Episode 132: Mark Excursus—The Passover in the First Century

Before we get into the actual breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine, we need to talk about the Passover in the first century and what we can know (and can’t know) about it through contemporary writings. Not contemporary to us but contemporary to Yeshua/Jesus and His followers.

If you can’t see the podcast player, click here.

The Passover—the festival celebrating the greatest deliverance the Jewish people had ever experienced. It is referenced throughout both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. It was the definitive experience of Israel—eclipsing everything that came before or after. Until the Passover was finally fulfilled in Yeshua/Jesus as the Greater Exodus was inaugurated at the Cross and witnessed by the resurrection. It is so important to understand this before we dive any deeper into Mark 14 and 15 because all of the Gospel authors define Yeshua’s ministry as being the redefining of what Passover means—most notably in the Gospel of John. As Paul said, making the former Passover End exodus look like a shadow in comparison. I will probably re-air this broadcast when we get to this material again in other Gospels or maybe I will have new material and have to do a new broadcast.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have six years’ worth of blog at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids—and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.

All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. A list of my resources can be found attached to the transcript for Part two of this series at theancientbridge.com.

So, let’s begin with the original Passover, so we can contrast it with the later memorial meals, and the fulfillment. I do this because there is this unfortunate misunderstanding that we are to still sacrifice a lamb and paint our doorposts and all of that but Yahweh instituted the festival as a memorial, not a complete reenactment. That is very important to understand because there is a difference between what the Israelites were commanded to do before the Covenant, when they were still enslaved and had not yet been delivered, and what they were commanded to do in recognition of the Covenant as a people free to serve and worship Yahweh and Yahweh alone. It’s an entirely different situation and an entirely different mindset and reality and there are entirely different laws pertaining to each.

Exodus 12 famously recounts the commandments concerning the first Passover, as well as the commandment to memorialize it in all future generations and in addition, to eat only unleavened bread for seven days—but we will talk about that later. For the first Passover, God commanded Israel to select a sheep or goat and the Hebrew translates literally to “son of a year” (so, between eight days and one year of age in the reckoning of the non-Western world) on the tenth day of the first month (remember that Israel had four time markers—months for festivals and years for civil matters like the agricultural shemitah cycles, and Jubilees, freeing of debt-slaves beginning in the fall, years for the determination of tree ages in the winter, and years for determining the tithe on herds and flocks in the summer). Anyway, so tenth day, they were to choose a flawless male sheep or goat from their flocks. Now, I have heard it said many times that they were commanded to bring it actually inside their house and treat it like a family member and feed it by hand but I actually have no idea where that idea comes from. Like the whole idea of Levitical shepherds swaddling lambs and putting them in a stone manger, I suspect that it is a modern myth designed to just give everyone the warm feelies. I mean, anyone who has been involved with lambing knows that you can’t swaddle lambs, nor would you want to. But the whole story goes that they treated the lamb like a child so that it would bother them to slaughter it. I have seen in Rabbinic commentaries the idea of bringing it in the home for the purposes of inspection, or for the breaking with the idolatrous practice of sheep worship among the Egyptians but not for the purposes of coming to care for it.

Ewes went into heat in the late fall and lambed in the early spring. Some would go into heat in the spring and lamb in the fall but this isn’t optimal as survival of the lambs through the winter would be far more difficult. They gestate (are pregnant) for roughly 147 days, so, a little less than five months through the winter. Older ewes are generally pregnant for longer than younger ewes. So, based on a variety of factors, you can have lambs born over the course of a month or longer, leading to some “one year olds” being too old for the Passover and some being too young. Because of this, you might have a really large lamb, being too large for one family to eat in one night, or a very small lamb. Hence, for the first Passover, you could combine families and it was legislated much later than you would need one lamb for every ten people in order to make sure that everyone got at least a piece of meat the size of an olive. That would be a teeny lamb for sure. But it was very important that it be within it’s first year because then it wouldn’t have been profitable for anything—it will not have been sheared yet for wool. So, it couldn’t be a “used” lamb.

Then on the late afternoon of the 14th day of the month, the lamb or kid would be slaughtered. It’s a sacrifice, a korban, okay? That means that two things are important—more important than anything else. One, the handling of the blood—if the blood isn’t handled properly then it does not qualify as a sacrifice, period. Two, what happens with the flesh, fat and entrails. But, as I said before, if the blood wasn’t handled properly then the flesh is not holy. In this case, the blood was to be caught in a basin and applied to the doorposts, the sides of the doorway, and the lintel, the overhead beam, with a branch of hyssop. Specifically, this was the house they would eat the meat at, regardless of whether it was their house or not and the reason will be very important. They were to roast the animal, intact, with the head and organs still intact. No boiling. And we will look at something written closer to the time of Yeshua when we talk about how things were done in the first century. It would take until after sundown to cook a lamb like this, and so they were eating the lamb at night along with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. They were to eat fully dressed for a journey, with their sandals on and staff in hand. But if they left their homes before commanded to do so, then it is implied that the blood would be of no effect and the destroyer would treat them just like any Egyptians who were not putting their faith in God and listening to Him. Anything uneaten would have to be burned in the morning because it was holy. All eaten sacrifices had specific time limits for how long people could hold on to the meat before needing to destroy the remains.

Now, it was on this first day of the month that the commandment was given and they were told what was about to happen to the Egyptians. At this time, they were also given some preliminary guidelines for how this was to be observed in the future. These instructions involved the length of the celebration, seven days, which days were high sabbaths, the first and seventh, and the eating of unleavened bread for the duration and the penalty for eating leavened bread, which is called karet—cutting off. There is much rabbinic debate as to what this meant—if people were supposed to cut the person off or if this was a divine thing. That’s really not important right now, but it is interesting.

As you undoubtedly know, in the middle of the night, the Lord struck down every firstborn in Egypt both human and animal. Moses and Aaron were called to appear before Pharaoh and ordered to leave the country along with everything they had. Yahweh also gave them further instructions: 43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 45 No foreigner or hired worker may eat of it. 46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” (Ex 12:43-49)

And after the building of the Tabernacle, these instructions were given–“These are the Lord’s appointed times, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times. The Passover to the Lord comes in the first month, at twilight on the fourteenth day of the month. The Festival of Unleavened Bread to the Lord is on the fifteenth day of the same month. For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. On the first day you are to hold a sacred assembly; you are not to do any daily work. You are to present a food offering to the Lord for seven days. On the seventh day there will be a sacred assembly; do not do any daily work.” (Lev 23:4-8)

Instructions for the second Passover, if the first one must be missed, are in Numbers 9 and the Festival daily offerings are talked about in Numbers 28. In Deuteronomy 16, as with many other Exodus ordinances, we see a change in the law to reflect changing circumstances. The children of Israel will no longer all be camped out around the Tabernacle but will be spread out all over the Land of Israel. Because of this, a lot of the laws had to be modified to reflect their new way of living. Now, they already knew that any animal blood shed within the camp of Israel had to be applied to the bronze outer altar. If they wanted to eat an animal, they wouldn’t just slaughter it at their tents. They had to take it to the priests and they could slaughter it themselves but the priests had to catch the blood in a basin and apply it to the altar. The only exception to this rule was in the case of wild game, whose blood had to be poured out onto the ground. My husband does this when he hunts. He got a moose two years ago and an elk last year and was able to explain his reason for how he was handling the blood to the guys he was with. Impromptu Bible lesson in the wilderness.

