Welcome to En-Gedi…
Featured Article: (from Parables and Stories)
Having a Single Eye
by Lois Tverberg
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. Matthew 6:22-23 KJV
What does Jesus mean in the strange passage above when he refers to having “a single eye”? Figures of speech in other documents from that time help illuminate Jesus’ puzzling words. Several idioms that mentioned the “eye” were about a person’s attitude toward others. A person who possessed a “good eye” was generous toward others, and a person with a “bad eye” was stingy and self-centered.
It has been suggested that Jesus was referring to having a “good eye,” but the Greek in the passage actually does not say “good” (kalos), rather it says “single” (haplous).
In fact, being “single” is not an uncommon idiom in that time, however, not in the precise sense we understand it today. Throughout the New Testament the idea of “singleness” (haplotes) is used to mean “sincere” or “undivided,” often in exhortations to have a “single heart” (See 2 Cor. 1:12, 11:3, Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22). Sincerity and lack of duplicity seems to be the idea of the following passage:
The good man has not an eye of darkness that cannot see; for he shows mercy to all men, sinners though they may be, and though they may plot his ruin.…His good mind will not let him speak with two tongues, one of blessing and one of cursing, one of insult and one of compliment, one of sorrow and one of joy, one of hypocrisy and one of truth, one of poverty and one of wealth; but it has a single disposition only, simple and pure, that says the same thing to everyone. (1)
This passage describes a man’s “eye” in terms of his caring for the needs of others, and contrasts an “eye of darkness” to a disposition of “singleness”. The contrast seems to be between pretending to care about others with an inward attitude of self-advancement and of having a genuine concern for others, without hidden motives.
And, we do actually find the idiom of having a “single eye” in Jesus’ time too:
I never slandered anyone, nor did I censure the life of any man, walking as I did in singleness of eye (3:4)… And now hearken to me, my children, and walk in singleness of heart….The single [minded] man covets not gold.…There is no envy in his thoughts, nor [does he] worry with insatiable desire in his mind. For he walks in singleness, and beholds all things in uprightness of heart….Keep, therefore, my children, the law of God, and attain singleness…(2)
Here, the idea of “singleness” was associated with a freedom from envy of money. “Singleness” in this passage refers to a person of sincerity who does not have a secret agenda of self-advancement. This translates into a lack of covetousness and greed.
Now Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:22-23 gain more clarity in their context. Jesus seems to be talking about our attitude towards others. Do we have a simple desire to serve God by caring for the needs of others? Or are we insincere people who are self-centered and serving our own agenda? If all we recognize is our own needs, we are blind indeed.
To explore this topic more, see chapter 5, “Gaining a Good Eye” in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2012, p 69-80.
(1) Testament of Benjamin 4:2-3 The Testament of Benjamin is of the body of literature called the “pseudepigrapha” — Jewish writings from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. that are not canonical, but are helpful for showing the cultural expressions and religious understandings of that time.
(2) Testament of Issachar, 3:4, 4:1-2, 5-6; 5:1 Also from the pseudepigrapha.
For more this, see the article, “If Your Eye Be Single” by Steven Notley at www.jerusalemperspective.com.
Photo: Vladimer Shioshvili and Marc Baronnet
Atoning for the Nation
by Lois Tverberg
From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Matthew 16:21
When modern Jews and Christians discuss the role of the Messiah, Christians often bring up the idea that he would atone for the sins of his people. Jews protest, and often say that there is no idea that the death of one person can atone for the sins of others in Judaism.
Are Christians reading the New Testament through the eyes of a later, foreign theology? If we look at 2 Maccabees, which describes the Maccabean revolt in 172 BC, we find a surprising insight. 1 There we find a story about a Jewish woman and her seven sons who refused to publicly reject their faith in God, and each of the brothers is tortured to death for his faith. These are the final words of the last brother to the emperor who is persecuting them:
For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing life under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation.
(2 Maccabees 7:36-38)
The last line here is quite fascinating. The speaker expected that somehow, through the suffering of himself and his brothers, they would bring about God’s forgiveness of their nation. Likely he is thinking of Isaiah 53 that talks about the suffering servant whose death atones for the nation.
