M
mommyof4
Guest
Who exactly were the pharisees and sadducees? What were their beliefs, and why were they at such odds with Jesus and his ministry?
Thank you.
Thank you.
- Status
I
inthecloud
Guest
Saducess= Zadoquites= Temple Jews. The priests and Levites. Caiphas was one of them. They believed theTorah was the only revelation. No other books were sacred. They also believed in when you are dead, you are dead. No after life or even resurrection. The Temple should be the focus of Jewish life.
They in my opinion were coploters witht he Romans and Herod in Jesus Cruxifiction.
Pharisees. Jewish sect started by exiles in Babylon. They made the Sinagoge the focus of Jewish life, becasuse they did not have a Temple during the exile. They made the Law instead of the sacrifices the purpose of Jewish life and made studying the Law and creating secondary Laws to preven breaking the principal and obsession. The disagreement with Jesus was more about the intepretation of the Law and the role of the secondary laws and teachings (Mishna and Talmud). They belive in the after death and in the resurection of the death. They are the forerunners of moder Rabinnic Judaism. The modern 66 books Tanach and the Prostestant old testament canon come from the Pharisees. They were usually interenting learned men.
They in my opinion were coploters witht he Romans and Herod in Jesus Cruxifiction.
Pharisees. Jewish sect started by exiles in Babylon. They made the Sinagoge the focus of Jewish life, becasuse they did not have a Temple during the exile. They made the Law instead of the sacrifices the purpose of Jewish life and made studying the Law and creating secondary Laws to preven breaking the principal and obsession. The disagreement with Jesus was more about the intepretation of the Law and the role of the secondary laws and teachings (Mishna and Talmud). They belive in the after death and in the resurection of the death. They are the forerunners of moder Rabinnic Judaism. The modern 66 books Tanach and the Prostestant old testament canon come from the Pharisees. They were usually interenting learned men.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Acts 23:8 explains some of the differences between Sadducees and Pharisees:
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The Sadducees were also more elite and wealthy. Politically, they resolved to work with the Romans in order to keep peace in Judea, which often means compromising your principles, but also provides more opportunities to benefit financially. Jesus would be a thorn in their side, because He threatened to disturb that peace.
The Pharisees believed in strict adherence to the Law. Many of the purification laws were instituted strictly for the Levites, but the Pharisees imposed them on all Judeans in order to make everyone more pure. The purer the Jews, the sooner God would restore His relationship with Israel via the Messiah.
The Pharisees also believed in separating themselves from all things unclean, especially the Gentiles. They enjoyed much of the authority given by Rome, if only in the case of being able to declare people unclean and removing them from the community.
Jesus was a thorn in the Pharisees’ side simply because he threatened to strip them of this authority. People in power tend to hold onto that power, often at all costs, rather than hand it over to another.
The Pharisees believed in strict adherence to the Law. Many of the purification laws were instituted strictly for the Levites, but the Pharisees imposed them on all Judeans in order to make everyone more pure. The purer the Jews, the sooner God would restore His relationship with Israel via the Messiah.
The Pharisees also believed in separating themselves from all things unclean, especially the Gentiles. They enjoyed much of the authority given by Rome, if only in the case of being able to declare people unclean and removing them from the community.
Jesus was a thorn in the Pharisees’ side simply because he threatened to strip them of this authority. People in power tend to hold onto that power, often at all costs, rather than hand it over to another.
P
patrick457
Guest
Excerpted from wikipedia:
The Pharisees (P’rushim, the Separated) were, depending on the time, a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought among Jews that flourished during the Second Temple Era (536 BC–70 AD). After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic sect was re-established as Rabbinic Judaism, which ultimately produced normative, traditional Judaism, the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism and even the Karaites use the Rabbinic canon of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.
There is a definite record of only one high priest (Ananus, in 62) being a Sadducee, although some scholars assume, based purely on speculation, that the Sanhedrin was dominated by Sadducees. Nevertheless, their power severely curtailed, during the Roman period Sadducees are better understood as a sect rather than a political party. Similarly, the Pharisees were politically quiescent, and studied, taught, and worshiped in their own way. Although popular and respected, they had no political power. Rather, they only had the power of persuasion.
