by Hallakha during Yeshua’s ministry – at least not in the way we think of it today, and in case there was, it was being imposed by the Shammai students; not by Hallakha. The ‘Washing of Hands’ debated in the Gospels is a more ‘religious-sanitary’ and less ‘religious-ritualistic’ version (which developed later), as the context confirms [and it’s Rashi’s point of view as well]. Yes, apart of ritual traditions the sages established sanitary traditions, like the one we have mentioned above: the prohibition to drink from certain liquids if they remain uncovered for fear that a snake may have left some venom in it (cf. Terumot 8:4).

(9.4) exploring the text It’s notorious that the Pharisees in our story came from Jerusalem (Mt 15:1) – i.e. they were Judeans – which implies a difference of customs between the two communities, because let’s remember that Yeshua was a Galilean. Our sages recorded difference of opinions of this kind; e.g. Isaac ben Ashian was of the opinion that washing hands before meals was a meritorious act but not an obligation; and actually the halakha in the Tosafot goes according to this opinion (cf. Hullin 105a; Tosefta Berakhot 5:14). So what if Yeshua and his community didn’t see it binding either? They are still representing one important sector of the Pharisees! • The second thing to notice from the story is that only “some of his disciples” and not ALL of them ate without washing hands (Mrk 7:1-2). This means that the rest did, in fact, wash their hands, and it’s also worth to note Yeshua was not accused here, which implies that he did wash his hands. You might tell me there’s a similar story in the book of Luke in which Yeshua is questioned for “not washing himself before eating” (Lk 11:38), but in this case the “hands” are not mentioned, and the verb used in the manuscripts implies that the Pharisee was expecting Yeshua to bathe himself before eating – something that is too exaggerated even for Pharisees.

• Opening the debate, Yeshua does something very common in Rabbinic expositions: he answers their question with another question, and then offers his point of view. (a) The question he raises (let me paraphrase): how you dare to accuse my disciples of breaking a tradition when you guys are doing far worse breaking commands of the Torah through your traditions? (Mt 15:3). (b) The point of view he offers: the food enters and goes out… it doesn’t defile the man if you eat it with unwashed hands177 because all food passes through the stomach and is (175 cf. Shabbat 13b, 17a; Yerusalmi Shabbat 1:4. 176 cf. Yerusalmi Shabbat 1:4; Rashi on Avoda Zara 36b. 177 This applies to the School of Shammai, and it might apply to all the Khaverim, who didn’t eat with Am-haAretz (common people or sinners) because they didn’t want to get ritually unclean. Even in the 51) purged… but the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart (that is, the evil thoughts), and these defile a man” (Mt 15:17-20 / Mrk 7:19).
_______________________________________________________________________________
Since the text implies that Yeshua did wash his hands (and also some of his disciples), to say that he was totally contrary to washing his hands (as the Karaites stress) doesn’t satisfy the context. The “Orthodox approach” makes more sense here as it deduces that Yeshua is opposing ‘hypocrisy’ – namely, the hypocrisy of those who are so pedant, and dare to judge others while at the same time they do worse things, having forgotten to fear their God. 
\______________________________________________________________________________

 Carefully observe that Yeshua brings to their attention one specific tradition: the one in which a Pharisee made a vow to God and denied his possessions to his parents with the excuse that his goods are a Qorban (offering) to God. Yeshua said this goes against ‘honour your father and your mother’ (Mt 15: 4-6). It’s only after this example that Yeshua accuses them to follow man-made rules learned by rote (Mt 15:9; cf. Is 29:13). This tradition of transforming a vow into a Qorban is discussed in the Mishna, in tractate Nedarim: There’s the case of a son who wanted his father to participate in his wedding, but his father was forbidden to benefit from his son because of a vow. The son then gave all the possessions of the ceremony to a third party [thus making him the owner of everything] with the intention that his father could participate, but the third party consecrated it all to Heaven and the son lost it all (cf. Nedarim 5:6). For the Jews the vows are a serious thing. To the sages these kind of vows are technically permitted under the command of the Torah: “he must do everything that came out of his mouth” (Nm 30:3), however, such a person would be embarrassed and considered wicked – since only a wicked person would make such a vow in which he doesn’t need to honor his parents (cf. Nedarim 1:1, 9:1; 64b). The sages thus taught: “Do not swear at all… [Unless he wants to be nazarite or the like] the righteous does not make vows”. This is relevant with what Yeshua says after this, that the “evil speeches” come from within, and defile the man. In other words: the son who denied his possessions to his father in order to make them a Qorban to God is considered a wicked son, because he didn’t think of honoring his parents; he shouldn’t have made such a vow in the first place, for it defiled him

Yeshua refutes their position of “external” defilement by accusing them of “spiritual” defilement. Those Pharisees were saying that if you eat without washing your hands, dirtiness will enter your body and it will defile you. So he says that cannot be the case, because what you eat (as long as it’s not poisonous or sinful) is purged by the body through excretion (that’s how God arranged the body). Thus the original text reads this way: “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from outside can defile him? Because it doesn’t go to his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body thus purging all foods” (Mrk 7:18). This is confirmed by the parallel passage in Matthew 15:17: “Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is eliminated?” And then he adds: “what defiles a man are [his sinful thoughts and lusts], but eating with unwashed hands doesn’t defile a man” (cf. Mt 15:19-20)
N”T Shimon Keifa refrains from eating with gentiles in Antioch after Jewish men sent by Yaqov the Just came to make him a visit (Gal 2:12).