The next chapter describes the Maccabean revolt and relays how they prayed that God would remember all the suffering of the Jews who had tried to be faithful to his laws yet were murdered in spite of it. We read,
“As soon as Maccabeus got his army organized, the Gentiles could not withstand him, for the wrath of the Lord had turned to mercy.” (2 Maccabees 8:5)
The text implies that the suffering of the seven brothers and others was indeed effective. It had caused God to forgive his people and come to their aid, allowing them to regain control of the Temple. This victory, celebrated in Jesus’ time as the “Feast of Dedication,” today is celebrated as Hanukkah. This helps us better understand the passage in John:
At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” (John 10:22-24)
Knowing more about the Maccabean victory helps us understand why people were questioning Jesus about whether he was the Messiah or not. At this celebration they would be mindful of the events of generations before, when they were being persecuted by the Greeks for their faith. This time the Jewish nation was undergoing great suffering at the hands of the Romans, and they wondered if Jesus was going to end God’s wrath and deliver them from that too.
It also helps us understand why the first question that the disciples asked the risen Christ was, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) If the Maccabees had gained victory because of the death of a few of the faithful, how much more did they expect that if the Messiah had come and suffered and died for his people, and God had raised him from the dead, the final victory was certainly at hand.
They didn’t understand yet that God’s victory through the atonement of Christ would not only be for their nation, but for a kingdom that would reach the whole world, purchasing eternal life for all who believed.
1 The books of 1 and 2 Maccabees are from the apocrypha, a group of texts that are not included in either the Jewish or Protestant canons of Scripture, although they are included in the Catholic Bible. Whether or not one believes they are inspired, they are often very helpful in understanding the context of Jesus because many of them were written shortly before his time and reflect the Jewish thinking of his day.
Photo: Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai and Chenspec
Learning from God’s Laws for Animals
by Lois Tverberg
Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (Matthew 10:29)
Frequently Jesus speaks about how God deals with people by using animals as an example. God watches over the sparrow (10:29) and provides for the ravens (Luke 12:24). So wouldn’t he watch over us too?
When Paul argues that preachers deserve to be supported by the church, he quotes the law not to muzzle an ox as it treads out the grain, and then assumes that it applies even more to people. (1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Tim 5:18).
How is it logical to infer that any law that applies to animals applies to people? A passage in the Mishnah points out the Scriptural basis:
Have you ever seen a wild beast or a bird who has a trade? Yet they get along without difficulty. And were they not created only to serve me (a human)? And I was created to serve my Master, God. So is it not logical that I should get along without difficulty? But I have done evil and forfeited my right to sustenance without difficulty. Simeon ben Eleazar, Mishnah, Kiddushim 4:14
This rabbi points out that in Genesis 1:26, humans were created to serve God. But they were also made in God’s image to reign over creation, so just as a king’s subjects are his “servants,” animals are man’s “servants.” If God gives a rule for how our animal “servants” should be treated, how much more should it apply to human beings.
Jesus uses this same logic in his ruling about healing the woman on the Sabbath. Many laws in the Torah sought to prevent distress to animals, like not yoking together two different animals (Dt 22:10), and letting animals rest on the Sabbath (Dt 5:14). They included even waving a mother bird away from a nest if you took the eggs or chicks to eat! (Dt 22:6) From this, the rabbis inferred that God was teaching the principle of Tzar Baalei Hayim, which means to “prevent suffering to living things.”
From this they made special rulings to prevent distress to animals. Even though it was forbidden to untie a donkey on the Sabbath to do any work, taking the donkey to get a drink was permitted, to alleviate its thirst. Likewise, an animal that falls into a pit could wait until the next day to be rescued, but to prevent its distress, the owner was allowed to do work not normally allowed on the day.
Jesus Uses Rabbinic Logic
Jesus was using rabbinic logic in Luke 13:15-16 to say that if some Sabbath laws can be set aside for the prevention of distress to animals, how much more can they be set aside to prevent distress to humans.
Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her? (Luke 13:15-16)
We hear the “how much more” comparison when he points out that an animal can be untied to be led to water to prevent its thirst on the Sabbath, how much more should a human be released from suffering, and even more, a “daughter of Abraham,” one of God’s chosen people. He’s taking the laws that consider distress of animals and expanding them to apply to humans too.
