"The Leaven of the Pharisees"
 We hear it every night for over a week each year: âBlessed are you, Adonai our Elohim, king of the universe, who hasâ¦commanded us to kindle the Hanukkah light(s).â
But Michelle Halperin (in Publicizing the Hanukkah Miracle on myjewishlearning.com) asks a very important question: âWhere in the Torah did God so command us?â The same could be asked about the similar blessing over the Sabbath candles. Such blessings are beautiful, especially in Hebrew, and they can remind us to draw close to the One we are blessing. But if weâre going to thank Him for His commands, shouldnât we be sure we are talking about something He really said?
If we look carefully, much to our dismay, it turns out that neither of those blessings is something the Creator enjoined anywhere in Scripture. He told us not to light a fire ON the Shabbat, but not specifically to light one beforehand. Itâs an unwritten rule at bestâand possibly a common-sense assumption, before electricity, if we wanted to have any light that eveningâbut still, not a command. Â
Continues Halperin, âThe rabbisâ response is to bring two verses from the Torah as proof-texts to justify viewing themselves as channels for Godâs word: âYou shall not deviate from the word that they [the rabbis] will tell youâ (Deuteronomy 17:11) and âAsk your father and he will tell you, your elders and they will say to you.â (Deuteronomy 32:7) Through these bold words the rabbis are legitimizing themselves as the arbiters of Godâs word and creators of rituals that embody Godâs intentions, both for Hanukkah and for all the rest of Jewish life and practice.â Â
So it was the âeldersâ at some time in history who ordered that the blessings be done or said in this way, and it eventually took on the sanctity of something said by the Creator Himselfâso much so that Halperin never even raises the obvious next question. The Ten Commandments do tell us to honor our father and mother, so what they say is, at least ideally, the rule in their household. But can any parentâs authority be carried across to being binding on the whole nation? And if we check the context of what Deut. 32:7 (quoted above) is telling us to ask our elders about, it is simply to confirm that YHWH (the name for which âHaShemâ or âAdonaiâ are often substituted) is indeed our Father who made us. So from where is any actual authority to speak for Elohim on other matters derived?
The magic ingredient was that the Pârushim (or Pharisees, whose title means âclear separatistsâ) gained ascendancy over the prophetically-authorized Sadducean (Tzadoqite) priesthood (YâhezqâEl/Ezekiel 44:15) when the Temple was lost, since their model for halakhah seemed a workable way to fill that void. Those who today are called ârabbinicâ are the direct heirs to their philosophy. Being the only major sect that survived, they wrote the historybooks, so it seemed their way was how it had always been. One of the ways they established a right to call their word law was to posit that at the same time he received the written Torah, Moshe (Moses) was given additional instructionsâones that were only transmitted orally.
This means, however, that no one can check these for veracity, because no one has the original version. This gives them all the room they want to claim that the unwritten rules also have the stamp of Mosheâs authority. When the Temple was gone, the Jews were scattered, and they anticipated that this knowledge could otherwise get lost entirely, the oral tradition finally was written down (in the Mishnah and Gemara, which constitute the Talmud). But by that time, if it originated with Moshe, it had been âwhispered down the alleyâ for over 1,500 years, and we all know what that kind of transmission does to a message.
And the existence of such an oral Torah eludes whomever seeks it directly. Even the verse used to establish itâââ¦by the mouth of these words have I cut a covenant with you and with Israelâ (Exodus 34:27)âbegins with âYHWH told Moshe, âWrite down these wordsâ¦ââ It bases the authority for the covenant on what is written. A short while later, when Moshe came down from the mountain, âall the descendants of Israel came close, and he gave in the form of commands all that YHWH had discussed with him on Mount Sinai.â (34:32) Thus he had witnesses who could vouch for it. The Torah also says Moshe âwrote down all the words of YHWHâ that he was given there. (Exodus 24:4; Deut. 31:24) Soon after he died, when the transmission to the next generations was beginning, âthere was not a word of all that Moshe commanded that Yâhoshua did not read.â (Yâhoshua 8:34-35)
So what does that leave to be transmitted orally? The parts he was shown without words, like the blueprint for the Mishkan (Tabernacle)? But even those ended up being put into writing also. What about the âhow-toâ of commands that might otherwise seem obscure or ambiguous? That is what most of the Mishnah is: a description of how things were done during Second-Temple times. But does that prove that things had always been done the same way before thatâor have to be done that way, even in the modern world?