During this period serious theological differences emerged between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Although the Essene lack of concern for the Second Temple alienated them from the great mass of Jews, their notion that the sacred could exist outside of the Temple was shared and elevated by the Pharisees.
Many, including some scholars, have characterized the Sadducees as a sect that interpreted the Torah literally, and the Pharisees as interpreting the Torah liberally. R’ Yitchak Isaac Halevi (who takes the above view) suggests that this was not, in fact, a matter of religion. He claims that as complete rejection of Judaism would not have been tolerated under the Hasmonean rule, Hellenists maintained that they were rejecting not Judaism but Rabbinic law. Thus, the Sadducees were in fact a political party not a religious sect (Dorot Ha’Rishonim).
According to Jacob Neusner (1998:40), this view is a distortion. He suggests that two things fundamentally distinguished the Pharisaic from the Sadducean approach to the Torah. First, Pharisees interpreted Exodus 19:3-6 literally:
The Pharisees believed that the idea that all of the children of Israel were to be like priests was expressed elsewhere in the Torah, for example, when the Law itself was transferred from the sphere of the priesthood to every man in Israel (Exodus 19: 29-24; Deuteronomy 6: 7, 11: 19; comp. 31: 9; Jeremiah 2: 8, 18:18). Moreover, the Torah already provided some ways for all Jews to lead a priestly life: the precepts concerning unclean meat were perhaps intended originally for the priests, but were extended to the whole people (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-21); the prohibition of cutting the flesh in mourning for the dead (Deuteronomy 14: 1-2, Leviticus 19: 28; comp. Lev. 21: 5). The Pharisees believed that all Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should observe rules and rituals concerning purification.
Second, the Pharisees believed that there were two Torahs. In addition to the Torah recognized by both the Sadducees and Pharisees and believed to have been written by Moses, the Pharisees believed that there was another Torah. They referred to the five books of Moses as the “Written Torah,” and the corpus of oral laws and traditions as the “Oral Torah,” because it was not written down but was rather transmitted by God to Moses orally, and was then memorized and then passed down orally by Moses and his successors over the generations.
In other words, they did not interpret the Written Torah literally; rather, they asserted that the sacred scriptures were not complete and could therefore not be understood on their own terms. The Oral Torah functioned to elaborate and explicate what was written; it is unclear whether or not the Pharisees and later rabbis believed they were interpreting the Torah. The sages of the Talmud believed that the Oral law was simultaneously revealed to Moses at Sinai, and the product of debates among rabbis. Thus, one may conceive of the “Oral Torah” not as a fixed text but as an ongoing process of analysis and argument; this is an ongoing process in which God is actively involved; it was this ongoing process that was revealed at Sinai, and by participating in this ongoing process rabbis and their students are actively participating in God’s ongoing revelation.
That is, “revelation” is not a single act, and “Torah” is not a single or fixed text. It is this ongoing process of analysis and argument that is itself the substance of God’s revelation. As Jacob Neusner has explained, the schools of the Pharisees and rabbis were and are holy:
The Pharisees (P’rushim, the Separated) were, depending on the time, a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought among Jews that flourished during the Second Temple Era (536 BC–70 AD). After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic sect was re-established as Rabbinic Judaism, which ultimately produced normative, traditional Judaism, the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism and even the Karaites use the Rabbinic canon of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.
There is a definite record of only one high priest (Ananus, in 62) being a Sadducee, although some scholars assume, based purely on speculation, that the Sanhedrin was dominated by Sadducees. Nevertheless, their power severely curtailed, during the Roman period Sadducees are better understood as a sect rather than a political party. Similarly, the Pharisees were politically quiescent, and studied, taught, and worshiped in their own way. Although popular and respected, they had no political power. Rather, they only had the power of persuasion.
During this period serious theological differences emerged between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Although the Essene lack of concern for the Second Temple alienated them from the great mass of Jews, their notion that the sacred could exist outside of the Temple was shared and elevated by the Pharisees.
Many, including some scholars, have characterized the Sadducees as a sect that interpreted the Torah literally, and the Pharisees as interpreting the Torah liberally. R’ Yitchak Isaac Halevi (who takes the above view) suggests that this was not, in fact, a matter of religion. He claims that as complete rejection of Judaism would not have been tolerated under the Hasmonean rule, Hellenists maintained that they were rejecting not Judaism but Rabbinic law. Thus, the Sadducees were in fact a political party not a religious sect (Dorot Ha’Rishonim).
According to Jacob Neusner (1998:40), this view is a distortion. He suggests that two things fundamentally distinguished the Pharisaic from the Sadducean approach to the Torah. First, Pharisees interpreted Exodus 19:3-6 literally:
Or, in the words of 2 Maccabees 2:17, Pharisees believed that “God gave all the people the heritage, the kingdom, the priesthood, and the holiness.”
The Pharisees believed that the idea that all of the children of Israel were to be like priests was expressed elsewhere in the Torah, for example, when the Law itself was transferred from the sphere of the priesthood to every man in Israel (Exodus 19: 29-24; Deuteronomy 6: 7, 11: 19; comp. 31: 9; Jeremiah 2: 8, 18:18). Moreover, the Torah already provided some ways for all Jews to lead a priestly life: the precepts concerning unclean meat were perhaps intended originally for the priests, but were extended to the whole people (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-21); the prohibition of cutting the flesh in mourning for the dead (Deuteronomy 14: 1-2, Leviticus 19: 28; comp. Lev. 21: 5). The Pharisees believed that all Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should observe rules and rituals concerning purification.
Second, the Pharisees believed that there were two Torahs. In addition to the Torah recognized by both the Sadducees and Pharisees and believed to have been written by Moses, the Pharisees believed that there was another Torah. They referred to the five books of Moses as the “Written Torah,” and the corpus of oral laws and traditions as the “Oral Torah,” because it was not written down but was rather transmitted by God to Moses orally, and was then memorized and then passed down orally by Moses and his successors over the generations.
In other words, they did not interpret the Written Torah literally; rather, they asserted that the sacred scriptures were not complete and could therefore not be understood on their own terms. The Oral Torah functioned to elaborate and explicate what was written; it is unclear whether or not the Pharisees and later rabbis believed they were interpreting the Torah. The sages of the Talmud believed that the Oral law was simultaneously revealed to Moses at Sinai, and the product of debates among rabbis. Thus, one may conceive of the “Oral Torah” not as a fixed text but as an ongoing process of analysis and argument; this is an ongoing process in which God is actively involved; it was this ongoing process that was revealed at Sinai, and by participating in this ongoing process rabbis and their students are actively participating in God’s ongoing revelation.
That is, “revelation” is not a single act, and “Torah” is not a single or fixed text. It is this ongoing process of analysis and argument that is itself the substance of God’s revelation. As Jacob Neusner has explained, the schools of the Pharisees and rabbis were and are holy:
P
patrick457
Guest
The Sadducees (Tzdokim) were members of a Jewish sect founded in the second century BC, possibly as a political party. They ceased to exist sometime after the first century AD.
Most of what is known about the Sadducees comes from Josephus, who wrote that they were a quarrelsome group whose followers were wealthy and powerful, and that he considered them boorish in social interactions (see Josephus’s Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chapter VIII, Paragraph 14). We know something of them from discussions in the Talmud (mainly the Jerusalem), the core work of rabbinic Judaism, which is based on the teachings of Pharisaic Judaism.
Sadducees followed the Hebrew Bible literally. They rejected the Pharisees’ notion of an Oral Torah by which the Pentateuch could be explained hermeneutically. An example of this differing approach is the interpretation of the law of retribution (lex talionis):
R’ Yitchak Isaac Halevi suggests that while there is evidence of a Sadducee sect from the times of Ezra, it emerged as major force only after the Hasmonean rebellion. The reason for this was not, in fact, a matter of religion. He claims that as complete rejection of Judaism would not have been tolerated under the Hasmonean rule, the Hellenists joined the Sadducees maintaining that they were rejecting not Judaism but Rabbinic law. Thus, the Sadducees were for the most part a political party and not a religious sect (Dorot Ha’Rishonim).
According to the Talmud, they granted the daughter the same right of inheritance as the son in case the son was dead (see chapter Yeish Nochalin of the Babylonain Talmud, tractate Bava Batra). Emet L’ Yaakov explains that the focus of their argument was theological. The question was whether there is an afterlife (see above), and if there is, can the dead person be in the line of inheritance as if they were alive.
According to the Talmud, they contended that the seven weeks from the first barley-sheaf-offering (“omer”) to Shavuot (Pentecost in Christian reference) should, according to Leviticus 23:15-16, be counted from “the day after Sabbath,” and, consequently, that Shavuot should always be celebrated on the first day of the week (Meg. Ta’an. i.; Men. 65a). In this they followed a literal reading of the Bible which regards the festival of the firstlings as having no direct connection with Passover, while the Pharisees, connecting the festival of the Exodus with the festival of the giving of the Law, interpreted the “morrow after the Sabbath” to signify the second day of Passover.
In regard to rituals at the Temple in Jerusalem:
-They held that the daily burnt offerings were to be offered by the high priest at his own expense, whereas the Pharisees contended that they were to be furnished as a national sacrifice at the cost of the Temple treasury into which taxes were paid.
-They held that the meal offering belonged to the priest’s portion; whereas the Pharisees claimed it for the altar.
-They insisted on an especially high degree of purity in those who officiated at the preparation of the ashes of the Red Heifer. The Pharisees, by contrast, opposed such strictness.
-They declared that the kindling of the incense in the vessel with which the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was to take place outside, so that he might be wrapped in smoke while meeting the Shekhinah within, according to Lev. xvi. 2; whereas the Pharisees, denying the high priest the claim of such supernatural vision, insisted that the incense be kindled within.
-They opposed the popular festivity of the water libation and the procession preceding it on each night of the Sukkot feast.
-They opposed the Pharisaic assertion that the scrolls of the Holy Scriptures have, like any holy vessel, the power to render ritually unclean the hands that touch them.
-They opposed the Pharisaic idea of the eruv, the merging of several private precincts into one in order to admit of the carrying of food and vessels from one house to another on the Sabbath.
-In dating all civil documents they used the phrase “after the high priest of the Most High,” and they opposed the formula introduced by the Pharisees in divorce documents, “According to the law of Moses and Israel”.
Most of what is known about the Sadducees comes from Josephus, who wrote that they were a quarrelsome group whose followers were wealthy and powerful, and that he considered them boorish in social interactions (see Josephus’s Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chapter VIII, Paragraph 14). We know something of them from discussions in the Talmud (mainly the Jerusalem), the core work of rabbinic Judaism, which is based on the teachings of Pharisaic Judaism.
Sadducees followed the Hebrew Bible literally. They rejected the Pharisees’ notion of an Oral Torah by which the Pentateuch could be explained hermeneutically. An example of this differing approach is the interpretation of the law of retribution (lex talionis):
Most Pharisees understood this to mean that the value of an eye was to be sought by the perpetrator rather than actually removing his eye too. In the Sadducees’ view the law was to be taken literally.
R’ Yitchak Isaac Halevi suggests that while there is evidence of a Sadducee sect from the times of Ezra, it emerged as major force only after the Hasmonean rebellion. The reason for this was not, in fact, a matter of religion. He claims that as complete rejection of Judaism would not have been tolerated under the Hasmonean rule, the Hellenists joined the Sadducees maintaining that they were rejecting not Judaism but Rabbinic law. Thus, the Sadducees were for the most part a political party and not a religious sect (Dorot Ha’Rishonim).