◦ Many times you’ll find the house of Shammai debating over external things, such as: ‘we have to pray the shema reclined’ while Hillel would say: it doesn’t matter, as long as you direct your prayer to God (cf. Mishna Berakhot 1:3). From all of this we can see with no shade of doubt that Yeshua is participating in the 1st Century debate concerning the “washing of hands” with Pharisees of the house of Shammai – and in his approach and exposition he reflects the kind of points of view you would expect from the house of Hillel.

CHAPTER 10: The heirs of Yeshua’s theology (10.1) the ancestors according to Judaism the ones who are authorized to interpret Torah in a practical level, the arbiters of God’s word, are the Jewish sages of Israel. The Torah must be interpreted according to their methods of interpretation and the Jewish Law must go in each generation according to their decree. “To them belong the oracles of God”. The tractate Pirkei Avot opens listing the chain of reception of the Torah, which is also the chain of authority; from Moses himself to the sages of Israel (i.e. the Scribes and Pharisees): “Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua [i.e. Yehoshua]; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets transmitted it to the men of the Great Assembly [which had been instituted by Ezra]… Shimon the Righteous was among the survivors of the Great Assembly… Antigonus of Sokho received from Shimon the Righteous… Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yohanan [the first Zugot] received the tradition from them… Yehoshua ben Perakhia and Nittai of Arbel received from them… Yehuda ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shatakh received from them… Shemaya and Avtalion received from them… Hillel and Shammai received from them” (Pirkei Avot 1:1-12).     p53

The Samaritans had their own line of reception, and the Sadducees (Tzeduqim) traced their line of authority back to Tzadoq; the first high priest in Solomon’s Temple, descendant of Eleazar, son of Aaron178 (1K 2:35). Did Yeshua confirm any of these lines of reception? Or did he reject them all and imposed a new line of tradition? In other words: Which community represents him and his theology the best?

Yeshua rejects the Samaritan tradition by saying: “salvation is of the Jews”. In his conversation with the Samaritan woman one can notice that he thinks of the Samaritan faith as a corruption of the Torah, and as a matter of fact, his love for the Temple goes against the Samaritan faith. Yeshua rejects the Sadducees, calling them ignorant of the Scriptures (Mt 22:29); he believes in the resurrection of the death as one of the basic principles of the Torah, while Sadducees don’t. Again, a wrong theology. How about the Pharisees? It is true that Yeshua told his disciples to beware of the “leaven” of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:6). In the Matthew account Yeshua does not explain the parable to the disciples, and they “understand” that the leaven is the doctrine (Mt 16:12). The key word here is “understand”, because (a) Pharisees and Sadducees have not the same doctrine, and (b) in Luke’s account Yeshua DOES explain the parable, and he refers to their hypocrisy; not their theology (Lk 12:1). In fact Yeshua vouches for the Pharisees’ authority to teach and interpret Torah (notice how he doesn’t include the Sadducees in this verse): “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, so you must do and observe everything they tell you to do” (Mt 23:2)

This verse is so obvious that non-Jewish scholars find it troublesome for their theology and many times have attempted to distort its plain meaning. For instance, most of the Christian commentators and apologists focus on the next verse, where it says: “But do not do according to their works, for they say but do not do” (23:3); simply evading the previous verse, acting as if it doesn’t exist. I have also debated with Messianics and Karaites who think that the ‘Matthew Shem Tov’ – which they claim to be the original Hebrew of Matthew – doesn’t say: 178 cf. Abraham Geiger, “Urschrift” p. 20. A 54 “they [the Pharisees] tell you” but rather “He [Moses] tells you”, but that’s absurd. Firstly, because the claim that they sit in Moses’ seat implies that obedience to Moses goes hand by hand with obedience to those who sit in his seat (i.e. that represent him). Secondly, because their ‘Matthew Shem Tov’ is not the Hebrew original; it’s not even ancient: it is a medieval reinterpretation written by a Jew named Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut. And third, because all the thousands of manuscripts of Matthew, whether in Greek, Latin, Hebrew or Aramaic… ALL of them say the very same thing in this verse, INCLUDING six of the nine manuscripts of ‘Shem Tov’s Matthew’