The very fact that numerous opinions are given on each question before one is finally settled on suggests that there may very well be many ways to apply the same Torah command, and maybe one of them fit better at one time in history and another fit better under different circumstances later. Being left open-ended in many aspects, the Torah was able to be flexible and adaptable to situations of different shapes and sizesâespecially when we ended up far away from the Homeland and the Temple.
But isnât the oral Torah just the âfleshing outâ of the written âskeletonâ? Possibly, but, as in Ezekielâs vision (Ez. 37), something more than flesh and bone is required for one to be fully alive: a spirit. âFleshâ in Hebrew idiom (symbolic of natural human strength) is a dangerous thing if there is no true spirituality, in which not just outward actions but heart attitudes are transformed. (Ezekiel 36:26)
There is a solution, and indeed it is what supplies that missing spirit, which can give every individual the wisdom to know how to apply the general commands to his immediate circumstance, and the internal motivation to want to do the mitzvoth, because they are now written on his heart, as Jeremiah described it in chapter 31. This would effectively preclude the fear of abuse which makes âfences around Torahâ appear indispensable. But it has been made all but unimaginable in Jewish circles because the rabbis have so engrained a particular idea into the Jewish psyche that it hovers as a âsuper-egoâ over oneâs shoulder any time one dares to crack open a Bârith Chadashah (often called the New Testament, but better translated âRenewed Covenantâ), like the old schoolmasters that held the switch over oneâs head, warning âThat book is not for you!â Â
By this--another unwritten (and unsubstantiated) concept--they excluded Yeshua from the whole system, though he really was sympathetic with their goal if not their methodology; he too provided a way to âdo Judaism without the Templeâ if and when necessary, and his was the only way that could really rival theirs. But he was also one of their most effective critics; therefore in their minds he had to be silenced and discredited. And they did a pretty complete job of it, even though his criticism was constructive, meant to spare his people many of the woes they have gone through. (Mat. 23:34-38)
Many stories that are called âtraditionâ or âMidrashâ are indeed found not in oral Torah but in some very ancient writings that go back well beyond the Pârushimâs time: âapocryphal scripturesâ that have been included in some past canons, being considered on par with the currently-accepted text, and then a third tier of so-called ânon-canonicalsâ which are quoted in universally-agreed-upon Scriptures like Joshua 10:13 and 2 Shmuâel 1:18. This does not necessarily give them the same level of authority as the primary canons, but it shows that they have stood a certain test of time and are certainly worthy of respect and consideration when trying to answer some of the questions that are inevitably raised when we read the simple Tanakh. Â
But to impose themâor, the even more recently-compiled Talmudâon everyone as the only way to measure faithfulness to Elohim? I think that is what Yeshua meant when he referred to âthe leaven of the Phariseesâ. (Matithyahu 16:6; Mark 8:15)
He describes this âleavenâ as âhypocrisyâ. (Luke 12:1) I donât think he is saying that leaven symbolizes hypocrisy, but rather that the practices that constitute this âleavenâ are hypocritical. Why? Because, no matter how you may judge others as less holy because they donât follow as many rules as you do, no one can follow all of those rules and still have time to get to what Yeshua called the âweightier mattersâjustice, mercy, and faithfulnessâ. Â
He allowed that the synagogue rulers did have some measure of authority: âThe Pârushim and the sages sit in Mosheâs seat [from which the Torah was read in synagogues of his day], so be diligent indeed to do all that he tells you, but do not act on their enactments or their precedentsâin that they say, but not one of them carries [them] out. They make great demands and impose heavy burdens that cannot be carried, but not one of them is willing to himself move [them] with his own finger.â (Mat. 23:2-4, Hebrew version)
As an earlier chronicler of Israelâs history said, âThey neither act according to their own prescribed customs and legal procedures nor according to the Torah and the commandment that YHWH gave to the sons of Yaaqovâ¦â (2 Kings 17:34) Yes, tithing even herbs they ought to do, Yeshua says (for that is YHWHâs command), without neglecting those âweightierâ aspects of Torah. (Mat. 23:23) But these additional regulations?
