| (Copyright 2022) by Rich Traver (Clifton, Colorado) |
|---|
| Judaism in Jesus’ Day (Copyright 2022) by Rich Traver (Clifton, Colorado) The Common Idea is that the Jewish Religion, in the time when Jesus walked the Earth and conducted His ministry, was generally Monocultural. That most if not all Jews believed, taught and practiced the same. Yet, in the New Testament it’s evident that there were Significant Differences among the varying Jewish Persuasions! A significant number of incidents involving Jesus as He interacted with the Jewish leadership – most of the time very negatively – leaves the impression that He spent much time in the Jerusalem area engaging with the religious leaders. In addition to that, there’s a consensus that what He taught was derived from the practiced Jewish religion of the day with perhaps nuances of change. In other words, that Christianity was derived out from the Jewish religion of the time. That it had “Jewish Roots”. Ethic Versus Ethnicity People use the term “Judaeo / Christian Ethic” as though there was a source-connection between the two: presenting the idea that one grew out of the former. Now, when it comes to the so-called “Judaeo / Christian Ethic”, the term may be valid as to a common or similar ethic, but when it comes to teachings, and the belief system, that’s another matter entirely. The term “Jewish”, usually refers to ethnicity and / or a belief system. This study will focus more on the belief system (the religion itself) more than the ethnic consideration. The religious world tends to consider the Jewish religion as though it always was and is mono-cultural. In other words that all Jews believe and practice largely the same, with perhaps only minor variations, religious Jews at least. Yet, there exists abundant evidence that there were differing sects and schisms among the Jews, in some cases, they were very disdainful of one another! To better understand the reactions to Jesus’ ministry in His day, we need to be aware of these differing persuasions. The reactions were not universally the same. Some persuasions were receptive, while others were extremely hostile. It was this hostility that was employed to facilitate the slaying of the Lamb of God for us all. It isn’t all that well pointed out today that different areas of the Holy Land were of differing cultures and exhibited differing responses to new teachings. Even the distinct individual sects had schisms within them, but we’ll come to that. Three Distinct Regions Those different areas were Judaea, Samaria and Galilee. Each of these is represented in the Gospel narratives revealing the receptive differences. Jerusalem was the location of the Temple and the religious headquarters for the nation, and set the tone for that persuasion, or at least they thought they did. Their religious culture dominated Judaea, but not the whole of the Levant. Their religious culture is what we tend to regard as Judaism. Immediately north of Judaea was Samaria, and we know the extreme prejudice against the Samaritans on the part of the Jews (as though Samaritans weren’t themselves Jewish). In actual fact, the Samaritans were a remnant of the Northern Tribes of the divided Kingdom of Israel, dating back to the reign of Rehoboam, son of Solomon. Israel’s first king, Jereboam, set up a priesthood separate from that in Jerusalem, the religious capitol of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. This will be important later when we discuss the religion of Samaria. The region derived its name from Samaria, the capital of the Northern Israelite Tribes. North of Samaria was Galilee. Now, Galilee was distinct from Judaea in both culture and approach to religion. Galilee centered around the Sea of Galilee where Jesus chose to reside. We can see from the responses to Jesus’ teachings that they exhibited a very different attitude than the hardline Jews of Judaea. Had Jesus done in Judaea what He seemed free to do in Galilee, He would have been exposed to threats of being killed much sooner than He was! Independent Mindedness Now. Galilee was relatively distinct from the severe religious culture that created the environment in Judaea. They were more cosmopolitan and more receptive of new teachings, even if they seemed to differ from orthodoxy as defined by the Levitical standards. Perhaps it was for this reason that Jesus chose it as His home. He saw no need or advantage in being near the Temple or those who dominated it. He had gone there since childhood and knew the environment there. In fact, when the occasion arose, He “tore up” the Temple scene, castigating its gaggle of irreverent moneychangers. This map illustrates the regions being discussed. What religions were represented in the Transjordan regions or north in Phoenicia is not pertinent here, just the regions where Jesus taught.  