But what happens when they are spread all over the place? Well, they no longer have to trek to the Tabernacle to eat meat, they can do it at home—they just have to return the blood to the ground. But what about Passover? Do they reenact the original Passover and do it all at home? Nope! Yahweh specifically had to cover that issue in Deuteronomy 16: “Set aside the month of Abib and observe the Passover to the Lord your God, because the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night in the month of Abib. Sacrifice to the Lord your God a Passover animal from the herd or flock in the place where the Lord chooses to have his name dwell. Do not eat leavened bread with it. For seven days you are to eat unleavened bread with it, the bread of hardship—because you left the land of Egypt in a hurry—so that you may remember for the rest of your life the day you left the land of Egypt. No yeast is to be found anywhere in your territory for seven days, and none of the meat you sacrifice in the evening of the first day is to remain until morning. You are not to sacrifice the Passover animal in any of the towns the Lord your God is giving you. Sacrifice the Passover animal only at the place where the Lord your God chooses to have his name dwell. Do this in the evening as the sun sets at the same time of day you departed from Egypt. You are to cook and eat it in the place the Lord your God chooses, and you are to return to your tents in the morning. Eat unleavened bread for six days. On the seventh day there is to be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God; do not do any work. (Deut 16:1-8)

And this has been a problem in the Hebrew Roots Movement in some congregations. Years ago, my friend Rico Cortes spoke at a group that was living not too far from where I was living at the time and after he left, they got the impression that he told them they could sacrifice the Passover in their backyards. Well, Rico studies the Temple and sacrifices and he was horrified. Suffice it to say that he would never even suggest such a thing was appropriate. People can slaughter a lamb and do whatever they want with it, but they cannot call it a korban, okay? They can’t go applying the blood to their doors and call it obedience to a positive commandment because that was commanded only once and under certain circumstances. Blood has to be poured out onto the earth, okay? We can’t put it anywhere else. The Bible is very specific about what can and can’t be done and when there is no Temple, all blood must be poured out. It belongs to God and must return to God. There are positive commandments, yes, but they are modified by some very serious restrictions. The proper handling of blood is one of the most serious restrictions. Just go to Bible Gateway some time and do a word search on blood—look at how often the subject of the proper handling of blood and the penalties for not handling it properly pop up just in the Torah.

Now, the entire Passover/Exodus metanarrative is all over the Bible from beginning to end. It’s one of the, if not the main theme of the Scriptures. The idea of deliverance and moving closer to God is what the Scriptures have been about since the choosing of Abraham back in Genesis 12. The Psalms repeatedly draw reference to the Exodus, as do the prophets and most notably in Isaiah where he describes the return from Babylon in terms of a mini-exodus all the while also referring to an even greater Exodus when Yahweh Himself brings both Jews and the Nations to Himself on His holy mountain where the entire world will finally worship Him. The Gospels all paint the picture of Yeshua as the Passover and His work on the Cross as inaugurating the Greater Exodus into the New Creation on the eighth day in His resurrection.  Mark goes to great lengths to portray Yeshua as the Yahweh-warrior of Isaiah’s New Exodus motif, rescuing the world from the clutches of sin and death as the “Arm of the Lord” which in the Septuagint was identified as one and the same with the Messiah. John identifies Yeshua as the Lamb of God twice in chapter one and then spends the entire Gospel proving it—and it is no accident that in the very last chapter of John, we find Yeshua with His threefold command to Peter to care for His sheep and equating that with loving Him. Revelation calls Yeshua the Lamb twenty-eight times and even has him depicted as one, while referring to Him as the Lion (of Judah) only once and never depicting Him as a lion. Yeshua conquers as a Lamb and not as the lion that ancient kings liked to associate themselves with. Revelation even has this little blurb that would have read as very comical in 6:16 where it has the kings of the earth hiding from the wrath of the Lamb, and we read over it so much with so much baggage that we fail to see the ironic level of humor. Kings hiding from a lamb!

So, we have the whole of Scripture pointing toward and back at the Passover, and every year the children of Israel were commanded to remember and keep it so that they would not forget the mighty hand and outstretched arm of the Lord who had delivered them out of the slavery of Egypt and into the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey. And that is important not to forget that—it is of limited use to be delivered out of slavery if it is into abject poverty and homelessness. You know, like we did with the enslaved here in America. Like, now what? When Yahweh delivers in righteousness, He takes us from death into life. That is what He did with Noah. That’s what He did with the children of Israel. Exodus isn’t just about delivery from bad but delivery into something good. Noah was delivered into a cleansed earth. Israel was delivered into the Promised Land—but not all right away. They were delivered into the wilderness where they were faithless and disobedient for a generation and then their children received the promise. And at the Cross, the same thing happened as His believers were delivered into the ”now but not yet” reality of Kingdom life. We are not where we will be but thank God, we are not where we were either. And that is the reality of Passover and Exodus.

Now, by the time the first century had rolled around, the Jews were WAY more interested in keeping the Passover than their ancestors had been. It’s like, “okay, send me into exile for not being obedient—we don’t want that to happen again,” and due to both Persian and Hellenistic influences, they began to approach the Torah in very different ways and we see factions spring up within Judaism for the first time in a manner not unlike the Hellenistic philosophical schools. And with all of the bitter and violent rivalries that came along with it! Josephus, a priest born within a decade of the Resurrection who wrote about the events of the time including the ministries of John the Baptist and Yeshua, talked about the four philosophies within Judaism of his day (late first century)—three of which were alive and well in the time of Yeshua. Those three philosophies were the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. It is theorized that the Essenes are the Qumran sectarians, but we actually have no solid proof of it. Really, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was even more of a mystery. Each of these groups handled Torah differently but the days of treating Torah like wisdom literature aimed at guiding Israel’s judges in what wise rulings looked like in the ancient Near Eastern sea of brutality were long gone and hard and fast legal codes sprung out of those guidelines. The Torah really covers very little in terms of instructions and a lot of stuff just isn’t mentioned at all. And so in true Hellenistic fashion, the Jewish scholars and leaders started to develop hard and fast traditions in order to deal with an ever more confusing world situation. And that isn’t all bad, don’t get me wrong. The Greeks and the Romans were brilliant thinkers and administrators and having a law code isn’t necessarily bad. It just became, over the centuries, overreaching and burdensome. But, these were people struggling to maintain their national identity and to wipe their slates clean with Yahweh, and to usher in the golden age when the Messiah would come and return them to the glory of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.

And so, it is believed that Passover became more of a scripted affair, which also isn’t a terrible thing because people are united through shared cultural experiences and shared worship experiences. It binds people together. And, not sure if you know this but the Passover accounts are very much of an interest to Jewish historians because they represent the earliest and most substantial descriptions of what Passover celebrations looked like during the Second Temple period. Until the Mishnah was compiled and then the later Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds (named for the region of the world where they were penned), the Jews weren’t nearly so meticulous about writing down what they were doing and so there is this huge gap where we know very little of what the first century audience knew. Some of what is recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud probably accurately reflects what was going on but we don’t always know what or how much. After all, it was 200 years before the Mishnah, the legal rulings of the Sanhedrin (their version of the Supreme Court) were written down and these people lived an entirely different kind of life from that of Yeshua and His contemporaries. And the Talmuds were compiled four hundred years later. So, we can make connections but we have to be very careful. What we do know is that what we see in the Gospel accounts is on many levels very much the same as what was recorded later in the Mishnah and Talmud. And so Jewish historians consider the Gospel accounts to be very valuable in their seder studies, the seder being the formal name of the Passover meal.

But we also have an account from Joseph Martyr, who was born in Shechem in Samaria as a pagan, and wrote in his second-century Dialogue with Trypho about how the Passover Lamb was prepared and cooked. And, I read an excellent article about this from a Jewish scholar named Joseph Tabory writing in The Jewish Quarterly Review, called The Crucifixion of the Paschal Lamb where he argues convincingly that Martyr’s claims are very credible and very probably based on how the Passover Lambs were presented in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. That the Samaritan presentation, which Martyr had witnessed in his youth, was based on what was traditionally done in those days at Passover. It is perhaps likely that they stopped because the Christians were using the presentation to further their case but nowhere attested to as being certain. Now, the Samaritans no longer present the Passover in this way, although Jeremias presented a picture from 1903 of a lamb with perpendicular spits and despite being able to find it attested in different sources, it is a 1932 book, in German. Not yet subject to public domain and therefore impossible for someone like me to get ahold of so I can’t put the picture in my transcript. Maybe in 2032 that will change. But right now, let’s look at what Justin Martyr had to say.

CHAPTER XL — HE RETURNS TO THE MOSAIC LAWS, AND PROVES THAT THEY WERE FIGURES OF THE THINGS WHICH PERTAIN TO CHRIST. “The mystery, then, of the lamb which God enjoined to be sacrificed as the passover, was a type of Christ; with whose blood, in proportion to their faith in Him, they anoint their houses, i.e., themselves, who believe on Him. For that the creation which God created–to wit, Adam–was a house for the spirit which proceeded from God, you all can understand. And that this injunction was temporary, I prove thus. God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb

Now, Martyr (which means witness in Greek) wrote down this dialogue sometime around the bar Kochba Revolt, so in the 130s CE. So, this is just about the halfway point between Yeshua and the Mishnah, but, Justin was actually giving a first hand account as the sacrifices were ongoing in Samaria and had long since ceased in Jerusalem because the Temple had been destroyed thirty years prior to his birth. But the Samaritans had their holy site on Mt Gerazim so it was business as usual, although their own Temple had been destroyed by the Hasmoneans in 110 BCE. In fact, they are still doing the Passover sacrifices to this day.

