Some Thoughts on the Pharisees from a Hebrew Catholic Perspective

Certain of the Pharisees and their successors in Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism sought to restrict this symbolism of the heart by making the intellect paramount and then conforming the mystical tradition to their accepted intellectual framework. Judaism has thus had difficulty through the centuries with its mystically inclined people who stress the Heart. The Baal Shem Tov of the 17th century was one such Jewish mystic who stressed the heart symbolism at a time when Judaism had taken refuge in dry intellectualism that could be practiced only by a scholarly elite. 

The Messiah Yeshua also challenged the Pharisees and Sadducees of his time, stressing the ‘heart’ response and understanding of the Torah. The intellectualistic approach to religion can lead to outward ritualism rather than a religion of fire of the Heart in relationship with the Divinity. The intellect is important as a way of ordering the understandings of the Heart, but it is secondary to the outpourings of the Heart united to the Divine Mysteries, which is at the centre of Catholicism. Both Judaism and Catholicism are at their best when observed at the level of the heart and both wither when its mysteries are overly intellectualized. 

Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697-1776) son of Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi is an authority in Orthodox Judaism. He wrote a letter called Seder Olam Rabbah Vezuta. This letter was written in 1757 to the Jewish Council of the Four Lands.He mentions the Pharisees:

But for the Gentiles he reserved the Seven Commandments which they have always been obligated to fulfill. It is for that reason that they were forbidden pollutions of idols, fornication, blood, and things strangled (Acts 15). They also forbade them circumcision and the Sabbath. All of this was in accord with the law and custom of our Torah, as expounded by our Sages, the true transmitters from Moses at Sinai. It was they who sat upon his seat (as the Nazarene himself attested [Mt. 23]). It was they (the Sages or Pharisees) who said that it is forbidden to circumcise a Gentile who does not accept upon himself the yoke of (all) the commandments. 

The Sages likewise said that the Gentile is enjoined not (fully) to observe the Sabbath. The Apostles of the Nazarene therefore chose for those Gentiles who do not enter the Jewish faith that instead of circumcision they should practice immersion (for truly immersion is also a condition of full conversion), and a commemoration of the Sabbath was made for them on Sunday. -- But the Nazarene and his Apostles observed the Sabbath and circumcision as mentioned earlier, for they were born as Jews. They observed the Torah fully, until after a period of time a few of them decided to give up the Torah among themselves completely. They said that its observance was too difficult for them and agreed to remove its yoke from their necks (Acts 15).[Translated by Harvey Falk. The above is part of Chapter 1 of "Jesus the Pharisee, A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus", by Harvey Falk, 1985]

I do not think Yeshua intended to discredit the traditions of the Sages of Israel. He did criticise a group of Pharisees and Scribes who were placing the teachings of the Elders above the Biblical commandments and interpreting them in a way that distorted both the Sages teachings and Scripture. Mark in chapter 7 verses 3-4 is not criticising the Jewish customs but explaining them to the Gentile audience he is writing to. Yeshua goes on in Mark 7 to give some examples of this misuse of Scripture and tradition. These Pharisees and Scribes appeal to the authentic ‘traditions of the Elders’ but Yeshua never criticises this tradition only the twisted reasoning of this group who have misused the ‘traditions of the Elders’ to create their own man-made tradition that actually undermines the Torah and its interpretation by the Sages. Yeshua very pointedly calls it “your tradition” to distinguish it from the “tradition of the Elders”.

Yeshua using the commandment of “Honour thy mother and father”, as an example, demonstrates this unspiritual approach. Yeshua is not criticising the idea of a korban or the setting aside of gifts for God’s service. What he is criticising is this group's perverted use of tradition to justify their evil desire to not help their parents and thus by their twisted use of tradition they undermined the written Torah and make the mosaic tradition of no value. 

When they criticised others for not performing n’tilat yadaim (washing of hands), Yeshua saw that it was from a hypocritical heart of judging others on secondary matters that at this time was not even a universal custom. Unfortunately this has been confused by the Greek of the text which has translated the Hebrew word ‘kol’ as ‘all’ when in Hebrew it can also mean ‘many’. The text should read in English ‘and many of the Judeans’ rather than “and all the Jews”. 

The Jews of the Galil had a different minhag (custom) but it is obvious that Yeshua himself observed the Judean and Pharisee minhag as they did not criticise him for eating without doing n’tilat yadaim, only some of his talmidim (disciples). The reason for this is that Yeshua’s family originally came from Judea and observed this greater stringency of washing before eating ordinary food (chullin/common) that many of the Pharisees practiced at that time. This stringency is not what Yeshua condemned when done in the right spirit of enhancing the spiritual sanctity in ordinary acts, but when this stringency was used as a judgement of how pure another Jew was, he was indignant. When I speak of stringencies I am not referring to stringencies one does out of Kevanah (heart devotion)which one does not burden other groups or individuals with their level of stringency.
We must also never take Scripture out of context. Matthew 23 states that the Pharisaic authorities sit in the chair of Moshe and that their teaching of the Mosaic tradition is correct and must be followed. Yeshua warns them however not to follow the distorted interpretation of this Tradition that leads certain groups of them to live out in their lives in a hypocritical manner. Everything is done for show not from kevanah (heart devotion).

As for the Sages of the Talmud they also teach with Mosaic authority and their opinions should be respected and the consensus of the Sages followed by all Jews. Of course Gentile believers are not bound to adhere to the particular Jewish Torah-observances or to the Mosaic authorities, they live out Torah at the universal level and follow Yeshua according to their own particular ethnic minhaggim (customs) under the teaching of the New Covenant authorities who sit in the chair of Peter.

Jewish believers in Yeshua while respecting the chair of Moshe and adhering to its teachings on Jewish relevant issues are also under the New Covenant chair of Peter and its teaching authority on faith and morals. Those of us in the New Covenant should also be aware of distorted interpretations of the New Covenant Scripture and Tradition by many priests, theologians and bishops of the New Covenant. We must be aware that Yeshua is criticising certain groups and trends within the Pharisee movement who had distorted Torah. 

The Talmud itself criticises five different groups of fanatical Pharisees. I believe when Yeshua speaks of the ‘yeast of the Pharisees’ he is referring to a small but powerful group within the broader body of the Pharisee movement. It is obvious Yeshua is not speaking of those Pharisees who are sincere like Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Gamaliel. Even today in Orthodox Judaism (the Modern Pharisees) we see certain groups that are a dangerous yeast that tends towards fanaticism and burdensome and unloving stringency, but this does not represent the bulk of Orthodox Jewry or the consensus of Rabbinic teaching.

Also the Sages of Israel compare the holy vessels of the Temple with the vessels of ones tongue and heart. It is forbidden to comment on the level of observance of another Jew in a negative way this is lashon hara (evil talk). This is why Yeshua is so upset with these Pharisees, that they should be committing the sin of lashon hara which is much worse than putting non-kosher food on holy vessels. To speak lashon hara pollutes the inner man and the temple and domestic purity of dishes is only a sign alluding to this spiritual purity/impurity of the inner heart and tongue.

In Galatians 2 Paul relates an incident where he rebukes Peter and Barnabas for eating with Gentile Christians and then when the more strict Jewish Christians (who followed the Shammai tradition) visited they ceased eating with the Gentiles. Most Christians interpret this passage in regard to kosher food laws and assume that Peter and Paul no-longer observed kashrut. This however is not the case. Peter and Paul observed kashrut as did all the Jewish Christians who were zealous for the Torah and the Jewish customs (see Acts 21). If this was not about kosher food laws what was it about? One needs to understand the context of their situation. 

At this time the Pharisees were divided into two main groups the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. After the death of Hillel, Shammai and his followers seized control of the religious Sanhedrin and imposed 18 articles of rigid separation of Jews with Gentiles. These 18 articles were opposed by the Hillelites and their followers consider the day they were imposed as a day of mourning. These rules meant that Jews not only couldn't sit at the same table with Gentiles but they couldn't even enter their homes.

