The Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
-Mark 2:24

You may have heard, wrongly, that the Pharisees were the rabbis and that they basically ran the show in Yeshua’s time.

You may have heard that the Pharisees . . .

• were all hypocrites
• made up 613 rules which were oppressive
• led the synagogues and governed the way Jews lived for God.

Great resources for those who want to read up on the Pharisees: E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief and Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. I provide no documentation for the assertions I will make in this summary on the Pharisees. Feel free to ask questions in the comments.

There are several reasons why the Pharisees are misunderstood:

• Josephus, who was a Pharisee, exaggerated their power and influence
• The later rabbis (third through sixth centuries), whose origins were in the Pharisee movement, exaggerated their power and influence when writing about the first century
• The other parties (Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians) all ceased to exist after 70 CE
• Yeshua clashed with the Pharisees on some matters of Torah
• Un-careful reading of the Gospels leads people not to notice the Sadducees and chief priests were the primary instruments of his execution, while some Pharisees instigated against him.

Here are some important truths about the Pharisees:

• They tended to be middle class, some working as scribes and other in various occupations.
• They tended to be urban, not rural.
• Their numbers were never large.
• Their origin was as a political party in the days of the Maccabees.
• They had some popularity because they stood against Rome in some early clashes.
• They were a sort of fraternity with a common interest in reforming Israel by increasing zeal for the Torah.
• Their beliefs were the closest of all the parties to the views of Yeshua and the apostles.
• In the early days especially, and the later rabbis corrected this tendency, they emphasized ritual over love and justice and mercy.
• You should no more judge Judaism by the things Yeshua criticized about the Pharisees than you should judge any Christian group by the ideas or behavior of some.
• If Yeshua was commenting today, he’d have many sharp criticisms for various Christian sub-groups that might make the Pharisees look good by comparison.
• The synagogues were run by common Jews, elders in the various towns.
• The rabbis of later centuries, whose origins were from the Pharisees, did not become the recognized leaders of Judaism until the sixth century.
• Synagogues in Israel in Yeshua’s time were not places of power, but learning and piety, and they were not led by Pharisees.
• Most Jews did not follow the growing list of traditions the Pharisees were coming up with out of a desire to see Israel come closer to God.
• The 613 are biblical commandments, not man-made rules of the Pharisees.
• Yeshua had positive things to say about some Pharisees. Nicodemus seems to have become a disciple. Of one Pharisee Yeshua said, “You are not far from the kingdom.”
• Many Pharisees believed in Yeshua after the resurrection, and one of them was Paul.
• Paul continued to say, “I am a Pharisee,” the rest of his life and never repudiated this identity.
• The Pharisees who thought more like Shammai were probably more violent in their manner of dealing with threats to Israel’s renewal.
• The Pharisees who thought like the gentler, more tolerant Hillel outnumbered the Shammaite Pharisees.
• Paul the persecutor was probably in the more militant Shammaite wing.
• The Pharisees were a minority on the Sanhedrin and the Sadducees called the shots.
• The Temple did not run according to the wishes of the Pharisees; if it had, this would have been a vast improvement and would have made the Temple much more in keeping with what Yeshua believed.
• The Pharisees in Yeshua’s time lived in Judea and had not spread much into Galilee.
• Yeshua believed the Pharisees did not keep the Torah enough and said his disciples had to surpass them.
• A large part of Yeshua’s critique was that the Pharisees should have seen loving God and people as the highest priorities of Torah.
• Yeshua expected his disciples to outdo the Pharisees literally in loving God and people.

So why would Pharisees come up to Galilee to check Yeshua out? Why would they sometimes follow him around and find reasons to criticize his disciples?

They cared deeply about Israel getting right with God. They wanted to see Messiah come and had a notion of Messiah and victory over Rome that Yeshua came to teach against.

They saw Yeshua at first as a disciple of John the Baptizer. They came to evaluate him as they had first evaluated John. They were critical of his ideas which did not match their own about what Torah renewal would look like.

They were well-meaning people who were wrong about a few things. But they were more like Yeshua in beliefs than most other Jewish sub-groups. And some of the things they were wrong about no one else understood either. Even the disciples did not think Messiah would die, make atonement for Israel and the world, and rise again.

Questions? Doubt something I said has substantiation? Feel free to ask me in the comments. Or if you would like to share how misinformation about the Pharisees and about Judaism has bothered you, I’d love to hear from you.