According to the Talmud, they granted the daughter the same right of inheritance as the son in case the son was dead (see chapter Yeish Nochalin of the Babylonain Talmud, tractate Bava Batra). Emet L’ Yaakov explains that the focus of their argument was theological. The question was whether there is an afterlife (see above), and if there is, can the dead person be in the line of inheritance as if they were alive.
According to the Talmud, they contended that the seven weeks from the first barley-sheaf-offering (“omer”) to Shavuot (Pentecost in Christian reference) should, according to Leviticus 23:15-16, be counted from “the day after Sabbath,” and, consequently, that Shavuot should always be celebrated on the first day of the week (Meg. Ta’an. i.; Men. 65a). In this they followed a literal reading of the Bible which regards the festival of the firstlings as having no direct connection with Passover, while the Pharisees, connecting the festival of the Exodus with the festival of the giving of the Law, interpreted the “morrow after the Sabbath” to signify the second day of Passover.
In regard to rituals at the Temple in Jerusalem:
-They held that the daily burnt offerings were to be offered by the high priest at his own expense, whereas the Pharisees contended that they were to be furnished as a national sacrifice at the cost of the Temple treasury into which taxes were paid.
-They held that the meal offering belonged to the priest’s portion; whereas the Pharisees claimed it for the altar.
-They insisted on an especially high degree of purity in those who officiated at the preparation of the ashes of the Red Heifer. The Pharisees, by contrast, opposed such strictness.
-They declared that the kindling of the incense in the vessel with which the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was to take place outside, so that he might be wrapped in smoke while meeting the Shekhinah within, according to Lev. xvi. 2; whereas the Pharisees, denying the high priest the claim of such supernatural vision, insisted that the incense be kindled within.
-They opposed the popular festivity of the water libation and the procession preceding it on each night of the Sukkot feast.
-They opposed the Pharisaic assertion that the scrolls of the Holy Scriptures have, like any holy vessel, the power to render ritually unclean the hands that touch them.
-They opposed the Pharisaic idea of the eruv, the merging of several private precincts into one in order to admit of the carrying of food and vessels from one house to another on the Sabbath.
-In dating all civil documents they used the phrase “after the high priest of the Most High,” and they opposed the formula introduced by the Pharisees in divorce documents, “According to the law of Moses and Israel”.
T
thistle
Guest
The Saducees must have been a strange lot then. What would be the point in believing in God if they did not believe in an afterlife?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The Torah doesn’t talk of the afterlife. These first five books of the OT are all the Sadducee’s held to.
It wasn’t until the Psalms, I believe, that we start seeing any hint of the afterlife, and then further in Maccabees and I’m sure, a few others.
T
thistle
Guest
So what did they actually believe in?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Everything in the Pentateuch.
I
inthecloud
Guest
I often bring the subjet to Atheists who say religion is for the people who do fear death.
What about the Saducees and the Marxists? They were religions who did not believe in the afterlife but believed in some form of collective material salvation as the “people”.
The Sadusees who were “Sola Torah” did not believe in the afterlife. Salvation comes from the God of Israel into the nation of Israel.
The Psalms, Daniel, Maccabess and Wisdoms are the first books on the Bible were there was talk of the afterlife.
What about the Saducees and the Marxists? They were religions who did not believe in the afterlife but believed in some form of collective material salvation as the “people”.
The Sadusees who were “Sola Torah” did not believe in the afterlife. Salvation comes from the God of Israel into the nation of Israel.
The Psalms, Daniel, Maccabess and Wisdoms are the first books on the Bible were there was talk of the afterlife.
P
patrick457
Guest
If you’ll think about it, Jesus (and by extension Christianity) actually share many things in common with the Pharisees, belief-wise, as I often like to say.
This could actually explain why Jesus usually talked with and ate with Pharisees (we never read about Jesus dining with a Sadducee; keep in mind that Pharisees usually never associated with anyone outside their party), why some of Jesus’ disciples and early converts to Christianity were Pharisees (we never hear about a Sadducee becoming a disciple of Jesus or a Christian convert), and why the guys who gave Jesus a decent burial and the guy who wrote a large portion of the New Testament were Pharisees.
Jesus once said that the Scribes and Pharisees ‘sit on Moses’ seat’ and therefore, they are worthy of respect and one should do whatever they tell you to do (Matthew 23:1-), however since the Pharisees were good teachers yet bad examples (since they never practice what they preach), Jesus warns that one should never follow them in their hypocrisy.
This could actually explain why Jesus usually talked with and ate with Pharisees (we never read about Jesus dining with a Sadducee; keep in mind that Pharisees usually never associated with anyone outside their party), why some of Jesus’ disciples and early converts to Christianity were Pharisees (we never hear about a Sadducee becoming a disciple of Jesus or a Christian convert), and why the guys who gave Jesus a decent burial and the guy who wrote a large portion of the New Testament were Pharisees.
Jesus once said that the Scribes and Pharisees ‘sit on Moses’ seat’ and therefore, they are worthy of respect and one should do whatever they tell you to do (Matthew 23:1-), however since the Pharisees were good teachers yet bad examples (since they never practice what they preach), Jesus warns that one should never follow them in their hypocrisy.
I
inthecloud
Guest
Jesus disciples might have been closer to the Essenes (Jesus only critizized them once or twice in the Gospels) and them Pharisees. There is wide speculation of both Johns being Essenes.
Jesus might have arged with the Pharisees all the time but they never would have moved to kill him as the Saducees did.
Jesus clashed with the Saducees in who very serious ways.
Jesus might have arged with the Pharisees all the time but they never would have moved to kill him as the Saducees did.
Jesus clashed with the Saducees in who very serious ways.
- Went after the racket of the selling of animal sacrifices in the Temple who was staged by Caiphas himself.
- Jesus said that his blood and flesh were a more important sacrifice than those of the Temple. The reason for Judas betrayal. Caiphas torn his clothers hearing that. A simbolic gesture demanding punishment for the offender.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
If I remember correctly, the Essene community of Qumran was within walking distance of where John was baptizing at the Jordan.
I
iaskquestions
Guest
The Torah, however, does indirectly indicate afterlife as pointed out by Jesus when he brilliantly refuted the Sadducees.
"But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (this is in the Torah)? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:29-32)
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I agree! But that wasn’t readily understandable, or else the Saducees wouldn’t have asked, eh?
Of course, maybe the Saduccees suffered from “Sola Verse-ura” as well?
R
rcjones
Guest
Don’t forget that when Jesus was twelve the teachers in the temple were amazed at this precocious child.
These likely were Sadducees.
Now Jewish children were taught to ask questions to facilitate learning. We see this in the Passover and also :
Jos 4:6 That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?
Jos 4:21 And he spake unto the children of Israel, saying, When your children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean these stones?
Rather than asking about a pile of rocks down by the water, it is likely that Jesus asked about the stones in the scriptures.
Notice that when Jacob went to bed he had many stones as his pillows:
Gen 28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.
… but when he awoke there was only one:
Ge 28:18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
“Why did the many stones become one?”
Using Jewish midrash techniques, we would discern that all the stones in the Bible represent the Messiah. Immediately, the teachers started to see a new picture of the Messiah that had eluded them previously. Jacob had laid his head upon the rock which symbolizes placing your trust or authority on “the stone”.
From this, the boy Jesus could also see that the ladder was the Messiah and would bridge the gap between heaven and earth.
Then he asks “Why are there two stones which the law is written upon?”
And the teachers must have discerned that since there are heavenly and earthly laws, and they could now see that the stones represent the Messiah, he must be a heavenly and earthly Messiah.
"So then teachers, if he is a heavenly and earthly Messiah, aren’t the two smitten rocks in the desert really one rock? (1 Co 10.4) and he was smitten twice? Once in heaven and once on earth?
"Does this mean he must die in heaven and on earth? In order for living water to be brought forth?
Perhaps this is where Caiaphas got the idea that Jesus should die for the nation:
John 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
“Then dear teachers, what is the rock with the cleft where Moses hid?” Ex 33:22
In this picture Moses foreshadows the Messiah who is taking refuge in the cleft rock, his own death. Afterwards he has the ‘glow of God’ as his face shines. From this Jesus knew he would be glorified after death.
Over the next eighteen years the teachers began to see the Messiah in a whole new light, and could see that they would lose power upon His return. So they plotted against him.
During that time the boy Jesus discovers his divine nature in the word and upon his return to Jerusalem, he knew he was God as prophesied in the double entendre of 2Ch 33:13.
Jesus calls them a brood of vipers, not for misunderstanding the scriptures, but for understanding them and lying to the people about him.
These likely were Sadducees.
Now Jewish children were taught to ask questions to facilitate learning. We see this in the Passover and also :
Jos 4:6 That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?
Jos 4:21 And he spake unto the children of Israel, saying, When your children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean these stones?
Rather than asking about a pile of rocks down by the water, it is likely that Jesus asked about the stones in the scriptures.
Notice that when Jacob went to bed he had many stones as his pillows:
Gen 28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.
… but when he awoke there was only one:
Ge 28:18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
“Why did the many stones become one?”
Using Jewish midrash techniques, we would discern that all the stones in the Bible represent the Messiah. Immediately, the teachers started to see a new picture of the Messiah that had eluded them previously. Jacob had laid his head upon the rock which symbolizes placing your trust or authority on “the stone”.
From this, the boy Jesus could also see that the ladder was the Messiah and would bridge the gap between heaven and earth.
Then he asks “Why are there two stones which the law is written upon?”
And the teachers must have discerned that since there are heavenly and earthly laws, and they could now see that the stones represent the Messiah, he must be a heavenly and earthly Messiah.
"So then teachers, if he is a heavenly and earthly Messiah, aren’t the two smitten rocks in the desert really one rock? (1 Co 10.4) and he was smitten twice? Once in heaven and once on earth?
"Does this mean he must die in heaven and on earth? In order for living water to be brought forth?
Perhaps this is where Caiaphas got the idea that Jesus should die for the nation:
John 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
“Then dear teachers, what is the rock with the cleft where Moses hid?” Ex 33:22
In this picture Moses foreshadows the Messiah who is taking refuge in the cleft rock, his own death. Afterwards he has the ‘glow of God’ as his face shines. From this Jesus knew he would be glorified after death.
Over the next eighteen years the teachers began to see the Messiah in a whole new light, and could see that they would lose power upon His return. So they plotted against him.
During that time the boy Jesus discovers his divine nature in the word and upon his return to Jerusalem, he knew he was God as prophesied in the double entendre of 2Ch 33:13.
Jesus calls them a brood of vipers, not for misunderstanding the scriptures, but for understanding them and lying to the people about him.
P
patrick457
Guest
It’s interesting you bring this up; the Sadducees argued for a literal interpretation of the Torah, while the Pharisees believed in an unwritten ‘oral Torah’ that would explain its contents hermeneutically; for example, the Pharisees understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean that the value of an eye was to be sought by the perpetrator, while Sadducees believe that one should LITERALLY obey this command and take out the perpetrator’s eye.
This whole talk of an ‘oral Torah’ and ‘Sola Torah’ looks eerily similar to our situation today…
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I was under the impression that “an eye for an eye” was a way to prevent unwarranted harm to a fellow Israelite, knowing that you would receive likewise in punishment. It was a deterrent to violence.It’s interesting you bring this up; the Sadducees argued for a literal interpretation of the Torah, while the Pharisees believed in an unwritten ‘oral Torah’ that would explain its contents hermeneutically; for example, the Pharisees understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean that the value of an eye was to be sought by the perpetrator, while Sadducees believe that one should LITERALLY obey this command and take out the perpetrator’s eye.
This whole talk of an ‘oral Torah’ and ‘Sola Torah’ looks eerily similar to our situation today…
And this view was the opinion of Pharisees and Sadducee’s alike.
P
patrick457
Guest
In regard to rituals at the Temple in Jerusalem:
-The Sadducees held that the daily burnt offerings were to be offered by the high priest at his own expense, whereas the Pharisees contended that they were to be furnished as a national sacrifice at the cost of the Temple treasury into which taxes were paid.
-The Sadducees held that the meal offering belonged to the priest’s portion; whereas the Pharisees claimed it for the altar.
-The Sadducees insisted on an especially high degree of purity in those who officiated at the preparation of the ashes of the Red Heifer. The Pharisees, by contrast, opposed such strictness.
-The Sadducees declared that the kindling of the incense in the vessel with which the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was to take place outside, so that he might be wrapped in smoke while meeting the Shekhinah (the presence of God) within, according to Lev. 16:2; whereas the Pharisees, denying the high priest the claim of such supernatural vision, insisted that the incense be kindled within.
-The Sadducees opposed the popular festivity of the water libation and the procession preceding it on each night of the Sukkot feast (Feast of Booths).
In the days of the Temple of Jerusalem, during the seven days of Sukkot, water was poured on the Altar of Burnt Offerings as a libation accompanying the daily morning sacrifice. These three lugin of the “waters of creation” - for the water had not been affected by human intervention or preparation - were the focus of the efforts of the Kohanim (Priests), Leviyim (Levites), and Israelites, of the elders, the pious, and men of good deeds. A multitude of men, women, and children took part in the celebration which lasted for fifteen and a half consecutive hours, from the time that the daily afternoon sacrifice was offered until the next morning.
-The Sadducees opposed the Pharisaic assertion that the scrolls of the Holy Scriptures have, like any holy vessel, the power to render ritually unclean the hands that touch them.
-The Sadducees opposed the Pharisaic idea of the eruv, the merging of several private precincts into one in order to admit of the carrying of food and vessels from one house to another on the Sabbath.
-In dating all civil documents the Sadducees used the phrase “after the high priest of the Most High,” and they opposed the formula introduced by the Pharisees in divorce documents, “According to the law of Moses and Israel”.
-The Sadducees held that the daily burnt offerings were to be offered by the high priest at his own expense, whereas the Pharisees contended that they were to be furnished as a national sacrifice at the cost of the Temple treasury into which taxes were paid.
-The Sadducees held that the meal offering belonged to the priest’s portion; whereas the Pharisees claimed it for the altar.
-The Sadducees insisted on an especially high degree of purity in those who officiated at the preparation of the ashes of the Red Heifer. The Pharisees, by contrast, opposed such strictness.
-The Sadducees declared that the kindling of the incense in the vessel with which the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was to take place outside, so that he might be wrapped in smoke while meeting the Shekhinah (the presence of God) within, according to Lev. 16:2; whereas the Pharisees, denying the high priest the claim of such supernatural vision, insisted that the incense be kindled within.
-The Sadducees opposed the popular festivity of the water libation and the procession preceding it on each night of the Sukkot feast (Feast of Booths).
In the days of the Temple of Jerusalem, during the seven days of Sukkot, water was poured on the Altar of Burnt Offerings as a libation accompanying the daily morning sacrifice. These three lugin of the “waters of creation” - for the water had not been affected by human intervention or preparation - were the focus of the efforts of the Kohanim (Priests), Leviyim (Levites), and Israelites, of the elders, the pious, and men of good deeds. A multitude of men, women, and children took part in the celebration which lasted for fifteen and a half consecutive hours, from the time that the daily afternoon sacrifice was offered until the next morning.
-The Sadducees opposed the Pharisaic assertion that the scrolls of the Holy Scriptures have, like any holy vessel, the power to render ritually unclean the hands that touch them.
-The Sadducees opposed the Pharisaic idea of the eruv, the merging of several private precincts into one in order to admit of the carrying of food and vessels from one house to another on the Sabbath.
-In dating all civil documents the Sadducees used the phrase “after the high priest of the Most High,” and they opposed the formula introduced by the Pharisees in divorce documents, “According to the law of Moses and Israel”.
- Status