The Holy Spirit taught Peter that these eighteen articles (gezerot) were not binding by showing him through a vision of animals that he should call no man unclean whom God has cleansed and taking Peter into a Gentile house. His vision of the animals did not mean it was ok to eat non-kosher food but it used animals to give Peter the message that the 18 articles of the House of Shammai were of no-effect for the Jewish Catholics. This artificial barrier or wall between Jews and Gentiles was abolished by the Cross. These 18 articles were later abolished by the Rabbis after the destruction of the Temple when the Hillelites gained full control of the Sanhedrin once again and it is taught in the Talmud that a voice spoke from heaven and decreed that these laws were abolished and that wherever the teachings of the House of Hillel differed from those of the House of Shammai the teachings of the Hillelites was the Halakah.

The Pharisees who Jesus identified as the 'leaven'[Chametz] were the Shammaites or Shomerim (the observant ones). The Talmud speaks of seven different types of Pharisees. Five of these groups are described in a negative way and they are known as 'Chametz' by Jesus as there were five kinds of "chametz" to be avoided on Passover. 

One of these groups are called the Shikmi who follow the actions of their founder known as Shechem or the Shechemite Pharisee. The city of Shechem was the Samaritan religious centre and after John Hycanus destroyed their Temple many of the Samaritans entered Judaism. They are the group Jesus speaks about when he says that they lay heavy burdens on men's shoulders. The use of the word 'shoulders' is an allusion to this group as the word for shoulder in Hebrew is similiar to Shechem. The Samaritans were also known as Shomerim and Shechemites. 

Another group were called the Nikpi who knocked their legs together and walk with small steps thus showing how 'humble' they were- this group were masters of 'fake humility'. They would also put off doing good deeds by elaborate cautiousness. A third group were the Kizai who would walk around with their eyes closed and smash into walls and draw blood in their efforts to avoid looking at women. A fourth group were the Medukhia or Hankaia Pharisees who are described like a pestle in a mortar. Like a pestle they oppressed, ground and smash down people by their exaggerated observances. Always looking for the faults in others rather than looking skyward to the heavens. 

A fifth group were those self righteous pharisees who would think they were so good at observing all the Torah that they pompuously would inquire about doing more. Two groups were associated with the matzah of Passover- they were the Essene followers of Menachem (the reverent mystics) and the followers of Hillel (the humble peaceloving Pharisees).
Paul had been brought up in the Hillelite tradition but later joined the Shammaites and took on their fanatical ideas about observance and salvation. After his conversion he returned to the teachings of the school of Hillel on relations with the Gentiles and salvation. Even though his teacher Gamaliel (the grandson of Hillel) was Nasi (Davidic President) of the religious Sanhedrin he was outnumbered by the Shammaites. It is these teachings of Shammai that Jesus opposes as contrary to the Law of Moses and in this the Hillelites stood on the side of Jesus. They made their own man-made traditions equal with the Traditions of the Sages. 

The Shammaites taught that it was not possible for Gentiles to enter the World to Come and that it was the strict observance of Torah that gave salvation and thus all Gentiles were doomed. The School of Hillel taught otherwise and saw salvation not in observance of the Torah but in the coming of the Messiah and that Gentiles who lived according to the laws of Noah could attain to the World to Come. These Gentiles were known as the God-fearers (Ger Toshav).

According to the Shammaites those like the Hillelites who had social communications with Gentiles were living 'like Gentiles' not like observant Jews and the Shammaites persecuted and even killed some of the Hillelites. Paul rebukes Peter and Barnabas for relapsing into these rigid Shammaite observances of separation when they already in the eyes of the House of Shammai were living 'like or as Gentiles'. 

Paul was horrified to think that Peter might by his example encourage Gentiles to feel that they must become Jews in order to be equal citizens in the Church. By Peter and Barnabas' actions they were re-erecting the wall of separation between Jewish and Gentile believers. Salvation is gained through the grace of the Messiah not through observances. Observances, whether the particular Jewish observances or the observances appropriate for Gentiles, aid in ones sanctification but salvation comes from the Redeemer and Saviour with an act of Divine Grace. 

Paul in Galatians is opposing the teachings of the House of Shammai who were legalistic followers of the letter of the law. Some of the early Jewish believers were of this background. It would seem that there was a priestly faction of the Shammaites or Shamerim (observant ones) known as the Ishmaelis descended from a Sadducean High Priest Ishmael who embraced the Pharisee teachings of the House of Shammai. 

At the time Paul was writing this letter one such Ishmaeli was High Priest -Ishmael ben Fabi. Paul defends the Hillelite teachings on lifnim mishurat ha din and on the possiblity of Gentiles attaining to the World to come without becoming Jews in his letter to the Galatians. He links these Ishmaeli Shamerim and their ideas with Abraham's slave son Ishmael and his mother Hagar the slave woman in an allegory. Those who live according to the letter of the law are slaves to the curse of the law as there is none who is perfectly righteous without the grace of the Mashiach. 

However, those that embraced the Mashiach Yeshua (who lived the Torah perfectly) attain to the freedom of the Torah with its blessings. Those who live "under law" (ie legalism) follow Mt Sinai in Arabia alluding to Ishmael and Hagar whereas those that live within and beyond the line of the law are the true sons of Abraham and Sarah and the true followers of the Torah given to Moses on the Mountain in the Sinai desert (which is beyond Arabia (also called Arabia Petrea) and Arabia Deserta (also called Arabia Magna in the Land of Ishmael) in Yemen (also known as Arabia Felix and Teman in the Land of Midian not the place in the Sinai Peninsula of today). 

These three Arabias can also represent three levels of reading Torah- The level of Petrea (from Rock) represents the foundation (which may allude to the Saducees or Scribes who only accept the five Books of Moses read at a literal level). Deserta represents the boundaries of the law or legalistic approach (represented by the Shammai Pharisees and their Ishmaeli priests) which still produces some water (grace or spiritual life) as represented by the spring God gave to save the life of Ishmael and Hagar in the midst of a desert. Felix (meaning fair and fertile) represents the going beyond the borders of the Law (Arabia) into a truly fertile land of Torah wisdom (the teachings of the Hillel and Essene Pharisees and the New Covenant community). These three are also represented by the Dark or New Moon, the Crescent Moon and the Full Moon. 

The Kabbalah can be used as advocated by Pope Sixtus IV to proclaim the truths of Catholicism but with an awareness that much is handed down by the Pharisees (whom we today call the Orthodox Jews), and some of their faulty suppositions will be found in the material. Some of the Pharisees confused the doctrine of the Resurrection (in which Jesus and Paul agreed with them) with the concept of reincarnation. 

Thus in the Kabbalah, coming via Pharisaic sources, will be found allusions to this erroneous belief in reincarnation. That this false teaching was admixed with the authentic in the mystical tradition is seen in that many early Christians such as Origen taught it. St. Jerome tells us that it was also taught among the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional doctrine which was given to the select few (see The Kabbalah: Its Doctrine, Development and Literature by Christian G. Ginsburg p. 125). Ginsburg tells us that it was also taught by the Karaite Jews since at least the 7th century. 

lt would seem that this occultic teaching of transmigration or reincarnation entered the Jewish Tradition through Gnostic or Babylonian sources. Jesus warned his followers against many of these ‘traditions of the elders’ that some of the Pharisees had introduced into the pure religion of Moses. Rigid legalistic fence building, followed by some of the Pharisees (especially the Shammai Pharisees) and continued by some of the Lurianic Kabbalists, turn true spirituality in religion into a magical ritualistic observance which puts the greatest importance in the strict following of rituals and rules rather than a humble spiritual search for the Divine. Rules, rituals and laws should be the pathway or signposts to an encounter with God, not a method for blocking such access.