And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.
–Mark 11:18

The gospel did not just happen. The events which marked the onset of a new stage in the world’s redemption happened in a time and place with three main cultural backdrops. Parts 1 and 2 introduced Greek and Roman influences on these events, both in Yeshua’s time and the later time the gospels were written. What about conditions and social structures in Israel itself? What are some basics readers need to know about conditions and groups in Israel? What about Jewish concerns in the times of the evangelists?

First, it cannot be over-emphasized, and it rather has been under-emphasized, that Yeshua was Galilean and his movement was primarily a Galilean one at the beginning. For more about this, see “Yeshua the Galilean” by clicking here. In Galilee itself, Yeshua was safe unless he ran afoul of Herod Antipas. It was primarily in Judea and Jerusalem that there was danger for Yeshua. Galilee was rural and had no aristocracy. Judea had powerful people with statuses to protect so that prophets and upstart messianic brigands were quickly eliminated.

Second, we must locate Yeshua among the common Jews and not see him as part of any of the parties. In an overreaction to centuries of neglecting the Jewish context of Jesus, some studies in recent decades have aligned Yeshua with the Pharisees. This is a misunderstanding of what the Pharisees represented. Yeshua did not belong to any of the parties. Of the parties, the Pharisees may have been closest to Yeshua’s way of thinking, but he himself was not a Pharisee.

As one of the people of the land, Yeshua’s common belief with his countrymen centered on monotheism, covenant, the election of Israel as God’s people, the Temple, and the way of life laid out in the Torah. Readings of Yeshua overturning laws of the Torah are without basis and should be rejected. A more sophisticated reading of Mark 7 and Matthew 15 is called for, a reading based more in Jewish discussions about how to keep the food and purity laws, not whether to keep them.

Second, we can and should accept the picture of the gospels that there was some degree of literacy in Galilee and synagogues with some education. It is not difficult to believe that Yeshua could read the Hebrew text. But we should not imagine him as a scribe with the kind of training found in Judea in the small movement of Pharisees and scribes. Yeshua would have been a literate, but by Judean standards, poorly educated layman.

Third, we should understand the times of Yeshua in Judaism as formative. The last decades before the First Jewish Revolt in 66-70 CE were a time when Israel was looking for an identity, for a way to be Israel. The powerful chief priests and Sadducees held nearly all the power in Jerusalem. Galileans paid tithes to the chief priests out of duty to Torah in spite of corruption and the fact that the Temple-state in Judea was abusive of wealth and power. The Pharisees were seeking to bring their own kind of renewal, but it too was a movement defined by power and status, not righteousness in the mode of the prophets of Israel.

Israel was seeking to be Israel, to recover some sense of what Torah had expressed as the ideal. The common people were powerless. From time to time, groups of the common people would follow an upstart messianic or prophetic leader. None of the small revolts inspired a wide following.

It is in this sense that we should understand Yeshua, who worked wonders in Galilee and attracted crowds. People were ready for change. They wanted to see something from God. Some of the people were ready for a revolution. Otherwise the various brigands who led small revolts would have found no followers. Yeshua seemed to be a person who could make things happen at long last.

Yet nearly all of Yeshua’s teaching and his actions were calculated to overthrowing popular messianic notions. Yeshua found a people so out of touch with the vision of the prophets for the world to come, the kingdom of God, that he set about overturning sacred cows. He dined with sinners. He healed impure people. He praised the faith of non-Jews. He warned that being the Chosen People would not bring inheritance by itself in the kingdom. He denied the idea of power and status as a way for Messiah or Messiah’s followers. He spoke of a long delay in the coming of the kingdom. He established a renewal movement, a group within Israel to be True Israel. He claimed to be of very high and exalted status which people would only understand when he was glorified. He gave many hints and signs of his identity. He left a group of disciples to lead a movement after his death and glorification when these things would become clear. He spoke of coming in the future as the Son of Man.

Yeshua’s vision of Messiahship and kingdom is a Jewish vision, but different in many details from other Jewish ways of imagining the kingdom.

In the days of the evangelists, division with synagogues throughout the empire heightened the distance between the Yeshua-movement and Jewish communities. The evangelists emphasized the origins of their movement as Jewish but with a view to spread to the nations. Yeshua had other sheep. Yeshua called for his name to be proclaimed to the gentiles. The Abrahamic promise was at last being realized.