In the past, Christians have assumed that Jesus broke with Judaism in his interpretation of the Law. But here we see Jesus employing the same logic and interpretive principles as other rabbis of his day—and building upon them to bring them to the highest level.
Photo: Laitche and trialsanderrors
Searching Shepherd
by Lois Tverberg
Which of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in open pasture and go and look for the one that was lost until he finds it? Then when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing….(Luke 15:4-7)
Interestingly, Jesus wasn’t the only rabbi to tell parables about shepherds looking for sheep. Another person said,
When a sheep strays from the pasture, who seeks whom? Does the sheep seek the shepherd, or the shepherd seek the sheep? Obviously, the shepherd seeks the sheep. In the same way, the Holy One, blessed be He, looks for the lost.(1)
Both Jesus’ words in Luke 15 (above) and this parable are about repentance. Jesus talks about God having joy at repentance, and this other rabbinic parable says even that when a person repents, ultimately it was God who caused it to happen. It is interesting that even other rabbis had the understanding that God has mercy on the lost, and pursues them to bring them back to himself.
How did the idea of repentance become linked together with the image of a shepherd finding his sheep? It likely came from a very important passage very early in the Scriptures, at the culmination of Deuteronomy, right after God had given his covenant. God gave grave warnings of all the terrible curses that will happen to Israel if they forsake him, the worst of which that they will be scattered as a people – the dissolving of the nation itself. But then, after all of that, he promises:
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. (Deut. 30:1-6)
People understood this promise was not just one of being brought back together physically, but more importantly that God would bring them back to himself spiritually – that he would give them a new heart to love himself. If they just started to repent, God would do the rest in terms of restoring their relationship.
Jeremiah reiterates this promise in chapter 31, when he speaks of the future hope for Israel:
“Hear the word of the LORD, O nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: `He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’ … “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jeremiah 31:10, 31-34)
Both of these passages would have been central to the messianic hope of the people in Jesus’ day. They knew that their nation was in desperate need of redemption, both physically from the Romans, and spiritually from their sins. They longed for God to send the “shepherd” messiah who would give them all a new heart to obey God, making a new covenant with his people for an intimate relationship together.
Now we see why Jesus so frequently uses imagery of a shepherd to describe himself, and why at the Last Supper he speaks about a “new covenant for the forgiveness of sins.” He is saying that he himself is the fulfillment of God’s promise from the very beginning to forgive his people of their sins, and to give them his Spirit and new hearts to follow him.
(1) B. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation, p 192. © 1998, Hendrickson. ISBN 1-56563-244-2. Also, see B. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, © 1995, Hendrickson. ISBN: 0-80280-423-3. Both books are available at En-Gedi’s bookstore.
Photo: http://pixdaus.com/the-shepherd-and-his-sheep-in-a-beautiful-path-through-the-t/items/view/568897/
Irony in the Extreme
by Lois Tverberg
One key to unlocking many difficult Bible passages is to know that Middle Eastern teachers loved to use irony to make a point. Jesus and Paul frequently did this, but this habit can leave us scratching our heads. In fact, we can make major mistakes in our reading of the New Testament by not grasping the irony that they employed to describe the shocking new reality of the Kingdom of God.
For instance, Jesus’ saying about John the Baptist in Luke 7 often mystifies readers:
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. Luke 7:28
The first question that comes to mind is, “What’s wrong with John the Baptist?” But Jesus himself starts out by saying, “among those born of women there is no one greater than John.” Jesus was making an extreme comparison to show that when God’s Spirit is poured out on those who believe, they will be even more empowered to preach and convict than John. Wow!
We find this style of speaking throughout the Old Testament as well as among the rabbis. Proverbs contains many examples of ironic contrast. For instance,
He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty warrior, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city. Proverbs 16: 32
The point isn’t that warriors are bad—in fact, warriors like King David were considered the greatest heroes of their day, and women filled the streets with dancing and singing when they came home from battle (1 Sam. 18:6-8). We can only grasp the power of such a saying when we see the irony of elevating someone who can simply control his own anger to the same level as a national hero.
One of the most common places to employ exaggeration and ironic comparison was in describing the coming glory of the Messianic reign:
On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them. Zechariah 12:8
As in Jesus’ comparison above, we might ask, “What’s wrong with King David, that he’s being compared to the feeble?” It sounds, initially, like an insult to someone or something that we know is great, like King David. But the just opposite is true. We should say, “Wow! In the end times, what amazing glory God’s people will have!” Ironic comparison was a way of heaping superlative on top of superlative.
