Legends, fables, and history blend together without any sense of direction in most discussions and writings about the 5th Century “Apostle to the Irish.” In this new book from the Christian Encounters series entitled Saint Patrick by Jonathan Rogers, however, there is a literary excellence accompanied by scholastic caution and a concern for spiritual edification. In other words, I’ve yet to run across any book about Patrick that does so well. Dr. Rogers begins with the hazards of researching writing on Patrick but launches into the biography with the things we do know about him, both certainly and questionably, with several “sidebars” in the realm of lore.

The work is as complete as it can be, insofar as things directly relate to a biographical sketch of Patrick, his life and ministry. Rogers’ concern for Patrick’s spirituality and sense of calling are clearly at the forefront of his orientation, and, it would seem, based on Patrick’s writings (contained in Appendices A & B), they were for Patrick as well. Representing this British Paul carefully and honorably is certainly accomplished by Rogers and anyone who is in the least intrigued by Patrick would benefit from reading this book in whatever format they may.

Moses received Torah from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They said three things: be deliberate in judgment, raise many disciples, and make a hedge for Torah. (Avot 1:1, writerʼs translation)

Containing teachings from R. Simeon the Just in the 3rd century B.C. up until the compilation of the same by R. Judah the Prince in the 3rd century A.D., Pirke Avot is a curious tractate (section) within Mishnah, the collection of the Rabbinic “oral Torah”. In part, it contains the most straightforwardly ethical teachings of all Mishnah and, unlike the rest of Mishnah, has no further commentary by later generations (Gemara). Its purpose is made evident by the first passage of the tractate: how the devout Jewish leader should approach judgment (deliberateness), the preservation of the teaching (disciples), and the purpose of his authority (hedging Torah).

This three-fold mandate, according to Avot, was passed from Mosesʼ own teaching from Sinai and was passed down through the centuries by the faithful of Yahweh. It is not within the purpose of this paper to judge the historical accuracy of this claim, but simply to acknowledge that, during the inter-testamental period, a view similar to this at least exists among the schools of the Pharisees and scribes. This has significance for our interpretation of the gospels, and the rest of the New Testament. As Perez wrote:

[I]n a way, we could say that the New Testament and Rabbinic literature are the oral tradition that always accompanied Scripture. Neither of them, therefore, has been able to avoid taking the other into consideration. That is why the Rabbinic literature is as important to the exegesis of the New Testament as the latter is to coming to know Rabbinic Judaism (Perez 103).

So when a rabbi from Galilee begins teaching and interpreting Torah “as one who authority” (Matt. 7:29 ESV), there is certainly a contrast with many of the teachers of his day, but there is also a great deal of commonality. This can be seen in the common theological presuppositions that Jesus shares with other rabbis in the centuries preceding his first century ministry. It can also be found in the comparative teaching presented by these rabbis.

Before comparison can even be done, it must first be shown that Jesus even thinks of himself as one speaking within the stream of rabbinic teaching. It has been common in the history of interpretation to read Jesus as introducing a discontinuous revelation or, at least, a modified revelation surpassing that at Sinai (Morris, Blomberg, et al). Draper, however, suggests differently:

While the symbolic depiction of authoritative teaching (ʻnew lawʼ), given on the mountain, need not imply a literal ʻnew Sinaiʼ, it does draw on the Sinai symbolism to legitimate the teaching and to indicate its continuity with the Torah. The symbol need not be seen in terms of replacement. Indeed, continuity is more likely to be the root of Matthewʼs usage. (Draper 32).

Matthewʼs recounting of the sermon demonstrates this with the phrase formula “You have heard that it was said…but I say.” This is not a mere rhetorical device and has meaning for Matthewʼs Jewish audience (The Luke 6 recounting of the sermon does not contain this formula) – a meaning that makes sense within the context of rabbinic teaching of Torah. Another formula that occurs throughout the sermon is “when you…” This is followed by a consistent list of “do not” logia. But even if the oral teaching formulae are not convincing, take note of the content of the sermon: marks of the life of piety before the God of Israel and that, if nothing else, is the marking of a true rabbinic interpreter of Torah.

