Any Pharisaic / Rabbinic Authority in Judianity Today?
What Authority if Any Does Pharisaic / Rabbinic Tradition Have ?
Most Christians would answer such a question with a dismissive: “none whatsoever”.
But arguably the answer isn’t quite so obvious when reading Christ’s words carefully in:
Matthew 23:1-3
1 ¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Christ’s Apparent Endorsement of Rabbinic Judgements
These verses are often “skipped over” as ministers normally go on to expound the rest of the chapter in which Jesus / Yeshua rails at specific Pharisaic / rabbinic traditions that were hypocritical and erroneous.
Yet arguably we shouldn’t be so dismissive of Messiah’s words here. In the same chapter He said:
Matthew 23:23
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Whilst He chides the Pharisees for their lack of perspective regarding more important issues, Messiah doesn’t chastise their judgement about tithing on herbs (in the context of a fully functional Temple and Levitical Priesthood).
On the contrary: He endorses it…
Equally, there's quite a compelling case for arguing that Messiah and His disciples observed a traditional Pesach Seder ("Old Testament Passover" tradition) in accordance with the Mishnah.
Statutes and Case Law
Following some helpful advice from his father-in-law, the system of judges was introduced during the time of Moses to delegate the judicial process (Exodus 18:13-27). As Numbers 11 shows seventy elders or judges were given God’s Spirit to rightly apply the laws given by God in the written Torah to the specific cases brought before them:
Numbers 11:16-17
16 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
17 And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
Later this model was adopted by the Sanhedrin. So arguably, this is what Christ Himself meant when he said, “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. They indeed did have a delegated judicial authority to interpret the application of scripture in specific cases.
What Do You Mean Rabbinic Tradition?
Today in England and Wales the top level legal principles enacted through Parliament are enshrined in the statute book. However, even with the best intentions, government legislation cannot pre-empt every eventuality and so needs a system to address the specific application of the legislative principles to individual cases. In our system today, this is addressed through the rulings of “case law” by the judiciary. Judges establish case law in good faith, but rightly their decisions are not always perfect and so they’re open to challenge through other courts such as the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
Similarly in addition to the written legislation for the nation of ancient Israel enshrined in scripture, the accumulated “case law” of the judges had been gathered together using an oral tradition and had become known as “Oral Torah”; particularly since the return from Babylonian exile and the building of the second temple. After the destruction of the Second Temple the Oral Torah was codified in the Mishnah, which was subsequently commented upon by the Talmuds.
As such, arguably the Mishnah then contains material which would have been extant as Oral Torah in the first century at the time when Christ endorsed (at least some of) the judgements of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:1-3.
Hedge Around the Law
However, in certain cases the Mishnah overtly legislates even further than the the written Torah, in order to be a protective "hedge around the law". See Note 2 at the bottom of the page illustrated below (page 53 from the Mishnah translated by Herbert Danby).
Arguably though, Deuteronomy 4:2 denies such rulings validity.
Deuteronomy 4:1-2
1 ¶ Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Mishnah, Minutia & Contradictory Judgements
In trying to be a protective “hedge around the law” “oral Torah”/Mishnah often deals with minutia, and as a result sometimes gets so tied up in the details that it misses the key principles. Messiah was particularly critical of the oral torah rabbinic traditions on several occasions. (Arguably its this stressing of the minutia that to some extent engendered/s the culture of “justification by legalistic observance” in Galatians which Paul too was critical of).
Furthermore, it offers the views of a variety of rabbinic authorities often directly contradicting each other, without resolving the judgement; so observing the judgement itself can become more than tricky.
Here’s an example of both: the oral Torah delving into the minutia and also a contradicting view between the rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel, which to some remains unresolved (but to others is resolved…). It’s from the section on Immersion Pools.
Mishnah: Mikwaoth 4.1
“If a man puts vessels under the water-spout [that feeds the Immersion pool] they render the Immersion-pool invalid. It is all one whether they were set there or left in forgetfulness. So the School of Shammai. But the School of Hillel declare it clean if they were left in forgetfulness. Rabbi Meir said: They voted and the School of Shammmai outnumbered the School of Hillel; but they agree that if they were left in forgetfulness in the courtyard [and not under the water-spout]. It remains clean. Rabbi Jose said: The dispute still stands where it was”.