It’s critical for Bible readers to see this strong bent toward irony in the New Testament, especially when the kingdom of Christ is compared to the glory of Israel. For instance, in Hebrews, the giving of the covenant on Mt. Sinai is compared to the heavenly Jerusalem:
For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them… But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem… Hebrews 12:18-24
Once again, this passage makes the event on Mt. Sinai seem very negative. But in the Bible, the meeting of Israel with God on Mt. Sinai was considered a stunningly amazing, wonderful event. Just imagine! The true Creator of the Universe had manifested himself on earth in order to make a covenant with this scraggly little tribe. Still today in Jewish tradition it is seen as a “wedding ceremony” where God betrothed himself to the nation of Israel.
The point of the Hebrews passage is not to say how terrible it was to have been at Mt. Sinai, but to say that as glorious as that was, the coming of God’s kingdom in Christ was even greater.
Often Paul employs this same irony in his letters, and it is essential that Christians to recognize his “accent” so that they don’t become anti-Semitic in their disparagement of Israel. For instance, Paul used it in Galatians 4:22-28 when he compared Israel to Hagar and Ishmael, and the Gentile believers to Sarah and Isaac (Genesis 16:4). His goal was to reassure the Gentiles that even though they weren’t born naturally into the Jewish nation, God had accepted them as his true “family.” Just as Hagar despised Sarah for her inability to bear children, they were being persecuted by the Jews for not being the true children of Abraham.1
We often read Paul’s statements about the law and God’s covenant with the Jews as negative, not realizing that in Paul’s own mind, these are extremely positive. He was using strong irony to say that as great as they were, the new covenant in Christ is even greater. Only when we comprehend the comparison he was making, will we see the glory of what God has done for the world through the coming of Christ.
1 See The Irony of Galatians, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2002) by Mark Nanos, a Jewish scholar, who points out that the flavor of much of Paul’s letter to the Galatians is ironic.
(Photos: Albert Herrer, L. Tverberg – “No Explanations” sign outside the Church of All Nations, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jerusalem)
Eager to Please
by Lois Tverberg
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Matthew 5:6
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is lovely, but you have to admit that it’s also a challenge. He tells us to “turn the other cheek” and tightens up many laws, pointing out that anger is as bad as murder, and that lust is as bad as adultery. Why does he do this?
Some have thought that Jesus’ goal was to show that God’s standards are impossibly high, so we should give up on trying to do the right thing and instead trust in God’s forgiveness in Christ.
There is another possibility though. Jesus may have been preaching on the Jewish idea of hasidut – (hah-see-DOOT), a later rabbinic term which is often translated “piety.” It means to walk intimately with God and live entirely to serve him. It means to eagerly obey God out of love, asking the question, “What more can I do to please you?”
Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with the Beatitudes, which describe what it is like to be a true hasid (hah-SEED), a “pious one.” They are hungry and thirsty to do God’s will, and greatly desire to see God use them to accomplish his mission on earth. They are peace-makers, meek and merciful, and they are pure in heart, earnestly avoiding sin.
Part of the idea of hasidut was that a hasid would go far out of his way to avoid sin, for fear of grieving God’s spirit and breaking the communion he has with God. As a result, the person tightened his own standards and lived beyond the minimum, to make sure he is within God’s will.
Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus urges us to ask what is the maximum we can do to please God, not what is the minimum required by the Law. So great should our love for God be that we’d tear out our eyes rather than be led away from him by sin. We should be persons of such honesty that we never need to take a vow—our yes is always yes, and our no, always no. We don’t just love our friends, we love even those who are hateful. This should be our goal, even if we aren’t that way right now.
