Did Jesus eat pork?

[patrick457]

Considering where he lived there were probably a not a lot of pig farmers. Although there is the story in the gospels about driving out a demon which promptly goes into the herd of swine and drives them off a cliff. Must have been on travels outside of Judea, although I would have to look that story up again.

That happened inGadara (or Gergesa), actually, incidentally a non-Jewish area.

For the record, one method archaeologists have sometimes used in identifying Jewish areas in the Holy Land was the presence or absence of pig bones. If there were none found, chances are the inhabitants of the locale would have been Jews.

 

[mirandajb]

He most certainly did not. He fulfilled the Law to a ‘t’…Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
God bless.

 

[juliamajor]

Why would any Jew listen to a rabbi who ate pork?The whole idea is silly whether there is Scripture about it or not-logic should give you the answer.

 

[BrunoMaria]

Well, you say:
“However it is VERY unlikely that he did as this would have been seen by the very peoples He hoped to lead to salvation, as scandalous behavior”.

Let’s remember, that Jesus Christ was and is God and didn’t just want to just save the Jews, but He wanted all to be saved (1Tim 2,4).

As to “scandalous behavior”; Jesus surely didn’t are about this, for the Jews often wanted to stone and murder Him, because of just this in their eyes “godless behavior”. Finally Jesus’ death-penalty was because of “blasphemy” – surely a lot more then breaking any Jewish food-law.

And since Jesus Himself said, that many even all Him a drunkard. What’s eating pork compared to this?!
Jesus did not care about Jewish conventions that didn’t make much sense and He visited all people - if Jewish believers or not. Jesus said in Mt 11,19: that people talk about Him like: Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!
So, what do we think Jesus thought about the rule not to eat pork?

Isn’t it surprising that we ponder about such thing more, than about the fact that Jesus came to all of us – not just the Jews – who finally rejected Him and therefore where sattered all over the world and never found peace in their homeland until today – as Jesus predicted with tears in His eyes in Mt 24,2 and others - as a result of: (“His blood come upon us and our children” Mt 27.25)

Yours
Bruno

 

[Anathama_Sit]

He most certainly did not. He fulfilled the Law to a ‘t’…Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
God bless.

Greetings Mirandajb,

Good for you.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[TimothyH]

Minor nitpick/footnote: the Pharisees weren’t as strict as people often assume. Heck, the Essenes had a lot of elaborate regulations far stricter than any Pharisaic injunction, and the Sadducees apparently were committed to obeying the Law literally as written, to the letter (instead of the more interpretative and topical Pharisaic approach to it). They were strict in some respects, yes, but compared to other forms of Judaism at the time the Pharisees actually come off as being more lax in a number of areas. Jesus was much more so in some points, though He was also much stricter on others.

The Pharisees were the religious liberals of their time, because they called for a more fluid, grassroots, democratic form of Judaism, one that is not fossilized by time and monopolized by priests and Levites, but one accessible to all and adaptable to various circumstances. Since all of Israel is a “kingdom of priests” as Scripture says, they taught that each and every Jew - not just the priesthood - should thus live and act like one, relating religion to daily life by doing things such as the observance of purification laws (this is why the Pharisees were called ‘strict’). The Law mattered so much that the pious observed it as best they could to please God to the point that they would engage in discussions and debates with each other, so there would be disagreements both within and without.

For the most part though the Pharisees kept these injunctions exclusive to their group and usually never forced them on outsiders (though I think that would not discount the occasional quarrelsome lone nut here and there…).

Not a nitpick at all! Very informative. The truth is never a nitpick, at least with me. If I have made a mistake, I will stand humbled and learn from it. I’ve been humbled enough before that it really doesn’t matter to me anyway.

On the contrary, I would love to learn more. Can you recommend any sources of information or books on the subject? Anything at all would be of help.

-Tim-

 

[Pythons]

Absolutely not, He would not eat anything condemned by the law of Moses…
…It simply wouldn’t happen.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ythons,

Well, that settles it. Some think He did not eat pork … and a few think He did eat pork. And, while personally, I do not think He did eat pork - that is one of the nice things about such pure speculation: we all can claim to at least have shared a thought on the matter…

Now, I am wondering if He ate shellfish … just kidding.

God bless

Absolutely not, He would not eat anything condemned by the law of Moses…
…It simply wouldn’t happen.

 

[Roman_Catechism]

Whether Jesus, an observant Jew, ate pork or not is really quite irrelevant concerning whether or not Christians, who are Gentiles, should or should not eat pork.