Regions within the nation with distinct religious cultures. What’s particularly of interest is the religious culture of the other two regions: Samaria and Galilee. The Galilean Contingent Now, something else not emphasized is the fact that Jesus’ Disciples were chosen from among Galileans. It was this lack of polarity of Jewish extremism that would have been the risk had He opted for Judean disciples. Two important references point out this unrealized fact: (Acts 2:7 & 1:11) Their cultural orientation played a significant part in their being used of God. We can also see where Jesus was when He did the choosing. (e.g., Mt. 4:18) Now, another important thing is that much of Jesus’ ministry was conducted in Galilee. The map presented here was compiled from references to His location found in the Gospels. It’s obvious that He spent a lot less time in Judaea than we might expect, because of the religious climate of that region as opposed to what it was in Galilee (or for that matter in Samaria). As we can see from this map, Galilee was His main area of ministry. (This research was done by others.)  Traceable itineraries of Jesus from the New Testament Samaria Was “SAFE”! Regarding Samaria, we might note that Jesus found it to be more accepting of Him and His message than Judaea. It was in Samaria that He first openly admitted that He was the Messiah. (John 4:25-26). That wouldn’t have gone over well in Judaea. In fact, it was to escape hostility there that He was returning north to Galilee. (John 4:1-4). A further testament to the religious attitudes was the narrative about the “good Samaritan” found in Luke 10. The man who fell among thieves was observed by three types: a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan. Only the Samaritan was shown in a good light, with the prestigious religious men showing no compassion whatsoever. Obviously, the religious muck-a-mucks passing by were devoid of any concern for the unfortunate fellow. The reception of the preaching of Philip in Acts 8:4-8 further illustrates the religious climate in Samaria. The point of this is to show that the people of Samaria and Galilee were less hostile than in Judea. It might be relevant to point out the religion of Samaria. We aren’t told much about them or why there was such disdain for them especially by the Judean Jews, just, that there was. While the general perception is that they were irreligious or anti-Jewish, that isn’t the case at all. Most of the viral invective came from the Jews toward them, not so much back the other way! Divided Monarchy The situation goes back to the time of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, when the Kingdom became divided in 922 BC. The Ten Tribes seceded from the southern tribes, establishing their own king and setting up their own religious administration. Their King Jeroboam hired his own priesthood and altered their religious calendar to discourage his citizenry from going to Jerusalem for Holy Days. The northern tribes were subsequently taken captive by the Assyrians, most of whom were never repatriated. We usually think of them as gone from the region, but in practical fact, it was the prominent and the intelligentsia that were taken captive. There were what we might consider ‘ordinary folk’ who were left to maintain the culture and religion with those Assyria was ‘transplanting’ into the conquered area. But it was that remnant of the original population that became these Samaritans. Among them was the religious sect: an Ephraimite contingent, who remain a distinct sect to the present day. Ephraim was the leading tribe of the northern kingdom. These perpetuated the religion of Samaria (named for their capitol) centered around Gerizim, maintaining their own Torah and ancient priestly line. A Fading Religion? A remnant of these was identified in the early 20th Century, and written about in the National Geographic magazine of January, 1920. [1] They, at that time, had been known and observed for the previous 300-years. They claimed to have maintained the Old Testament traditions since the days of Eli (a contemporary of Samuel) never having left the land and never having been contaminated by their captors belief systems as were the Jews while being held captives in Babylon, [2] and as had occurred with others of their persuasion who had scattered abroad. The point of their claim is that they were as fully “Jewish” religiously as any peoples in the region, while being less contaminated by foreign concepts than were their counterparts to the south. We aren’t all aware of this! This is a fact of history, while the New Testament only alludes to their persuasion. Irreconcilable Differences Another interesting observation regarding a disdain between Jew and Samaritan is contained in another statement found in the National Geographic article. [3] It was a situation that had some 900 years of longevity by the time of Christ, remaining unresolved for all that time. It might be of interest to note that the Samaritans, as related in that National Geographic article, observed their Passover more in keeping with Sadduceean Tradition than Phariseean, keeping it in the early hours beginning the fourteenth day of the first month as did Jesus and His disciples! Does this establish a basis for a more amenable regard for the Samaritans on the part of Jesus, and they for Him? Jesus Was No Pharisee! Jesus was not of Phariseean persuasion. His family was not. His great uncle and His mother’s brother were of Sadduceean persuasion. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin and Zacharias, His uncle, was a Priest, of the course of Abijah, officiating at the Temple. (Luke 1:5) So, it wasn’t just political power that put Sadducee and Pharisee at odds with one another. They had their doctrinal differences as Acts 23:6-8 explains. As this article explains, Judaism of the first century was anything but unified in belief and practice. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans and “independent” types such as we find in Acts 6:9 were commonplace. The New King James renders verse 9 this way: “Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen.” So, there are other lesser sects even then having their own views. The Authenticity Factor So, to address the underlying question, what Jewish sect do we identify as being the truest representation of the Old Testament religion? This question becomes particularly relevant when those of our peripheral fellowship decide to embrace Jewish customs and practices. Which practices can we say are effective to the intended purpose and which are rather benign? Now, we know that just within the regional heart-land of the nation, there were differing degrees of fidelity to the religion. [4] There were also serious differences between the major players just within the Judaic contingent: Sadducees and Pharisees: The matters of any resurrection or the existence of spirits or angels, to name a few. (Acts 23:6-8) And it’s well-known that Judaism of the first century was influenced by Hellenism, Mysticism and elements of Gnosticism. Its purity had been compromised long before the time of Christ. Paul even warned that there were many fables in that religious culture, even that early. It became seriously worse from then on. No reformation effort excised all the incidental added laws and tales that accumulated over the next several centuries, being compiled into major tomes of the religion. Compiling the Talmud While the compilation of what’s regarded as the effective Jewish “bible” known as the Talmud is reported to have been created over three centuries, between 200 and 500 AD, it’s reasonable to say that a certain amount of what it contains had prior origins. The fables of Paul’s day were to him a matter of concern for the Saints. (and he should know of them, having been a Pharisee’s Pharisee), He warned against them in places like Titus 1:14; 1st Timothy 1:4 & 2nd Timothy 4:4. What could sum up Paul’s regard for his former affiliation better than what he wrote precautioning Titus? [10] “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: [11] Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. [14] Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth…” Is there a better assessment of that belief system? He continues to Titus: [15] “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. [16] They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Tit. 1:10-16) Strong words, but a fair assessment of that persuasion even as we encounter it in our day! Their belief system was not pure! (And the situation isn’t limited to just that persuasion Paul was referring to.) Appropriate Regard So, we have many sects and schisms within Judaism, well documented as existing in the first century, and no less so in the modern era. With that awareness, what regard should we have toward people’s choices today to embrace certain characteristics and expressions of Jewishness as a perceived enhancement of their worship of God? Many times it involves just certain selected aspects of the religion, not the full requirements of its discipline. Is there an example of the early New Testament Church having done anything along this line? No Christian should in any way feel inferior to those who choose to emulate and exhibit such expressions. & ———————————————————————– Reprinted with permission from: Golden Sheaves https://www.goldensheaves.org/ ———————————————————————– [1] A copy of this NatGeo article is available in my “Passover Observance and the Exodus Experience” booklet. [2] A statement from the 12/1920 National Geographic article: “While the Jews have scattered all over the world since the captivities and have absorbed much that is foreign, in many instances adapting their religious practices to their new environment, the Samaritans have during the same lapse of time lived in the land of their forefathers, among Semitic peoples akin to the Hebrews, and because of this fact have handed down to the twentieth century a glimpse of the old (Israelite) Church almost in its purity.” [3] “In view of the similarity in their beliefs and practices, it seems strange that there exists and has always existed the fiercest animosity between Jew and Samaritan, but it is the animosity that invariably exists between an original and a schism.” (A schism being a separate religious entity.) [4] There were TWO persuasions in that day (and there still are!) There was the Aristocratic persuasion and Hasidic persuasion [Sadducees / Pharisees]. Sadducees were more oriented to the Aristocratic persuasion (conservative) (keeping the early 14th Passover) The Hasidic persuasion was the more commonly practiced observance (aka the late 14th Passover) (Pharisees) The Sanhedrin and priesthood was predominantly Sadduceean. [Acts 5:17] There is no evidence that He (and they) ever ascribed to the Hasidic practices on Passover OR Pentecost. Jesus’ Passover observance bears evidence of His persuasion. The most primitive Christian assemblies followed the Aristocratic system for both the Passover (1st Cor.11:23) and Unleavened Bread and for the Feastof Pentecost. (Ac.2:1) |
