Jesus’ Jewishness

What’s Mine is Mine

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

MineWhen 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.

What's mine is mine

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

Lois Tverberg

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.

~~~~

SittingTo 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

Lois Tverberg

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.

donkeys

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

Lois Tverberg

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.)

Fulfilling the Law 2

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

Love is the Fulfillment of the Law

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Fulfilling the LawDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17-19

People have scratched their heads over what the phrase “fulfill the Law” means. Some say that when Jesus “fulfilled the Law” he got rid of it, even though twice in this passage Jesus says quite forcefully that this isn’t true. By studying other passages in the New Testament and Jewish sayings from around that time, we can understand more fully.

The Greek word in this passage for fulfill is “plerosai” which means “to complete,” “make full,” or “accomplish.” Often it is used in the sense of Christ fulfilling a prophecy. But when it is used along with the Law, it has the sense of “accomplish a goal.” The same word is used in these passages by Paul:

Romans 13:8: Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Galations 5:14: For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

In both places, the idea is the opposite of “getting rid of the law”—it really means to accomplish God’s goal, to obey his will in the best possible way. The word for “law” in Hebrew is “torah,” and it literally means “instruction” or “guidance” and had a very positive connotation. To “fulfill the Torah” was to accomplish God’s will exactly as he would have it. A rabbinic quote helps us understand how it is used:

If one is honest in his business dealings and people esteem him, it is accounted to him as though he had fulfilled the whole Torah. —Mechilta, B’shalach1

In this statement, the idea is that a person who is honest and praiseworthy in all his dealings with others has truly accomplished God’s goal for how he should live. He didn’t cancel the Law, he did it to the utmost!

In Matthew 22:39, Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to “love God and love your neighbor” and said that these summed up all the Law and Prophets. So Paul is saying that when we love our neighbor we are truly hitting the mark, doing exactly what God wants us to do.

SittingTo 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 As quoted in J. Telushkin, The Book of Jewish Values, (Bell Tower, New York, 2000), p.4.

Photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vshioshvili/

Sons of Hell

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

“You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Matt. 23:15

Jesus’ words are shocking in the passage above, and one wonders about what context could have provoked such a harsh statement from him. Some interesting possibilities arise when we know more about what first-century reality. According to Josephus, a positive attitude toward Judaism was widespread in the Roman Empire. He said,

There is scarcely a nation among the barbarians, nor a city among the more civilized Greeks, that does not greet our customs with enthusiasm, or that does not wish to adopt our dietary customs, our sabbatical rest, even the lighting of our Sabbath candles…..1

And we know from the Gospels and Paul that many God-fearing Gentiles joined the Jews to worship Israel’s God in each town’s synagogue. Jesus healed the servant of the centurion (Matt. 8:5-13) and God sent Peter to Cornelius, who also was a God-fearer (Acts 10). Both Cornelius and the centurion were considered righteous, so it doesn’t seem likely that Jesus was criticizing the practice of inviting Gentiles to worship the true God of Israel.

These Gentiles who worshipped the God of Israel were not considered actual “converts” or “proselytes” to Judaism because they hadn’t become circumcized, which was the sign of the covenant given to Abraham. It may surprise readers today that there were some who were radically opposed to this. Hippolytus (~236 AD) wrote that this was true of some of the Zealots:

But the adherents of another party, if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion concerning God and His laws–supposing such to be an uncircumcised person, they will closely watch him and when they meet a person of this description in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo the rite of circumcision. Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii. 2

The Zealots were violently opposed to the rule of Rome and any friendliness between Jew and Gentile. Josephus relays that some would walk with short daggers and assassinate any Jews that they believed were too sympathetic to the Roman empire, or were not strict enough in their obedience to the law. They were extremely rigid and isolationistic, and wanted Jews to be entirely separate from the pagan world around them. They saw the Scripture as something only accessible by God’s chosen people and no one else. From the passage above, it seems that they would have hated God-fearers and sought to either convert them entirely to their form of Judaism, or else kill them.

Is it possible that Jesus is talking to these people who forced conversions and then recruited from their ranks to make more violent defenders of Judaism? It is hard to know, but it is a possibility. It also gives an interesting background of why Paul was so persecuted by the “circumcision group” and why he had such strong feelings against them. God loves all people, not just the Jews, and he wanted the Gospel to reach all the nations.

Sons of Hell

1 As quoted in “The Conversion Debate”

2 Refutation of All Heresies, ch. 21.

Photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fæ

Yes Should Mean Yes

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your `Yes’ be `Yes,’ and your `No,’ `No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matt 5:33-37)

Yes Should Mean Yes