I want to talk really quick about Martyr’s claims that there were two spits one that went from the anus through the throat, and another that the front legs were supported by. The Mishnah claims the opposite, that the spit ran from the head to the tail, but this was written a long time after and, if this upright presentation was practiced in Jerusalem, it would make little sense to have the tapered end of the pomegranate wood spit at the bottom because the lamb could slip off during transport. Martyr’s account was written earlier and based on a first hand witness so his account is considered the more credible. In addition, the Jerusalem Talmud sides with Martyr and against the Mishnah. A wooden spit was used, made from pomegranate wood (m. Pesach 7.1) because the commandment requires the lamb to be roasted whole. If they used a wetter wood then they were concerned that it would steam the inner meat and disqualify it, and that if they used metal then the meat touching the spits would be grilled. M. Pesach 5.1 talks about the use of a perpendicular rod that holds the legs in place while hide was removed from the Lamb. Ovens were built specifically of unbaked clay, some large enough to hold two lambs, and they were shaped like beehives so that the lamb could be centered and not become disqualified by the meat touching the sides. It becomes obvious why a perpendicular spit would make that a lot easier with the lamb either head up or head down and the perpendicular spit providing extra insurance against tipping over.

Now, why would they roast it head up instead of on its side? Well, interestingly enough, we see in art the idea that the ram sacrificed in place of Isaac was in that same upright position, standing on its back hooves with its horns caught in upper branches, which would have made sense in the ancient world as seeing a ram eating high foliage and getting its horns caught in the branches was not an uncommon sight. You folks with sheep and goats out in the pasture, you know what I am talking about because you have seen it too. The Passover lamb was associated with the Akeida (binding of Isaac) during Second Temple times as we see in the sectarian account Jubilees, written around the time of the Maccabean Revolt. In Jubilees, Abraham and Isaac climbed Mt Moriah on the 12th of Nisan so that the ram was sacrificed presumably on the 14th. And one more thing, according to Rabbi Akiva, who lived and wrote in the second century CE, the intestines of the lamb were wrapped around the lamb as a mequlas, which Rashi said came from the Aramaic word meaning “helmet” (bPes 74a). So, wrapped around the head like a crown.

But, that’s the preparation of the lamb and we’ll talk more about that in chapter 15 but right now I want to briefly go through the Passover seder and we will see many parallels in the Last Supper accounts, which everyone except John says was a Passover seder and we talked about why that isn’t such a huge deal on last week’s program. So, my friend Craig sent me a ton of books last week and one of them was written by a scholar named Scott Hahn and is called The Fourth Cup—Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross and it was a really great read and he was the one who pointed me to the Taborly article, Justin Martyr, and some other awesome sources. The standard primary source for studying the seder as it existed in 200 CE is m.Pesachim 10. I am including a link to Sefaria’s version. If you are serious about studying, I recommend the Kehati commentary on the Mishnah although JPS also has a terrific commentary as well. What you can’t very well do is study the Mishnah without a commentary because it is written for people who already understand the backstory. Easy to make all sorts of messed-up conclusions. Anyway, I am going to read from Chapter ten, editing it a bit but you can find the entire text at sefaria.org.

On the eve of Passover, adjacent to minḥa time (the afternoon tamid offering), a person may not eat until dark, so that he will be able to eat matza that night with a hearty appetite. Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat. And the distributors of charity should not give a poor person less than four cups of wine for the Festival meal of Passover night. And this halakha applies even if the poor person is one of the poorest members of society and receives his food from the charity plate.

The tanna (1st and 2nd century Jewish sages) describes the beginning of the Passover seder. The attendants poured the wine of the first cup for the leader of the seder. Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the sanctification of the day, i.e., the kiddush for the Festival: (Blessed are you Oh Lord) Who blesses Israel and the Festivals, and thereafter he recites the blessing over the wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites the blessing over the day. (these guys disagreed on the order of a lot of things—Hillel died in 10 CE and Shammai in 30 CE, so roughly the same time as Yeshua.)

The attendants brought vegetables before the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. He dips the ḥazeret (a second bitter herb) into water or vinegar, to taste some food before he reaches the dessert of the bread…which were eaten after the matza (unleavened bread). They brought before him matza and ḥazeret and ḥaroset (stewed fruit), and at least two cooked dishes in honor of the Festival. The tanna comments that this was the practice, although eating ḥaroset is not a mitzva but merely a custom…

 The attendants poured the second cup for the leader of the seder, and here the son asks his father the questions about the differences between Passover night and a regular night. And if the son does not have the intelligence to ask questions on his own, his father teaches him the questions. The mishna lists the questions: Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we eat leavened bread and matza as preferred; on this night all our bread is matza. As on all other nights we eat other vegetables; on this night we eat bitter herbs. The mishna continues its list of the questions. When the Temple was standing one would ask: As on all other nights we eat either roasted, stewed, or cooked meat, but on this night all the meat is the roasted meat of the Paschal lamb. The final question was asked even after the destruction of the Temple: As on all other nights we dip the vegetables in a liquid during the meal only once; however, on this night we dip twice. And according to the intelligence and the ability of the son, his father teaches him about the Exodus. When teaching his son about the Exodus. He begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace and concludes with their glory. And he expounds from the passage: “An Aramean tried to destroy my father” (Deuteronomy 26:5), the declaration one recites when presenting his first fruits at the Temple, until he concludes explaining the entire section.

Rabban Gamliel (d. 52 CE, leader of the Sanhedrin in Acts) would say: Anyone who did not say these three matters on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation: The Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs. When one mentions these matters, he must elaborate and explain them (this is important because Yeshua will be explaining and redefining elements of the seder): The Paschal lamb is brought because the Omnipresent passed over…the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, as it is stated: “That you shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Paschal offering for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (Exodus 12:27). Rabban Gamliel continues to explain: The reason for matza is because our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is stated: “And they baked the dough that they took out of Egypt as cakes of matzot, for it was not leavened, as they were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual” (Exodus 12:39). The reason for bitter herbs is because the Egyptians embittered our forefathers’ lives in Egypt, as it is stated: “And they embittered their lives with hard service, in mortar and in brick; in all manner of service in the field, all the service that they made them serve was with rigor” (Exodus 1:14).

The tanna of the mishna further states: In each and every generation a person must view himself as though he personally left Egypt, as it is stated: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). In every generation, each person must say: “This which the Lord did for me,” and not: This which the Lord did for my forefathers. The mishna continues with the text of the Haggadah. Therefore we are obligated to thank, praise, glorify, extol, exalt, honor, bless, revere, and laud [lekales] the One who performed for our forefathers and for us all these miracles: He took us out from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to a Festival, from darkness to a great light, and from enslavement to redemption. And we will say before Him: Halleluya. At this point one recites the hallel (Psalms 113-118) that is said on all joyous days…one does not complete hallel at this point in the seder…one concludes this section of hallel with a blessing that refers to redemption…Rabbi Akiva says that one recites a different version of this blessing: So too, the Lord our God and the God of our forefathers will bring us to future holidays and Festivals in peace, happy over the building of Your city and joyous in Your service. And there we will eat from the Paschal lamb and other offerings, etc., until: Blessed are You, Lord, Who redeemed Israel.

They poured for the leader of the seder the third cup of wine, and he recites the blessing over his food, Grace After Meals. Next, they pour him the fourth cup. He completes hallel over it, as he already recited the first part of hallel before the meal. And he also recites the blessing of the song at the end of hallel over the fourth cup. During the period between these cups, i.e., the first three cups established by the Sages, if one wishes to drink more he may drink; however, between the third cup and the fourth cup one should not drink.

That’s the Mishnah account of the seder, with some of the arguments but I edited a lot out. Having read this and knowing where to find it helps us in our understanding of the Last Supper. There will be some things not mentioned in the Gospel accounts because the whole thrust of the account is that the Passover is being fulfilled and redefined around the reality of Yeshua as our ultimate and final Passover. And when we commemorate the Passover now, it is Yeshua-centered, Jesus-centered. And the week of unleavened bread is now symbolic of that New Creation life that came forth, leaving behind the leaven of our old lives.