 

[meltzerboy]

Not a nitpick at all! Very informative. The truth is never a nitpick, at least with me. If I have made a mistake, I will stand humbled and learn from it. I’ve been humbled enough before that it really doesn’t matter to me anyway.

On the contrary, I would love to learn more. Can you recommend any sources of information or books on the subject? Anything at all would be of help.

-Tim-

The website jewishvirtuallibrary.org has a nice comparison of the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Key in Pharisees Sadducees Essenes.

 

[meltzerboy]

Minor nitpick/footnote: the Pharisees weren’t as strict as people often assume. Heck, the Essenes had a lot of elaborate regulations far stricter than any Pharisaic injunction, and the Sadducees apparently were committed to obeying the Law literally as written, to the letter (instead of the more interpretative and topical Pharisaic approach to it). They were strict in some respects, yes, but compared to other forms of Judaism at the time the Pharisees actually come off as being more lax in a number of areas. Jesus was much more so in some points, though He was also much stricter on others.

The Pharisees were the religious liberals of their time, because they called for a more fluid, grassroots, democratic form of Judaism, one that is not fossilized by time and monopolized by priests and Levites, but one accessible to all and adaptable to various circumstances. Since all of Israel is a “kingdom of priests” as Scripture says, they taught that each and every Jew - not just the priesthood - should thus live and act like one, relating religion to daily life by doing things such as the observance of purification laws (this is why the Pharisees were called ‘strict’). The Law mattered so much that the pious observed it as best they could to please God to the point that they would engage in discussions and debates with each other, so there would be disagreements both within and without.

For the most part though the Pharisees kept these injunctions exclusive to their group and usually never forced them on outsiders (though I think that would not discount the occasional quarrelsome lone nut here and there…).

Thanks for dispelling some of the myths about the much-maligned Pharisees. They are the sect that most Jews of today follow. They are the ones who believed in an afterlife and the doctrine of free will, although with regard to the latter concept not quite so strongly as the Sadducees. And they interpreted the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) much less literally and more liberally than the Sadducees or the Essenes. I read somewhere that Jesus may have been part of the Essene sect. Is that correct, or was he a Nazarene?

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks for dispelling some of the myths about the much-maligned Pharisees. They are the sect that most Jews of today follow. They are the ones who believed in an afterlife and the doctrine of free will, although with regard to the latter concept not quite so strongly as the Sadducees. And they interpreted the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) much less literally and more liberally than the Sadducees or the Essenes. I read somewhere that Jesus may have been part of the Essene sect. Is that correct, or was he a Nazarene?

The subject of Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Jesus’ affiliation is worthy of a seperate thread.

-Tim-

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Meltzerboy.

What an excellent reference!

Here is the URL for anyone interested: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html

God bless

The website jewishvirtuallibrary.org has a nice comparison of the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Key in Pharisees Sadducees Essenes.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for dispelling some of the myths about the much-maligned Pharisees.

The worst myth I could think of is the idea that the Pharisees handed Jesus over to death.

I read somewhere that Jesus may have been part of the Essene sect. Is that correct, or was he a Nazarene?

Well, there are folks who draw connections between John the Baptizer and the Essenes. A few go further and suggest that Jesus may have been one. I’ll go over the details later, but suffice to say that if Jesus was an Essene, they would have stoned Him to death.

 

[patrick457]

As promised:

Sometimes you see John the Baptist linked with the Essenes, mostly because of a perceived similarity between John’s baptism and the Jewish ritual immersion (on a miqveh) which the Essenes commonly practiced. By association, a few even go further and connect Jesus with them as well.

That being said, there are scholars who try to dispel any connection between the two, pointing out that the Essenes would have performed their immersions as ritual baths as the rest of the Jews would have done them: by themselves, without any assistance of another. Whereas in John, you have the two roles of ‘baptizer’ and ‘baptized’. Also, whereas Essene immersion merely served to ritually purify oneself (again, as in all the rest of Judaism), John’s had a message and an important, proto-‘sacramental’ significance attached to it. John warned of the impending judgment and the coming of the Kingdom of God and thus offered “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. As far as we know the Essenes have never applied similar concepts in their ritual bathing.

And while the Essenes only admitted to their immersions full-fledged members or candidates to their group (who still had to undergo a probationary period of one year before they could participate), John’s baptism seemed to have been open for everyone who wanted it, with no period of probation required.

Finally, for John, baptism seemed to be a once-in-a-lifetime event which sealed the execution of a ‘conversion’ (which was not so much about switching from Judaism into something else but changing one’s lifestyle and behavior), whereas the Essenes took several daily (which is the one thing what made their immersions unique), and thought of ‘conversion’ as strict obedience to the Torah; i.e. entry into their union.