| Iron Sharpening Iron In regard to: Judaism in Jesus’ Day Article by Rich Traver Comments by Laura Lee (Bismarck, North Dakota) |
|---|
| Rich Traver’s Article: The Common Idea is that the Jewish Religion, in the time when Jesus walked the Earth and conducted His ministry, was generally Monocultural. That most if not all Jews believed, taught and practiced the same. Yet, in the New Testament it’s evident that there were Significant Differences among the varying Jewish Persuasions! Laura writes: In my experience I believe that most people especially those in the Church of God understand that there were several Jewish sects at the time of Christ and that they did not all believe the same thing. Rich Traver’s Article: A significant number of incidents involving Jesus as He interacted with the Jewish leadership – most of the time very negatively – leaves the impression that He spent much time in the Jerusalem area engaging with the religious leaders. In addition to that, there’s a consensus that what He taught was derived from the practiced Jewish religion of the day with perhaps nuances of change. In other words, that Christianity was derived out from the Jewish religion of the time. That it had “Jewish Roots”. Laura writes: I don’t think most people believe that one either (highlighted in yellow). If people do believe that, it is only because they do not understand there were originally twelve tribes and later thirteen tribes and that these tribes split into two groups, with the tribe of Judah being visible and the other tribes being called the lost ten tribes which became invisible to most people. Christianity was derived from the bible which was preserved for us today by the tribe of Judah (modern day orthodox Jews) Christ taught the Law of God as is stated in His inspired word the bible. Rich Traver’s Article: Ethic Versus Ethnicity People use the term “Judaeo / Christian Ethic” as though there was a source-connection between the two: presenting the idea that one grew out of the former. Now, when it comes to the so-called “Judaeo / Christian Ethic”, the term may be valid as to a common or similar ethic, but when it comes to teachings, and the belief system, that’s another matter entirely. The term “Jewish”, usually refers to ethnicity and / or a belief system. This study will focus more on the belief system (the religion itself) more than the ethnic consideration. Laura writes: The current American use of “Judeo-Christian” — to refer to a value system common to Jews and Christians — first appeared in print in a book review by the English writer George Orwell in 1939, with the phrase “the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals.”[1] Promoting the concept of the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation first became a political program in the 1940s, in response to the growth of anti-Semitism in America. The rise of Nazi anti-semitism in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to take steps to increase understanding and tolerance.[14] From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian_ethics The Jews as well as Christians use the Bible as their source for their belief system, which is something they have in common. However, it does not mean that either side understands what scripture says and so put their own meaning to it most of the time. In order to understand what scripture says, you have to have God’s Holy Spirit which was not something that most people had at the time of Christ, nor even today. Rich Traver’s Article: The religious world tends to consider the Jewish religion as though it always was and is mono-cultural. In other words that all Jews believe and practice largely the same, with perhaps only minor variations, religious Jews at least. Yet, there exists abundant evidence that there were differing sects and schisms among the Jews, in some cases, they were very disdainful of one another! To better understand the reactions to Jesus’ ministry in His day, we need to be aware of these differing persuasions. The reactions were not universally the same. Some persuasions were receptive, while others were extremely hostile. It was this hostility that was employed to facilitate the slaying of the Lamb of God for us all. It isn’t all that well pointed out today that different areas of the Holy Land were of differing cultures and exhibited differing responses to new teachings. Even the distinct individual sects had schisms within them, but we’ll come to that. Three Distinct Regions Those different areas were Judaea, Samaria and Galilee. Each of these is represented in the Gospel narratives revealing the receptive differences. Jerusalem was the location of the Temple and the religious headquarters for the nation, and set the tone for that persuasion, or at least they thought they did. Their religious culture dominated Judaea, but not the whole of the Levant. Their religious culture is what we tend to regard as Judaism. Immediately north of Judaea was Samaria, and we know the extreme prejudice against the Samaritans on the part of the Jews (as though Samaritans weren’t themselves Jewish). In actual