Take, for example, the practice of separation of meat and milk, to the point of having two ovens in each kitchen. All of the details associated with this ostensibly came from one simple verse (reiterated two other times in the same words), âDo not boil a kid in its own motherâs milk.â (Ex. 23:19; Deut. 14:21) In context, it could even be argued that in Hebrew it really means, âdonât let a kid be raised to maturity on its motherâs milk when it is already time to bring it as a firstfruit offeringâ (Ex. 34:26). But the pâshat (literal sense) can mean âboilâ too, so we should not boil that kid in that milk either. But to carry it as far as saying one should not even eat chickenâwhose mother does not even produce milkâat the same meal as cheese made from a cowâs milk borders on excessiveness that certainly does put an undue burden on those who can barely afford one refrigerator, let alone two. Kashrut that goes beyond what is writtenâwhich is not much more than which animals are clean and that we ought not eat the bloodâdoes indeed often become unreasonably expensive and seems to give certain butchers an unfair corner on the market. Avraham (Gen. 18:8) and David (2 Shmuâel 17:29) ate meat and milk together, and Scripture never implies they did wrong, as Drs. Eitan Bar and Golan Brosh point out. That interpretation came much later. Â
Having a few fences around Torah can be a good idea; having too many is a distraction from real spirituality, which is about knowing YHWH and helping other people (as Avraham was doing through his hospitality). If an interpretation strays from that focus, we are missing the point of the command.
You are free to take upon yourself whatever diet you find most profitable (within Torah parameters), but not everyone needs the same diet; to mandate an extrapolation of such an obscure verse as binding on all of us or judge other ways of keeping the same commandment as sinful is taking it beyond anyoneâs right. Â
The same thing could be saidâand was said, by Yeshua, of courseâabout the ritual of washing oneâs hands before a meal. (Mark 7:1-23) Yes, itâs a good practice, and itâs a great symbol of purity, but what if a little dirt occasionally gets into our food? The body has a way to get rid of it. No big deal. Weâre already more than filthy inside, and that is a worse problem, which Pharisaic ways do not adequately address. (This is not at all talking about the issue of eating clean vs. unclean animals.) Â
What is the nature of leaven? It puffs up, making bread that has no more flour, water, or nutrients than the flat version we eat at Passover appear to have more substance than it really does. The âoral Torahâ greatly expands on the written, but does it really provide us with more spiritual nourishment? Or does it tempt us to the other kind of puffing upâthe pride that comes from thinking we are better people than others at the core simply because we know more or have done more acts that appear noble? Â
Is there really more of the âweightier mattersâjustice, mercy, and faith(fulness)â in what is inherited from the Pârushim? (Mat. 23:23) Many instead major on things like, âMake sure you always pray the Modeh Ani before you set one foot out of bed in the morningâ. It is a beautiful prayer, but to miss praying it is not a violation of Torah. If we âteach as doctrines the commandments of menâ (Isaiah 29:13) [elevate menâs opinions to the status of authoritative Torah as if given by YHWH Himself], we will call some things âsinâ that really donât matter one way or the other to YHWH. In such a situation, Yeshua told the critical Pârushim, âIf you really understood what âI desire mercy over sacrificeâ [Hoshea 6:6] means, you would not have condemned those who are not guilty.â (Mat. 12:7) Mercy is one of those âweightier mattersââa lot more important than whether a little soil from your hands gets in your food.