A Catholic Mystic Venerable Anne Catharine Emmerich, a Catholic mystic who bore the stigmatic wounds of Christ (born 1774) and could see the past, present and future in mystic vision, states in regard to the authentic mystical visions of the Patriarch Joseph’s wife, Asenath, a Priestess of Annu (Heliopolis) that: 

"... Asenath ascended a tower upon which she seemed to be, as it were in a little garden. Here she gazed upon the stars by moonlight. She fell into ecstacy and read all things clearly in the stars. The truth was shown her in pictures, because she was chosen of God. I have seen the pagan priests introduced into strange, diabolical worlds where they beheld the most abominable things. By such diabolical visions were the secret communications of Asenath disfigured and made to contribute to the abominations of idolatry...” (Life of Jesus Christ p.98 Vol 1). 

 Much of Emmerich’s mystical concepts have similarities to the Kabbalistic concepts, just as do the mystical works of St. Teresa of Avila. However one must weed out the chaff from the wheat in the Kabbalah, removing the leaven of the Pharisees. For just as the pagan Egyptian priests have distorted Kabbalah through occultic means, so have the some of the Pharisees and Lurianic Kabbalists. Emmerich also said in her mystic vision:

The gate today called by the Muslims the Golden Gate is not the place of the original Golden Gate (Shushan or Beautiful Gate) according to the Catholic mystic Blessed Anne Emmerich. She identifies the present Golden Gate with the Gate of Moriah which was a new gate at the time of Jesus built by the Hillel Pharisee Nicodemus (Nakdimon). Blessed Anne Emmerich in mystic vision states:

"The first gate which stood. on the eastern side of Jerusalem, to the south of the south-east angle of the Temple, was the one leading to the suburb of Ophel. The gate of the sheep was to the north of the north-east angle of the Temple. Between these two gates there was a third, leading to some streets situated to the east of the Temple, and inhabited for the most part by stonemasons and other workmen. The houses in these streets were supported by the foundations of the Temple; and almost all belonged to Nicodemus, who had caused them to be built, and who employed nearly all the workmen living there. Nicodemus had not long before built a beautiful gate as an entrance to these streets, called the Gate of Moriah. It was but just finished, and through it Jesus had entered the town on Palm Sunday.

Thus he entered by the new gate of Nicodemus, through which no one had yet passed, and was buried in the new monument of Joseph of Arimathea, in which no one had yet been laid. This gate was afterwards walled up, and there was a tradition that the Christians were once again to enter the town through it. Even in the present day, a walled-up gate, called by the Turks the Golden Gate, stands on this spot."

The mystical dimension is essential to a rich and spiritually fruitful religious life- it is the dimension of the heart and heart worship. Like other Jews the Chasidim study Torah and Talmud but not in a dry intellectual way but from a mystical perspective seeing beyond the letter of the text ascending into its heart-felt and mystical applications. In Catholicism there is also a danger of replacing the dry intellectualism of Modernist and Liberal theology (which could be associated with Saducean Judaism) with a dry and intellectual orthodoxy (which could be associated with Shammaite Phariseeism) or a dry evangelical form of Catholicism (which could be associated with Karaite Judaism) rather than an orthodox Catholicism imbued with mystical dimensions (which could be associated with Hillelite Phariseeism elevated with Essene mysticism of the followers of Menachem). Of course one also must be careful not to fall into extreme and fanatical forms of mysticism such as that of the fanatical Essenes of the Dead Sea region. 

The opening lines of the the 'Bahir' reveal why this book is called 'Bahir'. Bahir is the Divine Light called 'Brilliance' and is the light of the Attribute of Netzach (Victory). This is the Light or Victory of the Resurrection. Rabbi Nehuniah uses Job 37:21:"And now they do not see light, it is brilliant (bahir) in the skies (shechakim)... round about God in terrible majesty", to reveal to the secret adorers (Reapers of the Field) that the days of prophecy and mystic vision are not finished as claimed by Rabbinic Judaism (ie the Pharisees).  

The word 'shechakim' (skies) is associated in kabbalah with the Attributes (sefirot) of Netzach (Victory/ Endurance) and Hod (Majesty/Splendour). The light of Hod is called 'Radiance' (zohar) and is associated with the suffering Messiah ben Joseph of Isaiah 53. Netzach and Hod are the levels of prophecy and mystic vision connecting with gazing on the Divine Heart also called the Divine Man (Yosher/Adam Kadmon/ Ben Adam) through the mirror of the Mother (see Bahir 63).

Recently I did the readings at Mass and I had to control myself from stopping and re-translating the version used in our missals from the New Revised Standard Version. If I could I would rewrite all these missals and all copies of the New Revised Standard Version. Fancy getting a Jew to read: "He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances" in Ephesians 2:15. This is a totally incorrect and anti-Jewish interpretation. The Douay-Rheims Bible translate this as "Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees".

These same decrees are mentioned in Colossians 2:14 where St Paul refers to "the handwritings in decrees". Paul uses the Greek word dogmasin to translate the Hebrewgezerot . The average Catholic reads this and gets the impression that the Torah (Law) is abolished by Jesus on the Cross in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus who said "I came not to abolish but to establish the Law". These gezerot are nothing to do with the Biblical Commandments of the Torah but are the Rabbinic 18 gezerot enacted by the House of Shammai to ensure a stricter separation between Jews and Gentiles. It is these man-made decrees of the Sanhedrin by a faction of the Pharisees (they were opposed by the House of Hillel) that Heaven revealed to St Peter had been made void or annulled by the death of Jesus on the Cross (see Acts 10).  

St Paul is not making some radical antinomian statements but is following the ruling of St Peter who holds the Keys of the Kingdom. The orthodox Jews themselves annulled these stringent decrees of separation when Heaven spoke to the Sanhedrin that was gathered at Yavneh after the destruction of the Temple which now contained a majority of those from the House of Hillel. 

The Encyclopaedia of Judaism discusses these gezerot in an article about the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.   

"...For all their differences, the two schools did not hesitate to intermarry, even though they disagreed about several of the marriage laws. This amicable relationship gave way, through external pressures, to acrimonious debate and even physical violence. Such pressures may well have stemmed from the increasingly oppressive Roman rule (c. 65 CE).

Among the Shammaites, this evoked a sharp reaction and galvanized their wish to enact 18 prohibitive measures (gezerot) severely limiting contact between Jews and Gentiles. Outnumbering the School of Hillel, Shammai's followers triumphed and the measures were enacted. Some 40 years later, at Jabneh (Yavneh), it was finally resolved that the halakhah should always follow the opinion of Bet Hillel.

The Talmud (Er. 13b) expresses the decision in this way: "For three years, the schools of Shammai and Hillel contended, each insisting that its opinion constituted the halakhah. Thereupon, a heavenly voice [Bat Kol] proclaimed: 'Both of them are the words of the living God, but the halakhah is according to Bet Hillel.' Why, then, should the Hillelites have been granted the decision?---Because they were pleasant and humble, teaching the opinion of both sides, and always stated Bet Shammai's view before their own.".."

This Bat Kol is the feminine voice and is Our Lady in Eternity who hates all harshness and severity and always comes with a message of Divine Mercy and Love. She is the Heavenly voice or Bat Kol mentioned in the Talmud and in Acts 10. Bat Kol is translated into Greek as phone.

When Ephesians 2 is read in its Jewish context one sees that Paul is alluding to the separation of Jews and Gentiles, men and women in the Temple worship. He uses this Jewish paradigm to demonstrate that in the Eucharist (flesh, blood of Messiah), which is the worship ceremony of the New Covenant, the dividing walls and partitions that separated people in the Temple and reinforced by the Rabbinic 18 gezerot has been spiritually made void in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In the Eucharist we are all mystically one. Through the Eucharist those in the outer courts (far away) have now been mystically brought into the Eucharistic Holy of Holies (brought near).

