Jesus and Other Rabbis:

Selections from Pirke Avot and the Sermon on the Mount as ʻHedging Torahʼ
 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). Itʼs

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

1
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.1

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.”2 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...”3 This is followed by a consistent list of “do not” logia.4 But even if the oral

1 For reasons of differing social location, historical events, and the possibility of response bias towards
Jesus and his disciples, the writer believes that the value of the comparison should be done in teaching
that takes places prior to 30 A.D., in order to gauge the most key similarities and differences.
2This phrase occurs, either like this or slightly modified in Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39,
43-44.
3 This phrase occurs in Matthew 6:2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17.
4 This occurs in Matthew 6:19, 25, 34; 7:6.

2
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).

3
 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

4
 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.

5
 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.