Anticipating that this would be a temptation, Moshe himself warned us, âDo not add to the word which I am commanding you or diminish it in any way.â (Deut. 4:2) But he follows with a âso thatâ. This means he is saying it for a particular reason. What is it? ââ¦so that you can carefully guard the commandments of YHWH your Elohimâ. The implication is that if we do add or do take away any of the commands, we will not be able to properly obey the rest of them. Why? Because His particular commands, as written and preserved by Moshe, form a perfectly-balanced mix of just the right proportions of judgment and mercy, of strictness and grace, of performance of deeds and of trust in YHWH, of what we do and of Who gives us the strength to do it. These commands are sustainable. (Deut. 30:11) Â
But by adding more to one side of the equation, we end up having to âset aside the commandment of Elohim in order to keep [our] tradition...depriving the Word of Elohim of its force.â (Mark 7:9-13) We wonât even go into the obscuring of YHWHâs nameâthe ultimate diminutionâhere. But the Talmud contains many cases where the rabbis claim that YHWH gave them authority to reinterpret, update, or even overrule His commands. (e.g., Baba Metzia 59b) They see Scripture not as the entirety of Jewish law or even its essence, but only part of a greater whole that can develop through time. Â
But that begs another obvious question: hadnât the authority to interpret the Torah already been assigned to someone else? Letâs go back to the quote with which this article began: âYou shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you.â If we look at the antecedent for âtheyâ in Deuteronomy 17:11 (found in verse 9), we donât see ârabbisâ anywhere in the context. Rather, the âtheyâ whose verdict Israel is to follow actually refers to the âpriest, the Levite, and the judge that there shall be in those daysâ (at whatever time a difficult interpretive issue may arise). Letâs look at the whole section:
â"If a matter is too difficult for you to render judgment between blood and blood[guilt], between [one] cause and [another], or between [one] blow and [another]--matters of legal controversy between your civil precincts, then ⦠come to the Levitical officials or to the judge that there will be in those days, and consult them, and they will make known to you the way to decide the case. But you must act on the word of the sentence which they make known to you from that place which YHWH shall choose, and be careful to carry out all that they direct you [to do]. You must do according to the word of the instruction by which they direct you and the decision with which they answer you; you must not deviate from the sentence which they make known to you, [either] to the right or to the left.â (Deut. 17:8-11)
To whom are people to come for clarification and rulings? The rabbis in Yamnia? No, the priests in Jerusalem or the Levitical cities! If anyone has the right to call their word âTorahâ, it is they. Their job is to guard Torah and teach it, so of course they would be the best at judging on its basis. The prophets say the same: âThe lips of a priest should protect knowledge, and [people] should seek instruction from his mouth, because he is the messenger of YHWH [the Master] of Armies."Â (Malâakhi 2:7)
Of course, this behooves all Israel to make sure these descendants of Levi are given all the training and equipment they need to be able to do so with integrity. But where are they today? They are acknowledged, even honored, in synagogues by being given first rights at reading the Torah, etc. But are they in any overt position of authority? And if not, why not?
Daniel Gruber skillfully shows in Rabbi Akibaâs Messiah how both politics and forced interpretations (eisegesis--âreading intoâ the text of Torah) were means by which they co-opted and eventually ousted the Levites to make theirs the dominant version of Judaism, by which it is almost universally-defined today. But then how can we call it the same religion? If Christians are upbraided for âreplacement theologyâ, is Judaism held accountable for doing exactly the same thing? Both groups tip their hats to the Torah, but neither really lives according to it anymore.
Christians adopted pagan holy days, but the rabbis also replaced the new moon and its contingent holidays with a contrived calendar. It does come pretty closeâalways within two days of the actual sighting, which is impressive for having been calculated hundreds of years ago. But if we are two days late or two days early for a moed (which means âappointed timeâ), can we still expect the One with whom we have the appointment to be there to meet with us in the same way as He prescribed? All the way back at creation, before there was ever a rabbi or priest or any man, YHWH made the moon one of the signs that defines the appointed times. (Gen. 1:14) Now that reports of new moon sightings can be transmitted anywhere in the world instantly, should we not go back to this clearly-constituted authority? And shouldnât we restore the human authorities that Israelâs constitution (the Torah) actually recognizes?
But if we reinstate the priests, wonât we need to start offering sacrifices again?