fact, the Samaritans were a remnant of the Northern Tribes of the divided Kingdom of Israel, dating back to the reign of Rehoboam, son of Solomon. Israel’s first king, Jereboam, set up a priesthood separate from that in Jerusalem, the religious capitol of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. This will be important later when we discuss the religion of Samaria. The region derived its name from Samaria, the capital of the Northern Israelite Tribes. North of Samaria was Galilee. Now, Galilee was distinct from Judaea in both culture and approach to religion. Galilee centered around the Sea of Galilee where Jesus chose to reside. We can see from the responses to Jesus’ teachings that they exhibited a very different attitude than the hardline Jews of Judaea. Had Jesus done in Judaea what He seemed free to do in Galilee, He would have been exposed to threats of being killed much sooner than He was! Independent Mindedness Now. Galilee was relatively distinct from the severe religious culture that created the environment in Judaea. They were more cosmopolitan and more receptive of new teachings, even if they seemed to differ from orthodoxy as defined by the Levitical standards. Perhaps it was for this reason that Jesus chose it as His home. He saw no need or advantage in being near the Temple or those who dominated it. He had gone there since childhood and knew the environment there. In fact, when the occasion arose, He “tore up” the Temple scene, castigating its gaggle of irreverent moneychangers. This map illustrates the regions being discussed. What religions were represented in the Transjordan regions or north in Phoenicia is not pertinent here, just the regions where Jesus taught. Regions within the nation with distinct religious cultures. What’s particularly of interest is the religious culture of the other two regions: Samaria and Galilee. The Galilean Contingent Now, something else not emphasized is the fact that Jesus’ Disciples were chosen from among Galileans. It was this lack of polarity of Jewish extremism that would have been the risk had He opted for Judean disciples. Two important references point out this unrealized fact: (Acts 2:7 & 1:11) Their cultural orientation played a significant part in their being used of God. We can also see where Jesus was when He did the choosing. (e.g., Mt. 4:18) Now, another important thing is that much of Jesus’ ministry was conducted in Galilee. The map presented here was compiled from references to His location found in the Gospels. It’s obvious that He spent a lot less time in Judaea than we might expect, because of the religious climate of that region as opposed to what it was in Galilee (or for that matter in Samaria). As we can see from this map, Galilee was His main area of ministry. (This research was done by others.) Traceable itineraries of Jesus from the New Testament Samaria Was “SAFE”! Regarding Samaria, we might note that Jesus found it to be more accepting of Him and His message than Judaea. It was in Samaria that He first openly admitted that He was the Messiah. (John 4:25-26). That wouldn’t have gone over well in Judaea. In fact, it was to escape hostility there that He was returning north to Galilee. (John 4:1-4). A further testament to the religious attitudes was the narrative about the “good Samaritan” found in Luke 10. The man who fell among thieves was observed by three types: a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan. Only the Samaritan was shown in a good light, with the prestigious religious men showing no compassion whatsoever. Obviously, the religious muck-a-mucks passing by were devoid of any concern for the unfortunate fellow. The reception of the preaching of Philip in Acts 8:4-8 further illustrates the religious climate in Samaria. The point of this is to show that the people of Samaria and Galilee were less hostile than in Judea. It might be relevant to point out the religion of Samaria. We aren’t told much about them or why there was such disdain for them especially by the Judean Jews, just, that there was. While the general perception is that they were irreligious or anti-Jewish, that isn’t the case at all. Most of the viral invective came from the Jews toward them, not so much back the other way! Laura writes: Not too much is known of the Samaritans but one belief that stands out is they believe Mount Gerizim is more important to God than is Jerusalem. To most this should be a red flag. When you put charts in articles, they should be readable. Rich Traver’s Article: Divided Monarchy The situation goes back to the time of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, when the Kingdom became divided in 922 BC. The Ten Tribes seceded from the southern tribes, establishing their own king and setting up their own religious administration. Their King Jeroboam hired his own priesthood and altered their religious calendar to discourage his citizenry from going to Jerusalem for Holy Days. The northern tribes were subsequently taken captive by the Assyrians, most of whom were never repatriated. We usually think of them as gone from the region, but in practical fact, it was the prominent and the intelligentsia that were taken captive. There were what we might consider ‘ordinary folk’ who were left to