The only real thing John and the Essenes had in common was the use of water and immersion, and even then, immersion was a very common rite in Judaism of the time (and today), which the Essenes only practiced more often than did other Jews because of their huge emphasis on ritual purity. If anything, John and the Essenes would have been competitors.

 

[patrick457]

As for the differences between the Essenes and Jesus:

Whereas the Essenes held to a very strict, rather legalistic approach to the Law (in some cases much more so than the Pharisees or Sadducees!), Jesus is opposed to excessive legalism.

In addition, the Essenes emphasized ritual purity as the most critical way to pursue a holy life and to prepare for the 40 year-long war between the Sons of Light (Essenes) and the Sons of Darkness (everyone else), culminating in their preordained victory. Thus, they adhered meticulously to purity laws to the point of immersing several times each day. By contrast, Jesus viewed moral purity as being more important than ritual cleanliness.

Plus, the Essenes, in their effort to keep themselves pure in the ritual sense, considered association with “the Sons of Darkness” appalling; Jesus meanwhile welcomed the harlot, the tax collector, the sinner, and the sick and infirm. Which brings us to another point: whereas the Essenes are a closed community, Jesus’ is an open one. And the early Christians believed in the salvation of non-Jews, whereas the Essenes were exclusivist in outlook.

Jesus’ ministry was public and oral by nature, His teachings usually concise and clear. Not to mention that Jesus (and much later, the early Christians) is apparently missionary-oriented, eager to make as many people as possible to listen to His teachings. Contrast that to the secretive Essenes, some of whom chose to isolate themselves from society in communities, and which emphasized writing and copying more; not to mention the cryptic, oft-obtuse Essene texts.

Jesus actually is much closer to the Pharisees in matters of doctrine (not surprising then that some of those who were attracted to His teachings were Pharisees; i.e. Nicodemus). The only main difference He had with them was on matters of ethical behavior and the interpretation of certain laws. But at the end, we can’t really pin down Jesus and His movement on a certain Jewish sect that we do know of with certainty - be it the Pharisees or the Essenes or even John’s baptism movement - because while He does seem to incorporate some elements that existed within these groups, at the same time, He has marked, major differences from any of them. He is a separate category on His own.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick457,

Maybe you can clarify this for me … why do you thnk this is a myth? … and how does any of this relate to eating pork?

Thanks

The worst myth I could think of is the idea that the Pharisees handed Jesus over to death.

 

[patrick457]

Hi, Patrick457,

Maybe you can clarify this for me … why do you thnk this is a myth? … and how does any of this relate to eating pork?

Thanks

It’s not directly related to the whole issue of swine consumption, but I feel that this is a prime representative of the caricaturization of Pharisees.

In a number of retellings of the Jesus story (films, for instance) you sometimes see the Pharisees conflated with the Temple priesthood, to the point that you can’t really distinguish them from one another. They are all just a group of dour, pouting grey-bearded old men wearing dark robes, perhaps even proudly sporting a tallit and/or tefillin (just so you know they’re holier-than-thou and EVIL), perhaps with an evil cackle and/wicked grin/moustache twirling to boot. Since the Gospels mention that the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead (for some reason), and because various media give the impression of ‘Temple authorities=Pharisees’ some people assume that the Jewish leaders who delivered Jesus to the Romans were Pharisees, adding further fuel to the ‘wicked, hypocritical Pharisee’ stereotype. I think a good recent example of this is in Mel Gibson’s film, where Mel seems to stumble into this pitfall in a few places, mostly in the dialogue (Abenadar’s line, “the Pharisees apparently hate the man” in the context of Jesus’ arrest, for instance). This is not a new thing though; it is an idea as old as dirt in Christendom, as some Eastern hymns for Holy Week testify (where ‘scribes and Pharisees’ seem to be used interchangeably with ‘chief priests’). This idea however is not totally accurate.

 

[patrick457]

The Gospels mostly only record Jesus’ discussions and clashes with the “scribes and Pharisees” (scribes weren’t a separate group by themselves, but were also apparently affiliated to the Pharisaic sect) for a good deal of His ministry, though there is the occasional mention of various groups such as ‘Judaeans’, ‘Herodians,’ and ‘Sadducees’. But the picture changes once Jesus arrives in Jerusalem for the final time.