Next week, we will pick up with Mark’s account of the Last Supper and Yeshua’s shocking claims about His fate and the complicity of the Twelve in fulfilling some pretty unpalatable scriptures.




Episode 82: Mark Part 24–Cosmic Encounters 3–The Woman with the Issue of Blood

If you don’t see a player in your email, go here.

Another death to life story–like the Gerasene demoniac, this woman has experienced a community death and cannot experience normal life among her people. In fact, she is never identified as having anyone at all–no husband, father, mother, siblings, or children. What do her actions teach us not only about faith but about the beliefs of the Hellenistic first-century Jewish world? What do Yeshua’s actions teach us about His desire to restore the marginalized?

Lots of extra-biblical material today as we are going to look at the shockingly awful treatments that women were subjected to by Jewish physicians who were trying to treat this sort of bleeding, as well as the debates over when a man could and could not forcibly divorce his wife for being sick.

Transcript below

*************

Mark 24—Cosmic Encounters 3—The Woman with the Issue of Blood

This week is one of my favorite subjects—the woman with the issue of blood. I came across some really cool context a few years back while studying my commentary on the Mishnah that really opened this wide up so today I will be sharing that. In addition, I will also be sharing about folk-superstition in first-century Judaism and how that ties into all of this. I haven’t written it yet but I hope you will get a chance to read you read my future article on the context of pharmakeia based on Greco-Roman era historians and legal documents. When I finally get it all researched and written then I will have the article linked in the transcript at theancientbridge.com. I am planning on naming it Pharmakeia in its Original Greco-Roman Context. And it’s important to understand the difference between pharmakeia and our modern word Pharmacy because they are definitely not the same and in fact, they are merely related concepts having the same linguistic root. Pharmakeia is one of those words whose meaning also must be taken within the context of what is being said around it—it has no one-size fits all meaning. In fact, one meaning is decidedly secular and the other meaning (and this is during Greco-Roman) times, is decidedly nefarious and pagan. Even the Greeks recognized this fact. When we want to have this word be black and white, we are butchering history and the language, and we certainly wouldn’t want our own words held to that standard. Comparing the two, pharmacy and pharmakeia, and claiming equivalency because they sound close is rather like comparing biblos, which simply means book, and Bible, which derives from it, and claiming that all Bibles are pagan because there in Acts 19:19 biblos describes the million dollars-worth of magical texts that were burnt in Ephesus. But it is also used to describe the Book of life and the genealogy of Yeshua and to refer to the Torah and the Prophets and the Psalms. Context defines the definitions—not our agendas or assumptions. Just because two words are the same doesn’t make them the same. Like, in the KJV, I Cor 15:52 isn’t talking about Donald Trump when Paul states, “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” I mean, and don’t laugh because there are blogs out there claiming this so I didn’t make it up, the Greek words for this are salpinx and salpizo for the sound of the trumpet and the trumpet itself, respectively. And gay today doesn’t mean what gay meant in the 19th century, nor does queer. When we eat cereal we are not worshipping Ceres, the goddess of grain, etc. etc. Context, context, context. Just so, we need to look at pharmakeia and see that when used negatively in the ancient world, it referred to sorcery (no, the Greeks didn’t like sorcery nor did the Romans) and poisons. The ancient world didn’t like people who did these types of things really any more than us. It represented chaotic, uncontrollable, dangerous attempts to subvert the mind and will (usually love potions) and to kill, not to heal or treat. Such people who did these things could not be controlled. And they were killed if caught actually doing harm to someone important. And when Paul uses this word, pharmakeia, in his letter to the Galatians, he is addressing former pagans who came out of these sorts of backgrounds of manipulating divine and natural forces to do harm to others.

In other words, we have to stop acting like meanings don’t change and like the Bible was actually written in English or just waiting to be translated into English to finally be understood correctly. Now, let’s have a gay old time, as the Flintstones would say—in that same context.

Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist, and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have five years’ worth of blog at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids—and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com

All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. A list of my resources can be found attached to the transcript for Part two of this series at theancientbridge.com.

21 And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him, and he was beside the sea. (22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet 23 and implored him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.” 24 And he went with him.) And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. 25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’ 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

This is our second encounter with making the unclean clean—of course, the first was in chapter one, with the leper who blabbed. And this is the third week in a row that we have encountered the theme of life from death, starting with Yeshua rebuking the wind and waves that would have drowned them all, and moving immediately to the Gerasene demoniac who lived among the tombs. We will have four of these encounters in this series, back to back, including the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter next week. Yeshua is more and more showing who He is, but will any of them notice?

In addition, this and next week make up another Markan sandwich where we have one story nestled into the middle of another related story. We have seen this a number of times now.  (1) In the synagogue with the scribes from Jerusalem and His own family, both rejecting Him and accusing Him, (2) in the telling of the Parable of the Sower, and this is the third. There will be a total of at least seven. The overarching theme here is life from death—social death and literal death, as well as the theme of Yeshua meeting the needs of both the clean and the unclean, the rich and the poor, elite and marginalized, male and female, young and old. And yet this is also the story of two women whom Yeshua restores to life.

21 And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him, and he was beside the sea. 

Last week He was on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee in the region of the Gerasenes, non-Jews who raised pigs—or at least they used to before Yeshua ministered deliverance to the demoniac plagued with Legion. Now at least the fish are eating well. So, He has returned into Jewish territory—Capernaum maybe? Gennesaret? Probably not Tiberias as Herod Antipas had built that atop a graveyard and Jews wouldn’t go there. So, the text only says, “the other side.” Luke merely points out that it is somewhere He has been previously, although Matthew makes it sound like it might be in Capernaum, maybe. Although I doubt it because this woman has been ill a long time and evidently didn’t even try to see Him before now, despite many opportunities. Also, this place is big enough to have multiple synagogue leaders. I don’t know. We just don’t know. Evidently not important or at least one of the Gospel writers would have mentioned it. But it is important to have an idea of geography when you are reading, to know the lay of the land. I recommend Rainey and Notley’s The Sacred Bridge, which was very generously gifted to me. It is mega pricey, but worth it. Best scholarly atlas on the market today, bar none.

He has, gathered about Him at the seashore, ochlos polys, a great crowd, and they are gathered, which comes from the root word synago, which is used throughout the Gospels for the gathering together of everything from people, to fish, to grain, etc.

(22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet 23 and implored him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.” 24 And he went with him.)

We will cover this next week, and I include it this week only to show the direction of travel, that they were headed somewhere specific when the subject of today’s verses occurs. Yeshua and His disciples are on their way to the house of Jairus, one of the local leaders of the synagogue. We see no hesitation or questions from Yeshua, He just changed course and goes.

And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. 

That word, “thronged” comes from synthlibo, which literally means they squashed him in. They are pressing in on all sides. This isn’t violent but they are definitely not respecting his personal space of observing social distancing (that was a joke). This reads like the press at a high profile murder trial or something, with everyone wanting a piece of the defendant.

25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 

Now, this is serious—you can’t even begin to imagine her life. Frankly, neither can I. I have known women with an “issue of blood” and it generally means one thing—uterine cancer. I guess there are other reasons but in that culture, in any ancient culture, this bleeding cut her off from society, and from (as we will see) her own husband and children. It wasn’t meant to be that way, it wasn’t. The Torah isn’t written in such a way that this woman should have become an untouchable but we all know what people do with laws when there is no compassion. Especially laws concerning the treatment of women when men are completely in charge as we explored last year when we covered the first-century Hillel and Shammai rulings on divorce. We’re going to delve into this specific issue, that of a sick wife, by exploring the writings of the Talmud, RAMBAN, RAVAD, and the RAMBAM. Twelve years. If she was twenty-four then this was half her life. If she was thirty-six then it was a third of her life.

Bleeding constantly, even lightly, made her ritually unclean. She could not have sex with her husband, and therefore she could never be a mother. Being a wife and a mother absolutely defined women in those days—it was their source of honor. We think nothing of what Anna the prophetess gave up when we see her story in Luke, we see it as a charming story. What we do not see is that she had forsaken everything that made a woman a woman in the ancient world, in order to devote herself to God’s service. It was really the ultimate sacrifice in many ways. Being perpetually ritually unclean also meant that she could not participate in the Passover, or any of the Feasts because they involved the eating of sanctified meat. A normal woman would miss maybe 24% of these feasts, but she could not worship with her people during the times of joy.  Did you ever notice that she is not even named? I mean, not even any family associations. Not even a “Jairus’s daughter” sort of designation. She is portrayed as being alone, a woman without social connections. A woman who belongs to no one and no one belongs to her. In ancient terms, this is tragic beyond belief. She had been enduring a living death for twelve long years.