maintain the culture and religion with those Assyria was ‘transplanting’ into the conquered area. But it was that remnant of the original population that became these Samaritans. Among them was the religious sect: an Ephraimite contingent, who remain a distinct sect to the present day. Ephraim was the leading tribe of the northern kingdom. These perpetuated the religion of Samaria (named for their capitol) centered around Gerizim, maintaining their own Torah and ancient priestly line. Laura writes: Apparently, the Mormons believe they are the tribe of Ephraim: The Mormons believe that the Mormon Church represents Ephraim which will be rejoined with the Jews. This is why they have established a large center in Jerusalem, on Mount Scopus. From: Is the Church Ephraim? (lehigh.edu) Rich Traver’s Article: A Fading Religion? A remnant of these was identified in the early 20th Century and written about in the National Geographic magazine of January 1920. [1] They, at that time, had been known and observed for the previous 300-years. They claimed to have maintained the Old Testament traditions since the days of Eli (a contemporary of Samuel) never having left the land and never having been contaminated by their captor’s belief systems as were the Jews while being held captives in Babylon, [2] and as had occurred with others of their persuasion who had scattered abroad. The point of their claim is that they were as fully “Jewish” religiously as any peoples in the region, while being less contaminated by foreign concepts than were their counterparts to the south. We aren’t all aware of this! This is a fact of history, while the New Testament only alludes to their persuasion. Irreconcilable Differences Another interesting observation regarding a disdain between Jew and Samaritan is contained in another statement found in the National Geographic article. [3] It was a situation that had some 900 years of longevity by the time of Christ, remaining unresolved for all that time. It might be of interest to note that the Samaritans, as related in that National Geographic article, observed their Passover more in keeping with Sadduceean Tradition than Phariseean, keeping it in the early hours beginning the fourteenth day of the first month as did Jesus and His disciples! Does this establish a basis for a more amenable regard for the Samaritans on the part of Jesus, and they for Him? Laura writes: Eze 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. The year that Christ was crucified he did not eat a Passover Meal. Christ was dead when the Passover meal was eaten in Jerusalem. Christ was killed at the same time as the Passover Lambs. If Christ was keeping Passover according to the Sadducees, then why was he not crucified on the early part to the fourteenth. Do a study of when the daily sacrifices were done at the Temple. There was always a morning and an evening sacrifice at the Temple. The morning sacrifice was around 9 AM and the Evening sacrifice was around 3 PM. Why would they all of the sudden change the time of the sacrifice to between sunset and dark for your early 14 Passover as you call it? They wouldn’t. The Sadducees were not religious people and generally bought their way into the high positions in the Temple. Paul is telling you that the Pharisees were the better sect of the Jews. Act 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. (KJV) And Christ tells us that the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. They read the law to the multitudes from Moses’ seat. Christ also says, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not do after their works for they say and do not.” Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. So, what is it that the Pharisees observe? The Holy Days of God. And you can find everyone of the Holy Days on the Hebrew Calendar in scripture along with the dates they are kept according to the same calendar. What more proof do you want? Christ kept the Holy Days on the same dates as the Pharisees. And the Scribes and Pharisees were meticulous in teaching the Law of God, they just didn’t keep the Law of God most of the time. Rich Traver’s Article: Jesus Was No Pharisee! Jesus was not of Phariseean persuasion. His family was not. His great uncle and His mother’s brother were of Sadduceean persuasion. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin and Zacharias, His uncle, was a Priest, of the course of Abijah, officiating at the Temple. (Luke 1:5) Laura writes: Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. How does Luke 1:5 make all these people of the Sadduceean persuasion? I see nothing in scripture that Jesus, or His family were of Sadduceean persuasion. I don’t find any place in scripture where Zacharias is either. These people you list are all upright or religious people, and the Sadducees were not religious people. Just saying they were of Sadduceean persuasion does not make it true. You give no proof for this. Just because someone is a priest or of the course of Abijah in the temple does not mean they are of the Sadduceean pesausion. Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Elisabeth and Mary were cousins, so through Elisabeth’s marriage to Zacharias, Christ was related to Zacharias. However, Joseph of Arimathea was not related to Christ at all. It is not in scripture, and it is not on the internet that I could find. If you have proof that Joseph was Christ’s Uncle, I would like to see it. What the Bible says is this: Mat 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: Rich Traver’s Article: So, it wasn’t just political power that put Sadducee and Pharisee at odds with one another. They had their doctrinal differences as Acts 23:6-8 explains. Laura writes: Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Act 23:7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. You bet; they had doctrinal differences alright but look at what they were. Christ was going to be resurrected but yet He was according to the Sadduceean persuasion as you claim and so did not believe in a resurrection. Does this really make sense to you? A person who is going to be resurrected does not believe in a resurrection? Christ living in heaven with angels does not believe in angels? Christ living in heaven with God and Himself being a Spirit being does not believe in spirits? If Christ did not believe in a resurrection because of your claim of Him being of the Sadduceean persuasion, then none of us will be resurrected either. We are all doomed. It is the Pharisees that believed in a resurrection just as Christ did. The Pharisees believed in Angels and Spirits just like Christ did. Read your bible. Rich Traver’s Article: As this article explains, Judaism of the first century was anything but unified in belief and practice. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Samaritans and “independent” types such as we find in Acts 6:9 were commonplace. The New King James renders verse 9 this way: “Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen.” So, there are other lesser sects even then having their own views. The Authenticity Factor So, to address the underlying question, what Jewish sect do we identify as being the truest representation of the Old Testament religion? This question becomes particularly relevant when those of our peripheral fellowship decide to embrace Jewish customs and practices. Which practices can we say are effective to the intended purpose and which are rather benign? Now, we know that just within the regional heart-land of the nation, there were differing degrees of fidelity to the religion. [4] There were also serious differences between the major players just within the Judaic contingent: Sadducees and Pharisees: The matters of any resurrection or the existence of spirits or angels, to name a few. (Acts 23:6-8) And it’s well-known that Judaism of the first century was influenced by Hellenism, Mysticism, and elements of Gnosticism. Its purity had been compromised long before the time of Christ. Laura writes: The Bible is the authority for our beliefs, and not whether someone was influenced by Hellenism, Mysticism and elements of Gnosticism. You can find everyone of those elements within the Church of God. People are influenced by Satan every day. What people are influenced by is not what your belief system should be about. You should be reading your bible and forming your beliefs from that. What does it say about Sadducees and about Pharisees? Rich Traver’s Article: Paul even warned that there were many fables in that religious culture, even that early. It became seriously worse from then on. No reformation effort excised all the incidental added laws and tales that accumulated over the next several centuries, being compiled into major tomes of the religion. Compiling the Talmud While the compilation of what’s regarded as the effective Jewish “bible” known as the Talmud is reported to have been created over three centuries, between 200 and 500 AD, it’s reasonable to say that a certain amount of what it contains had prior origins. The fables of Paul’s day were to him a matter of concern for the Saints. (and he should know of them, having been a Pharisee’s Pharisee), He warned against them in places like Titus 1:14; 1st Timothy 1:4 & 2nd Timothy 4:4. What could sum up Paul’s regard for his former affiliation better than what he wrote precautioning Titus? [10] “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: [11] Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. [14] Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth…” Is there a better assessment of that belief system? He continues to Titus: [15] “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. [16] They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Tit. 1:10-16) Strong words, but a fair assessment of that persuasion even as we encounter it in our day! Their belief system was not pure! (And the situation isn’t limited to just that persuasion Paul was referring to.) Appropriate Regard So, we have many sects and schisms within Judaism, well documented as existing in the first century, and no less so in the modern era. With that awareness, what regard should we have toward people’s choices today to embrace certain characteristics and expressions of Jewishness as a perceived enhancement of their worship of God? Many times it involves just certain selected aspects of the religion, not the full requirements of its discipline. Is there an example of the early New Testament Church having done anything along this line? No Christian