A modern orthodox Jewish commentary describes hasidut this way:
The hasid is one who goes beyond the letter of the law in his service of G-d. He does not do only what he is told, but he looks for ways to fulfill G-d’s will. This requires intelligence and planning; one must anticipate just what G-d wants of him and how he can best use his own talents in service of his Creator. As we also saw, this was in direct contrast to the mock-piety—fasting, wailing, rolling in the snow, etc…. G-d has no interest in senseless service—that we do things just because they’re hard (and get us a lot of notice). Piety is not doing things which hurt. It is careful, planned and responsible service of G-d. We are not to sacrifice ourselves for G-d with self-destructive acts of devotion; we are to live for Him—as responsible, thinking beings who make intelligent choices in our religious service. We are to maximize our potential—and to use that potential in service of our Creator.1
Jesus’ words are a description of what our goal is to become as followers of him. As we grow closer, our desire is to have nothing come between us. And the first thing that we pursue is God’s will, not our own.
1Adapted from http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter2-10and11c.html. (The reason that some Jews spell the word “God” with a hyphen is out of reverence, to not lightly use the holy name of God. This itself is an example of piety*—*hasidut.) See Bivin, *New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus*, pp.55-58, (En-Gedi, 2005).
The idea of *hasidut* is explained in more depth in an excellent talk called, “Jesus, the Sin-Fearer” by David Pileggi, as part of the *Insights into Jesus of Nazareth DVD Series*. See also page 174 of *Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus*, in the chapter called “Jesus and the Torah.”
What’s Mine is Mine
by Lois Tverberg
When Jesus talks about having a “good eye” or a “bad eye,” he was employing a Hebrew idiom about “one’s eye” as one’s outlook toward other people. A person with a “good eye” was one who was generous to others, while one with a “bad eye” was stingy, greedy and self-centered. Jesus was emphasizing that a person’s entire outlook on life can be assessed by whether he puts others or himself first.
Another passage from early rabbinic writings explores this idea in a different way. A famous quote from Pirke Avot reads,
There are four types among men:
He who says, “What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours”
— this is the common type, though some say that this is the type of Sodom.
He who says, “What is mine is yours and what is yours is thine own”
— he is a saintly man.
He who says, “What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine”
— he is an ignorant man.
And he who says, “What is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine”
— he is a wicked man. (Pirke Avot 5:13) 1
Once again, people are evaluated on their attitude toward others. Some just mind their own business—“what’s mine is mine” —and believe everyone is responsible for their own survival in the world. This seems neutral, but the comment “some say this is the type of Sodom” means that this attitude can be quite heartless. In the story of Lot’s angelic visitors in Sodom, the townspeople did not protect the visitors from thugs who wanted to abuse them; they just said “Not my problem” (Genesis 19). This attitude captures the idea of the first statement.
The second statement is that the truly righteous person says “what’s mine is yours”—meaning that he or she looks for ways to bless others in whatever way possible. They maintain a constant attitude of “how can I help you?” and the problems of others burden them as much as their own. If they can’t be generous with money, they’ll donate time and energy to help. Few people are truly like this, but we can easily recall those who have poured out their lives in this way.
The last statement is that the absolute worst type of person is the one who says, “what’s yours is mine” —a person who wants to greedily benefit from others. You might think this only applies to pickpockets and snake-oil salesmen, but it can describe what we see as innocent actions too.
Sometimes what we call “frugality” can be a way to legitimize having a “bad eye” — looking at your own wallet and not considering others. We do this when we avoid tipping to save money, when we underpay people for their work, or when we go overboard to get a deal at someone else’s expense.
We should be careful to examine whether our pious efforts toward “good stewardship of God’s resources” isn’t just greed in disguise. Are we frugal or are we stingy? A good test is to examine whether we save money by denying ourselves, or by denying others. Stinginess is when we say, “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine,” and our gain comes through someone else’s loss.
Both Jesus and the rabbis around him taught that the issue of generosity really goes to the heart of who we are as people. We should turn our eye on ourselves and examine which “type” we really are.
To explore this topic more, see chapter 5, “Gaining a Good Eye” in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2012, p 69-80.
1This is one of the “four types” rabbinic sayings that is of the same genre as Jesus’ parable of the “four soils.” This style of teaching is always a subtle call to self-examination. For another example, see “Which Type are You?”
Pirke Avot is a collection of sayings of rabbinic teachers from between 200 BC and 200 AD. Some are contemporaries with Jesus, but even earlier and later sayings are often pertinent to his Jewish context.
(Photos: DeviantArt, Peter Isotalo)
Aiming for Perfection
by Lois Tverberg
For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses [goes beyond] that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven…You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven;…You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:20, 43-45, 48
Jesus gives one of his most challenging teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. He frames it at both the beginning and the end with an exhortation to perfection. He says that those who do and teach others to do even the least of God’s commands will be called “great” in his kingdom. And then he says that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees” you are not a part of God’s kingdom. He continues by stating several rulings about divorce, anger and lust that each go beyond the laws of the day, and then ends with words about aiming to be perfect, like God himself.
Many people read this passage as saying that these are the qualifications for earning your way to heaven, and an extremely tough list of rules to follow. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by this interpretation.
It’s important to understand that the phrase “enter the kingdom of heaven” is idiomatic, not meaning “go to heaven when you die.” It means to be a part of God’s redemptive reign on earth right now—to live with God on the throne of your life and do his will. Rabbis from Jesus’ day used the phrase “kingdom of heaven” frequently in this way, and his Jewish context allows us to unlock this passage. Jesus is describing how to do God’s will, not how to earn your way to heaven. Our salvation is based on Jesus’ atonement for our sins and the trust we place in him, not that we “earn our way.”
Another thing that can help us understand this passage is insight on the difficult line: “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees.” The verse sounds competitive – as if we are trying to beat certain people in their strict observance of regulations. But it’s likely that the idea of the phrase about “surpassing the scribes and Pharisees” is not about them as people, but about them as interpreters of the law. The passage isn’t about outperforming them in one’s stringent piety, but about seeking to do God’s will beyond the official interpretation of the law.
The word that we translate “surpass” is from the Greek word “perissos”, meaning “to abound, overflow, exceed.” One translation says “Unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law…” (NET Bible).
We can interpret this line as, “do more than what the finest interpreters of the law say that you must do.” Then it fits the rest of the passage where Jesus points out various minimums set in the law, and instructs his disciples to go beyond that. The law says “don’t kill” but you should try not to even stay angry. The law says, “don’t commit adultery” but you should even avoid lust. Not only should you not seek revenge against your enemies, you should find ways to show them the love of God. Loan them money, carry their burdens. Anything.
This whole passage is not so much about a list of toughened rules, but about encouraging us to change where our aim is. It is easy to look for what is the minimum so that you can just do that. But in every case Jesus is saying, “Don’t live by the minimum!” Don’t say to yourself, as long as I don’t commit adultery, it’s fine to lust. Don’t say that as long as I don’t kill someone, I can be furious with them. If you want to be a part of God’s redemptive kingdom on earth, don’t ask how little you can do, but ask how much you can do, to please your Father in heaven.
~~~~
To explore this topic more, see chapter 12, “Jesus and the Torah” in Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2009, p. 163-179.
The Logic of Sabbath
by Lois Tverberg
Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” Luke 13:15-16
Historically, many Christians have misinterpreted Jesus’ teachings about Sabbath, reading them as an annulment of all Jewish law. Without knowing the context of his words, we can’t know the debates going at the time and how Jesus’ words fit in.
First, many underestimate the importance and holiness of the Sabbath in God’s covenant with the nation of Israel. It was called a “sign” of the covenant, a weekly day to honor the entire covenant. Breaking it was punishable by death according to the Scriptures (Ex. 31:14-16), because doing so was considered a rejection of the entire agreement God had made with his people. Often Jesus himself did not heal on the Sabbath, but waited until after sunset, when the day officially ended.
In Jesus’ time there was a strong emphasis on keeping the Sabbath as devotedly as possible, because only a few hundred years earlier the Jews had been exiled from their land due to their disobedience to God’s laws. Therefore the Jewish people took special care to outline what activities constituted “work,” so that they could avoid them and fully rest on the Sabbath. “Work” included untying animals to take them out to plow, since animals were supposed to rest on the Sabbath too. Certain types of healing activities were proscribed also, because they involved grinding herbs or other actions not allowed on the Sabbath. People with long-term illnesses simply endured them through the day.
While strict adherence to the Sabbath was valued, the early rabbis ruled that some situations warranted an override of Sabbath regulations. If human life was in danger, all rules against working would be set aside for the reason of “pikuah nephesh” — to save life. Also, some rules were set aside out of compassion for animals, so they wouldn’t suffer from not being fed or taken out for water. This was called tzar baalei hayim—preventing suffering to living things.