What did RAMBAN, (Nachmonides, Mosheh ben Nahman Gerondi, d 1270) say about menstruating women in the 13th century? He claimed that the breath of a menstruating woman was harmful, her gaze detrimental, and it was also claimed that learned men could not greet her or even walk in the same footsteps that she had left behind.

26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 

I am going to tell you right now that your views of first-century medicine, and especially if you believe some of the essential oil propaganda, are probably dead wrong. Disclaimer: I am not against essential oils—but they are not all over the Bible when it is read in context. I once saw a meme that said that essential oils are mentioned over a thousand times in the Bible. Nonsense. I mean, the word oil itself is only mentioned 202 times and some of those are in chapter headings and almost every single reference is to olive oil and most of those are with respect to the Temple, kingship, priesthood, and eating. There are numerous references to resins and plants from which people now make essential oils but really, that’s a far cry from being proof of massive essential oil usage in Bible days. In actuality, most of the things that essential oils are made from today would not have been wasted like that in ancient times. Also, the purity we have today is insane compared to ancient times. Yes, herbs and such were used, but what we mostly find in the ancient world is superstition—even among the Jews and early Christians. Your normal, average, everyday person had zero access to legitimate (or illegitimate) healthcare. And this woman is a prime example.

Some of the reasons are just purely scientific—the technology wasn’t there, nor was the understanding required to produce effective treatments. Another reason is that these people were almost entirely spiritual thinkers as opposed to scientific thinkers. There were some top-notch scientific minds in the ancient world but they were few and far between. People were obsessed with history, yes, but not with technological advancements. Doing things the same way generation after generation was often seen as a way to keep the gods happy and to honor their ancestors. I talk about a lot of this sort of thing in my book, Context for Adults.  Another reason is that resources were scarce and turning large amounts of plants into oils was something that few could afford to do or to experiment with afterward. They weren’t like us. They didn’t think like us. Sometimes we really don’t give them the credit they deserve for being entirely unique and their thoughts being almost entirely unlike our own. But because they were so focused on spirituality, they often mixed secular medicine with superstition and sometimes with outright magic in the case of the ancient Egyptians. One of my all-time favorite books about ancient Egypt—The Ancient Gods Speak by Donald B Redford—has a section on the use of magic in medical treatment. I mean, it’s funny. They knew how to set a bone and to remove cataracts, for crying out loud, but they didn’t feel the treatment meant anything if spellcasting didn’t go along with it. Goofy paradigm, eh? The science wasn’t enough for them, they saw the science not as science but as the ritual part of the spellcasting.  Brilliant minds, though, based on the treatments they came up with.

But what about medical treatment in the first century? Well, that mindset still held sway even over God’s own people. It existed well into the Middle Ages, in fact. Let’s look at some from b. Shabbat 110a from the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary:

Let them procure three kapiza of Persian onions, boil them in wine, make her drink it, and say to her, “Cease your discharge.” But if not, she should be made to sit at cross-roads, hold a cup of wine in her hand, and a man comes up from behind, frightens her and exclaims, “Cease your discharge!” But if not, a handful of cummin, a handful of saffron, and a handful of fenugreek are brought and boiled in wine, she is made to drink it, and they say to her, “Cease your discharge.” But if not, let sixty pieces of sealing clay of a [wine] vessel be brought, and let them smear her and say to her, “Cease your discharge.” It offers five more remedies; the last suggests fetching a barley grain from the dung of a white mule. When she eats it and holds it in one day, her discharge will cease for one day, if for two days, her discharge will cease for two days, if for three days, it will cease forever.[1]

I mean, seriously. There is no scientific backing for any of this nonsense. This is, at best, superstition, and at worst—let’s not talk about the worst. One wonders if any of these ever even worked accidentally. The “but if not’s” piled up sure make it clear that these certainly never worked. How on earth is she supposed to hold in a barley grain for three days? That’s messed up. And there is nothing in there about sterilizing it before she eats it either. Is it any wonder that ancient Jewish writings are full of scorn directed against doctors? They weren’t doctors by our definition today, many of them. It is interesting that when Luke repeats this story that he neglects to mention the part about doctors taking all her money and leaving her unchanged.

Let’s look at something in this last verse that I noticed back in 2017:

26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 

This poor woman has spent all of her own money, not her father’s or husband’s, and this brings me to something I found while reading the Kehati Commentary on Mishnah Seder Nashim:

“If she was taken captive, he is obligated to ransom her. And if he said, “Here is her get (her divorce document) and her ketubah (the money owed her by contract if divorced), let her ransom herself!” – he is not allowed. If she fell ill, he is responsible for her healing. If he said, “Here is her get and her ketubah, let her heal herself!” – he is allowed.” (Pinchas Kehati, translated by Edward Levin, Mishnah Seder Nashim Vol 1, Ketobot pg 63-4)

Although this may sound confusing, when taken in context with the rest of the Tractate (dealing with the marriage contract), and especially the whole of Chapter 4, it states that a man was not allowed to refuse to ransom his wife if she was taken captive. He could not simply take the opportunity to get rid of her by saying, “Wow, what a stroke of luck, I’ll just divorce her and give her the 200 dinars (if she was a virgin when he married her, otherwise 100 dinars) and she can ransom herself!” It was a literal court order that no matter what was written in the ketubah, he was in fact required to ransom his wife. In fact, it has been eye-opening learning exactly what was in a ketubah originally–it made divorce prohibitively expensive. If the wife was sick, however, that was a different situation that was subject to much commentary. Healing was a part of the maintenance a husband owed his wife, in exchange for her acting the part of a wife–but a divorced wife was entitled to no such care from her husband. The question became: when can you divorce a sick wife?

RAMBAM (Maimonides aka Moshe ben Maimon d. 1204) interpreted this ruling as saying that if a woman had been ill for a long time and it was going to be too costly to care for her, a man could, in fact, divorce her if he was willing to give her the get and ketubah – however, in Hilcot Ishut 14.17 he plainly stated that “this is unfitting and improper behavior.” In other words, they (the authors of the Mishnah) may have ruled that this was kosher, but Rambam didn’t approve. As Rambam is the most respected commentator in history, his view is going to reflect the overwhelming majority view among Jews today.

RAVAD (Abraham ben David d. 1198) claimed that the case law applied only to a woman who was not bedridden. A bedridden wife had to be cared for until she healed or died. Therefore, a woman who was sick but not bedridden could be given (aka forced into) a divorce and her inheritance money and forced to fend for herself. This interpretation brings us to the woman with the issue of blood.

The woman in the Gospel accounts was obviously not bedridden, as we will see she was able to approach Yeshua and reach out for the hem of his garment. She had also spent “all that she had” in trying to be cured. I submit that this woman, sick for twelve years, had probably been cast off and paid off by her husband once it became clear that her disease would render her unable to provide him with children. A woman who was constantly bleeding, as per Torah Law, could never be approached sexually – it was an abomination (Lev 18:19). Because he could no longer derive that benefit from her, he divorced her and gave her the (probably) 200 dinars owed to her by the ketubah. As Rambam rightly declared, “unfitting and improper behavior” indeed.

27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 

As I just pointed out, not bedridden. She was definitely not gushing blood constantly or she would have long since died. She has an issue serious enough to be noticeable and to exclude her from marriage, motherhood, and community life but not serious enough to kill her. Total Catch 22. Won’t kill her but won’t allow her to live either. And this woman whose faith in humanity has probably been shattered, a woman without hope in the superstitions of her day, masquerading as medicine—she hears about Yeshua and has so much hope that she is certain that if she pushes her way through the crowd that touching even His clothing will be enough to heal her. She has been through hell but she hasn’t lost her faith in God. And she is willing to risk further social ostracism by risking getting caught being in physical contact with this crowd that is “squashing in” on Yeshua. And I know there are some people who teach that she could have been put to death for this but I have never seen anything even remotely suggesting such a thing—not in any commentary or book or in any Jewish legal writings. In fact, during this time the Jews couldn’t put anyone to death—Rome had stripped them of that right. There are some goofy teachings out there but I have yet to see any substantiation. If anyone has a legitimate source, please correct me. And a video of someone making the claim doesn’t count because, as you all know, anyone can claim anything but it doesn’t make it legit.