“They sit in Moses’ seat” – It’s written that “Moses sat to judge the people” to “teach the statutes of God and his Torahs [torotaiv]” (Ex 18:13, 16). Yitro told him is not good to “sit” alone to judge (Ex 18:14, 17). So he suggests organizing a group of sages that will rule the nation in the name of Moses (Ex 18:21-22). Interestingly, it is customary even today to stand up when reading from the Torah, and to sit down to interpret it or to make judgment. The fact that it says “they seat” implies oral interpretation. • “You must do and observe everything they tell you to do”. The source for this is the verse: “Al pi haTorah asher yorukha” – “on the Oral [explained, spoken part] of the Torah which they will direct you… you must do, and don’t decline neither to the right nor to the left” (Dt 17:11). Yeshua’s clear reference to Deuteronomy, as well as the Pirkei Avot list of authoritative lineage shows that Yeshua clearly accepted the legitimacy of the Pharisees’ authority to interpret Torah. As a matter of fact the very same teaching is found in the Oral Torah: “Do not say: I won’t obey the words of the sages because they are not in the Torah, the Blessed Holy One says: No, my son, but everything they tell you to do, do it, because it’s written: On the Oral Torah which they will direct you” (Pesikta Rabbati 3).


Putting things in perspective, even if most of them are a bunch of hypocrites, the Torah gives them the authority to interpret the Bible and to establish the laws of the Jewish nation. It’s no casualty that after the destruction of Jerusalem the Sadducees and the Essenes disappeared with the time, but the Pharisees remained. It is as if Yeshua knew it would happen. “If your righteousness does not exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees in no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 5:20). This verse can be explained in at least two positive ways: First, notice that “Kingdom of Heaven” does not mean “going to Heaven after death” (that’s a Christian theology that was developed later). The Kingdom of Heaven refers to the sovereignty of God on Earth; therefore, like the Hassidim, a Jew is expected to go beyond the letter of the Torah (to be more righteous than the Pharisees) in order to bring the Messianic era (i.e the Kingdom of Heaven). Another explanation is that, since he was talking to common people, many of them sinners, he was expecting them to return to God and become pious people (cf. Lk 15:10-32). About this our sages teach that the righteousness of a repentant sinner (a Baal Tshuva) is way bigger than the one of a man who in general has never sinned. 179 This is also stated by Yeshua, when the Pharisees ask why does he eat with sinners, and Yeshua replies that those who are Ok do not need a physician, but the sick ones do (Mt 9:10-13). With these words he was telling those Pharisees that they were Ok. Yeshua reproaching the Pharisees and setting a bigger level of holiness is also in line with the Jewish tradition that when Messiah comes, he will cause even the righteous ones to repent (Zohar III:153b).

 179 cf. Hilkhot Tshuva 7:4. 55 (10.2) on this Rock I will build my church We have seen that Yeshua vouches for the authority of the sages in matters of Torah interpretation and Jewish Law, based on the Torah itself. We have seen in the first chapters of this essay that Yeshua’s theology is imbedded in the Judaism of his time and therefore the later Christian theology does not represent him. Yet, Catholics claim their Papacy are the heirs of Yeshua’s authority on earth, and they prove it with an unbroken line of succession that goes directly to Keifa (whom they call Saint Peter). After Shimon bar Yonah declared that Yeshua is the Messiah, he said (Mt 16): “You are Keifa 180 and upon this rock I will build my community”. Most Protestants understand that the Rock Yeshua is referring to is Keifa’s statement that ‘Yeshua is the Messiah’ and that Christianity as a whole has the keys of heaven to bind and to loose, replacing the previous authority of Judaism

 The Latin Church understands here that Yeshua is naming Keifa ‘head and major authority of a new Church’. Keifa is the one who has the keys of the kingdom to bind and to loose, and this is supported by a second verse: “feed my sheep” (Jn 21:26). By tradition Peter is believed to have died in Rome, so they claim that he’s the first Roman Pope and therefore founder of the Papal lineage by Yeshua’s command.181 So basically we could reduce their belief in their own Papal lineage on three foundations: 1. Peter is the chief Apostle, the first Pope according to Yeshua. 2. Bishops are the successors of Peter. 3. Since Peter died in Rome, Roman Bishops are the maximum representatives of Yeshua on Earth. 182 Bishop means Overseer; what we call in Hebrew Paqid or Mashgiakh. 183 During and after the apostles ministry on earth, there were bishops (i.e. overseers) taking care of each community and each city. For instance, Paul wrote two letters to Timotheus, who was the overseer (bishop) in Ephesus (1Ti 1:3). A bishop in Rome was not bigger or smaller than a bishop in Edessa. In fact the headquarters of the believers was in Jerusalem. There we read in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters (Gal 2:9) that the heads of the Community were three: - Yaqov haTzaddiq (Yeshua’s brother, a.k.a James). - Keifa (a.k.a Peter). - Yohanan (a.k.a John).