These 18 gezerot were seen by the House of Shammai as part of the Pharisee endeavour to bring Temple sanctity and spirituality into the daily life and home of the Jewish family. An endeavour with which the House of Hillel also agreed and participated in. Thus, using the Temple principle of distinguishing the holy from the unholy and the ritually clean from the ritually unclean they (the Shammaites) took it a step too far for the House of Hillel and the ordinary Jewish people.

The House of Shammai took a principle which was part of an extra voluntary stringency popular in Judea at the time and gave it the force of law and then added even more stringencies that instead of increasing spirituality and sanctity caused hatred and division between peoples and a self-righteous attitude to others and their level of observance.

Paul was not really saying anything about the physical barriers observed in the Temple but of the barriers of the heart and mind. All he writes is in the context of the crucified Messiah in the Eucharist. All are equal in the domain of salvation - no-one is separated or excluded from the free gift of salvation offered by the Eucharistic Lord. It is in this mystical Eucharistic dimension that there is no barriers between Gentiles or Jews, women or men, slaves or free.

We know that in the early Church men and women sat separately (and had different roles) and that there were separate Jewish and Gentile congregations. Thus, we know that Paul was not speaking of outward modes of worship but of the mystical and inner world of the Spirit and Heart. He and the early Church were opposed to calling any man ritually unclean based on his nationality or ethnic group as in Baptism and the Eucharist (the Last Supper and Calvary as one event made present on the altars) all men were clean and any Rabbinic gezerot based on this false premise were void as they did not apply.

The original Temple and Tabernacle provided for a court of the Gentiles but with the growing fanaticism of the priests influenced by Sadducees the Court of the Gentiles was enclosed with a dividing Wall to separate them from the Jews. This wall was called "mesotoichon" (in the Greek) which is referred to in Ephesians 2 and also by the Jewish historian Josephus.

The Hebrew for this dividing wall was "Soreg". There was a small stone wall (Cheil or Hel) about half a cubit high and then surmounted by a ten handbreath high lattice work screen or fence (soreg). The area between the wall and the Couryard of the Women, that was 10 cubits, was also known as Cheil. In the cheil area 4 cubits were level and then in the remaining 6 cubits were 12 steps up to the Courtyard gates and wall. The Norse term for the underworld as Hel or Hell may come from this origin as a place of exclusion. The Norse expression "go to Hel" meant to die. On the Wall of Cheil in the Temple were signs warning that the penalty for Gentiles or the ritually unclean people going past this wall was the death penalty.

The word nomon or nomos in Greek could be a translation of the word Torah or it could be a translation of the Hebrew word chok or chok u mishpat which means Divine law, ordinance or decree. Dat is also another word that can mean law or custom and could be translated by nomon or nomos in the Greek. Thus it is not always clear which word in the Hebrew has been translated.

Dogmasin also is the Greek for decree or ordinance (gezerah or takanah). A gezerah is a Rabbinic prohibition whereas a takanah is a Rabbinic postive command - thus we know that Paul is most likely referring to gezerot (decrees) and not takanot (ordinances). Thus, the Hebrew of Ephesians 2:15 may refer to the dati mitzvot b'gezerot (law of commandments in decrees).

"...Nevertheless, Halachah (Torah law) distinguishes between biblical and rabbinical laws, applying a different set of standards to each of the two categories. One of these differences is that, according to many halachic authorities, biblical laws define the nature of their object, while rabbinical degrees are only prohibitions upon the person. For example, if biblical law forbids a certain food, this indicates that the very substance of the food is intrinsically negative and profane; on the other hand, rabbinical proscription of a certain food is strictly a prohibition upon the person not to eat it.

At first glance, this seems to indicate that rabbinical mitzvot are less "real" than biblical ones; that while the biblical law affects the very nature of its subject, the rabbinical law is superimposed over human life, having the authority to command and instruct but not to define reality. On a deeper level, however, this alludes to the fact that the rabbinical law is the more profound expression of the essence of the mitzvah as divine will.

The biblical mitzvot define the nature of our world, expressing the fact that their predominant element is the mitzvah's role as molder and illuminator of the created reality. Not so the rabbinical commandment, which is concerned only with what man should or should not do, not with how this affects him or his world. Thus it asserts the "decree" element of the mitzvah: the mitzvah as it transcends all relation to physical life, its sole purpose being the fulfillment of a divine desire."

Another reason that the 18 gezerot of the House of Shammai were annulled by Heaven, through the Sanhedrin in Yavneh and St Peter in Acts 10, was because they were based on a wrong premise and a confusion of biblical law (chok u mishpat) and rabbinic law (gezerot and takanot). The House of Shammai were enacting these 18 gezerot because they had judged that Gentiles were unclean and evil in themselves and could not attain to the World to Come unless they converted to Rabbinic Judaism. The House of Hillel disagreed - they saw that Gentiles could be righteous if they obeyed the seven laws of Noah and attain to the World to Come without needing to observe the Torah in the same manner as the Jews. In a sense it was impossible for Gentiles to be ritually unclean (only a Jewish person could be) as they were not commanded to be ritually clean.

Even in the time of Noah we know that animals were classified as ritually clean or unclean. This meant that certain animals were suitable for sacrifice to God, others were not. Noah and his sons were permitted to eat all animals those ritually clean and those ritually unclean. It is only with the giving of the Torah at Sinai that a new discipline or stringency was made law for Israelites. That new Discipline was for Israelites to refrain from eating ritually unclean animals and only eat from the category of ritually clean animals. The animals in themselves were not clean or unclean (kosher or non-kosher, suitable or unsuitable) but clean or unclean for ritual purposes. Thus a horse is ritually unsuitable for eating by Jews but not for riding.

 

For the believer in Jesus a new paradigm falls into place where all Catholic canon laws (the gezerot and takanot of the New Covenant) must be evaluated through an Eucharistic focus on the Salvation of souls as Paul demonstrates in Ephesians 2. If the translation in our modern Breviaries and Bibles is correct then no Jew would become a Catholic and Paul would be considered rightly as an apostate for holding to antinomianism. This translation makes St Paul seem schizophrenic as in Romans 3:31 he says: 

"Do we, then, destroy the law (Torah) through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law (Torah)."

 We can't at the same time establish or build up the Torah if at the same time we are abolishing it.

Shabbat Col Ha Moed Pesach (the Sabbath of the Intermediate Days) means the 5 days (or 4 days in the Diaspora) between the two Yom Tov's (literally good day but meaning high holy day) of the first and the last days of Passover. Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer states that whether the Sabbath occurs on one of the High Holidays or on the intermediate days of Passover it is a special day of Sanctity (kedusha). 

Thus, it is no wonder that the Pharisees wanted to avoid ritually becoming impure and wanted to have time to prepare for this Sabbath of Devekut (Cleaving/Nearness/ Closeness to the Divine). On this Sabbath within Passover the Haftarah reading is Ezekiel 37 speaking of the resurrection of the dry bones of Israel. So while the body of Jesus was still in the tomb and about to rise from the dead, his Jewish people are reflecting on the resurrection of Israel in the haftarah reading.

Even among Jews one also hears the opinion that Jesus was a holy Rabbi but Paul was the apostate who started a new religion called Christianity. However even within Orthodox Judaism there have been those who do not accept this false dichotomy. One of the leading halakhic authorities of the last few hundred years Rabbi Jacob Emden saw both Jesus and Paul as holy Rabbis who observed the Jewish Torah while founding a religion for Gentiles who did not need to observe the Torah in a Jewish manner. Even some recent Rabbis have also revived this teaching of Rabbi Emden such as Hasidic Rabbi Harvey Falk in his book “Jesus the Pharisee” as mentioned above. 

For the orthodox Christian whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant the historicity of the Resurrection events is central to their faith. In accord with this traditional faith the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ affirms that the Resurrection and its manifestations are “real events” and are “historically verifiable”.  However with the advent of the Modernist Higher Critical theology and its offshoots, over the last two hundred years, this orthodox Christian teaching has been called into question. There have arisen theologians who do not believe in or seriously question the historicity of the events of Jesus death and resurrection. Some of them speak of the Resurrection as a subjective experience of the Christ and they make a dichotomy between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History. These interpretations of Christ’s Resurrection draw from a world view that is philosophical and naturalistic rather than Jewish or Christian. The event of Jesus of Nazareth’s death and Resurrection is an event situated within the ‘faith’ based community of Pharisaic Judaism. When theology and philosophy divorce themselves from the Jewish and Pharisaic roots of the Christian faith then a subtle form of Gnostic Christianity takes its place. 

Even though the Greek Mark was written for Gentiles it is necessary to understand the Jewish cultural context of the Hebrew original. Mark 7 is a good example. Many exegetics misinterpret Mark 7 in an anti-Jewish manner. Father Daniel Harrington SJ writes based on his faulty antinomian interpretation of Mark 7 that Jesus:

...gives a public statement and a private explanation about the invalidity of the Jewish food laws... rejects the Pharisaic tradition surrounding the law’s observance... and abrogates the OT food laws...

Jesus and the writer of the Gospel of Mark did not intend to discredit the traditions of the Sages of Israel. Jesus did criticize a group of Pharisees and Scribes who were placing the teachings of the Sages (Chazal) above the Biblical commandments and interpreting them in a way that distorted both the Sages teachings and Scripture. Mark in chapter 7 verses 3-4 is not criticizing the Jewish customs about various washings but explaining them to the Gentile audience he is writing to. 

Jesus also in Mark 7 gives some examples of this misuse of Scripture and Tradition. These Pharisees and Scribes appeal to the authentic ‘traditions of the Sages’ but Jesus never criticizes this tradition only the twisted reasoning of this group who have misused the ‘traditions of the Sages’ to create their own man-made tradition that actually undermines the Torah and its interpretation by the Sages. Jesus very pointedly calls it “your tradition” to distinguish it from the “tradition of the Sages”.

 Jesus using the commandment of “Honour thy mother and father”, as an example, demonstrates this unspiritual approach. Jesus is not criticizing the idea of a korban or the setting aside of gifts for God’s service. What he is criticizing is this groups perverted use of tradition to justify their evil desire to not help their parents and thus by their twisted use of tradition they undermined the written Torah and make the mosaic tradition of no value. 

When they criticized others for not performing n’tilat yadaim (washing of hands), Jesus saw that it was from a hypocritical heart of judging others on secondary matters that at this time was not even a universal custom. Unfortunately this has been confused by the Greek of the text which has translated the Hebrew work ‘kol’ as ‘all’ when in Hebrew it can also mean ‘many’. The text should read in English ‘and many of the Judeans’ rather than “and all the Jews”. 

The Jews of the Galilee had a different minhag (custom) but it is obvious that Jesus himself observed the Judean and Pharisee minhag as they did not criticize him for eating without doing n’tilat yadaim, only some of his disciples. The reason for this is that Jesus’ family originally came from Judea and observed this greater stringency of washing before eating ordinary food (chullin/ common) that many of the Pharisees practiced at that time. This stringency is not what Jesus condemned when done in the right spirit of enhancing the spiritual sanctity in ordinary acts, but when this stringency was used as a judgment of how pure another Jew was, he was indignant. 

There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the Kingdom of God

The Eucharist is both meal and sacrifice. These two elements need to be kept in balance. The original Jewish Passover and the Sabbath meal itself, both include the Meal aspect and a sacrificial aspect. What would the Passover be without the concept of the Passover Lamb and the shedding of its blood for the protection/ redemption of the Israelites? The Sabbath Meal is full of Temple and Sacrificial symbolism and was part of the Pharisee endeavour to bring the sanctity of the Temple spirituality into the home of the ordinary Jew. When the sacrificial aspect is emphasised to the detriment of the meal aspect we can be in danger of turning the Eucharist into a magical ritual for good luck and prosperity that is self-focused rather than other-focused. This over ritualisation can lead away from personal intimacy and encounter and an inordinate concern with outward forms and customs.

Some writers would hold that Jesus followed the Saducee and Essene reckoning of the counting of the Omer but this would contradict Matthew 23 where Jesus states that the Scribes and Pharisees sit in the Chair or Seat of Moses. Also the dating of these events according to Rebbe Nachman and Breslov would confirm this. Today in a sense the Wave offering and Terumah lifted is combined as one in the lifting up and waving the lulav and etrog on sukkot and in the Catholic Church when the priest lifts the Monstrance (golden vessel for holding the Eucharistic Host) and blesses the people with a cross like movement with the Sacrament. The lulav symbolises the male Messiah and the etrog the heart, womb and breast of the Messiah's mother just as the monstrance symbolises Our Lady and the Sacrament (Eucharisted bread in the Monstrance) is the Messiah's real presence.

I have discovered the writings of the great Catholic historian Christopher Dawson. He writes about the spiritual and mystical Catholic as a man of eroticism, desire and passion like St Francis of Assisi and St Augustine. True erotic love is generous, warm hearted and giving rather than the self-absorbed, parsimonious and economic cold "charity" of the bourgeois. However Dawson's warning is for all of us who have that hidden closed Shammai Pharisee or Bourgeois within us. He proclaims: 

"...The question of the bourgeois involves a real issue which Christians cannot afford to shirk. For it is difficult to deny that there is a fundamental disharmony between bourgeois and Christian civilization and between the mind of the bourgeois and the mind of Christ. But first let us admit that it is no use hunting for the bourgeois. For we are all more or less bourgeois and our civilization is bourgeois from top to bottom. Hence there can be no question of treating the bourgeois in the orthodox communist fashion as a gang of antisocial reptiles who can be exterminated summarily by the revolutionary proletariat; for in order to "liquidate" the bourgeoisie modern society would have to "liquidate" itself...".  

Dawson champions a Christian ethos that is creative, free, passionate and mystically erotic:  

"...Seen from this point of view, it is obvious that the Christian ethos is essentially antibourgeois, since it is an ethos of love. This is particularly obvious in the case of St. Francis and the mediaeval mystics, who appropriated to their use the phraseology of mediaeval erotic poetry and used the antibourgeois concepts of the chivalrous class-consciousness, such as "adel,""noble," and "gentile," in order to define the spiritual character of the true mystic..."

Dawson writes about this erotic type as open and the spiritual bourgeois as closed.  

"...But it is no less clear in the case of the Gospel itself. The spirit of the Gospel is eminently that of the "open" type which gives, asking nothing in return, and spends itself for others. It is essentially hostile to the spirit of calculation, the spirit of worldly prudence and above all to the spirit of religious self-seeking and self-satisfaction. For what is the Pharisee but a spiritual bourgeois, a typically "closed" nature, a man who applies the principle of calculation and gain not to economics but to religion itself, a hoarder of merits, who reckons his accounts with heaven as though God was his banker?

It is against this "closed," self-sufficient moralist ethic that the fiercest denunciations of the Gospels are directed. Even the sinner who possesses a seed of generosity, a faculty of self-surrender, and an openess of spirit is nearer to the kingdom of heaven than the "righteous" Pharisee; for the soul that is closed to love is closed to grace...".

Pope Francis is fully in tune and accord with Dawson and Pope Benedict against these middle class and 'respectable' bourgeois who are morally and ethically obsessed in the manner of the 'closed' Pharisees of Jesus own time.These insights of course would be even greatly enhanced when read in light of Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body". These spiritual bourgeois shudder at the very mention of the words eros and erotic and cling to a disembodied spirituality that has more in common with Gnosticism rather than true Catholic erotic mysticism rooted in the human experience. It would seem Greek Philosophy (the preserve of an intellectual elite) separated itself from the passionate humanity of the Greek mythic characters (beloved and meaningful to the ordinary person). 

The Church took both and saw in them the hidden seeds or sparks of the Gospel which were then adapted and transformed in order to more fully understand and enculturate the Gospel into the Romano-Greek societies. Pope Francis seems to be making the same point that we can't just focus on a few moral issues without reference and integration of the whole rich tapestry of Catholic Faith and teaching.

Pope Francis has said that the Eucharist should not be seen as a reward for the good and pious but as healing for the wounded sinners. It is those who like the extreme Pharisees and Scribes shut up heaven for the wounded, broken and hurting that may be in danger of being in mortal sin. Many of the Pharisees were sincere in their rigidness just as many orthodox Catholics today are in their rigid adherence to certain pastoral applications that they consider a necessary fence around the infallible doctrines of the Church. Pope Francis, just like Jesus 2000 years ago, sees it differently and believes that love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness is the true pastoral approach that protects the infallible teachings and releases their full power and glory to save souls and lead them into a deeper sanctification. 

Ivan Illich speaks of an ethics of gaze and the tradition of ethical iconology in an “age of show”. Emmanuel Levinas’ ethical iconology of intimate face to face encounter and the beholding of the other and his needs is very different to the rather utilitarian and superficial concept of “interface”. The utilitarian interface is a transitive verb that glances at the other in order to use the other. For me Nazi art propaganda of the Third Reich has this kind of showy “interface” feel to it as does that of Stalinist communist art propaganda. What may be worse is the rather bland and mediocre art of modern day Christians or the empty ritualism and aestheticism of the so-called rad-trad (radical traditionalist) Catholics.  

It is a false iconology of the whitened sepulchre that hides the deadening uniformity, blandness, opressiveness and brutality of totalitarian institutions where the person becomes merely a number in a grey landscape or an object to be marshaled and used for the rigid Idealist objectives. Anyone who resists these totalities are demonised, slandered and ostracised. Pope Francis is fighting hard through his teaching to preserve the Catholic Church from becoming such a conformist and uniform totality by both those on the left (worldly rigid Idealist modernists) and those on the right (triumphalist rigid Idealist conservatives). I see Pope John Paul II and a great cloud of witnesses cheering Pope Francis on in the Celestial realm in his battle against the modern day worldly and powerful Sadducees of the left and the rigid, moralistic and legalistic Shammai-like Pharisees of the right.

The differences between the Infancy sections of Matthew and Luke’s Gospel accounts are due to the authors selecting those events that would most fit the audience and purpose of their Gospel. Luke’s Gospel is addressed to Theophilus who is most likely to be the former High Priest and a Hellenistic influenced Jew as is St Luke according to some scholars. Matthew’s audience is more Judean and Pharisee in composition. The genealogy of Matthew is that of St Joseph and the genealogy of  St. Luke is that of Our Lady. 

They reflect the differences of approach and audience where Matthew’s Infancy is showing Jesus as the Davidic Messiah son of David and son of Joseph and Luke’s Infancy, Jesus as the son of Mary (Miriam), the living Ark of the Covenant (Luke 1:35,42). Luke’s Infancy is more priestly and Temple based and focused on the Divine Presence. Matthew’s Gospel focuses on Jesus as the messianic son of Joseph and son of David who fulfills the Biblical prophecies of the coming King Messiah. 

It would seem Ananias who baptised Paul sent him to the desert of Arabia for three years where he most likely lived in a Essene-like monastic community of new believers from among the Essene mystical Jews learning more about his new Messianic faith and planning his strategy for his future mission to the Gentiles. This would explain Paul's preference for the simple life and his great appreciation of the celibate life. It is probably there he learnt the Essene mystical secrets and the Essene method of studying Scripture (from these disciples of Menachem the Essene) which he combined with the seven principles he learnt from the Pharisee House of Hillel under Rabban Gamaliel. 

The Gospels reread through their original Jewish paradigm as a Messianic midrash on the Torah gives a fresh insight into the life and mission of Yeshua haMashaich. Pope John Paul II said: “He who encounters Jesus Christ encounters Judaism.” Yeshua comes to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven. Glasser states that the mission of Yeshua as recorded in the New Testament is incomprehensible without the Hebrew Scriptures of the First Covenant people. This good news of the kingdom has a mystical and eschatological focus made present in the Eucharist. 

Unfortunately while many are studying Yeshua in his life as an observant first century and Second Temple Jew, they are neglecting the whole mystical and eschatological dimensions of the interpretation found in Scripture and both Judaism and Christianity. Matthew’s Gospel teaches us that Yeshua did not come to destroy the Torah or the prophets. He was the ultimate fulfilment or perfection of the promise found in the Torah and the prophets as the Messiah of Israel. 

This perfection of the Torah is summed up in the eight Beatitudes. Matthew also confirms that he has not come to overthrow traditional Judaism for the Scribes and the Pharisee Rabbis sit in the authentic seat of Moses. Yeshua also sums up his mission in the words of the ‘Our Father’- “thy Kingdom come, they Will be done on earth as it is in heaven, give us today our daily bread”. The concept of “today” found in Psalm 95:7-8 and Hebrews 3:15 alludes to the link between “today” and the daily bread or manna of Exodus 16:25. The deepest penetration of this eschatological and sacramental mystery of the Eucharist is to dwell in the Divine Will on earth as they do in heaven.

Many Gentile Christians read the Gospels and see that Yeshua and his disciples at times broke the Sabbath laws and conclude that Yeshua (Jesus) did not value the Sabbath and that he abolished the Jewish Sabbath observance. Some Jewish Christians try to defend Yeshua and the disciples by denying the authority of the Rabbis and claiming that Yeshua didn't break the Biblical laws of the Sabbath. This is another form of sola scriptura that rejects the authority of the community and its leadership in being the interpreters of Scripture and Tradition (Written and oral Torah). Yeshua as a devout Jew and Pharisee accepted both, he was no Sadducee or Karaite.

While most Catholics reject this sola scriptura approach for the New Testament and its leadership, they often do accept it for the Old Testament and its leadership. Yeshua himself in Matthew 23, affirmed the authority of the Scribes and the Pharisaic Rabbis as sitting on the Seat or Chair of Moses and he also affirmed in Matthew 7 that he had no intention of abolishing even the smallest part of the Torah and Prophets. If he did, then no Jew could follow him as he would be a false Messiah.

Did Yeshua and his disciples break the Sabbath laws? The answer is yes they did. However, in doing this Yeshua adhered to Jewish Halachic principals. It would have been sinful for him not to break the Sabbath laws in certain situations because there are higher laws that one must obey. These higher laws are those of doing good by alleviating human need and suffering by showing compassionate mercy. 

The laws of mercy and love are higher than the laws of the Temple service, just as the laws of the Temple Service are higher than the laws of the Sabbath. When they are in conflict the lower laws yield to the higher and the negative commandments to the positive. This is part of the kal v'chomer principles of Halachah. Today Pope Francis is returning Catholic teaching to this original approach to the rules and laws of the Catholic faith to its original sources in the Gospels and the teaching of Yeshua. And today, we also have rigid Catholic Pharisees, who oppose the Pope's reorientation to a Biblical approach rooted into the Halachic principals, outlined by Yeshua himself, as the priority of mercy and love.

In Luke 14 at a dinner held by a prominent Pharisee leader, who may have been Gamaliel himself, Yeshua defended his Halachic argument about doing good or showing mercy on the Sabbath through healing. It would seem Gamaliel and the other Pharisees present agreed with his argument or at least had no response to it. Gamaliel later would defend the Apostles and St Clement reveals that Gamaliel became a secret disciple of Yeshua, with the permission of St Peter in order to help the persecuted believers. Gamaliel was the Nasi (Davidic president) and Av Bet Din (Chief Rabbi) of the Sanhedrin and thus the one who sat on the Seat of Moses, thus defers to the higher authority of the Seat of Peter.

The priestly Tabernacle sanctity which was part of the mystery of the dwelling presence and Glory in the Temple was extended to the laity by the Pharisees. The best of Pharisee teaching was bringing of the kedushah (holiness/sanctity) of the temple to the homes and lives of the ordinary Jews. Due to Jesus' clash with the leaven (hametz) of the five hypocritical groups of Pharisee we often forget the two good groups of the moderate Essenes (mystics) and the Hillelites (practitioners of mercy and loving kindness). 

Back in 2017 in our Catholic parish the literary icon of the Church as the Great Sign in Apocalypse 12 was being discussed by many in the light of many diverse ordinary Christians believing that just such an alignment in the constellation of Virgo would appear over Jerusalem on September 23 2017 and its meaning in regards to the future of the Church. Many Protestants are seeing it as a sign connected with the rapture of the Church, many Catholics are seeing its connection with Fatima where Virgin Miriam appeared clothed with the Sun in 1917 and its 100th Anniversary this year. 

Is this a new form of theological ecclesial ecumenism among the ordinary believers as both devout Protestants and Catholics are associating this Great Sign in the Heavens (Sky) with the Church, Israel and the Virgin Miriam and a time of persecution or chastisement followed by a new springtime or era of peace for the Church and the world? No doubt the theological and clerical elites will ignore such forms of ecclesial ecumenism among the little ones of their flocks much in the way the Pharisees and Sadducees did in Second Temple times until the Temple and religious structures they had built fell down round their ears. The scholarly elites, while bringing much of value, often write much about diversity but often limit that diversity to that which fits their own paradigm of understanding.

The Hillel and Essene traditions of Pharisaic Judaism were the most influential on the early Church but also the priestly or Temple rituals were also important to many Jews coming into the New Covenant Church especially those from the Sadducee tradition. The Judaisers most likely coming from the Shammai school of the Pharisees into the Messianic community also played a role in the early Church. It would seem that there is some evidence that the Hillel strand of the Jewish Church (centred in Jerusalem headed by a Messianic Davidic Nasi or Abbot) and the Essene strand (centred in Edessa headed by a charismatic prophet or Tzadik) may have developed in separate paths after 70 AD.

There were also a strong input of the Hellenist Jews to the early Church. The later Church of the Uncircumcision or Gentiles after 70 AD starting developing in different directions with a more monarchical rule by bishops but still with its roots in Jewish thought and practice. In the 5th century most of the remnants of the Jewish Church assimilated either into the Gentile Church or the Jewish Synagogue where they secretly maintained their Jewish Christian traditions and gradually some of these traditions and ideas were integrated into the Church or Synagogue. 

Campbell, Nanos, Eisenbaum and Tucker have supported the interpretation that Paul was a Torah observant Jew after his Damascus road experience. Nanos in his study of Romans states that Paul is a good practicing Jew although shaped by his conviction that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. Paul is also a Jewish mystic. Paul’s mysticism is rooted in the Pharisee’s desire to enhance Jewish domestic holiness by applying Temple sanctity into the life and home of the Jewish devotee. 

Ephesians 2 is an example of this Pauline Jewish mystical context that alludes to mystical insights in regards to the Temple to explain the mystery of salvation. However due to the more mystical nature of Ephesians and Colossians some scholars have claimed that these letters were not written by Paul at all. However two important scholars Campbell and Wright both consider Ephesians to be written by Paul. 

Paul in Romans 3 says that the Torah should be established or upheld (Rom 3:31). Ephesians states “He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules” (Eph 2:15, GNT). This however is better translated as “Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees” (Eph 2:15, DRA). These “commandments in decrees” (dogmasin in Greek) refer to the eighteen rabbinic decrees (gezerot in Hebrew) enacted by the Sanhedrin under the control of the Beit Shammai Pharisees. These eighteen gezerot made a much stricter separation between Jews and Gentiles. That these gezerot are the ‘commandments in decrees’ that has been nailed to the Cross and abolished makes much more sense than Paul saying that the Jewish Torah has been abolished.

The more mystical understanding of salvation in Paul (Gal 3:28) may then be understood that there are no barriers to salvation between groups or people even though they still have their distinct callings. This allows for the joining of Jews and Gentiles in the one family of Abraham. Paul confirms in Romans that God’s election of the Jews is irrevocable (Rom 11:29). Thus Paul after his Damascus Road experience is truly a Jewish prophet who is called to include the Gentiles in Israel’s inheritance without converting them to Judaism. 

While his place for Gentiles in the people of God has roots in the teachings of Beit Hillel, Paul provides a unique way or path for Gentiles who believe in Jesus as the Messiah. He does this while himself remaining a proud observant Jew and Pharisee (Phil 3:5; Acts 22:3,23:6). In Romans 11 Paul alludes to some great spiritual resurrection for the Gentiles and the world in the eschatological future as a result of the ‘ingrafting’ of the surviving Jewish community into the Olive Tree that is the Church.

Michael Benjamin Cover asks the question in "Paulus als Yischmaelit?: The Personification of Scripture as Interpretive Authority in Paul and the School of Rabbi Ishmael” about what school of the Pharisees did St Paul belong to before his embrace of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Cover agrees with Joachim Jeremias that Paul was originally a Hillelite rather than a Shammaite as proposed by N.T Wright. Cover proposes that Paul’s approach to hermeneutics was similar to that of the Ishmaelite school within Hillelite Pharisaism as opposed to the Akiban school of interpretation. This approach is that of the personification of Scripture as a self interpreting authority. 

Cover discusses the importance of hearing Scripture in both Paul and Ishmael’s approaches as well as a lack of references to halakhic authorities outside Scripture itself. Cover also mentions two collaborating features of Pauline and Ishmaelian thought in regard to universalism and mystical ascent. Cover however does caution that Paul is not always proto- Ishmaelian in his approach and he gives some examples of how Paul can be proto-Akiban. This article is very important as it helps one to get a clearer understanding of the Jewish and Pharisaic background of Paul before his “conversion” and how this background manifests in his letters after his transforming experience of the risen Messiah.

Christian and Jewish spirituality have two main ways- that of the way of darkness (zohar) and the way of light (bahir). From this developed what is called apophatic and cataphatic theologies. It would seem that in Second Temple Judaism the Temple priests and Pharisees were focused on the way of Zohar and the sacrificial system of the Temple whereas the Essenes were focused on the way of Bahir as the sons of light and a theology of the beauty of Creation. 

The way of darkness (zohar) in Judaism is represented by the figures of Elijah, Isaac and Aaron and the Shekhinah as feminine Wisdom (the Moon). In the Church this would become the spirituality of Rome and the West with its focus on law and the passion and cross as the way of salvation. 

The way of light (bahir) in Judaism is represented by the figures of Enoch, Abraham and Moses and Metatron and masculine Wisdom (the Sun). In the church this became the spirituality of Ephesus (Byzantine) with its ontological focus, the resurrection and the way of divinisation. 

A third or middle way that combined the ways of Zohar and Bahir was that of Hillel Phariseeism which could be called Nogah (illuminating light), which is represented by the figures of Jacob, Joseph and David and the Memra (Word of God) and Daat (knowledge) and Sekhel (intelligence) as an integration of feminine and masculine wisdom. In the Church this became the spirituality of Edessa (Syriac) with its emphasis on Christianity as a way of life and sanctification.

Beginning in the 2nd century AD the sanguine and mystical approach (esoteric) to exegesis is found in the school of Rabbi Akiva and the melancholic and logical approach (exoteric) to exegesis in the school of Rabbi Ishmael. Both schools used the four senses but the Akibans emphasis remez (allegorical) and sod (mystical) and the Ishmaelis the peshat (literal historical) and drash (moral homiletical). Rabbi Akiva developed the teachings of Nehunia ben HaKanah a disciple of Menachem the Essene and Rabbi Ishmael developed his thirteen exegetical principles from the seven exegetical principles of the school of Hillel the Pharisee.  Menachem was paired (zugot) with Hillel as the leaders of the Rabbis of the Rabbinic Sanhedrin. Menachem was replaced by Shammai a more rigorist Pharisee.