Even Contradicting Scripture
Sometimes rabbinic tradition even contradicts scripture. Take for example the scriptural command to wear blue threads in fringes. Pharisaic/rabbinic tradition says: because we don’t know precisely which blue dye the threads should be made from, and we must get shade of blue exactly correct; its best to play safe and have only white fringes instead. The Bible commands blue threads, Pharisaic tradition arguably misses the point and allows only white.
Mark 7 reminds us also that in the same way, there were other occasions that the Judgements of the Scribes and Pharisees even laid aside the commandments of God in favour of tradition.
Mark 7:8-9
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Nevertheless, despite the obvious criticisms, given Christ’s endorsement for the authority and judgements of the Scribes and the Pharisees in Matthew 23:1-3 does this mean that we should spend as much time studying Rabbinic tradition as we do studying the scriptures?
Thankfully the answer is “probably not”.
Christ Didn't Exclusively Call Lawyers To Be His Disciples
That Christ called a mixture of Doctors, Fishermen, Tax Collectors etc. to be His disciples (talmidim), and not exclusively a bunch of lawyers trained in the best Jewish legal schools (with the exception of Paul, who was), is particularly informative.
What Christ And Paul Didn’t Say
Both Christ’s and Paul’s words help to add further background in this regard. It’s interesting to note though, what they don’t say, as much as what they do say.
In Matthew 5:18 Messiah’s own endorsement for the unchanging validity of every “jot and tittle” of (written) Torah noticeably lacks an equally unqualified endorsement for the prevalent rabbinic “oral Torah” (later Mishnah).
Christ certainly didn’t say: “and every syllable uttered by the rabbinic sages will remain until heaven and earth pass” for example. But then, He couldn’t say that because there is so much unresolved contradiction inherent in Mishnah as we’ve seen in our example above.
Paul though had been taught at the feet of one of the foremost Pharisaic lawyers of the first century; Gamaliel (of the rabbinical School of Hillel). As a Pharisee Paul had probably the most formal training of all the apostles in oral Torah / Mishnah.
In Acts 22: he explains [to the mob at the temple who wanted to stone him]:
Acts 22:1-3
1 ¶ Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
3 ¶ I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner (exactness, exactest care) of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Galatians 1:14
14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Despite this however, later in life, in Acts 24 in a court of law, Paul too (just like Christ) noticeably fails to make an unqualified endorsement of the “oral Torah”/”traditions of the fathers” which as a Pharisee, he would otherwise have been expected to do.
Acts 24:14
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Again, noticeably no endorsement whatsoever here for “the traditions of his Fathers”, the oral Torah (later Mishnah).
Both Christ and Paul acknowledged the sovereignty of written Torah, but neither unequivocally endorsed all rabbinic traditions or “oral Torah”/Mishnah.
Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 3: we see Paul doing something very similar. Does Paul advise Timothy to become perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works, through the study of "Oral Torah" / Pharisaic "traditions of the fathers" in the way that he'd previously been schooled? No. Here again, consistent with his testimony before Felix Paul only endorses the study of written scripture.
1 Timothy 3:14-17
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
It needs to be acknowledged that in both Acts and Timothy Paul doesn't explicitly state that he's entirely turned his back on the "Oral Torah" (much of which would become part of the Mishnah) in either of these cases. However, these are important testimonies of Paul in the apostolic scriptures and arguably, given the context of Paul's strict Pharisaic background, even amongst an audience which includes the Pharisaic elite, are they not, surprising omissions, to say the least?
Furthermore in the epistle to the Galatians having explained his credentials as a former strict Pharisee, Paul is critical of legalistic aspects of law and he robustly refutes the suggestion that the exactness of legalistic observance earns salvation. Given his earlier affirmation of the written law in Acts 26 before Felix and his endorsement of scripture to Timothy, arguably this can only mean that Paul's focus in Galatians is not the written Torah in the Pentateuch. See the article on our sister website: What Was The Galatian Heresy ? On the contrary it is far more likely that Paul, like Christ in Mark 7 and Matthew 23 is criticising certain parts of the "Oral Torah" at the very least.
The Healing of the Paralytic John in 5:1-10
The healing of the parlaytic at the Pool of Bethesda is an important reference point in this discussion, because it appears to illustrate Christ's interpretation of written Torah and compares and contrasts this, with the traditional (and presumably presiding) interpretation of the Pharisees as was later documented in the Mishnah.
Specifically, Christ told the paralysed man whom He'd healed on the Sabbath, to pick up his bed and walk.