• Matthew records four further scuffles between the Pharisees and Jesus after He enters the city: on the question about whether to pay taxes to Caesar (22:15-22), about the greatest commandment (22:34-40), and whose son the Christ is (22:41-45), which culminates in Jesus delivering His woes against the “scribes and Pharisees” (23:1-37). After this tirade, the Pharisees disappear from the narrative, only to reappear for one final time in a bit role - where they are paired with “the chief priests” (27:62).
• Mark records the dispute on taxes (Mark 12:13-17) as well as the the greatest commandment (12:28-34). On the latter, Mark only names the questioner rather ambiguously as “one of the scribes;” after Jesus gives His answer, Mark then says: “And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.” With this, the Pharisees are finally gone from Mark’s narrative, never to return.
• Luke mentions the Pharisees requesting that Jesus rebuke His disciples (19:39-40): the final time in the Gospel that the term ‘Pharisee’ appears. He then also mentions the dispute on taxes (20:19-26), but here describes the questioners as “spies, who pretended to be sincere.” Luke does not record the question on the greatest commandment (having included a similar pericope earlier in the narrative), but here the scribes express their assent to Jesus after His answer to the Sadducees (20:39-40). Like Mark, he notes that they did so “for they no longer dared to ask him any question.” A bit later, Luke then writes of Jesus criticizing the scribes (20:45-47). Afterwards, the scribes are also gone.
• There are only three mentions in John mid- and post-Triumphal Entry which concern the Pharisees: where they remark that “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him” (12:19). The second goes (12:42-43):

Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.

The final mention of them is in 18:3, where, in a minor role, the arrest party is said to be sent by “the chief priests and the Pharisees.” The Pharisees notably never appear in the Passion narrative itself.

It is really only in Matthew and John that further mention is made of Pharisees, but they notably no longer hold center stage as in the earlier half of the story. It is “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” who assume the role of Jesus’ opponents in His final week. They challenge His authority, pay Judas, get Him arrested after plotting about it, interrogate Him and send Him to Pilate, and mock Him at the cross. Luke here adds reference to the “rulers” (23:13, 35; 24:20) and “first men” (19:47) reminiscent of Josephus’ description of the Sadducees (Antiquities 13.10.6; 18.1.4; Jewish War 2.8.14).

 

[patrick457]

The priests who served in the Temple did not constitute a party as such. They were rather, a class, and a large and important one at that. The priests were assisted in their duty by the Levites, who also acted as the Temple choir, security force, and janitors. According to Josephus, there appear to have been about 20,000 priests and Levites together (Apion 2.108).

These sacred offices, which were hereditary, were not full-time occupations. Any individual priest or Levite performed his duties for only a few weeks each year. Both priests and Levites were divided into twenty-four ‘courses’, each of which served in the Temple a week at a time. During the three annual festivals (Passover was one of them), all the courses were on duty. They were supported partially by the tithes and first-fruits that were given to the Temple; but during their off periods, they worked at other jobs except maybe for farming, since the Law forbade them to own hereditary land such as the other Israelites possessed (Leviticus 18:20). Some were scribes who drew up legal documents, but others engaged in manual labor: Herod taught some priests stonemasonry so they could build the most sacred areas (Antiquities 15.390).

Most priests and Levites had no party affiliation. We know that some aristocratic priests who occupied the higher positions were (or had connections with) Sadducees and some ordinary priests were Pharisees, but the priests and Levites for the most part seem to have practiced common Judaism, as the majority of Jews did.

Now the Pharisees - which seems to have had its origins fairly early in the Hasmonean period (before 135 BC) - were predominantly lay sages and teachers. Some were priests, but a vast majority were scholarly laymen. At the time of Herod, there were about 6,000 of them (Antiquities 17.42). They preached a grassroots, democratic and participatory form of Judaism that is, in many respects, liberal. Their views were were non-creedal and non-dogmatic, and heterogenous. They emphasized that rituals were not something that is monopolized by an inherited priesthood but rather could be performed by all adult Jews individually or collectively; whose leaders were not determined by birth but by scholarly achievement. All Jews in their daily life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should thus observe rules concerning purification.

There was a time when the Pharisees held actual political authority, during the Hasmonean Dynasty. But under Herod the Great, no one else had political power, and anyone who sought it was promptly executed. His son Antipas, who ruled the Galilee, was no more inclined than his father to give authority to a group of pious teachers. And in Jerusalem, the high priests backed by Rome were in charge after Archelaus was deposed. So they had no other choice but to lie low. They worked, studied, taught and worshiped according to their own way. Probably they increased in popularity, but they had no actual power in the political sense.