Questions include everything from the mundane to the mysterious. Did Yeshua’s disciples actually break the Sabbath? Did they merely break an interpretation of the Sabbath rules according to some Pharisees? Is this ultimately about the Peah or corners of the field issue in Jewish law? Since the example of David is not a perfect match for what happens with the disciples, why does Yeshua use it? What does it mean, in the context of Second Temple Judaism, that the Sabbath is made for humankind? Is the Son of Man in vs. 28 Yeshua or humanity in general?

NOTES:

Good sources on this topic:
Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.
Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel.

(1) Exodus 34:21 forms the basis of prohibiting reaping on the Sabbath. But picking for immediate use is not reaping.

(2) What do the Pharisees object to? We cannot rely on Mishnah or rabbinic sources as they often depict realities from after the Temple destruction and read them back erroneously into earlier times. In general, we can say that the Pharisaic-scribal movement, which was still centuries from dominating Judaism, was at that time enlarging the scope of the commandments by making traditions. Although we have no specific source as evidence, it is very reasonable to assume that this movement wanted to build fences around Sabbath laws, so that even picking for immediate needs was forbidden on the Sabbath.

(3) Is there any issue related to the Peah or corners of the field legislation in Leviticus 19:9 and 23:22? Corners of the field, parts that would be near walking trails, were to be left unreaped so those hungry could pick for immediate needs. This is what the disciples were doing, Furthermore, Casey suggests this is an important element in the David example Yeshua used: David’s men were hungry. Yeshua is implying the same for his disciples. The question, then, is whether it is right for those making use of the Peah legislation (the hungry picking for immediate needs as allowed by Torah) can do so on the Sabbath.

(4) Why does Yeshua use the David story and what does it teach us? The story of David’s starving men getting permission to eat the sacred bread is not a perfect fit for the situation. It could be seen as an example of greater to lesser, though. David potentially violated a greater law when he permitted the eating of the sacred bread of the Tabernacle. The disciples were eating permitted food obtained legally via Torah law but were doing it on the Sabbath. However, it is possible or even likely that early Jewish sources assumed David’s men ate the sacred bread on the Sabbath, according to Casey. The sacred bread was replaced every Sabbath (Lev 24:8). Casey gives several references in Talmud and midrashim about the sacred bread being replaced on the Sabbath as well. Therefore, the two cases may be more similar than they appear at first glance. But they are not identical. But there are two aspects of the David story that make it profound: (a) no one can say that David was wrong but equally no one can say that what David did is permissible, so Yeshua traps his opponents with this story that does not fit their clear-cut fences around Torah and (b) Yeshua may be implying that he is a David-like figure with authority to judge matters of mystery in the law.

(5) What does it mean, in Second Temple Judaism, to say that “the Sabbath is made for humankind”? Casey notes that the idea that Creation is for the enjoyment of humankind occurs in various Jewish writings. 2 Baruch 14:18, for example, says “you said you would make for your world humankind as the manager of your works, to make it clear he was not made for the world, but the world was made for him.” It is also a valid interpretation of Exodus 16:29, “the Lord has given to you the Sabbath.” Thus, Yeshua is saying that Sabbath regulations in Judaism must be about rest for the benefit of humankind and not fences which make rest more difficult. This is direct guidance for the Jewish movement of Yeshua-followers in how to make halacha and the non-Jewish church can also learn from this principles for practical living. Yeshua did not agree that making the regulations stricter than the law was the right direction for halacha to go in. That is the larger meaning of the story.

(6) Finally, is the Son of Man in vs. 28 Yeshua or humanity in general? One problem in answering this is that we have to decide of Yeshua made this statement or if it is a summary statement made by Mark. It is impossible to be certain. But if it is a saying of Yeshua, then it is a riddle much like others he poses and much like his use of the David story. His words have two meanings. Humanity is lord over the Sabbath, since it is made for humanity and also the ultimate Son of Man, Yeshua, has authority to law down halacha about the Sabbath just as King David did with the sacred bread. It is probably best to read the whole passage as a riddle. The David story raises unanswerable questions. The Son of Man saying implies that Yeshua is the Son of Man who is Messiah. It was probably even more mysterious to those who heard the exchange in the first place. Who is this Yeshua? How does he overcome his opponents so skillfully? What is the answer to his riddles?