Many are confused by Jesus’ saying about taking oaths from Matthew. In the Old Testament, God commanded the people to take their oaths in his name, not in the name of other gods (Dt. 6:13), and that they should not swear falsely in God’s name (Lev. 19:12). But in Matthew 5, Jesus commands people to not take oaths at all. Later, James quotes him almost verbatim:

But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.  (James 5:12)

 

Interestingly, other Jewish teachers are recorded as saying the same thing. Around 200 AD, the Babylonian Talmud records Rabbi Yossi ben Judah as saying: “Let your “yes” be yes, let your “no” be no. (Bava Metziah 49a). Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the first century also said, “The bare word of a virtuous man should be like an oath, steadfast, inviolable, and true. Should necessity absolutely require an oath, let a man swear by his father and mother . . . instead of by the name of the highest and first Essence.” (1)

What was the rationale for avoiding oaths all together? In Jesus’ time, the practice of taking oaths became more and more common; eventually it reached a point where a person’s promises were not believed if he had not done so. In ancient times, God himself was invoked as the witness who would guarantee to punish the oath-taker. But people started to search for other ways to guarantee their words so that God would not be dishonored if what they said did not come true. Swearing by the Temple, the altar, or by heaven was common, and Philo suggests swearing by one’s parents. But still people didn’t feel that their words were binding unless they included some oath.

Jesus pinpoints the necessity of an oath as an issue of integrity. If you have a tendency to break promises and don’t want to profane God’s name, the solution isn’t to swear by something else. Rather, it is to change your attitude so that you become a person who always lives out what you say.

(1) As quoted in “Oath,” Jewish Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls, 1905-1906), in public domain at www.jewishencyclopedia.com.

Photo: https://www.hiscox.co.uk/business-blog/dont-make-promises-you-cant-keep-the-politics-of-business/

Together Again

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:3-6)

Sometimes we can better understand Jesus’ teaching when we recognize how he and others of his time read the Scriptures. Oftentimes, this may not be the same way we read them. One example is in the teaching of Jesus’ on marriage. When asked about whether divorce should be permitted for any reason, he quotes Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” To us, this verse doesn’t obviously connect to marriage, and also doesn’t relate to his quotation from Genesis 2:24, that a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife.

However, when we examine how Jews at that time understood the creation of Adam and Eve, a connection begins to emerge. Genesis mentions the creation of mankind twice. In Genesis 1:26-27 it says:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Later, Genesis 2 describes how God formed the man from the dust of the ground and then later formed the woman. At first these two creation accounts seem to disagree. Were both male and female created at the same time, as in 1:27, or was the man formed first and the woman afterward, as in chapter 2?

From before Jesus’ time, it was believed that when God first formed the human, he somehow molded both man and woman together in that person. Then, Eve was taken out of Adam since she existed before then too. The verse in chapter 1 that states that God created them “male and female” was understood to mean that each original human was both male and female.

While this seems like a stretch, the Hebrew text supports this in several ways. Before the creation of the woman, Adam is never referred to as a “man” but as ha’adam which means “the human.” It is only after Adam names Eve as ishah, “woman,” that he is referred to as ish, “man.” Also, when God “operates” on Adam, he takes out tzela echad—literally “one side” of him. The translation of tzela as “rib” occurs only here—everywhere else it refers to one “side” of something, like when poles were inserted each of the two sides of the ark in Exodus 37:3. A better description of the scene is that somehow God split Adam in half, and the other half was Eve. They perfectly complemented each other, because they were once one person.

If Jesus read Genesis 1:27 this way, it explains why he used the phrase that God “made them male and female,”  to address God’s intentions for marriage. By connecting this verse to “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh,” Jesus creates a beautiful picture: that in marriage, a man and woman are reunited into one complete person, because that was how they were originally created in the first place.

Part of the beauty of the image is that the Hebrew verb in this line, dabaq, which is translated as “is united,” “cleaves,” or “clings” also refers to romantic love. After the prince of Shechem seduced Jacob’s daughter Dinah, he desperately wanted to marry her. Genesis 34:3 says that he “dabaq” (was deeply attracted to) her. He had fallen in love with her.

Putting all these ideas together within Jesus’ words, we find him saying that because God took apart one whole being to make Adam and Eve, that is the reason why men and women fall in love and want to become one being once again, both physically and spiritually. When they are united in marriage, God himself puts together what he separated at first, and no one should try to tear that apart.

Photos: Fred Moon on Unsplash,  Foto Pettine on Unsplash

Together Again

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Matthew 19:3-6

Sometimes we can have a much better understanding of Jesus’ teaching when we see how he and others of his time read the Scriptures, which may not be the same as how we do. One example is in the teaching of Jesus’ on marriage. When asked about whether divorce for any reason is OK, he quoted Genesis 1:27, which says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In our way of reading this verse, it doesn’t have any connection to marriage, and also doesn’t relate to his quotation from Genesis 2:24 that a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife.