should in any way feel inferior to those who choose to emulate and exhibit such expressions. & Laura writes: Doctrinal differences are nothing new. This article is one of the worst articles I have ever seen written in regard to the Jews whichever sect you are talking about. You have an article from the National Geographic magazine of 1920 that is primarily speaking of Samaritans and their practices. Besides, the fact that Samaritans kept an early fourteen Passover and sometimes kept their Passover in May doesn’t seem to bother you. Calendar: How the Samaritan and Jewish Masoretic Calendars Differ (israelite-samaritans.com) Christ’s beloved city is Jerusalem, and the Samaritans is Mount Gerizim. Does it also not matter that they kneel toward their temple on prayer cloths to pray as the Muslims do when they pray toward Mecca? What is wrong with this picture? As of 1920 the article says there are few Samaritans left. The Sadducees were not religious people and they disappeared in 70 A.D. along with the temple. The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection, angels or spirits and yet you want anyone reading this article to believe that Christ and His family were of the Sadduceean persuasion? How does that all work out since Christ was resurrected, lives with angels and is a spirit? Do you think about what you teach? It seems to me that you will do and say whatever it takes to hold on to an early 14 Passover even when scripture says otherwise. If the Sadducees are of Christ, where are they today? They are nowhere to be found. The Pharisees descendants the Orthodox Jews are the biggest Jewish sect there is today. They still train Sanhedrin Priests. Their calendar is sanctified, and they preserved the scriptures for us. Yes, they have many bad traits, but then so does the Church of God. You can find all the flavors within the Church of God that are also found in the Orthodox Jews. People without God’s Spirit will be people no matter which religion they align themselves with. If I were you, I would stop teaching that Christ and His family were of the Sadduceean Persuasion and read your bible, several different bible versions if you have to. Read Revelation Chapters 2 and 3 and then tell me you still believe the Church of God with all its faults is still way better than the tribe of Judah. [1] A copy of this NatGeo article is available in my “Passover Observance and the Exodus Experience” booklet. [2] A statement from the 12/1920 National Geographic article: “While the Jews have scattered all over the world since the captivities and have absorbed much that is foreign, in many instances adapting their religious practices to their new environment, the Samaritans have during the same lapse of time lived in the land of their forefathers, among Semitic peoples akin to the Hebrews, and because of this fact have handed down to the twentieth century a glimpse of the old (Israelite) Church almost in its purity.” [3] “In view of the similarity in their beliefs and practices, it seems strange that there exists and has always existed the fiercest animosity between Jew and Samaritan, but it is the animosity that invariably exists between an original and a schism.” (A schism being a separate religious entity.) [4] There were TWO persuasions in that day (and there still are!) There was the Aristocratic persuasion and Hasidic persuasion [Sadducees / Pharisees]. Sadducees were more oriented to the Aristocratic persuasion (conservative) (keeping the early 14th Passover) The Hasidic persuasion was the more commonly practiced observance (aka the late 14th Passover) (Pharisees) The Sanhedrin and priesthood was predominantly Sadduceean. [Acts 5:17] There is no evidence that He (and they) ever ascribed to the Hasidic practices on Passover OR Pentecost. Jesus’ Passover observance bears evidence of His persuasion. The most primitive Christian assemblies followed the Aristocratic system for both the Passover (1st Cor.11:23) and Unleavened Bread and for the Feastof Pentecost. (Ac.2:1) |
| Iron Sharpening Iron In regard to: Judaism in Jesus’ Day Article by Rich Traver Comments by Ray Daly (Lincoln, North Dakota) |
|---|
| Something to consider regarding Rich Traver’s article: “Judaism in Jesus Day”. For it is seemingly evident that Jesus went “to the Jews”. And this did not mean only “Israelite Jews”. He went to Gentiles that were “of the law” as well as those like the Pharisees that were deeply involved in the book of the law. The Herodian “Jews” for example were of the tribe of Esau, via his marriage to two Canaanite wives. They are known of in the Gospel accounts as being “Idumeans”. As well there were several other “gentile peoples” that came to him to be healed, and he taught them also. It is very likely that the Samaritans and Galilean’s were also Gentiles. After all, almost all or all of the Israelites living to the north of Judea were carried off to areas in the Assyrian empire or had fled before the invasion. I guess one could say that Jesus went to any that were of obedience to the portions of the book of the law that involved them. Israelites/Judeans or Gentiles. There are several Scriptural examples but will not get into them. |
Views: 12
Sign up to Receive [The "New" Church of God Messenger] weekly newsletter: