Comments

10 Comments so far

1. Sliced Laodicea » Rabbis, Authority and Questions on December 22, 2006 1:47 am

   [...] Source: Fishing the Abyss Comments: Chris gives a proper contextual exegesis on one of Ken’s favorite (ab)used scriptures, dealing with Jesus’ authority. Memorable Quotes: The purpose of this is to lead the asker to find their own answer, rather than giving an answer to them.  The theory goes like this “If I give you my answer to a question, it is my answer. If a different answer comes along that you like better, you give up nothing by disregarding my answer.  However, if I ask you a question that leads you to discover the answer, it becomes your answer, and you are much more likely to retain it when faced with alternatives. [...]

2. Bob Bollow on January 12, 2007 2:17 am

   • This is fine, however the method apparently doesn’t work since their conclusion was that John’s Baptism came from men, they were simply afraid to say what they thought. Is it possible Jesus was demonstrating the failure of the method? This is like the experience I’ve had at small group bible studies often with students. The Bible Study is considered successful if a lot of people contribute, but if no one knows anything worth hearing it would be better had they been silent. Jesus most often teaches with direct responses. As with the man in the photo shop consider; many people in fact prefer one child over another of their own offspring, if they are wise they keep this to themselves as much as possible, it might damage their kids, probably would. So what is the harm in telling someone which photograph you like best? It might get them to buy it. The shop owner was a poor salesman. When I was in the Holy Land our Israeli guide said, put 3 Israelis in a room ask them a Question and you’ll get 5 opinions. I would suggest Jesus spoke with authority—not like other select individuals in the culture who had S’mikhah but like no one else. Read the verses you posted in (NASV) Matt. 7:28 “The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching;” The result we read here is that the people are Amazed at His teaching. Were your hypothesis correct I think it is possible they would have been more inclined to say, Hey he sounds just like Gamaliel, he’s always going on with all that you have heard it said stuff. Keep in mind as well that the sources you look to for things Jewish at the time of Christ are written down 200 years after His ascension and were written by enemies of the faith. 200 years before their relatives who were the true righteous of the Jews became Christians and now 200 years later they were writing many things as a polemic against Christianity. What better way to make Jesus look like He and His life were much like many others of His time and as such common place in Judaism and unworthy of peculiar note then to create a fictional paradigm using the words Christ Himself used, “You have heard it said ___, but I tell you ___.” This reduces Jesus and His teaching to one more clever Rabbi, yeah we had a lot of those back in the day, and they used to say… just like He did, but their view like His was just one voice among many. Take care with Jewish sources for this time period; they are old and written by the enemies of God. There are Jewish sources that take the words of Christ and attribute them to other speakers as well.

3. Chris L. on January 12, 2007 1:00 pm

   Bob,

   You said

   the method apparently doesn’t work since their conclusion was that John’s Baptism came from men, they were simply afraid to say what they thought.

   Actually, it DID work. I will agree that the rabbinic system of authority (S’mikah) was of human construct, but I also firmly believe that Jesus lived and worked within that construct, which was one reason he was so effective. When Jesus asked them where John’s Baptism came from, his answer to them was ‘[in your system] John gave me authority’. Part of the Question/Answer/Question paradigm is that if you don’t answer a question, you are admitting loss without ceding the point. Once they refused to answer, Jesus had won the debate.

   I agree that a lot of small groub Bible Studies can go awry, espectially if all that is considered is participation. It is not only the questioning that is important, though, but the quality of the questions that come in return.

   You said

   Jesus most often teaches with direct responses.

   Actually, no, he does not. One third of his teaching (and that which ties halakah – knowing – and hagadah – doing together) is in parable, and much of his hagadah is based on questions and ask-assertive response.

   The biggest debate in orthodox Judiasm at the time of Jesus was “who is my neighbor?” The most conservative Jews (the School of Shammai) said your neighbor was only another believing Jew. At the other end of the scale (the shool of Hillel), the widest interpretation was that all people are our neighbors – Jew and Gentile – with the exception of the Samaritans, who were apostate in their religious practice. In Luke 10, Jesus enters this debate – through a question – and answers in the same manner.

   On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

   “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

   He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

   “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

   But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

   So, here we have the question/answer format. Jesus then tells the story of the good Samaritan, and at the end, he forces the torah teacher to make a choice.

   Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

   The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
   Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

   The teacher of the law was stuck, and he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word “Samaritan”. Jesus could have given a direct reponse and said ‘everybody, including Samaritans, is your neighbor,’ but it would not have been as personal or powerful.

   As with the man in the photo shop consider; many people in fact prefer one child over another of their own offspring, if they are wise they keep this to themselves as much as possible, it might damage their kids, probably would. So what is the harm in telling someone which photograph you like best? It might get them to buy it. The shop owner was a poor salesman.

   I certainly hope your kids aren’t reading this! Honestly, I have four children, and I could not possibly prefer one to the other – each is different in their own way, and I could not choose one over the other. If I wanted to go on a hike, I would take one that tends to enjoy that. If I wanted to pick a gift for my wife, I would pick another. None would be my ‘favorite’, though. As a songwriter, I like one song because of the feeling released in a particular phrase, and I like another because of a unique chord progression, but I’d be hard pressed to choose a favorite. In the same way, the shopkeeper’s answer was far richer and honest than what you suggest. As for his salesmanship, I ended up buying one of his pieces. All were incredible, and I was hard pressed to pick one (though I opted for one of the shema on Zion’s Gate).

   I would suggest Jesus spoke with authority—not like other select individuals in the culture who had S’mikhah but like no one else.

   Once again, I would agree that Jesus’ teaching was superior to all other teachers in the cuilture, but I would disagree with your attempt to remove him from the culture. With Matthew 7:28, you forgot to include the finishing clause in verse 29 which give WHY they were amazed (NASV) “for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.” Jesus responds to all of the debates of the day, as a S’mikah rabbi (a title multiple groups called him, which means he either had to be a Torah teacher or a S’mikah rabbi to have that title), and his teaching is superior to the other rabbis with authority, because he almost always goes a step farther than they are willing to go (like with the Samaritans).

   Hillel taught ‘do not do to your enemies that which you hate.’ Jesus turned this around, saying ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ – which is a call to act, not just a passive gauge of actions.

   Keep in mind as well that the sources you look to for things Jewish at the time of Christ are written down 200 years after His ascension and were written by enemies of the faith.

   Bob, a couple of things here – one technical and one theological.

   First, a number of studies have shown that an oral record carried across generations, particularly before the advent of the printing press, is a far more accurate method of transmission than writing (which is far more prone to editing and revision). Even today, most Jewish scholars (and a large number of non-scholarly Jews) have the entire Tanakh (our Old Testament) memorized in Hebrew. You don’t dare misquote God’s Word in a community conversation without having everyone line up to correct your error.

   With the Talmud (both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmud), which is what I assume you’re referring to, we have other first century (and earlier) sources through the Dead Sea Scrolls (which date 50 BC – 68 AD), which can confirm a level of accuracy in capturing the words of rabbis from 200 BC – 200+ AD, and attributing them to the correct sources. With this, we can see that a curse against Christians was added to the Shimone Esrei after the Jewish expulsion from Israel following the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 AD. This does not nullify or alter what Jewish rabbis 200 years earlier said – latter rabbis could comment on what Hillel said, but they could not institute a revision or edit it away.

   All of this, though, brings be to a theological point which must be noted – the Jewish people are not the ‘Enemies of God’, and such teaching is part of Replacement Theology rooted in the heretic Marcion of the second century. Neither Jesus nor Paul teach this. In fact, in Romans, Paul teaches that we Gentile Christians are part of a branch grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11), and he warns

   If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

   To disregard a source, simply because of its Jewish nature, would be offensive to God. As Paul taught, when he recognized Christ as the Messiah, he did not become non-Jewish (in religion). He did not ‘convert’ to Christianity. Even so, today, Jews who accept that Jesus is the promised Messiah may continue to be observant Jews, just as Paul and Peter were. There is significant that Christians and Jews worshipped together in the synagogues of Asia Minor until well into the Third Century (I have pictures from my trip last year in Laodicea of some of that evidence).

   There is good evidence that Jesus DID build on previous teachings (as noted above) and that he was an intimate part of the culture. This does not in any way detract from his teaching – it makes it more evident in its power when its impact on Israel in the first century (200,000 – 500,000 Jewish Christians before 70 AD) and the world today is taken into account. His miracles can be viewed in much the same way, when looking at history. We must be careful not to become arrogant in the mercy God showed in grafting us into his olive tree.

    

   Grace and peace,

    

   Chris

4. Bob Bollow on January 12, 2007 6:49 pm

   Winning a debate is not teaching, I don’t think simply winning a debate is what is designed, do you? If so fine I disagree I believe Jesus had a higher intent. Only certain of the parables are responses and he spoke many of them so that they would not be understood. (Mark 4:11) In the end Jesus uses direct responses. The goal of teaching is answers, not questions. In response to your ad hominem question; I have no children had you none you might have found out the answer to your question. I am a poet and have favorite poems and stories of my own creation so I imagine we simply differ in the creative process. You are still depending on Rabbinic Judaism for your categories. We do not know the biggest debate in Orthodox Judaism at the time or which group to consider orthodox, to use your sources however the Pharisees would be considered orthodox, Christ considered this group simple hypocrites. The danger you exercise is to discern motives and insights from non-Biblical sources without regard to their hatred of the faith, (Luke 16:13), their editorial process is unknown to us. Since the Bible does not tell us and the sources you used are 200 years to 400 years later from the line of Pharisees, one group of several, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, Lawyers, Scribes to name a few are all mentioned by sources closer to the time. Unless I am mistaken nothing you said is referenced to the Dead Sea scrolls which are largely considered to be a product of a separatist community and not viable sources for things happening in the greater culture, even if they are not a product of the Essenes mentioned by Josephus. Their view of the world did not shape the thinking of the Pharisees in any manner of note I am aware of. I am not removing Jesus from His culture but questioning the verisimilitude of your construction of that culture. Jesus teaching is not better because it goes a step further but because He is the Word of God. You are simply wrong about oral transmission the accuracy of which is unverifiable. The memorization of the Bible is testable a Targum or Midrash story is not. As to the enemies of God this is not from Marcion but from Paul. Paul says we all are in this state if are/were prior to faith, Rom. 5:10 “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” Jewish people who have not trusted in Jesus are no different than anyone else in this regard. They have not been reconciled and so are going to Hell. The in-grafting you speak of is not a grafting into nationalistic Israel in whatever form it takes at a given point in History but to the remnant of faith. To put this into it’s proper historical context all now, Jew or Gentile are grafted into Christ when they come into faith. am not disregarding any sources but I severly discount them, as my father always said, “Consider the source.” The writers of the Jewish sources do not have the Holy Spirit, this is a basic and profound difference as John 16:13 says “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth;” We simply differ on the value of certain extra Biblical sources to discern the text and it’s times, you have a great deal of liberal scholarship on your side however.

5. Chris L. on January 12, 2007 7:12 pm

   Bob,

   Actually, most ‘liberal’ scholars consider those I cite (Brad Young, Marvin Wilson, David Flusser, David Bivin, Ray VanderLaan, and others) to be very conservative. All of these do consider sources, and do not consider Judaic practice post-70 AD useful in determining Second Temple Jewish practice. (I also was trying to make light of your ‘children’ – I honestly didn’t know and wasn’t trying to cast aspersions).

   A few other quick notes:

   1) Parables were not used to confuse – if you read Jesus’ reference to Isaish in context. See here and here. I would also reference Brad Young’s widely used textbook “The Parables”.

   2) Yes, winning a debate by cession does not necessarily teach those you are debating – but it still serves to teach those observing.

   3) As a learning professional for a fortune 50 company, I can tell you that the ‘Rabbinic’ method of using questions and parable is considered far more effective in adult learning that direct exposition of fact. Good communication requires it in an area where conveying a message in an efficient and effictive manner, where concepts are remembered because they are belief.

   4) The Dead Sea scrolls, Josephus, Eusebius and other first century writings are not dated 200-400 years post-Jesus. The Essenes were seperatist by nature, but as priests, they frequently traveled to Jerusalem, and had a large commuity within the walls of the city. Their thinking is separate from that of the Pharisees, yes (they were the “children of the light” as priests), but that does not mean they did not comment on their contemporaries.

   5) Paul separates unbelieving Jews into a different category from unbelieving pagans, in multiple places – they are also the branches broken off in his allegory, which may be re-attached.

   6) The Jewish people believed in the Holy Spirit, who was manifested differently before Pentecost, as the Ruach Ha Kodesh. This spirit was present in Genesis 1 over the surface of the deep…

   I am not trying to teach anything that would go against Christ, but am examining the world and culture in which he lived. For much more detailed information, you might also check out Jerusalem Perspective or Ray VanderLaan’s site.

   Have a nice weekend.

   Grace and peace,

   Chris

6. Bob Bollow on January 12, 2007 8:49 pm

   Here is my response seriatum:
   Actually, most ‘liberal’ scholars consider those I cite (Brad Young, Marvin Wilson, David Flusser, David Bivin, Ray VanderLaan, and others) to be very conservative. All of these do consider sources, and do not consider Judaic practice post-70 AD useful in determining Second Temple Jewish practice.
   A. I think I’m missing your point, do you consider Rabbinic Judaism informative or not? There is a good deal of Scholarship that does. But it seems like you are saying both things, I don’t know who you read I assume your original paradigm was from one source and it is Rabbinic, you never site it so I may be wrong if not there is no discussion.

   (I also was trying to make light of your ‘children’ – I honestly didn’t know and wasn’t trying to cast aspersions).
   No Worries.
   A few other quick notes:
   1) Parables were not used to confuse – if you read Jesus’ reference to Isaiah in context. See here and here. I would also reference Brad Young’s widely used textbook “The Parables”.
   A. I disagree. But that is not the point the point is that they were used to selectively instruct.
   2) Yes, winning a debate by cession does not necessarily teach those you are debating – but it still serves to teach those observing.
   A. That is a different issue. The point is the person you were addressing, the man in the photo shop was speaking to you and attempting to instruct you, or so you would have it believed, bringing in the neighbors is a different argument and is a viable type of interaction (Ray Smith claims it is a goal at Speaker Corner) fine. The question is what was Christ doing, what was the intent, did it take the form claimed by you in reflection of your source and what is the implication if you are correct in making the assumptions you make.
   3) As a learning professional for a fortune 50 company, I can tell you that the ‘Rabbinic’ method of using questions and parable is considered far more effective in adult learning that direct exposition of fact. Good communication requires it in an area where conveying a message in an efficient and effective manner, where concepts are remembered because they are belief.

   A. The gift of Preaching which is exhibited in the Gospels is a different construct then corporate teaching constructs, which I’ll take your word for, though one might debate how much effective teaching goes on in these environments, but the sermon on the mount is a different and spiritual reality. Teaching in the world of the Spirit is not the same as any other reality structure, I assume you understand your context quite well and the usefulness of the techniques you ascribe to in your context, the NT is wholly other.
   4) The Dead Sea scrolls, Josephus, Eusebius and other first century writings are not dated 200-400 years post-Jesus.
   I agree, 1st century writings by definition can’t be dated in the 3rd century and beyond.
   The Essenes were separatist by nature, but as priests, they frequently traveled to Jerusalem, and had a large community within the walls of the city. Their thinking is separate from that of the Pharisees, yes (they were the “children of the light” as priests), but that does not mean they did not comment on their contemporaries.
   A. The issue is influence not mere comment. But that might be neither here nor there becaue they may not have contributed to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
   The dead sea community may or may not have been the Essenes, they don’t claim the name. I never dated Josephus or mentioned Eusebius nor did your original paradigm come from them, I am discounting Rabbinic Judaism because they were at the time of their writing adversarial to Christianity.
   5) Paul separates unbelieving Jews into a different category from unbelieving pagans, in multiple places – they are also the branches broken off in his allegory, which may be re-attached.
   A. Yes, but until they are they are the enemies of God.
   6) The Jewish people believed in the Holy Spirit, who was manifested differently before Pentecost, as the Ruach Ha Kodesh. This spirit was present in Genesis 1 over the surface of the deep…
   A. The issue is if post 70AD non-christian Jews would have access to this Spirit, I would say definitely not. More to the point the coming of the Spirit prophesied by Jesus in John 16:13 and Jer. 31:33 is a different manifestation of the Spirit IN men not on them as it was in the Old Covenant system, I would suggest to you that prior to the act of Expiation on the cross by Jesus, God does not live inside men until we become the Temple (1Cor. 3:16) of God because we are not up until that point made clean.

   I am not trying to teach anything that would go against Christ, but am examining the world and culture in which he lived. For much more detailed information, you might also check out Jerusalem Perspective or Ray VanderLaan’s site.
   A. I am familiar with VanderLaan he does some fun speculating though it has been quite a few years since I took in any of his stuff, I’ll look at the other. I am simply encouraging caution in where your information is from and consideration of the motives for its transcription, I would certainly not accuse you in motive of teaching against Christ.

7. Chris L. on January 13, 2007 8:53 am

   Bob,

   1) Do you I consider Rabbinic Judaism informative or not? I consider it informative the same way I would find other historical documentation informative – useful in describing existant conditions and contextual situations, but with the possibility of agenda (just as Josephus’ works tend to skew some criticism away from the Jewish people). The scholars I’ve listed above, adding David Pryor and a few others, are considered ‘conservative’ primarily because they consider the Bible not to be just another historical work, but the Word of God, and give it primacy over any other source (the Word of God is true, even if every man be a liar).

   In describing the rabbinic ’system’, part of what we rely on does come from Talmud (and thus must be taken with a grain of salt), and so one must ask a number of questions about what the ‘agenda’ was in what was written. What is described there about the ’system’ is supported by New Testament descriptions, some of the Essene writings, and Nag Hammadi codices (which have an entierly different set of biases, though which would not be expected to be sympathetic to rabbinic Judiasm).