SUMMARY:
Some Pharisees challenge Yeshua for not rebuking his disciples over a matter of Sabbath tradition they believed in, a fence around the law in which gleaning Pe’ot, grain left standing for the hungry, was forbidden on the Sabbath. Yeshua answered their challenge with an unanswerable riddle: how then could David allow an even greater violation, eating the sacred bread also on the Sabbath? Since Yeshua’s opponents would not be able to answer this, Yeshua does it for them: the Sabbath is made for the benefit of humankind and halacha should follow this Torah principle. Restrictive fences that make a burden out of something designed by God to be good is the wrong direction to take. And the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, both in the sense that humankind is what Sabbath is for and in that I am the Son of Man who has authority, like David, to make such a ruling. In saying this, Yeshua gives us strong guidance for observance of Torah today in Messianic Judaism and principles that apply in non-Jewish practical living as well. The law is for the good of humankind and must be interpreted that way.

Whether or not the Pharisee in the famous (and dangerous for its readers and hearers, since the parable tempts us to judge the Pharisee) Pharisee and Tax Collector parable (Luke 18:9-14) was supposed to be prototypical or not, Yeshua has more to say about Pharisees being lax in lawkeeping than rigid.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Yeshua says he comes to fill up the Torah (Matthew 5:17, “fulfill” is a misleading translation best done away with). He proceeds to give six examples in Matthew 5:21-47 of what the “filled up” Torah looks like. In each case, Yeshua’s interpretation and application of Torah is thoroughgoing, extending the meaning to the most selfless, humble, faithful, holistic interpretation possible. The Torah’s requirement is seen to penetrate to the level of motives. Hatred and insult are a kind of murder. Lust is a kind of sexual sin. Marriage requires total commitment and there is no license to lightly abandon marriage vows. Attempts to evade oaths or give them insincerely are not valid. Love must be for all, even enemies, and neighbor in the Torah does not mean only those we like or who are like us. Retribution is not sanctioned by any law of Torah.

Therefore, when Yeshua says in 5:20 that his disciples’ righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, he means it literally.

It is a common assumption that: (1) the Pharisees are highly devoted and rigidly perfect in lawkeeping, (2) that Yeshua could not literally mean for anyone to be a better lawkeeper than them, and thus, (3) that Yeshua means the way of faith is better than the way of lawkeeping.

But none of Yeshua’s examples in vss. 21-47 make such a point. Rather, they define the “filled up” interpretation of Torah (vs. 17) and require the disciples to follow this way rather than looking for evasions and loopholes.

Another question might be, “Why don’t the gospels ever depict Yeshua offering a sacrifice or mention that he did so?”

From the point of view of many Christians, if someone were to ask, “Would Jesus do that?” it would be hard for most to imagine it: Jesus, bringing an animal so its blood could be poured out as a cleansing for sin?

One objection might be: since Yeshua never sinned, there is no way he would offer a sacrifice. To this objection we can offer two answers:
(a) Yeshua was baptized by John in a baptism for repentance, which seems a rather parallel case.
(b) Sacrifices were offered for worship and for the festivals, so one did not require a sin issue to bring an offering.

On the other side of the question, we might note a few things Yeshua said about the sacrifices and the Temple:
– He believed in the sanctity of the Temple: Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house? (Luke 2:49).
– He believed in the sanctity of the altar and its offerings: For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it (Matt 23:19-20).
– He spoke as if bringing sacrifices was a normal part of life with God: leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift (Matt 5:24).

We might argue as follows:
1. Yeshua was obedient in all things to his Father.
2. The offerings in the Temple were commandments.
3. Yeshua would have offered them as commanded.

Paul’s statement about Yeshua, that he was born under the Law (Gal 4:4) further backs this up.

But, that leads to an even more interesting point, once we can agree that, definitely, Yeshua offered gifts on the altar of God at the Temple in Jerusalem:
1. Yeshua surely would have brought sacrifices on various occasions to the Temple.
2. The gospels never depict him doing so.
3. There must be a reason, which we could possibly guess, why the gospels do not show Yeshua doing something he certainly must have done.

What could that reason be?

Let’s suggest that the reason is simple: the gospels assume many things about the Jewish world in which its characters lived and moved and assume the readers will share in these assumptions.

Put another way: it did not occur to the evangelists that any audience would ever imagine Yeshua as something other than a Torah-keeping, Temple-worshipping Jew. Things like the sacrifices are part of the shared world which did not seem to require any notice in the accounts of Yeshua’s life.

This is a principle which should be applied across the board to the life of Yeshua and the disciples and apostles: their covenantal practices of obedience to Torah should be assumed even where not specifically stated.