That is an important point, because what ever gave us the right to stop them? Did we use the destruction of the Temple as a convenient excuse? (âWell, we canât do that anymore, so I guess we donât have to. After all, YHWH desires mercy and not sacrifice, right?â) Much of the framework of rabbinic Judaism was built around a crisis in which, for the last 40 years before the Temple was destroyed, the scarlet wool placed in the Temple at Yom Kippur, which used to turn white to show that YHWH had accepted the offering, no longer did. (Rosh haShanah 31b, 32a) Seth Postell points out that the rabbis surmised from this that YHWH no longer honored the Sinai covenant as the way to atone for sins. Â
But a succinct summary of all the sin and guilt offerings delineated in the Torah is, âWithout the shedding of blood there is no remission of sinsâ (Hebrews 9:22) This is a paraphrase of âThe life of the flesh is in the blood. I have given it to you on the altar as an atonement for your souls.â (Lev. 17:11) Can that just be replaced with alternatives that seem less messyâgiving charity, studying the Oral tradition, or a general doing of good deeds? Â
In these areas the rabbis do have an impressive record, to be sure, but do they really satisfy what justice requires? One of the foremost achievers in this vein (Acts 26:4-5; Galatians 1:13-14) and who remained a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), but realized it was not enough, described where this was kind of halakhah was taking his people: âThey have a zeal for YHWH, but it is not based on a correct understanding, since they do not recognize the righteousness that is YHWH's, and so in seeking to establish their own [kind of] righteousness, they did not submit to YHWH's righteousness.â (Rom. 10:3)
If one has not lived a holy life but says the Shâma right before he dies, is that all it will take for him to be judged as righteous? That sounds like some kind of magic, or worse, witchcraftâtrying to manipulate the spirits (in this case, YHWHâs own Spirit) to do what we want just because we say the right words. No, Torah says, âThe blood shall be the distinguishing markâ¦When I see the blood, I will pass over you.â (Ex. 12:13) That is the only way given us to get around the decreed sentence. To fulfill all of the Torahâs requirements without the Temple, the need for blood as atonement must still be taken into account.
Yeshuaâs way does account for this ongoing need. In that very same contextâat Passover itselfâYeshua said, âThis is my blood of the renewed covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.â (Mat. 26:27-28; Acts 10:43 and Romans 3:25 give more details about how.) The blood we inherited from Adam was sin-laden, so for a time we could substitute the blood of innocent lambs, bulls, and goats, which had never sinned. But they could never truly pay for human sin; they temporarily pushed the debt threshold back so that we could still retain the relationship with YHWH until a real payment could be made. Finally, with Yeshua, there was human blood that was without blemish because the way YHWH had him born circumvented that curse, as Iâve detailed elsewhere. Just because the altar is gone does not mean we do not owe blood for our sins. Right at the time the crisis of the scarlet wool not turning white began, Yeshuaâs blood was shed. YHWH showed that He had accepted Yeshuaâs offering of his innocent blood by raising him from the dead. So there is blood available for the debt to be paid, but if we do not âsign up for the programâ, we are still on our own and we still owe YHWH for our sins. The debt cannot just be cancelled; that would be injustice for the victims. It is paid in a different way than before, but it must still be paid. Unauthorized, âillegal tenderâ is not accepted as payment, but that is what the rabbinical method tries to useâa bloodless offering, which leaves the real debt intact and still growing.
Yeshua saw that they were on such a trajectory, and foresaw the terrible effects it would have on his family: âWoe to you, scribes and Pârushimâhypocrites who close up the Kingdom of the Heavens to the children of humanity, because you neither enter it nor allow those eager to enter [to do so].â (Mat. 23:13; that chapter gives many more examples in the same vein.) This would especially apply to âGod-fearingâ Gentiles who wanted to draw near and worship YHWH, but were barred from most of the Temple, though they did not share the same intentions the Seleucids did in the days of the Maccabees, when excluding foreigners was an understandable emergency measure. Â
And this still continues to this day, where righteous non-Jews are told they should NOT keep the Shabbat or keep kosher, but should limit themselves to the Noachide laws, because they are of a lower spiritual caliber than any Jew, observant or not! This does not take into consideration the fact that the lost tribes are returning. Another category besides Jew and Gentile exists, but rabbinic Judaism does not take this into account.
I am not saying any of this with a polemic, supersessionist, or triumphalist tone; I count myself to be both Semitic and Israelite, if not Jewish (not being from the tribe of Yehudah). I am not trying to convert anyone to a different religion. Rather, it is a matter of which vision of Israel is sustainable in any circumstance as well as transferable to all nations. Yeshuaâs is both: Â
âCome to me, all who are working hard and are heavily-weighed down, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you and learn of me, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.â (Mat. 11:28-29) Â
Those to whom he was speaking knew exactly what he meant. In those days, the âyoke of Torahâ was familiar terminology, since they hadnât yet settled on the final draft of the Mishnah; each rabbi proffered his particular âyokeâ: the halachic practices that to him constituted the main points of righteousness.