Now, it should not surprise anyone that her beliefs were definitely borderline magical in nature. That’s how things were in those days in the way many people viewed the divine. Perform a ritual and get cured. That’s what those doctors were doing in the passages that I shared. And this was most certainly her mindset as well.

29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 

Can you even begin to imagine? And as in the case of the leper, the act that brought her the ability to finally become ritually clean brought uncleanness to Yeshua. Remember, and I have taught this many times, there is no sin in being unclean. Marital sex makes one unclean, menstruation, etc. God said “Be fruitful and multiply” and He wasn’t telling them to sin. The woman who approached Yeshua committed no sin in doing so, as it was no sin either to be unclean or to render someone else unclean via an issue of blood (excepting in the case of sexual contact) as long as it was not done within a sacred area – in fact, anyone who wished to go to the inner Temple Courts would have had to mikvah and wait until after sundown anyway, and this changed nothing. It was also not forbidden to go into the synagogue in an unclean state. If I am correct, then this was an ailing woman who had been handed a divorce by her husband, along with her inheritance money, and booted from her home. Her father and brothers owed her nothing once she was married, so she was probably on her own and had spent all of her money in a desperate attempt to be cured. At this point, her life was pretty much hopeless. She could not marry, or earn a living; she had no access to modern medicine and no money left for it anyway – this prophet from Galilee was her only hope in the world. And she believed with all her heart that merely touching his garment would heal her. So, she reached out and touched the hem of his garment – the hem of the firstborn son which traditionally carried the authority of the family. And it did, but her misconceptions had to be dealt with in order to bring her complete healing from the ravages of first-century superstitions.

30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?”

This is actually the third mention of himation, garment, in this passage. More focus, in fact, has been placed on them than just about anything else because, for the woman, they were the focus of her efforts.

31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’ 

This is irritated language here. They are frustrated with the crowds and being snitty.

32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 

This is one brave lady, for sure. She could have slipped away with such a huge crowd around her but she just admitted to everyone that she had made them all ritually unclean, which was not a big deal so far away from the Temple and the public mikvaot would just be busy for a while.  Really, what has happened here is the opposite of what will happen in the situation with synagogue leader Jairus, she is being compelled to give her testimony before the crowd. Which she does. They all heard what she suffered from, what she believed, what she did and what happened to her.

34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

 

Lots to unpack in this verse. I will save the best for last. First of all, He relieves her of her superstitious misconception. “Your faith has made you well”—not touching the clothing or tzitzit or whatever this was, doesn’t really make much of a difference here. It was not the ritual act, it was her faith in God’s ability and willingness to heal her. This removes the healing from the realm of superstition and borderline magic into being simply an act of God. Yeshua reassures her that she is, in fact, permanently healed. He also tells her to go in peace, which is an assurance that no one will be harassing her for making them ritually unclean. Heck, they would all have to ritually wash at some point anyway—might as well be for a better cause than just having sex or something. The entire community, including Yeshua, takes on her uncleanness temporarily so that she can become clean. It’s a beautiful picture of absolute restoration.

But, that’s not the best part. I told you that it was her money that she had used for doctors. Not her husband’s money. Not her father’s money. Not her brother’s money. Not her son’s money. Her money. She is a woman alone and completely bereft, abandoned. I want you to hear what Yeshua says here:

“Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

This is a father’s blessing to his child. She is not alone. She is not disowned. Yeshua has laid claim to her as family. Remember the teachings on insiders and outsiders and fictive kinship. Yeshua is giving her insider status based on faith alone—radical faith that was willing to take a huge risk. I think this is one of the most beautiful things Yeshua ever says. Her husband may have abandoned her, but the Bridegroom has claimed her. She may have no father, but she is still an honored daughter of Abraham.

Next week we are going to deal with the outside of this markan sandwich in dealing with the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter and there are some serious compare and contrast moments that you won’t want to miss.

[1] Arnold, C. E. (2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 1, p. 237). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.




Episode 13: Pharisees and Sadducees and Scribes, OH MY!

I apologize in advance because I am going to stuff this broadcast with so much historical data from Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bible and the Talmud that you might end up feeling like you get hit by a Mack truck by the end. And the amount of stuff I left out is staggering, but we will cover a lot of the rest of it as we continue on next week with our journey through the “woes” of Matthew 23.

************

Transcript–not very polished or edited, but this is what you get

We hear an awful lot about the Pharisees. In your typical non-scholarly book, they are presented as hypocritical legalists who believe in the resurrection from the dead, with little other information provided, and in scholarly circles, there is a battle between those who want to straight-up equate the first-century Pharisees with the later rabbis and the much later Orthodox Jews vs those who question exactly how much authority the Pharisees really had, and whether they all but died out in the post 70 AD world, gradually giving way to Rabbinic thought that was influenced by the Pharisees but in many ways is not even remotely the same, and certainly differs from modern Judaism, which takes many of its cues from the 12th century scholar Maimonides.

In the Christian world, no one wants to be called a Pharisee, but in modern Judaism, almost every group wants to be called the inheritors of the presumably deep roots of Pharisaic Judaism. I believe the truth lies between the extremes and today we’re going to talk about what we do and do not know about the Pharisees, what is presumed, and what is assumed based on texts where they are probably being described, yet are not explicitly named.

Hi, I’m Tyler Dawn Rosenquist and welcome to Character in Context, where we explore the historical context of Scripture and talk about how it bears on our own behavior and witness as image-bearers. You can find my teachings on my websites theancientbridge.com and contextforkids.com as well as on my youtube channels, accessible from my websites. You can also access past broadcasts on my podcast channel characterincontext.podbean.com and my context books for adults and families are available through amazon.com.

Everyone wants those deep roots, right? The more ancient your beliefs, the more legitimate they seem to modern people. We have all heard that the first Pope of the Catholic Church was Peter, right? Despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church as we know it wouldn’t exist for many more hundreds of years and there were certainly no popes. In the same way, the modern neo-pagan movement, which is just a couple hundred years old, has begged, borrowed and stolen what they like from whoever they like, oftentimes based only on appearances, 19th romantic literature, fairy tales, urban legends and just about everything other than archaeology. But they claim to be an ancient religion, despite a growing consensus among both scholars and new agers who do their homework that their religion is not only very new, but a historically inaccurate view of ancient paganism. As with the Catholic claim of first-century Popes, so we have Wiccans and Neo-pagans seeking out credibility through dubious or outright ridiculous ancient claims.

But all such claims must be examined and should never be taken at face value. People are very sensitive about their religious views and are quick to believe anything that bolsters credibility. And we all do it, I am not pointing fingers here. It’s like this ginormous blind spot, total pass that we tend to give ourselves, even while despising when others do it—and seeing it so clearly when it’s their blind hypocrisy and not our own.

Because of this deep roots mentality, we have the unfortunate tendency of many in Christian and Messianic circles to presume that what we see in Modern Judaism is a good road map of the first century, when nothing could be further from the truth. First-century Judaism revolved around the Temple, period. That was the center of their universe, the dwelling place of God on earth and the center of His worship. The priests were powerful because they had a position of inherited responsibility—that doesn’t mean, however, that all priests were powerful because many were just poor Judeans and Galileans who did their two weeks yearly, plus feasts, at the Temple. But the highest-ranking Jews (besides the Herods) were the High Priestly family of Ananas, the chief priests who were responsible for the Temple operations, and the aristocrats. It is from these groups that Josephus says the Sadducees came from. They weren’t all Sadducees, but Sadducees were a faction, or sect, of Judaism that came from the upper class. Below that on the social ladder, we have the retainers of the elites, the upper and middle-level bureaucrats who worked in service to the upper class. This is where we would mostly find the Scribes and Pharisees, who were by definition educated—although people in the upper class could also be Pharisees. That’s what we are going to talk about today—where the Pharisees and Scribes fit into society, who they are, and how they fit into the Hellenistic Jewish world of the 200 years between the Pharisees first mention by Josephus in the court of John Hyrcanus, to really their last pure champion of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus in the first and second century before the movement gradually morphed into the Rabbinic over the next few centuries.

I have done so much reading about this over the years, but for this teaching, I splurged and bought two new books, which I read from front to back because they were just excellent. The author’s name is Anthony J Saldarini. Amazingly balanced scholar—able to look at the historical records and honestly say, “It does say this, and it doesn’t say that.” “This might be true but we can only say that if we assume X.” A lot of people just don’t know how to read a document without reading into it what they want to see. Now that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he writes and he did have one huge paradigm that I disagreed with, but all and all, he is the kind of scholar you want to read because he is just stinking honest. My new books from him are “Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society” and “Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community.” I also supplemented his books with some articles by Jacob Neusner, and if you are reading an article of his on the subject of the Pharisees, make sure it is a later article as, for a while, he championed Morton Smith’s debunked 1959’s era theories on the Pharisees, which Neusner later denounced based on the evidence in other sources. Also, Steve Mason, Lawrence Shiffman, Loeb’s Josephus, the Mishnah, and Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, etc.

So, who were the Pharisees anyway? As I mentioned last week, or next week, as I am inserting a teaching in the middle of the series after I realized I had skipped a step, Josephus mentioned four hairesis (hai-reh-seece), or philosophies, within Judaism. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and the “fourth philosophy” of revolutionaries. We would call the “fourth philosophy” Zealots. Philosophy, in Hellenistic times, was a way of thinking and a way of life—a way to practice virtue and shun evil. In light of this definition, Josephus was right to call these competing sects of Judaism “philosophies” as we would have to admit that Catholicism, Protestantism, Pentecostalism, and Messianism are all philosophies of Christianity, which is in turn started out as a philosophy of ancient Judaism and remained so for a few hundred years. We might call Phariseeism a “sect” not in terms of a seclusive cult, as moderns generally imagine when they hear the word, but a voluntary grouping of likeminded people who have certain goals and ideas that they would like everyone to follow for the good of society. That was the nature of ancient philosophy. The Pharisees wanted everyone to agree with them and live like them, so did the Essenes, and the Zealots wanted everyone to revolt against Rome and the Sadducees really only cared about the rich and even they fought bitterly with one another. A sect is never the whole main group, so Judaism would not be a sect—modern sects of Judaism would be the Hasidim, the Orthodox, the Reform, and the Karaites. BUT, in the first-century world, there was no separation of religion and politics. In fact, no one compartmentalized anything. There was no politics without religion, or religion without politics. There was no area of life that religion didn’t enter into—regardless of whether you were a Jew or a pagan.

Throughout the wars of the Jews, and Antiquities books 13-18, and Life, Josephus repeatedly points to the Pharisees as being very popular with the common people and that ritual and social life was lived according to their standards, but he also points to them as being power-hungry and hypocritical. Josephus had this paradigm, and we all have our agendas, right? But he had this paradigm that stability is always good and chaos is always bad—it’s actually a very legitimate way of thinking in the ancient world, where chaos meant death, disease, enslavement, loss of inheritance, and worse. It didn’t just mean a peaceful exchange of power as we know it in the West. So, for Josephus, a stable ruler and government shouldn’t be messed with—even if they were heathens. Governments should not be toppled lightly unless there was no alternative. He speaks very ill of anyone who threatens the peace—and during Hasmonean times, specifically during the reign of Salome Alexandra, the Pharisees sometimes showed themselves to be a power-grasping, murderous, vengeful group who would, out of one side of their mouth, prophesy good for a Herod while plotting with his family to overthrow him out of the other side. Josephus, who called himself a Pharisee (at least in his youth) approved of the way of life, and considered it the proper interpretation of Judaism, but considered the Pharisees themselves to not live up to their own standards. They had the right interpretation, in other words, but their political agendas were dangerous. It is safe to say that Josephus had a real love/hate relationship with them—but this is often the case within sects, where people who agree are often the harshest critics of those within their own movements. In all, Josephus claims that the Pharisees only numbered about 6,000 men. When we take Tacitus’s account of 600,000 people living in Jerusalem at the fall in 70 AD, and Josephus’s claim that 1.1 million were killed and 97,000 enslaved (it happened at the Passover which would bump up the population), six thousand people is like nobody when compared to the entire population. They made up such an incredibly small part of the population that their dominion over social life and popularity can only be explained by the fact that they were educated in a time when the overwhelming majority were incredibly impoverished and uneducated and in need of popular champions—the Pharisees, according to Josephus, filled that role for them.

But what Josephus had to say was nothing compared to the vitriolic attacks on the Pharisees (and everyone else) by the Essenes. Those guys were downright hateful. As such, as they never said anything nice about anyone but themselves and were categorically opposed to everyone who wasn’t an Essene, we have to be careful with their material—just as we have to read Josephus through the eyes of someone who hates political instability and adjust our perceptions accordingly, we have to weigh the inherent sectarian prejudice against outsiders.

IF scholars are right, and the Pharisees are the ones referred to by the Essenes as “Ephraim”—making the Sadducees “Mannasseh” the ones who “control Israel”—then the Damascus Document found near Qumran portrays the Pharisees as the “builders of the wall”—perhaps a reference to their command to build fences around the Torah (Avot 1:1)—who are specifically called out for, among other things, promoting marriage to one’s niece and polygamy (both permitted and even promoted in later Rabbinic texts). They describe this group as spinners of spider webs, despisers of God who have separated from true Judaism, hated by God and responsible for God’s anger against His people, following false teachers and therefore not understanding of the truth that the Essenes knew. Other scrolls prophesy, and I am reading here from Lawrence Shiffman’s article “The Pharisees and Their Legal Traditions According to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” on page 266 that they will be destroyed by the “last prince,” that they have removed God’s boundaries by teaching false things, speaking rebelliously against God’s Laws, prophesying deceit, and causing Israel to go astray. They are expounders of false laws, etc. and as a teacher, they have the “man of lies” as opposed to their own teacher of righteousness.

So, there’s that, but no one ever called the Essenes a bunch of nice guys after reading enough of their writings. So, we can’t take what they write and say, “Yep, those Pharisees were devils in disguise.” Like last week when we talked about polemic in the ancient world, this was how philosophical opponents talked about one another.

How about the Bible? Well, the Bible presents the Pharisees as (1) educated, (2) primarily linked to Jerusalem, (3) active in the synagogues, (4) concerned with Sabbath observances, purity concerns, tithing, divorce, (5) the new-fangled belief in the resurrection of the dead and the world to come and angels. It absolutely presents them as some sort of loosely based voluntary association—we see nothing here or in any documents about educational requirements for being a Pharisee, what their personal backgrounds were, membership requirements, etc. We don’t know about leadership (beyond later Rabbinic stories about Hillel and Shammai, who are not otherwise mentioned historically but whom we have no reason to doubt the existence of), or about how one became a Pharisee. We have a very few rulings attributed to them in the Bible, as well as some others in the Talmud, recorded much later. We don’t know if all Pharisees were well off, although we suspect they were because it takes an education in order to study and even have access to the Torah scrolls and leisure to learn beyond simple synagogue attendance. A poor man, unless he was working miracles, like Yeshua or a Hasid like Honi the Circle Drawer, wasn’t going to be given any attention. Of course, the most famous Pharisees in the Bible were Gamaliel and Paul. In Acts 15:5 we see Pharisees counted among the believers and appearing as witnesses or petitioners before the council.

So, the typical Pharisees were obviously well placed socially. They had time to study, and leisure to travel and investigate an upstart Galilean. They could read and write, which would make them valuable as retainers to the upper class. Likely many of them worked as counselors, scribes, bureaucrats, for the Temple and perhaps for the Romans, with whom they practiced a policy of getting along wherever they could, judges, and other administrative functions. I can say “obviously” only because there was no middle class in the Roman Empire. There were people who had money and those who did not. The poor were insanely poor and made up the bulk of the Roman Empire and especially in a place like Judea, which was nearly on the border of the Parthian Empire, which Rome was never able to defeat.