   When I teach on the topic of the rabbinic system, we first cover three terms: “possibly”, “probably” and “almost certainly”. We try to stay in the realm of the latter two, and sometimes offer ‘possibly’ when its meaning could be useful. The concept of s’mikah would fall into the ‘almost certainly’ camp. The structure of the synagogue, its services, and its use of lexionaries would fall into the ‘probably’ camp – especially in light of the archeological evidence from Gamla and other sites. A number of the sayings of Hillel, including the one I listed above, from a background of scholarship, fall into the ‘almost certainly’ camp. Where some Christians have taken issue with them is when liberal scholars, like those in the Jesus Seminar, use them to suggest that Jesus’ sayings were just reworded rabbinic sayings later added by his followers.

   (Sorry for the long-winded response – I just wanted you to know that I DO try to consider the source, but don’t just say ‘Oh, that’s rabbinic and therefore completely unreliable’, because that’s not the case.)

   2) The question is what was Christ doing, what was the intent, did it take the form claimed by you in reflection of your source and what is the implication if you are correct in making the assumptions you make.

   Everyone witness to a debate is there as a learner. In this particular case, the Sadducees wanted to know from where Jesus’ authority (s’mikah) came from (”By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”). This is like you coming to me at my workplace and saying “Who is your supervisor?”. They wanted to know who granted him authority to teach Torah with new interpretations, so that they could go to that person and have them disavow Jesus. Jesus answer would give them both ’sources’ within their ’system’ – John and (more importantly) God.

   3) But the sermon on the mount is a different and spiritual reality. Yes, the sermon on the Mount is an example of halakah in teaching. If you divide up Jesus’ teaching (by word), it is almost exactly 1:1:1 halakah:hagadah:parable, and most of it is not straightfoward exposition, but as part of personal interactions with different people, often spurred by questions. And, even when Jesus gives a direct response, it uses ‘remez’, which gives deeper implications from Hebrew Scripture.

   [As an aside, if you look at Ray Comfort's "Way of the Master" methodology, which most of the Reformed crowd these days hold up as gold standard in sharing the gospel, it is all based on questions - not exposition.]

   In summary, I do consider caution in considering sources, including Rabbinic ones. I do not consider post-70 AD works to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, by any means, but I also do not consider them to be thoroughly inaccurate or discredited (any more than I would consider Augistine’s work to be the same). I consider the Bible to hold primacy over any other document in existance (or that has ever existed), and such sources which may descibe its context and setting can be useful – when supported by scripture – but are not scripture, themselves. There are some Christians who, in the arrogance warned against by Paul in Romans 11, take affront at any suggestion that Jesus didn’t invent ‘parable’ as a teaching method (there are far more sources outside of rabbinic ones to refute this), or that he was part of a cultural system (rather than defining it or existing apart from it). This can only be based on pride in our Rabbi (who we dearly love), but such notions are not based in scripture.

8. John Kenneson on January 17, 2007 3:49 pm

   Let me just chime in here with another thought. What if Jesus’ sensed that the questioners were not genuine with their questioning? (They certainly weren’t above it!) By Christ demonstating His ability to turn what the audience deemed an uneasy situation He did three things. 1) He answered their question without directly answering it and sounding puffed up. 2) He answered their question without embarrassing the questioners or allowing an unproductive line of questioning to continue. 3) The audience was amazed. How it could it have turned out better?

9. Bob Jones on July 5, 2007 11:19 pm

   This is a parallel passage to the woman caught in adultery.

   In both instances Jesus merely ensnared them in their own trap.

   The scriptures say that he who digs a pit will fall into it.

   In both cases he requires the questioner to answer the question he put to Jesus.
   They were both set as traps to ensnare Jesus and he simply caught them in it.

   With the woman he even draws in the dirt to show that it is an earthly trap.
   Even in the earthly traps, there are proper answers.

   We often here from scoffers, “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”
   He did, then the Rock lifted himself from the grave.

   Can God make a rock so hard that he can’t break it?
   He did, then the Rock willingly broke himself.

10. Fishing The Abyss on August 15, 2007 2:44 pm

    [...] Ironically, when we view Jesus in the gospels, we are introduced into a culture which is partially influenced by Greek thought (in which rhetoric is key), but heavily Hebrew (in which dialectic is the primary tool of persuasion).  In fact, we have a number of instances where Jesus’ effective use of dialectic questions was quite useful – even at the age of 12. [...]