Knowing more about the way the creation of Adam and Eve was understood in Jesus’ time will help us. Twice in Genesis it mentions the creation of mankind – first in Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Together AgainThen, later, in Genesis 2, it says that God formed the man from the dust of the ground and then describes how woman was taken out of the first man. At first, these two creation accounts seem to be in disagreement – were both male and female created at the same time, as in 1:27, or was the man formed first and the woman later, as in chapter 2?

The solution might initially seem fantastic, but is supported by the text in several places. From before Jesus’ time, it was understood that when God first formed the human, he somehow put both man and woman together in that person. Then, when Eve was taken out of Adam, it was because she existed before then too. The verse in chapter one that that says that God created them “male and female” was read to mean that each original human was both male and female.

While this seems like a stretch, there are several other ways the text supports this. First, the word adam is a neutral term for human, and before the creation of the woman, Adam is never referred to as a “man” – always as ha’adam which means “the human.” It is only after Adam names Eve as ishah, woman, that he is referred to as ish, man.

Also, when God “operates” on Adam, he takes out tzela echad – literally one side of him. The translation of tzela as “rib” occurs only here – everywhere else it refers to one “side” of something, like when poles were inserted each of the two sides of the ark in Exodus 37:3. A better way to describe the scene is that somehow God split Adam in half, and the other half was Eve, and they perfectly complemented each other, because they were once one person.

Looking again at Jesus’ words, if he read Genesis 1:27 the same way that other rabbis did, it explains why Jesus would use this verse in terms of God’s intentions for marriage. Jesus is painting a beautiful picture when he connect that verse to “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Here the image is that in marriage, a man and woman are reunited back together into one complete person because somehow they were originally made together in the first place.

Part of the beauty of the image is in the Hebrew word dabaq, which is translated as “be united,” “cleave to,” “cling to,” or “hold fast.” Delightfully, the word can also mean “to fall in love with”! Genesis 34:3 says that Shechem dabaq Dinah, which is translated “was deeply attracted to her.” Also, 1 Kings 11:2 says that Solomon dabaq (clung to) his foreign wives in love.

Putting this together, Jesus is saying that because God took apart one whole being to make Adam and Eve, that is the reason why men and women fall in love and want to become one being once again, both physically and spiritually. When they are united in marriage, God himself puts together what he separated at first, and no one should try to tear that apart.

Photo: Joseph Mischyshyn

Why All the Woes?

Lois Tverberg

by Lois Tverberg

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” Matthew 23:27

Why All Woes?

Jesus confronts the Pharisees many times in the Gospels, so many assume that entire group was corrupt. It may surprise you to know that Jesus’ theology and teaching style was actually very similar to theirs. The Pharisees were a movement among laypeople eager to study God’s word and apply it to their lives, and later many of them became followers of Jesus. From their passion for study they raised up rabbis who traveled the land to teach, just as Jesus did.

When we read Jesus’ seven statements of “Woe to you” it is hard to conclude that there was anything redeemable about the bunch. But believe it or not, the Pharisees were known for their own self-critical sayings that closely paralleled Jesus’ words. They used to talk about both good and bad kinds of Pharisees:

There are seven kinds of Pharisees: the “shoulder” Pharisee, who ostentatiously carries his good deeds on his shoulder so all can see them; the “wait-a-moment” Pharisee, who wants you to wait while he performs a mitzvah (good deed); the bruised Pharisee, who runs into a wall while looking at the ground to avoid seeing a woman; the “reckoning” Pharisee, who commits a sin, then does a good deed and balances the one against the other; the “pestle” Pharisee, whose head is bowed in false humility, like a pestle in a mortar; the Pharisee who asks, “What is my duty, so that I may do it?” as if he thought he had fulfilled every obligation already; the Pharisee from fear, like Job; and the Pharisee from love – like Abraham.

This passage reveals that the Pharisaic movement practiced its own honest self-examination and could see that some in their ranks had fallen into error. They list character flaws very similar to those that Jesus criticized—pride, hypocrisy, and legalism. But still they describe at least one type of Pharisee that is good— one who obeys God’s word simply out of love for him.

Several commentators have suggested that Jesus’ statements might be more like the “seven kinds” saying in another way. They suggest that instead of Jesus accusing every person in the group of the sins he names, each “woe” is is pointed at only the people are falling into those sins. Instead of saying “Woe to all of you – you’re all greedy, legalistic, and hypocritical” he was saying something like, “Woe to you who are greedy, and woe to you who are legalistic, and you who are hypocritical!” Rather than condemning the whole group, he’s pointing out the errors that the group could fall into, just as the rabbis did.

It is easy for us to read these passages smugly, as if only the foolish Pharisees could ever have fallen into these problems. Instead, we should see the sayings of Jesus and the rabbis as wise words to anyone who yearns to obey God. Taking this difficult path leads to many temptations—like slipping into pride, or legalism, or hypocrisy. We also should examine our rationale. Is the reason we are aiming for obedience because we’re terrified by what God will do to us if we don’t do everything perfectly? The only reason we should follow God’s laws is out of love for him, not for any other.

To explore this topic more, see Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, Zondervan, 2009.

Article photo: Brooklyn Museum