But Jesus and other rabbis certainly shared some common theological convictions beyond the general pale of Jewish orthodoxy (which is very broad, indeed). Consider the texts of these three verses from Avot:

Simeon the Just was from the survivors of the Great Synagogue and he used to say “Upon three things the world stands: upon the Torah, upon the worship, and upon deeds of kindness.” (1:2, writerʼs translation).

Antigonus, a man of Sokho, received from Simeon the Just. He used to say “Do not be like servants who serve the master on condition of a gift to be received, but let them be like servants who serve the master, not on condition of a gift that is to be received. Let the fear of Heaven be upon you.” (1:3, writerʼs translation).

Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel used to say, “Be of the disciples who belong to Aaron: one who loves peace and pursues peace, one who loves humankind [creation] and attracts them to Torah.” (1:12, writerʼs translation).

These sayings, without dispute, belong to the era of developing Pharisaism from its early influences (Simeon the Just, the high priest who greets Alexander the Great after his conquest of Syria) and his disciple (Antigonus) to the founders of the great schools of Pharisaism (Hillel and Shammai). They demonstrate a commitment to the immutable authority of Torah, a commitment that Jesus echoes very clearly in his teaching:

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:18-19).

In the first instance, the existence of the world is dependent upon the existence of Torah. The the second place, the faithful teaching of Torah is significant in that this, not relaxing Torah is what wants to attract others to. There is also significant concern for the proper service of the God of Israel. Not only is it Simeonʼs second pillar, but Jesusʼ teaching shares this concern in his addressing of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. More could be explored with the similar emphases on acts of kindness towards others, but the more important question arises as to the nature of what Jesus is doing in the sermon. The rabbis were hedging the Torah. What about Jesus?

In setting himself within the stream of rabbinic interpretation and instruction of Torah, it would only be fair to argue that Jesus is hedging Torah as well. Draperʼs analysis of the content of the sermon leads him to a similar conclusion:

Matthew thus does not ʻdiffer decisivelyʼ from the Rabbinate in this respect, but seems instead to be drawing on this Rabbinic tradition of the fence about the Law. He cites the major principle, ʻThou shalt not commit murderʼ, and then provides a ʻhedgeʼ: ʻDo not be angry; do not call another a fool; be reconciled before things go too farʼ. Each of the sayings of Jesus in this section can be interpreted in this way as essentially ʻintensificationsʼ of the Torah rather than as ʻantithesesʼ (39).

Draper is not the first to suggest this and will likely not be the last. But the evangelical Christian interpreter may ask regarding the import of the sermon for Gentiles. After all, Christians have long received the sermon as binding upon their way of life, as instruction for life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Significant insight into this question has been provided by an 18th century rabbi, Jacob Emden, in one his works:

[T]he Nazarene brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically, as mentioned earlier, and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah. And on the other hand, he did much good for the Gentiles [...] by doing away with idolatry and removing the images from their midst. [...] He also bestowed upon them ethical ways, and in this respect he was much more stringent with them than the Torah of Moses. (Emden)

Thus, a Jewish reading of the text of the sermon does not limit its import or application to Gentile followers of Jesus by necessity. Emdenʼs own analysis is that Jesusʼ teachings require more from Gentiles than Judaism would from its own Gentile God-fearers! But those very implications give rise to a whole host of questions. In an essay that explores the relevance of Torah for Christians, Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski concludes with the following:

If the law given at Sinai and the gospel of Jesus Christ are not antithetical, or if the law does not pass away with the coming of Christ, what then is its status? If Gentiles are not required to keep the Torah in the same way as Israel but still are aware that Jesus viewed it with the utmost devotion, what would a positive Gentile Christian attitude toward the Torah look like? (Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 465).

It is a fair question developed from a difficult hermeneutical problem. If Jesus is to be understood as a rabbi in his messianic pronouncements, it has significant bearing for those who claim to be his followers. It would redefine what Christians believe about following Messiah, who taught a recognition of faithfulness based on the keeping of his commandments and the fruitfulness of lives lived out in pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven. It would alter our perception of the various Judaisms throughout the centuries and also of various Christian traditions in the same time period.  The risk of pursuing this investigation is evidently significant, but the question is whether that outweighs the risk of ignoring it.

Works Cited

Blomberg, Craig L. “Matthew” (19-30). Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Editors: G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2007.

Draper, Jonathan A. “The Genesis and Narrative Thrust of the Paranesis in the Sermon
on the Mount.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Issue 75 (Sept. 1999). p. 25-48.

Emden, Jacob. “Rabbi Jacob Emdenʼs Views on Christianity.” 28/10/09. Online: http://
www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html

Herford, R. Travers. Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers. New
York, NY: Schocken Books, Inc. 1975.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. 2001.

Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. “”Moses Received the Torah at Sinai and Handed It
On” (Mishnah Avot 1:1): The Relevance of the Written and Oral Torah for
Christians.” Anglican Theological Review. Vol. 91, Issue 3 (Summer 2009). p.
443-466.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1992.

Perez Fernandez, Miguel. “Rabbinic texts in the exegesis of the New Testament.”
Review of Rabbinic Judaism. Issue 7 (2004). p. 95-120.

How can I deal with sin that just sticks with me? How can I survive the tough times that come my direction? Why should I worry about my friend’s Christian walk? What’s the point of reading my Bible and praying regularly? Although these questions seem only loosely related, Mark Hall’s Your Own Jesus does a tremendous job of presenting the truth that everyone needs to be in a saving, enduring relationship with the God of the universe.

“God has no grandchildren” as the saying goes and Mark shows convincingly the need for believers to not depend on their parents, churches, friends, or books and music to be their source of experiencing Jesus. Believers need to be in their own intimate walk with the Savior Who bought them with His own blood and will bring good, lasting fruit into their lives. For anyone who considers themselves a disciple of Jesus, this book is highly recommended as a helpful resource as you pursue Christ and get to know the One and Only Jesus Christ.

“I know what I call you in Bemba” Vincent said, “Umuntu! It means you’re like me!” Those were words that were told me on a recent trip I made to Ndola, Zambia to assist in the building of a school. In writing The Hole in Our Gospel, Stearns notes that the Gospel we preach has often left out the command to seek justice for the poor and oppressed, to love our neighbor. Stearns is right that we, who have received the mercy of God in infinite abundance, have so often failed to show and share that mercy with our fellow men around the world, who lay dying. So Stearns issues a prophetic, God-honoring call to action…but misses a beat.

His vision is somewhat dampened, I think, by the sense that it is Christians who will put all wrong to right in the world. We are the agents of redemption, but this redemption will be realized and consummated by Christ. I would heartily recommend reading The Hole in Our Gospel to anyone, only exhorting them to trust in the sovereign work of God and not depend upon their own actions, but the Holy Spirit’s effective power.

Blogs are ablaze with cries of freedom. Status messages on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and half a million other networking sites ring with liberty. Everyone’s celebrating and commemorating this day…and why not, right? From the perspective of most Americans, it’s well-nigh sinful not to. After all, millions of men and women have sacrificed their lives, have they not?

It is quite obvious that, at [Re]Connected, we’ve assumed something about our readers: that we all realize that discipleship, quite apart from being an optional piece of faith or a “nice thing” we can do in our churches, is absolutely necessary. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German martyr and pastor in the 1940s wrote a book entitled The Cost of Discipleship. On page 64 of this book, Bonhoeffer writes the following:

Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ. It remains an abstract idea, a myth which has a place for the Fatherhood of God, but omits Christ as the living Son. [...] There is trust in God, but no following of Christ.

In another place, he writes:

Only a man totally commited in discipleship can experience the meaning of the cross. The cross is there, right from the beginning. He has only got to pick it up. There is no need for him to go out and look for a cross for himself. [... It] means both death and life. [...] (98-99)

These are bold claims about discipleship. Some might even say they are radical and, perhaps, stretching the truth. Yet, I believe that Jesus’ call is remarkably consistent with this value of discipleship. He did not call people to be “message-carriers” or “friendly with God” or even necessarily, “holy people that I like.” While God has certainly given us the Message of the Gospel, called us His friends, and is making us a holy people for His possession, those things all fall under the strange words that Jesus first commanded His first disciples: “Come, follow Me.” We have yet to understand the full implications of that and, as it stands, we will never truly discern to that depth. Yet, as we have been called by Christ, so we must answer. The call of discipleship is radical, self-denying, Gospel-centered, and totally alien to everything we want for ourselves. It’s a call to be like Jesus and to do what He does. So let us answer.