The Real Issue: “Jesus” vs. Judaism?

Some people are confused by the suggestion that it is possible to accept the norms and standards of modern-day, normative Orthodox Judaism while maintaining devotion to the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth. There are numerous factors that lead to this confusion, but one is the perception that our master Yeshua’s teachings fundamentally stand in conflict with Judaism.

Defining Repentance

Most people can accept the statement that our master Yeshua came with a message of repentance. The disagreement comes when we try to settle on a definition of the term “repent.” Most people interpret repentance to mean some type of change in behavior or attitudes. In order to clarify our master Yeshua’s message, our first goal should be to pin down what behaviors and attitudes he felt were negative and what positive behaviors and attitudes he felt should replace them.

Among Christians, it is commonly believed that Jewish doctrine and practice were among the things that Jesus spoke against. This included both observance of the Mosaic law as well as Rabbinic or Pharisaic customs and traditions. According to this belief, repentance means (at least in part), denial of Judaism and acceptance of Christianity as a new and distinct religion.

This definition of repentance can easily be refuted on numerous levels: 1) it is anachronistic, as Christianity did not exist as a distinct religion at that time; 2) it can be shown to stand in direct conflict with his explicit teachings; and 3) the terms repent and repentance already had a meaning with which his audience would already have been familiar.

In Judaism, repentance (known in Hebrew as teshuvah, which literally means “turning” or “returning”) is a well-defined concept that denotes:

• cessation of behaviors that violate the Torah (Law of Moses),
• sincere regret and confession to God, and
• resolve to improve one’s observance of the Torah and its commandments.

Yet if our master Yeshua’s primary message was “repent” in the sense outlined above, we are left with an important question: what was it in the Torah that he wanted them to do? Was he instructing people to keep more kosher? In that era, people kept kosher fairly well. Did he intend for them to observe the Sabbath more stringently? In those days, people were quite stringent in their Sabbath observance. So when he said “repent,” which behaviors did he want them to cease, and which commandments did he want them to adopt more fully?

One Conflict

One way we might uncover the answer to this question is to examine one account of such conflict.

In Mark 7, for example, certain members of the Pharisaic party from Jerusalem criticized our master Yeshua’s disciples for not observing the ritual of netilat yadayim (a ritual hand washing) before eating. Our master Yeshua responds by criticizing the Pharisees for setting aside the commandment of God for the sake of traditions of men. He continues by criticizing their dedication of resources for sacred use (korban) when it should be used to care for elderly parents. Later, he makes the cryptic statement that it is not what goes into a man that “defiles” him, but what comes out. When asked to explain, he teaches that what go in are various types of food, but what come out are evil thoughts, behaviors and words.

This account raises several questions:

• Why did our master Yeshua’s disciples not observe this ritual?
• Why were the disciples singled out for criticism but not our master himself?
• Is there significance to the fact that the critics were from the Pharisaic party or Jerusalem?
• What commandment of God did he accuse them of violating?
• Did he take issue with the practice of netilat yadayim or with their criticism?
• What does korban and caring for parents have to do with this issue?
• What does he mean that food does not “defile” a man?
• What do evil thoughts, behaviors and words (and particularly the specific ones he lists) have to do with netilat yadayim and how does bringing this up support his point?

The answers to these questions are not explicit. A person will arrive at a different conclusion as to the meaning of this teaching based on the paradigm one already holds. Let’s examine this account in light of some of the most common perspectives.

1. Judaism vs. Christianity

According to this view, Jesus came to teach people to stop practicing the Torah and began a new system of relating to God. Thus, the interpretation of Mark 7 is that “the Law of Moses including washings and dietary laws (kashrut) no longer applies.” What he wanted people to do was stop practicing Judaism and become Christians.

This is the predominant view among Christians. It is very problematic, because a teaching that commandments in the Torah are canceled would disqualify him from being the Messiah by definition. This is because the Torah identifies any person who encourages people to disregard commandments as a false teacher deserving of punishment. It would also be severe hypocrisy to accuse them of setting aside the law of God and then immediately turn around and say, “the dietary laws no longer apply.” This view cannot be taken seriously if we are to maintain that he is a true teacher or good person, let alone the messiah.

2. Karaism vs. Rabbinic Judaism

This perspective teaches that Yeshua came telling people to obey the Torah, but not the rabbinic oral law. He came to speak against the rabbis making up rules and fences and traditions and told people to follow the written Scriptures only. According to this view, since the laws about washing hands before eating were not written in the Bible, he was condemning them for making up new laws, which they were not allowed to do. (One sect that claims to follow the written Torah only is known as Karaism, with which many Messianics identify.)

However, this view also has many problems. First, it is anachronistic, and it applies the Protestant Reformation sentiment of sola scriptura to ancient Judaism. Furthermore, Yeshua was a rabbi and his teachings often supported and were based on Jewish tradition. He may be regularly found observing traditions and customs. Almost all of his words echo those of well-known and accepted Jewish teachers. Plus, the Torah has built into itself a system of authority whereby leaders among the Jewish people were commanded to make rulings and determinations of Jewish law where the Torah was not explicit. The Karaite view is not tenable.

3. One Tradition vs. Another

Some hold the view that Yeshua, as a rabbi, had his own rabbinic interpretation, halachah and customs that he taught his disciples. He taught his disciples to follow his halachah and customs based on his more clear and true understanding of the Torah. One could explain that the Judean Pharisaic tradition was to wash hands before eating, but Yeshua’s Galilean custom was not. One strength of this view is that it identifies Yeshua’s context among many of the heroes of Judaism: the ancient Chasidim, an early sect that included those such as Chanina ben Dosa and Choni Hame’agel.

While the Pharisees from Jerusalem had the right to make halachah, they could not contradict the written Torah, it is reasoned. They must have contradicted the Torah with their halachah, otherwise, why would he accuse them of setting aside the commandment? So what was the commandment they violated? One explanation might be that by eating common ordinary food in a state of ritual purity as if it was Temple-sanctified, they blurred the distinction between holy and common, thus violating Leviticus 10:10.

The conclusion of this view is that Yeshua wanted people to be followers of his Galilean Chasidic brand of Rabbinic halachah.

However, even this view has problems. For one, Leviticus 10:10 is never brought up in that discourse, nor even once in his recorded teachings. Throughout his recorded teachings, in fact, there are maybe two or three points of halachah that could be derived, and the rest of his teachings are not halachic at all, but more generally ethical. Furthermore, it does not seem right that the messiah would come and his great message to the world was “stop washing your hands before you eat.” The overall message of Yeshua does not seem to be to persuade people to follow the halachah of the ancient Galilean Chasidim.

A Universally Applicable Perspective

We need a theory of interpretation that works across the board and takes his entire message into account. We need one that meshes with all of his other ethical teachings.

In Matthew 9 the story is recorded where our master Yeshua was eating and tax collectors and “sinners” were at his table with him. The Pharisees were appalled by this, and asked, “why is your teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?”

It is important to note that the problem with eating with a sinner—better understood as am ha’aretz, an ignoramus—was not that the person sinned. The problem was that they did not know how or care to observe the laws of ritual purity that Pharisees had developed. The Pharisees chose only to eat in a state of ritual purity, which disallowed them from inviting common, ordinary citizens to eat together with them. This is what disturbed them about our master Yeshua.

Our master responded by quoting the verse, “I desire compassion and not sacrifice,” which at face value seems unrelated. But it is notable that he also applied this verse to the Sabbath. He used this verse to explain in classic rabbinic logic that concern for human well being was more important than the Temple services, and the Temple services were more important than the Sabbath. Therefore, human well being even superseded Sabbath observance.

This, however, was not a Sabbath or Temple related issue. However, the ritual purity laws that they voluntarily observed mimicked the laws of the priests in the Temple. These observances made it impossible for them to show compassion to other humans. Compassion for humans was even more important than the actual Temple laws, let alone voluntary and innovative application of purity laws to non-priests such as these Pharisees.

Consequently, his problem was not that ritual hand washing blurred the distinction between clean and unclean. He was not trying to promote or refute any kind of halachah. He did not challenge the authority structure or halachic norms of Judaism whatsoever. His message was pure and simple: show compassion to people and stop hating people. He did not care if they washed their hands, so long as they showed kindness to people. It was fine if they wanted to be ritually pure, to the extent that it did not prevent them from showing love to fellow people.

This view enables us to answer many of our questions regarding Mark 7. Perhaps the reason our master Yeshua’s disciples were criticized was they had not yet been trained in this custom, coming from rural areas and being ammei ha’aretz themselves. Yeshua may or may not have observed this practice, but even so it was relatively new and apparently did not have universal acceptance at the time among all sects and parties within Judaism.

The commandment at stake here was “love your neighbor,” a fundamental principle in Judaism that comes directly from the Torah. Their public rebuke and humiliation of the disciples was inappropriate and violated this commandment.

In this view, the criticism of dedicating resources as korban which should be used to support elderly parents is directly related. Dedicating such resources is a Temple-related practice, and as he has taught, while the Temple is extremely holy and important, human well being is even more important than the Temple: “I desire compassion and not sacrifice.” The same principle of “love your neighbor” applies even more so in regards to one’s own parents.

While the idea that food does not “defile” a man sounds related to kosher law, it is in fact unrelated. The word for “defile” does not mean to make something ritually impure (like pig flesh), but to make it common or non-holy. In other words, these Pharisees prohibited themselves from eating with those who did not engage in their practices because they did not have the same level of kedushah or holiness. Our master Yeshua seems to argue that the kedushah achieved though hand washing and related rituals is irrelevant and artificial when accompanied by inethical behavior.

The implication of this is that our master Yeshua did not in any way challenge the religious authority or structure of Judaism, their right to have traditions and customs and interpret the Torah. What he challenged was hatred.