◊ So the first thing to notice is that the New Testament says nothing of Keifa becoming a maximum authority in Rome; on the contrary, the few biblical references point us that his activity was focused on Jerusalem, Babel and Asia Minor. Besides, Paul – who spoke of the overseers in Rome – never mentions Peter among them (cf. Rom 16). 180 Keifa means rock in Aramaic. 181 “The holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by… “You are Peter”… In addition to this… the most blessed apostle Paul… by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world.” (Decree of Damasus I, part 3 (382 C.E). 182 cf. Canon 3 of Sardica. 183 Mashgiakh Rukhani; Spiritual overseer; also called Menahel or Mashpia – or in Aramaic Sa’or – refers to a Jewish overseer; the ancient title was Paqid (overseer) [Neh 11:9] which can be a Jewish authority or the responsible for a Noahide community as well (cf. Acts 20:28)

◊ The second thing is that even if Keifa in deed stayed and died in Rome, that doesn’t make Rome any better than Jerusalem or any other city where the disciples also stayed and died; 184 that’s making big assumptions out of thin air. ◊ The third thing to consider is that according to Acts, the voice of the Community was Yaqov and not Keifa (Acts 12:17, 15:13). The Gospel of Thomas – which shows in many ways a pre-Gospel tradition – supports the Acts and Galatians account by saying: “The disciples said to Yeshua: We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our head? Yeshua said to them, wherever you are, you are to go to Yaqov the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (Thomas #12).


(10.3) the Christian papal lineage As we are looking for the heirs of Yeshua’s theology, I don’t see the need to explore or to test the traced-back-to-Moses Rabbinic lineage any further, because (a) there are not alternative readings in Jewish literature and (b) Yeshua himself testified of its validity, as seen above. As per the Papal lineage, given all the above, its innovation, its replacement of Jewish and even of Torah authority, its non-Jewish theology… etc, we must scrutinize it carefully. Nowadays, the chronological order of the Popes has been canonized by the Church and is not questioned; everyone learns the same list of Popes in the Pontifical Yearbook, but this is far from being historical information, since this catalogue is based on the Liber Pontificalis (6th century onwards) and the Catalogus Liberianus (4th century), whose information about the first 18 Popes is gathered from Christian traditions and legends, and not from history books. Anyway, the beginning of the Papal lineage is as follows: 185 1 – Peter (Shimon) 2 – Linus 3 – Anacletus (Cletus) 4 – Clement 5 – Evaristus (Aristus) It all supposedly began with Keifa, who transmitted his authority to Linus. Apparently Linus was succeeded by Anacletus of Rome (also called Cletus), who transmitted his authority to Clement of Rome. Now let’s see some interesting facts:  

(10.3) the Christian papal lineage As we are looking for the heirs of Yeshua’s theology, I don’t see the need to explore or to test the traced-back-to-Moses Rabbinic lineage any further, because (a) there are not alternative readings in Jewish literature and (b) Yeshua himself testified of its validity, as seen above. As per the Papal lineage, given all the above, its innovation, its replacement of Jewish and even of Torah authority, its non-Jewish theology… etc, we must scrutinize it carefully. Nowadays, the chronological order of the Popes has been canonized by the Church and is not questioned; everyone learns the same list of Popes in the Pontifical Yearbook, but this is far from being historical information, since this catalogue is based on the Liber Pontificalis (6th century onwards) and the Catalogus Liberianus (4th century), whose information about the first 18 Popes is gathered from Christian traditions and legends, and not from history books. Anyway, the beginning of the Papal lineage is as follows: 185 1 – Peter (Shimon) 2 – Linus 3 – Anacletus (Cletus) 4 – Clement 5 – Evaristus (Aristus) It all supposedly began with Keifa, who transmitted his authority to Linus. Apparently Linus was succeeded by Anacletus of Rome (also called Cletus), who transmitted his authority to Clement of Rome. Now let’s see some interesting facts:

(10.3) the Christian papal lineage As we are looking for the heirs of Yeshua’s theology, I don’t see the need to explore or to test the traced-back-to-Moses Rabbinic lineage any further, because (a) there are not alternative readings in Jewish literature and (b) Yeshua himself testified of its validity, as seen above. As per the Papal lineage, given all the above, its innovation, its replacement of Jewish and even of Torah authority, its non-Jewish theology… etc, we must scrutinize it carefully. Nowadays, the chronological order of the Popes has been canonized by the Church and is not questioned; everyone learns the same list of Popes in the Pontifical Yearbook, but this is far from being historical information, since this catalogue is based on the Liber Pontificalis (6th century onwards) and the Catalogus Liberianus (4th century), whose information about the first 18 Popes is gathered from Christian traditions and legends, and not from history books. Anyway, the beginning of the Papal lineage is as follows: 185 1 – Peter (Shimon) 2 – Linus 3 – Anacletus (Cletus) 4 – Clement 5 – Evaristus (Aristus) It all supposedly began with Keifa, who transmitted his authority to Linus. Apparently Linus was succeeded by Anacletus of Rome (also called Cletus), who transmitted his authority to Clement of Rome. Now let’s see some interesting facts:

(a) While most accounts say it all began with Peter alone, Irenaeus claims that the foundation of Rome’s authority comes from two apostles: Peter and Paul, who founded the most ancient Roman church and passed the leadership to Linus. 186 But that’s not true. The church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul (cf. Rom 15:22).187 (b) Irenaeus claims188 that Linus is the same one mentioned in the New Testament, but the fact is that the name Linus appears only once in the New Testament and has no connection with Peter whatsoever (2Ti 4:21), making Irenaeus a good storyteller, but nothing else.

(c) Not even one of the details given about Linus’ life can be historically confirmed. 189 (d) In Clement’s letter there’s a brief mention of Peter, Apolos and Paul, but no mention whatsoever of Linus or Anacletus, or any other Bishop prior to him. (e) Neither Ignatius mentions any Bishop called Linus or Anacletus. (f) Tertulian doesn’t mention Anacletus and in his list Clement goes after Peter. 190 Jerome does basically the same thing. 191 (g) Hippolytus mentions Clement the first, then a certain Cletus and then Anacletus (which it was supposed to be the same as Cletus, but in this case it isn’t). (h) The Liber Pontificalis says that Cletus was a Roman, a Bishop in the days of Vespasian, and Anacletus was a Greek, in the days of Domitian (but other sources say they are one and the same). (i) As a matter of fact, T.J. Campbell, in the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the only thing we know of Anacletus is that he ordered a great number of clerics. That is to say that anything else has probably been invented, and hence the so many different versions of the Papal lineage. The Papal lineage has been fabricated. (j) Linus, the so claimed successor of Peter, was not named ‘Bishop of Rome’ until one century after his death, and was not considered a ‘Pope’ until late 4th Century

The first mention of the title “Pope” dates back to Egypt, and was applied to the Bishop Heracles of Alexandria (232 C.E). From the early 3rd Century the title “Pope” was a common designation for any Bishop in the West. The title Pope was not reserved exclusively for the leader of Rome until late 11th century. 192 Historians guarantee that there has not been Popes in Rome prior to Siricius of Rome193 (c. 384), at least not as a Supreme Pontiff. 194 In other words: Neither Anacletus, Linus, or Keifa were Popes (not as Supreme Pontiff anyways). 195 Even the Catholic scholar John O’Malley wrote: “The Christian community at Rome well into the second century operated as a collection of separate communities without any central structure… Rome was a constellation of house churches, independent of one another, each of which was loosely governed by an elder. The communities thus basically followed the pattern of the Jewish synagogues out of which they developed” (O’Malley JW. “A History of the Popes” p. 11).

186 cf. Adversus Haereses, III:3.2,3. 187 Sullivan F.A. “From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church”, p. 147. 188 Adversus Haereses III:3.3. 189 Scholar J.P. Kirsch admits this in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Linus. 190 Clement, “De praescriptione, xxii”. 191 Jerome, “Illustrious men 15”. 192 Jonh O’Malley, “A history of the Popes” p. xv. Cf. Thomas H Greer “A brief history of the western world” p. 172. 193 Bettenson & Maunder, “Documents of the Christian Church” p. 88. cf. Lopes A. “The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history”, p. 13. 194 Lat. ‘Pontifex Maximus’; a title that designated the maximum authorities in the pagan cults of Mithraism, later adopted by the Latin Church to refer the Roman Pope. 195 cf. Lopes p. 13.

 In other words, Roman Bishops evolved with the time into Popes. “Probably there was no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century... and likely later”.196 For the 5th century onward, the Pope in Rome was completely considered the ‘heir of Peter’ and representative of Yeshua by the Catholic Church. The Pope was not only heir of Peter, and not only representative of Yeshua… but in the 7th century the Pope became the ‘Vicar of God’! He became some kind of religious emperor whose decisions could not be questioned. Interestingly, this Pope was invested with far more authority than Peter himself had in the New Testament



184 “How Peter died is not told in the New Testament. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter's life and death in Rome… [including] his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus in the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church: Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, where ever we turn, the solid outlines of the petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve” (Catholic historian Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners: A history of the popes” 4th edition, chapter I, pp 2-6)

(a) While most accounts say it all began with Peter alone, Irenaeus claims that the foundation of Rome’s authority comes from two apostles: Peter and Paul, who founded the most ancient Roman church and passed the leadership to Linus. 186 But that’s not true. The church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul (cf. Rom 15:22).187

(b) Irenaeus claims188 that Linus is the same one mentioned in the New Testament, but the fact is that the name Linus appears only once in the New Testament and has no connection with Peter whatsoever (2Ti 4:21), making Irenaeus a good storyteller, but nothing else. (c) Not even one of the details given about Linus’ life can be historically confirmed. 189 (d) In Clement’s letter there’s a brief mention of Peter, Apolos and Paul, but no mention whatsoever of Linus or Anacletus, or any other Bishop prior to him. (e) Neither Ignatius mentions any Bishop called Linus or Anacletus.

(f) Tertulian doesn’t mention Anacletus and in his list Clement goes after Peter. 190 Jerome does basically the same thing. 191 (g) Hippolytus mentions Clement the first, then a certain Cletus and then Anacletus (which it was supposed to be the same as Cletus, but in this case it isn’t). (h) The Liber Pontificalis says that Cletus was a Roman, a Bishop in the days of Vespasian, and Anacletus was a Greek, in the days of Domitian (but other sources say they are one and the same). (i) As a matter of fact, T.J. Campbell, in the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the only thing we know of Anacletus is that he ordered a great number of clerics. That is to say that anything else has probably been invented, and hence the so many different versions of the Papal lineage. The Papal lineage has been fabricated

(j) Linus, the so claimed successor of Peter, was not named ‘Bishop of Rome’ until one century after his death, and was not considered a ‘Pope’ until late 4th Century. The first mention of the title “Pope” dates back to Egypt, and was applied to the Bishop Heracles of Alexandria (232 C.E). From the early 3rd Century the title “Pope” was a common designation for any Bishop in the West. The title Pope was not reserved exclusively for the leader of Rome until late 11th century. 192 Historians guarantee that there has not been Popes in Rome prior to Siricius of Rome193 (c. 384), at least not as a Supreme Pontiff. 194 In other words: Neither Anacletus, Linus, or Keifa were Popes (not as Supreme Pontiff anyways). 195 Even the Catholic scholar John O’Malley wrote: “The Christian community at Rome well into the second century operated as a collection of separate communities without any central structure… Rome was a constellation of house churches, independent of one another, each of which was loosely governed by an elder. The communities thus basically followed the pattern of the Jewish synagogues out of which they developed” (O’Malley JW. “A History of the Popes” p. 11).

186 cf. Adversus Haereses, III:3.2,3. 187 Sullivan F.A. “From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church”, p. 147. 188 Adversus Haereses III:3.3. 189 Scholar J.P. Kirsch admits this in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Linus. 190 Clement, “De praescriptione, xxii”. 191 Jerome, “Illustrious men 15”. 192 Jonh O’Malley, “A history of the Popes” p. xv. Cf. Thomas H Greer “A brief history of the western world” p. 172. 193 Bettenson & Maunder, “Documents of the Christian Church” p. 88. cf. Lopes A. “The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history”, p. 13. 194 Lat. ‘Pontifex Maximus’; a title that designated the maximum authorities in the pagan cults of Mithraism, later adopted by the Latin Church to refer the Roman Pope. 195 cf. Lopes p. 13

 In other words, Roman Bishops evolved with the time into Popes. “Probably there was no single 'monarchical' bishop in Rome before the middle of the 2nd century... and likely later”.196 For the 5th century onward, the Pope in Rome was completely considered the ‘heir of Peter’ and representative of Yeshua by the Catholic Church. The Pope was not only heir of Peter, and not only representative of Yeshua… but in the 7th century the Pope became the ‘Vicar of God’! He became some kind of religious emperor whose decisions could not be questioned. Interestingly, this Pope was invested with far more authority than Peter himself had in the New Testament.

(10.4) the truth of ‘binding and loosing’ These were the facts so far. “Passing of the keys of the kingdom” to Keifa was never a monarchical imposing measure of authority. Peter was a community member who consulted with other apostles and even was sent by them (cf. Acts 8:14). Keifa always worked in team with Yohanan (Acts 3:1-11; 4:1-22; 8:14). And Paul even dared to confront him when he was wrong (Gal 2:11); from which account we learn that Yaqov was in a higher position than Keifa (Gal 2:12). The truth is that the famous Rock in Matthew 16 is not Peter, but the proclamation that ‘Yeshua is the Messiah’, as even the early fathers of the church testify, 197 and the entire community – not Peter alone – has the power to bind and loose. Now this expression must be understood in its proper Jewish context

‘Binding and loosing’ - i.e. allowing and forbidding (Mt 16:19) – is a rabbinical legal term that refers to Posqim (deciders of the law), who have the duty to decide the legal process for a situation where the Hallakha has not been established yet, and for what to do with the sinners and heretics of the community they rule (cf. Hagiga 3b). 198 Just as each community had their Posqim, Yeshua’s community must have their posqim. It is clear that Yeshua didn’t mean Keifa alone when he gave permission to bind and loose, for this appears in other parts of the Gospels where Yeshua talks to the entire community and not to Keifa alone (cf. Mt 18:18; Jn 20:23). The majority Protestant interpretation in this rule is off-track, for they think that “binding and loosing” refers to demons. The Catholic interpretation is closer to Jewish interpretation, in the sense that the Posqim could, in deed, excommunicate people, proclaim a fasting day, or decide what to do with the gentile believers that come to them (Acts 15:3, 28) -- in other words, they can decree the rules of their community (which they call “church”) 199 – but the Catholics are mistaken in one of the most important principles: The Posqim cannot  override the rules of the Great Sanhedrin; that is, in matters that have become obligatory (i.e. have been bound on earth, and therefore have been also bound in Heaven). 200 Neither can the Posqim invent a new religion; and most importantly, they can’t, just as the Great Sanhedrin itself can’t, override or contradict the Torah of God. 201

196 Cambridge History of Christianity, volume 1, p. 418. 197 “Of all the fathers who interpreted these passages in the Gospels (Mt 16:18; Jn 21:17)… not one of them whose commentaries we possess – Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas – has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!... they understood by it either Christ himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles (cf. Rev 21:14)” (Catholic historian von Dollinger, “The Pope and the council” 74). 198 “Under Queen Alexandra… the Pharisees… became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind” (Josephus, “Jewish wars” 1:5.2). They could for instance ‘bind’ a day by declaring it a fast day (Taanit 12a). When the opinions of different schools differed (especially – but not only – the schools of Shammai and Hillel) it was common to hear the words: “One binds (i.e. forbids) and the other looses (i.e. allows)” (cf. Megillah 26b, Pesakhim 3a, 36b-37a; 55a [Mishna]); and Yeshua himself may refer to the School of Shammai when he says “they ‘bind’ heavy burdens but won’t move them with one finger” (Mt 23:2-4). 199 The term “Church” does not appear in the New Testament; the word Ekklesia simply means community or assembly, and although it might refer to different groups within Judaism, or even Synagogues, it does not refer to something separated from Judaism, as later Christians interpreted.


As for the idea that the Jerusalem community abolished circumcision, that’s just a mere misinterpretation of what the book of Acts states. The Jerusalem Council did not decide anything on the validity of Moses’ Law; what they decided was the way to deal with this new phenomenon: A wave of gentiles who came to shelter under the wings of the Shekhina. Acts states that there were a group of believers among the Pharisees who thought that the new members could only be “SAVED” (i.e. make it to the world-to-Come) if they were circumcised and completely submitted to the 613 commands of the Torah (Acts 15:1, 5; Gal 6:12-13). They wanted all believers in Yeshua to be Jews. The Jerusalem council said that such a command didn’t come from them (Acts 15:24) and decreed that circumcision will not be imposed on former heathens, i.e. believing gentiles. They do not need to become Jews and obey the 613 commands of the Torah. Later Paul would develop that salvation doesn’t come by having a Jewish identity (i.e. by circumcising). In the whole story, the community is dealing with gentile new members, not with Jews. It doesn’t say anywhere that a Jew must not circumcise his son anymore. In fact Paul is accused of abandoning the Torah and vouching for paganism (Acts 18:13; 21:28), and he defends himself against this accusation. Keifa himself says that many twist the words of Paul because he speaks things difficult to understand (2P 3:15). And finally, let’s not forget that the Nazarene community was divided into “those sent to circumcision (i.e. Jews) and those sent to un-circumcision (i.e. gentiles)” (Gal 2:7-9; Acts 10:45).

The Jerusalem community therefore binds on the new gentile-believers only four requirements: to abstain from (1) idol contamination (2) fornication (3) strangled and (4) blood. These four are not the whole law that a gentile must observe, but as they say: “It is my judgment that we should not make it difficult for the gentiles that are turning to God” (Acts 15:19). The four categories are things that could scandalize their fellow Jews at the Synagogue, and that can be found in Leviticus 17:12 – 18:21. (1) Idol contamination: “Do not give any of your seed to set them apart to Molekh, do not profane the name of your God” (Lv 18:21). (2) Fornication: “Do not uncover the nakedness of…” (Lv 18:6-20) “You shall not lie with…” (Lv 18:22-23). (3) Strangled: “in hunting any beast…” (Lv 17:13-15). “Any tool that strangles the animal by not allowing its blood to be spilled is not valid for slaughter” (Hullin 1:2). (4) Blood: “No soul of you shall eat blood” (Lv 17:12). There are those who say that abstaining from blood refers to murder. This is not so, because gentiles already had laws that prohibited murder, and the community had no need to regulate that. Obviously, if they regulated murder, they should have included many other things in the list, such as robbery. The “blood” reference is plain and clearly a prohibition of eating blood (a common practice among the gentiles which is forbidden by the Torah).

200 There were sanhedrins for each tribe and each town, and even a specific Sanhedrin of priests, and certainly each community had their own courts of Justice (being the minimum established a set of three judges per community), but they were all submitted under the Great Sanhedrin of 71 members (Sanhedrin 16b; Mishna Sanhedrin 1:6; cf. Ex 18:21, 24:9; Dt 16:18; cf. Mishna Ketuvot 1:5). 201 Dt 4:2. For instance, the sages give for granted that Hillel could not change the law of the Sabbatical year (Gittin 36a). And Ramban (on Dt 4:2) explains that a Rabbinic prohibition will sometimes be set aside in the face of conflict with a Torah one

And how do we know these laws apply also to gentiles? Because in the same portion is written: “Because with all of these the nations that I cast out before you have contaminated themselves” (Lv 18:24). Since these things corrupt even the gentiles, the disciples considered that these 4 laws were a good place to start dealing with them, in what back then was a 100% Jewish community. Those new believers would learn more Torah at their local Synagogue, as the verse says: “For Moses has been preached in every city… and is being read in the synagogues on every Shabbat” (Acts 15:21).

The procedure taken by the Jerusalem community of not imposing conversion to Judaism is in harmony with what our sages call the “Seven Laws of Noah”. 202 As they taught: “a Gentile who pursues the study of Torah is like a high priest – that refers to their own 7 commandments” (Sanhedrin 59a), meaning that gentiles do not need to observe the Laws of Jewish identity such as Circumcision. He who gets baptized and circumcised for the sake of Torah becomes a Jew, and is obligated by Law to observe all the commands of the Torah (cf. Gal 5:3). But as long as he remains a gentile, he has (so to say) certain privileges that are not permitted to the Jew.

(10.5) Paul of Tarsus I conclude recalling that if the Jerusalem community did, in fact, abolish circumcision for the Jews, then they sinned and are nothing but heretics. 203 Many would think of refuting me through the letters of Paul. What Paul said or didn’t say in his letters is another topic, I firmly believe that his letters have been largely misinterpreted by the masses and taken out of their historical context. His letters were never intended to be the Biblical Canon of a new religion. Paul makes it clear that he speaks according to his knowledge, sometimes emphasizing that he is offering his own personal opinion. "I don't speak by command... I offer you my opinion on this matter" (2Co 8:8-10). Paul himself makes the difference between the commands of the Torah and his own commands, attesting that the words of the Torah are more important. "To the rest, I say, not the Lord... " (1Co 7:10-12). And on another occasion: "Concerning the virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my own opinion" (1Co 7:25). Paul dares to say something even more radical: "Let me talk, not from the Lord, but as a foolish, in the certainty that I have something to boast about" (2Co 11:17). Furthermore, Paul's preachings are not infallible. Occasionally he makes mistakes, like when he talks about those who died in the plague of Midian, and he says that there were 23,000 dead people (1Co 10:8), but the Torah says there were 24,000 (Nm 25:9), which is attested even in the LXX.

Besides, Did the different communities really receive Paul's letters as coming from God's mouth? (1Ts 2:13) Not all of them. Paul himself rebukes a community because there were among them those who preferred to listen to Paul, others preferred Apollos, others Keifa, and others preferred none of them (1Co 1:11-13). These preachers were far from being perceived as Biblical prophets. Many of Paul's letters were lost because people did not took care to protect them. How could all of this be compared to the Holy Writings of our Biblical Prophets? At best, the letters of Paul have the value of theological correspondence between a teacher and his   different students, (as it has been the case of many Rabbis who left us entire epistles, which were written exclusively for members of their community or single disciples). Paul’s literature has been canonized and explained without taking into account that each individual letter had a different context and dealt with specific issues for specific people.

I didn't even begin to touch the subject of Paul; this is much more extensive and it requires an essay on its own. Just let me remind you all that anyone who calls himself a “Follower of Yeshua” should live according to “Yeshua”. If Paul, for whatever reason, contradicts Yeshua, then you should follow Yeshua and not Paul


 156 Such as Shmulei Boteach in “Kosher Jesus” or Hyam Maccoby in “Jesus the Pharisee”. 157 Hyam Maccoby argues that the account where Yeshua heals a leper and tells him to go to the priest at the Temple (Mt 8:2-4, Mrk 1:40-44; Lk 5:12-14) is suppressed in John precisely because it goes against John’s depiction of a Yeshua owning no allegiance to Moses (cf. Jesus the Pharisee ch 4, p. 43). 158 The interpolation says that an angel appeared, stirred up the water and healed the first one into the pool, but it’s more likely a pool dedicated to the Roman god Asclepius (the god of healing). The Mishna states that there were also pools dedicated to the goddess Fortuna (Zavim 1:5). 159 “The laws of the Shabbat limits are only Rabbinical” (Eiruvin 59a).



◦ Later Yeshua reinforces his argument by using a teaching of the House of Hillel: “the sacrificial service [also] supersedes Shabbat” (Shabbat 132b). Immediately after this, Yeshua 155 It must be stressed that Rabbi Yonathan never meant to say that Shabbat is abolished, God forbid. He meant that there are exceptional situations where Shabbat can (and must) be neglected. 43 accuses his opponents of not having mercy (Mt 12:7); why? Because knowing that his disciples were hungry, instead of providing food, they were just judging instead of helping. ◦ Furthermore, in case someone wants to accuse them of stealing from the another person's land (which is not the reason the Pharisees discussed with them) the Torah allows for the poor to take grain from the corners of the fields and leftovers of the reapings (cf. Lv 19:10, 23:22, Mishna Peah).


151 cf. Rabbi Lichtenstein's commentary on Matthew. 152 “It is certain that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed – together with the celebration of the Lord’s day – by the Christians of the East Church, above three hundred years after our Savior’s death” (Edward Brerewood, “A Learned Treatise of the Shabbath” p. 77). “From the apostles’ time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews’ Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it” (John Ley, “Sunday a Sabbath” p. 163).  
153 “We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness; the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [74 CE]). 154 “Moses commanded us Torah; the inheritance of the congregation of Yaqov” (Dt 33:4) “It is our inheritance, not theirs” (Sanh 59a). A gentile must keep the Laws of Noah – and Shabbat is not part of them (Sanh 56a-b, 59a). He may take responsibility for additional commandments (becoming a Ger). A Ger who lives among Jews must commemorate Shabbat (cf. Ex 20:10, Rashi, Kritot 9, Yevamot 40)