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. However, Beattie may disagree with me as he felt that in modern scholarship there was too much philosophical and midrashic exegesis (drash) and not enough philological and literal exegesis (peshat). I do feel some sympathy with Beattie’s sentiment but don’t think the different ways of exegeting should necessarily exclude the others.  

As a practicing and believing Catholic, of Jewish background and ancestry, I am bound to accept the reading of Scripture (which is infallible and inerrant in all its parts) with all the four senses as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would also be wise to listen to the words of the Messiah when he taught that the Jewish Pharisee Rabbis and Scribes sat on the teaching Chair of Moses. 

Therefore, a truly Catholic hermeneutic that includes the literal (peshat), moral (drash), allegorical (remez) and anagogical (sod) levels is necessary. This hermeneutic for the reading and understanding of Scripture must also be based on the analogy of faith. The Promise that the toledot genre of the Hebrew Scriptures carries, is fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah and the New Testament opens with a toledot heading. The DuTillet and Shem Tob Hebrew versions of Matthew preserved in the Jewish communities both use the term “ellehtoledot” (these are the genealogies) in Matt.1:1.

Rather than elleh toledot‘the book of the origins’ (Βίβλος γενέσεως) is found in the Greek of Matt.1:1 or ‘writings of the genealogies’ (כתבא דילידותה) in Aramaic. The Church Fathers taught that one must read the Hebrew Old Testament in the light of the New Testament and that hidden in the Old is the New. Thus a truly Catholic hermeneutical approach needs to be incarnational. The whole idea of the genealogical story of toledot allows for an incarnating of the Divine in the genealogical family story and events, enfleshed in the words of the Hebrew Bible and the oral Tradition that accompanies it.

 Ontological theology and Mystical theology use the same terminology but they often mean different things. Those with a vertical mindset (logical steps and the order of a cultivated garden) are often more drawn to ontology and those with a latitudinal mindset (intuitive leaps and the freedom of the woods and the wild) to the mystical. I would describe the first as the Benedictine and Dominican ascent of Mt Subiaco and the second as the Carmelite and Franciscan ascent of Mt Carmel. 

In Judaism this could be expressed in the differences between the Pharisee and Litvak approach (ascent of Mt Sinai) and the Essene and Hasidic approach (ascent of Mt Zion). The first with its focus on Talmud and Mussar (the way of the mind) and the second with its focus on Kabbalah and Hasidut (the way of the heart). Both approaches are needed to keep an orthodox balance and a fruitful creativity. Talmud study without Mussar teaching (a form of intellectualism) leads to spiritual danger and sterility as does Kabbalah study without Hasidut (a form of Gnosticism). 

Talmud and Mussar (Law and Morals) without Kabbalah and Hasidut (Mystical Prayer Devotions and Charitable Kindness) can become intellectualism mixed with moralism and Kabbalah and Hasidut without Talmud and Mussar can become Occultic Gnosticism mixed with emotionalism. Thus the meeting of the human mind and heart are a kind of incarnational rendezvous of intellect and experience which ascends through intellectual or ontological contemplation united or cleaving to experiential or mystical contemplation to the the Divine Mind and Heart in Divine Intimacy. Thus the human and his acts and life becomes divinised in the Divine Will.

In my interpretation of genetics in a creationist timescale I hold that the core haplogroups of the Shammai Pharisees were J1 and E1b y-dna, the core haplogroup of the Saducees was J2 and the core group of the Hillel Pharisees was R1b-Z2103. R1b Jews seem to be the most open to converting to Christianity over the centuries and were the group in Western and Central Europe most decimated in the Shoah (especially those Dutch, French and German Jews of R1b-U106 of the Tribe of Zebulon (and of a branch of the Davidic House of R1b-DF98 y-dna) and the R1b-U152 of the Tribe of Reuben, descended from the Rhadanite Jews and those R1b Jews of the Davidic House of Nathan of R1b-L21). Many of the R1b Sefardi Jews (30 % of Sefardi Jews) and R1b Converso Jews (55% of Jewish Converso families) today come from R1b-DF27 of the Tribe of Simeon.

Zohar Balak: Verse 29

Zohar Balak: Verse 30

They heard and marveled at his statement. They raised their hands and blessed him. They said, "It is certainly so, because today we were busy taking care of a bridegroom and a bride that did not have what they needed, and were thus being delayed in their coupling. There was no one  else to assist them and we did our best for them. Thus we could not recite the Shema at its appropriate time. And whoever is performing a mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah". They said to him, "My Son how did you know?" He said to them, "By the smell of your garments I knew, when I approached you". They marvelled, sat down, washed their hands and ate bread. 

These two Rabbis represent in this account two schools of the Pharisees who encounter the Yenuka (Youth) who is the Child-Messiah who is living at this time in Britain with his virgin father St Joseph who is the Davidic Kingly heir and associated as a Tzaddik with the sign of the fish and Joseph. The woman of this account is Our Lady. St Joseph is not present in the house as he is away at the metal (lead, zinc, iron and silver) mines in the Mendip Hills with his relative St Joseph of Arimathea (also known as a Josephite Fisher King) who also lives to the north of modern day Somerton but south of the original Somerton (Caer Sumer) in a Romano-Jewish village that would one day be known as the Glas Isle or Glastonbury.

Rabbi Isaac may represent the more rigorous Shammai Pharisees and Rabbi Judah the Hillel or the less stringent Pharisees or they may have been two different schools within Phariseeism. It would seem that they belong to the Pharisee school of Rav Shemaya (Shemaiah) (who was the Davidic Nasi of the Sanhedrin) who was a leader before Hillel and Shammai. This would demonstrate that these events were not happening in the 2nd century (among the disciples of Rav Sh'mon bar Yochai) nor even in the late 1st century (among the disciples of Rav Shimon Kepha) but in the early years of the 1st century. Rav Shemaya was either the same person or a cousin of Shemaya the Babylonian Exilarch b.80 BC died 20 BC. His father was a Davidic Prince of the Kingdom of the Bructeri (in ancient Germany) descended from Shemaya ha David the King of the Bructeri b.182 BC d.133 BC who descended from Crown Prince Yochanan the son of King Josiah.

 It would seem that Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Judah followed  the teaching that one did not have to do prayer (Amidah or ShemoneiEsre) or Tefillin or the Shema if one was involved in a mitzvah for someone else. Another group of Pharisees taught that in this case they would be exempt from Amidah and Tefillin but not from reciting Shema. In the next part we see that Rabbi Isaac washes his hands first and then makes the bracha (this is assumed in the story) whereas Rabbi Judah makes the bracha first and then washes his hands. The wonder Child then transcends this outward observance to ascend to the mystical level. Is he doing this because he knows that Rabbi Isaac is looking down on Rabbi Judah in his heart and judging him for not practicing the mitzvah in the manner he thinks it should be? 

The chaff of the Jewish people (the leaven of the five hypocritical kinds of Pharisees) must be removed by the winds of history until they are purified and join the nations of the world in worshiping the Messiah. The three thousand Jews at Pentecost are a sign of this, just as the 300 followers of Gideon alludes to this winnowing. This understanding needs to be understood in the context that the Talmud (Sotah 22b) teaches that there were 5 hypocritical groups of Pharisees and 2 good ones. The two good ones are the Hillel Pharisees (the merciful or loving ones) and the Essene Pharisees (those who have reverential awe of God).

St Nicodemus (Nakdimon), thou who embodiest the concept of Emet shebeNetzach, and sought the Divine Truth from the lips of the Mashiach in the secret of the Night pray that we may receive and enter into Emet shebeNetzach.