Jesus seems to be using the logic of tzar baalei hayim in his statement about healing the woman. It was not a life-or-death need that she be healed that day, but she had suffered for 18 years. If an animal can be untied to be led to water to prevent its suffering thirst, shouldn’t she be “unbound” too?
Interestingly, the one “breaking” the Sabbath was not Jesus in this case—he merely prayed for her healing, which wouldn’t have been prohibited by anyone. Those who protested even this prayer would have been seen as extreme by the rest of the rabbinic community too. According to Jesus’ logic, the one who did the “unbinding” was God himself! So contrary to popular belief, Jesus was working within the rules, not negating them, and showing how God longs to take every opportunity to show compassion for the suffering of his people.
~~~~
To explore this topic more, see chapter 10, “Thinking with Both Hands” in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2012, p 130-42.
Fulfilling the Law
by Lois Tverberg
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19
Why does Jesus speak about “fulfilling the Law”? He does not mean “annul it” as many have said. The phrase “to fulfill the Law” means “doing exactly what God wants” in other places in the New Testament and rabbinic writings too.1
David Bivin says that the phrase “fulfill the Law” was also used as an idiom that meant to “interpret the Torah correctly.” The Hebrew word for “fulfill” that Jesus would have used when speaking is kayem (KAI-yem) which literally means, “to uphold” or “to establish,” as well as “to fulfill.” 2 In the Mishnah, it is actually used both ways. It can mean to describe teaching the Torah in the sense of confirming, explaining, or interpreting correctly, but it also can mean to carry out and obey, to actually do what the law commands says. Sometimes it carries both ideas—to interpret the Torah in order to follow it correctly. Here are some examples of the variety of usages:
“If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled (kayem) the religious requirement of dwelling in a sukkah!'” Sukkot 2:7 (One rabbi is criticising another’s interpretation of the Torah, which caused him not to do what it really says.)
R. Yonatan says, “Whoever keeps (kayem) the Torah when poor will in the end keep it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty.” Avot 4:9 (Here it means “to obey” – definitely the opposite of “fulfill in order to do away with.”)
R. Nehorai says, “Go into exile to a place of Torah, and do not suppose that it will come to you. For your fellow disciples will make it solid (kayem) in your hand. And on your own understanding do not rely.” Avot 4:14 (Here it means to explain it and fill it with meaning.)
We can see from these passages that when used of the Torah, the word “fulfill” means to interpret God’s word correctly, and also to live it out. This is key to understanding Matthew 5:17-19:
(17) Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. … (19) Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Verse 19 parallels and expands on verse 17. “Fulfill” in vs. 17 is a parallel to both of the two words “practice” and “teach” in vs. 19, which makes sense with how the rabbis used the word. The words “break” and “teaches others to break” is the sense of the word “abolish” in Matthew 5:17.
Likely, Jesus’ opponents had accused him of misinterpreting the Scriptures. But here he emphatically states that his goal was to explain God’s word and obey it fully, so that we can understand how God wants us to live. All who are in his kingdom are likewise called to imitate him in obeying God’s laws, and to correctly teach others to live like him too.
To explore this topic more, see chapter 12, “Jesus and the Torah” in Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2009, p. 163-179.
1 See “Love is the Fulfillment of the Law.”
2 David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus (En-Gedi, 2005), p 93-94.
Photo: Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii Collection
We’re pleased to be able to share this difficult-to-find classic by Brad Young. Check it out!
The Jewish Background to the Lord’s Prayer
by Brad H. Young
© 1984, Gospel Research Foundation Inc.
Softcover, 46 pages, $8.99
- Explore the Jewish roots of the Lord’s Prayer
- Learn how the Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic literature, Jewish prayers, and worship breathe fresh meaning into the revered words of the Lord’s Prayer
- Understand Jesus’ powerful prayer better in the light of Jewish faith and practice
Dr. Brad H. Young (PhD Hebrew University, under David Flusser) is the founder and president of the Gospel Research Foundation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is emeritus professor of Biblical Literature in Judaic-Christian Studies in the Graduate School of Theology at Oral Roberts University. Young has taught advanced language and translation courses as well as the Jewish foundations of early Christianity to graduate students for over thirty years.
Check out what else is available from the En-Gedi Resource Center bookstore too…