So what was Yeshuaâs? Not âChristianityâ as we know it, but transcultural Torah, also applicable outside the Land of Israel or the Temple: ââLove YHWH with all your heartâ¦â and⦠âlove your neighbor as yourselfâ. On these two commandments hang all the Torah and the prophets.â (Mat. 22:37-40) Â
Bar and Brosh point out that even some rabbis say that Mosheâs Torah will be replaced by a ânew Torahâ brought by the Messiah (Midrash Tehillim 146 and Yalkut Shemoni 429, affirmed by R. Joseph Telushkin). They concede that when he comes, we will all need to defer to his interpretation of Torah. (Midrash Elijah Zuta 20) I think it will be more a shift of focus or viewpoint on Torah than a complete replacement of it, but Messiah has already come and has shown us that his way of interpreting Torah is that our traditions are never to crowd out YHWHâs actual words or the welfare of our fellows, âand if there is any other command, it is summarized in this: âLove your neighbor as yourself.ââ (Romans 13:9)
So it boils down to a relationship more than religionâa reconciliation, then friendship with the Creator that leads to respect for His creations, rather than so many isolated principles as such. Yes, the details are important, but they are just ways of expressing the fact that we âget itâ when we see the big picture. And The longest-lived of Yeshuaâs top students, who constantly emphasized that loving YHWH means loving His children as well, later summarized the whole matter as âHis commandments are not burdensome.â (1 Yochanan/John 5:3) Well, guess what. Moshe said the very same thing: âThis commandment which I am laying upon you today is not beyond your power to do.â (Deut. 30:11)
Some rabbinic commands, on the other hand, do seem to be beyond our power, especially when our own power is all that we have. Can we do all of them every day? For example, extensive prayers (repeated the same way each day), which must be done at breakneck speed to get them all in. How can anyone who has a job get all of these things doneâor focus on what they mean? Or can only those wealthy enough to spend all of their time studying and praying be counted as righteous? And what if you donât have a minyan (quorum) of ten? Must you be deprived of the right to pray certain prayers? Yeshua only said two or three need to be gathered in his name for him to add his endorsement to what we are asking the Father to do. (Mat. 18:20; Yochanan 14:13; 15:16) And that asking is simple: whatever we need that day. (Mat. 6:11)
He fills in the gaps. His âtransfusedâ blood and the new spirit it brings (Ezekiel 11:19) revive the bodies damaged by Adamâs corrupted genetic code, making the commandments even less out of reach. (Romans 8:11) This new connection to Elohim replaces the weakened one by which we functioned before (like an electrical cord that had a short). He permits the Torah to be written on our hearts, making us WANT to obey from within (Jeremiah 31:33), and that is more than half the battle. There is something right inside us now that answers to the outward commands, so we are insiders to His ways; they are no longer foreign to us. (Ephesians 2:19) This is one reason his renewal of the covenant was offered âto the Jew firstââthose who should have been able to understand this better than anyone, having grown up in a culture designed to lay out the best framework to grasp what YHWH was accomplishing through the Messiah. But the leaven that was already growing in that culture was beginning to make this harder to see.