John 5:
1 ¶ After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. (Note commentators say that the earliest texts do not contain this verse)
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
(The pools of Bethesda & Siloam probably served as Mikveh for the immersion of pilgrims on their way to the Temple) as the prophesied rivers of living waters for a yet future Temple arguably will too.
The Pharisees were critical of the man who was healed because he was, in their view, "carrying a burden" on the Sabbath.
Before we take a closer look at the subject of "carrying a burden" on the Sabbath, let's orientate ourselves by taking a look at the commandment given at Sinai by God concerning the Sabbath.
Exodus 20:
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Work for one's family, employees, even beasts of burden is prohibited by God on the Sabbath and specifically carrying a burden on the Sabbath is prohibited in scripture.
Jeremiah 17:
19 ¶ Thus said the LORD unto me; Go and stand in the gate of the children of the people, whereby the kings of Judah come in, and by the which they go out, and in all the gates of Jerusalem;
20 And say unto them, Hear ye the word of the LORD, ye kings of Judah, and all Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that enter in by these gates:
21 Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;
22 Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.
23 But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, nor receive instruction.
24 And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken unto me, saith the LORD, to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but hallow the sabbath day, to do no work therein;
25 Then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: and this city shall remain for ever.
26 And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and meat offerings, and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house of the LORD.
27 But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.
But despite Jeremiah's warnings as we'll see from Nehiamiah's words below, Judah's continued sinning in this and other respects, led to the invasion by the Babylonian army and Judah's subsequent captivity and exile under Nebuchadnezzar. Having suffered this national punishment but being released later by Cyrus, Nehemiah tells us that the harsh lessons of the past had been all too quickly forgotton, as we see from the following verses:
Nehemiah 13:
15 ¶ In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals...
...16 There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem.
17 Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day?
18 Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath.
19 And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day.
20 So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice.
21 Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath.
Arguably these references in Jeremiah 17 and Nehemiah 13 remind us of Numbers 15 when a man was executed for gathering sticks.
Numbers 15:
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Since the contexts of both Jeremiah 17 and Nehemiah 13 appear to be prohibitions against carrying a burden as work on the Sabbath, we can probably safely presume the Israelite in Numbers 15 wasn't picking up just one or two sticks as he went for a stroll, but was gathering a quantity of firewood either for his family; which would have been part of his weekly work pattern and should have been completed by sunset on Friday evening; or he was gathering (as in the references in Jeremiah 17 and Nehemiah 13) perhaps an even larger quantity to sell to other Israelites ?
So we've seen that there are clear scriptural prohibitions regarding the carrying of burdens on the Sabbath.
In John 5 then, are we seeing a contradiction between Christ's direction to the healed paralytic to carry his bed and walk on the Sabbath and the (so called) "Old Testament" laws which prohibited the carrying of burdens ?
Of course not. Jesus was without sin (John 8:7, Heb 4:15, Heb 9:28); and sin is defined in scripture as "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). So Jesus couldn't have transgressed the law. Yet, He was perfectly comfortable directing a man to pick up, what would presumably have been a bed roll (rather than a King Size pocket sprung mattress on a divan base!) on the Sabbath. It follows then, that Jesus didn't classify the bed that He directed the former paralytic to carry as a "burden" (in the Jeremiah 17, Nehemiah 13 and Numbers 15 sense). The paralytic wasn't doing any form of work on the Sabbath and certainly wasn't carrying stocks of bed rolls to sell.
Let's now see how our Messiah's interpretation of the law contrasts with the Pharisee's interpretation as recorded in the Mishnah.
In Mishnah Tractate: Shabbath (Sabbath) the Pharisaic traditions are recorded and they specifically include the following excerpts.
Extract from Mishnah Tractate Shabbath (Sabbath) 9:
5. [He is culpable] that takes out [on the Sabbath] wood enough to cook the smallest egg, or spices enough to flavour a light egg (and [various spices] can be included together [to make up the forbidden quantity]); or shells of walnuts or skins of pomegranates or woad or madder enough to dye a garment small as a hair-net; or urine, soda, soap, cimolian earth, or lion's-leaf enough to cleanse a garment small as a hair net. R. Judah says: Enough to spread over a stain.
6. [He is culpable that takes out] any quantity soever of sweet pepper, or of tar; or ay quantity soever of any kind of spices or of any kind of metals; or any quantity soever of altar-stones or of altar-earth or of worn out sacred books or their worn-out covers that have been stored away in order to hide them....
7. If a man took out a pedlar's basket, although there are in it many different kinds, he is liable only to one Sin-offering. [So, too, if he took out] garden-seeds little less than a dried fig's bulk (R. Judah b. Bathyra says : Five [garden-seeds]); or two cucumber-seeds, two gourd-seeds, two seeds of Egyptian beans; or a live locust, however small, or a dried fig's bulk if it is dead; or "birds of the vineyard", alive or dead, however small, since such are kept as a means of healing. R. Judah says: Even if a man took out a living, unclean locust, however small [he is culpable] since it is kept as a child's plaything.
10.1 If a man stored up aught as seed or as a sample, or as a means of healing, and he took it out on the Sabbath, he is culpable, however little the quantity; but any other becomes culpable thereby only if [he took out]....
So, there seems to be an enormous gulf between our Messiah's (arguably entirely reasonable) interpretation of scripture and the Pharisee's (incredibly restrictive and unrealistic) "hedge around the law".
Clearly in this particular case, the authority of the Creator God of Israel (John 1:1-14, Colossians 1:12-17, Hebrews 1:2) trumps that of Pharisaic tradition.
So how should we then view the Mishnah and rabbinic traditions?
Conclusion
The Scribes and Pharisees indeed did have a delegated judicial authority to interpret the application of scripture to specific cases. The Mishnah arguably contains material which would have been extant as “oral” Torah in the first century at the time when Christ endorsed (at least some of) the judgements of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:1-3.
However, certain elements of the Mishnah are based upon the rejection of scripture in favour of rabbinical traditions and are therefore invalid. Others deal in the minutia and lack the broader perspective regarding bigger issues, and have been rejected accordingly by God/scripture. Some of the judgements are inconclusive and even contradictory and consequently difficult understand how to put into practise. Certainly some rabbinical traditions completely contradict scripture and are therefore null and void.
Particularly given Deuteronomy 4:2 from our perspective scripture’s authority regarding top level principles is unassailable. Scripture/the words of God Himself “trumps” any form of rabbinic tradition, where there’s a contradiction. Since certain elements of Mishnah are designed to be an additional protective “hedge to the law”, then arguably Deuteronomy 4:2 denies such rulings validity.
However, subject to the above qualifications, insofar as the Mishnah clarifies the specific application of scriptural principles without contradiction, or making additional (or indeed lesser) demands or building a "hedge around the law", then they’re arguably deemed valid by Matthew 23:1-3,
Matthew 23:2-3
1 ¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Arguably, not least because Christ’s apostles and disciples weren’t comprised entirely from the legal profession, one doesn’t have to be expert in Mishnah, just as one doesn’t have to be a qualified lawyer today knowing every aspect of our statutes and case laws to remain on the right side of our country’s law. In the same way then, that when we have specific questions about the application of the laws of England and Wales today, we would consult a lawyer who in turn would consult books of case law; if scripture doesn’t give us a requisite level of detail regarding an issue, subject to the above clarifications the judgements offered in the Mishnah may be of use and as such are endorsed by Christ.
Matthew 23:1-3 suggests then, that we certainly shouldn’t be as ignorant of the Mishnah as christians often are. At the very least, Mishnah provides an invaluable insight into culture of “justification by legalistic observance” that Paul rightly criticised in Galatians. Regrettably mainstream christianity’s failure to understand the context of the oral torah/Mishnah has led them to believe that Paul was criticising written (rather than oral) Torah.
Charles R. Gianotti's book "The New Testament and the Mishnah" provides helpful cross references between the Mishnah tractates and the Greek Scriptures in the Bible (New Testament) and visa versa.
Other Helpful Articles
There are some valuable points in Tim Hegg's article: The Bible is Sufficient
We'd also suggest that you download this article Was Yeshua a Pharisee ?
Go back to the start of Judianity - A "Third Way" Between Judaism or Christianity ?
Theologians believe that even after the crucifixion Paul kept Nazirite vows at the temple and offered sacrifices. One predictable adjustment to a written Torah law about circumcising gentile proselytes in Acts, caused massive turmoil in the church. If most of the other "Old Testament" laws were abolished, why wasn't a similar level of controversy recorded then? Was the Torah really "done away" in Galatians ?
Let's take a look at the Mishnah.
© www.judianity.info May 2009.