From a sect that numbered a scant 6,000 in the time of Herod the Great, this âleavenâ has permeated all of Judaism to the point that it is essentially what most people identify as Judaism now. Thankfully, some are bringing back the ancient ways. The faith of Yeshua, which also lost sight of its origins, is being reeled back in to its Hebraic character, too, as part of the restoration leading up to the Age to Come. But to warn those returning from the House of Yosef (the lost tribes) to avoid the pitfall of the leavened version, âYHWH says, âIf you return, return to ME.ââ (Jeremiah 4:1) Not to just anything that is called Hebraic. Â
That is why, after recognizing the paganism we needed to come out of, converting to Judaism will not put us in a better position before Elohim. Anytime we call something an â-ismâ, it means something that started as a reality has grown too far and has either become unbalanced or claims to be the whole when it is only a part. Â
All of Israel is an entity created by YHWH. But yeast is not meant to be the first thing you smell or taste when you encounter a nice, fresh, warm loaf of bread. If you do, there is too much of it. So if we call it âJudaismâ, maybe there is too much of âJudahâ in the mix, crowding out the other tribes which are also components of Israel and whom Yeshua also came to redeem. Â
We hear it in all kinds of anachronisms like âAbraham the Jewâ (there were no Jews until four generations later, when Yehudah first had children) or âwhen the Jews left Egyptâ. (Did only one tribe leave with Moshe? Even Moshe himself was not a Jew, but a Levite.) Judah is part of YHWHâs âtwelve-grainâ loaf, but from the outsetâeven in the days of the tribeâs patriarchâwe read that âJudah turned away from his brothersâ and lived apart from them. (Gen. 38:1) Have they carried the âseparatenessâ of the set-apart people too far? Â
There is a difference between the two kinds of separateness (pârush and qadosh). Holiness is crucial, but distancing oneself from those with whom one is supposed to be united is not what holiness is about. It is not being different for the sake of being different, but for the sake of being right. But when we get it right, we want to spread that ârightnessâ so that not just we, but many others, can be right as well. It is not something to hoard, but to share, because this is one thing that does not diminish as it is distributed. Â
That is the very context in which Yeshua spoke of the leaven of the Pârushimâwhen, like Elisha before him (2 Kings 4:42-44), he kept on breaking the bread and it continued to be enough. (Mat. 16:9-12) Five loaves (5 books of Torah?) in Yeshuaâs hands fed 5,000-plus (assumedly of the tribe of Judah), with enough for all twelve tribes left over. (Mat. 14) But he contrasted this with seven loaves (Torah plus Mishnah plus Gemara?) feeding only 4,000 with only 7 baskets-full left over. (Mat. 15) He related these two sets of numbers to the leaven of the Pârushim and the Tzadduqim too (who were particularly connected with the Temple, which had also grown far beyond the intimate prototype of the Mishkan/Tabernacle). There was not as many-fold an outcome, though they started out with more material. Their leaven did not go as far as Yeshuaâs. Wait; Yeshua had leaven too? Yes, in the chapter right before all of these events involving bread, he said that leaven can also be a picture of the Kingdom, which grows until it permeates the whole world. (Mat. 13:33) Â
He wanted to be sure none of the leftovers were wasted. But what he actually said was âso that none may be lostâ. (Yochanan 6:12) Israel was scattered everywhere so that in the process of finding us âlost sheepâ (Mat. 15:24âmentioned right before the second feeding), many others who were already in our spheres of influence could also be brought into the righteous orbit of Israel. Â
The right kind of leaven feeds not just the separatists, but the rest who need it as well. Yeshua has other sheep who are not of the flock of Judah, but ultimately he wants to make all of them into one (Yochanan/John 10:16)ânot all of them Jews, but all of them Hebrews (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24), because he wants to bring reconciliation and make the two back into one again. (Ephesians 2:15) No more âismâ ânot a philosophy or system; just a restored relationship with YHWHâand with our estranged brothers. âThere is one bread; we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.â (1 Cor. 10:17) Â
The other tribes are now being gathered and have welcomed the one from Judah who earned the right to be king. Daniel (9:25-26) gave the time frame within which the Messiah had to appear. Additionally, the genealogies of the descendants of David were destroyed when the Temple was burned, so how could a later Messiahâs pedigree ever be properly proven? If he did not arrive before the Temple was destroyed, we have missed him altogether. If that is the case, the words of the prophets have all fallen to the ground and there is no hope for this world. That is not a prospect that I could live with.
The Talmud, in Sanhedrin 97a, uses Psalm 90 to postulate that the present world can last only 7,000 years, with the last millennium being the Shabbat, the Messianic Kingdom. But in that ethos, the 2,000 years prior to that Shabbat (the 5th and 6th âdaysâ since Creation, are called âdays with Messiahââso what Messiah, if not Yeshua, have we lived with for the past (nearly) 2,000 years? Â
So if you are hesitant to give consideration to Yeshua (not the caricature âJesusâ that became an idol, but the genuine article) for the circular reason that âit is just not a Jewish thing to doâ, we must echo the question that David asked of the elders of Judahâhis own tribeâafter Avshalomâs rebellion was quenched and all the rest of Israel was ready to restore him to his throne: âYou are my brothers, my own bone and flesh, so why should you be the last to bring the king back to his house?â (2 Shmuâel 19:13) Arenât you the least bit jealous of what is rightfully yours? Even the Muslims recognize who the Messiah is, even if they donât understand what that means! Â
Donât let the âleaven of the Pârushimâ blind you to the obvious.