The Pharisees offered the people of the land, the am ha’aretz, a way to live out their identity as Jews with pride, despite their poverty. Although many of their legislations were oppressive, like the Hillelite ruling giving any man the right to leave his wife for any reason he wanted, and directives to tithe absolutely everything when they were already struggling to get by under the oppressive Roman taxes, most of the “boundary setting” regulations in existence at that time were probably entirely doable. Boundary setting is something we see in every culture, it marks off us from them. For the Jews, their boundary markers were things like circumcision, the Shema, tassels on their garments, and not eating unclean animals. These had become just incredibly important to the Jews after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes when things like circumcision were outlawed and punishable by death. It wasn’t just a commandment anymore, but a marker of who was and was not Jewish, who was and was not worthy. For a group to come along and give them pride in being Jews under Roman occupation, to teach them how to live set-apart lives, that was a powerful force in favor of the Pharisees. Josephus, I forgot to mention earlier, made a point of saying how the Pharisees actively cultivated good relationships with the villagers and citizens of Roman-occupied Judea, Galilee, Perea and Transjordan. As they were educated, in that culture, it is likely that they served as go-betweens, mediators, and patrons of the lower classes. In those days, formal synagogues were still very rare in the Land, and so it is very possible that services were held in the courtyards of local Pharisees or other wealthier citizens. That would foster a tremendous amount of goodwill, but it is also speculation on my part. Josephus pointed out that the Pharisees were so well-liked by the populace that all they had to do was slander someone, even the king or high priest, and they would be immediately believed. That’s some serious credibility. So, when John the Baptist and Yeshua both launched polemic attacks against these guys, the Jerusalem audience would have been astounded. Despite the Galilean villagers having already come to respect Him by seeing his miracles, teachings, and victories in His verbal battles with the Pharisees, the Judeans still would have had tremendous respect for the Pharisees. Yeshua was not a local, and in the synoptic Gospels He never ever shows up in Jerusalem until that final Passover (John records other brief visits but no serious extended ministry work there).

So, although Yeshua was only attacking a group of six thousand among millions of Jews in the Land, He really was attacking the popular kids who had completely ingratiated themselves to the “little people.” Being mostly only bureaucrats and the retainers of the wealthy, they didn’t have any real political power of their own except through their upper class patrons—in other words, any power they had in the first century was only by proxy, on behalf of their more powerful and potentially aristocratic employers, or through influence with the masses—but on their own they had no political power to speak of. All four Gospels prove this out when the High priest and chief priests and elders are the ones who have Yeshua arrested and tried. The Pharisees are never mentioned.

They were recorded in later Jewish accounts as having places on the Sanhedrin council, which makes sense as they were judiciary positions for the educated. The Talmud has quite the love/hate relationship with them, and never once do the authors identify themselves as either the Pharisees or their heirs in any way. That’s really important. It is possible that, with Christianity growing, that they wanted to distance themselves from the Pharisees, we really can’t say for sure.

Now, how were they different from later Rabbis? Because no one was called a Rabbi during those times as a title, and in the Talmud, the sages are not called Rabbis. If we look at two men who lived at the same time, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Yohannan ben Zakkai, we see the former as clearly a classic Pharisee and the second as the or one of the leads of the emerging Rabbinic movement of the second century. Of the rulings of theirs preserved in the Talmud, we see Eliezer concerned with classic Pharisaic concerns—ritual purity, tithing, and Sabbath observance. His rulings reflect a desire to continue life as it was before the destruction of the Temple with the clear belief that it would be rebuilt shortly—just as the case with the destruction of the First Temple and the rebuilding of Nehemiah’s Temple. His aim was to preserve their established way of life so that everything could resume as before the disaster. He had as His goal the continuation of Jewish life as a Pharisaic institution. Yohannan was very different, in that he was more interested in establishing a post-Temple way of life where the authority of the priests was subordinated to the new class of Rabbis, and new laws and doctrines were enacted in order to compensate for the loss of the Temple. Zakkai’s reforms did not happen overnight and reading the Talmudic and other writings show us that there were some very profound arguments and disagreements over the next few hundred years as the Rabbinic movement finally won and their ways became normalized for Judaism.  If first-century Judaism was already successfully rabbinic by virtue of the Pharisees already practicing Rabbinic Judaism, then there would have been very little struggle. And more, Eliezer would never have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the majority. The Pharisees were similar to the later Rabbis, but never carried the authority, organization, and never had the power to rule over the masses, and especially not in the diaspora. What the later Rabbis accomplished has to be admired no matter who you are, it was a stunning achievement, but it doesn’t represent what Judaism looked like in Yeshua’s lifetime. Nor does the modern Karaite movement.

Now, the flip side of all this is the Scribes, who we see associated sometimes with the Pharisees, other times with the Chief Priests and sometimes on their own. Whereas the Pharisees were a sect, a voluntary organization based on a shared vision and common beliefs and goals for society, the Scribes were a professional class, and it is likely many were hereditary from scribal families who trained up their sons in the trade. We see Scribes throughout the Bible—Baruch, for example—a modern term might be secretary, but only in the larger meaning where secretaries aren’t just people who take dictation, but also legal experts who draw up documents, translate, serve in the judiciary, maintain government posts, etc. But in that time, a Scribe could also mean an expert in and teacher of the Law. Like the Pharisees, they would be a part of the retainer class—employees of the wealthy and powerful, but some Scribes were simply low-level village administrators—people who could read and write and draw up basic contracts. Based on the spelling mistakes seen in such documents of the era, Scribes in these outlying areas weren’t always high quality.

So what do we know about the Scribes from the NT? Matthew mentions them 22 times, and the first mention is of them being consulted by Herod in 2:4 as to the arrival of the Messiah. So, they were obviously serving as counselors and experts in the Hebrew Scriptures. Matt 7:29 is the famous remark about Yeshua teaching by His own authority, and not as the Scribes do. In Talmudic and other Jewish writings, we see that such and such taught in the name of such and such—they derived authority for their teachings by it formerly being taught by someone else. Sort of like the two-witness rule. I liken it to saying, “Hey, it’s not just me saying this, I got it from such and such.” But Yeshua does no such thing. In Matt 8:19, a Scribe wants to follow Him, and in 13:52 Yeshua talks about the value of the Scribes who are trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. In other places we see them linked with the Pharisees and most especially in the Matt 23 “woes” which we will be heading into over the weeks to come. Yeshua marks out the Scribes and chief priests as those who will condemn Him to death in Matt 20:18 and the Scribes are listed among those who condemn him (26:57) mock Him around the Cross (27:41).

Mark 2:16 is where we see the phrase “Scribes of the Pharisees”—clearly showing that not all Pharisees are Scribes yet some Scribes are Pharisees. Josephus mentioned that many of the Scribes shared a lot of beliefs in common with the Pharisees, and we see this validated when they ask about Yeshua’s practice of eating with sinners, a serious concern of the Pharisees in general. In Mark 7:1 we see that the Scribes came down “from Jerusalem” with the Pharisees and joined with them in questioning Yeshua in a dispute about traditional handwashing. Yeshua addresses both groups and rebukes them for some of their traditions that oppress others, blatantly breaking commandments in the process, while refusing to discuss their handwashing tradition. In Mark 9:11, Yeshua is asked about a Scribal teaching about Elijah coming before the Messiah.  In Mark 12, impressed by Yeshua’s answers, a Scribe asks Him about the greatest commandment and compliments Him on His answer, deferring to Him as “teacher.” For the rest of the Gospel, the scribes are implicit in the plot to arrest and kill Him, along with the chief priests while, again, the Pharisees are never mentioned or implicated in any way. So these would be the Scribes of the Chief Priests and not the Scribes of the Pharisees. Mark mentions Scribes 21 times.

In Luke, the Scribes are mentioned 14 times, sometimes with the Pharisees, sometimes with the chief priests and elders and sometimes alone. I am only going to talk about new situations and not rehash what we see in other gospels. In 6:7 we see them pairing up with the Pharisees to see if they can accuse Him about some sort of Sabbath violation. In Luke 20, after the infamous confrontation with the Sadducees about the barren woman who married seven times, some of the Scribes verbally commended Him on His answer—obviously, these were more likely Pharisaic Scribes as the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection or the world to come. Many of the appearances of the Scribes in this Gospel have to do with their roles in the trial of Yeshua.

In the Gospel of John, they are only mentioned once, and that is when they and the Pharisees haul the adulterous woman before Yeshua in order to test Him.

Scribes are also referred to in certain situations by the term “lawyers” and “teachers of the law” which meant pretty much the same thing. Don’t think Perry Mason or Matlock when you hear the word lawyer.

Really, when we look at what Judaism morphed into in the centuries after the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis of later centuries were really more like Scribes in some ways than just Pharisees. Teachers became a formal power class within Judaism, to whom even the priests were subject. That was not even remotely the case in the first century—as Josephus said, it was the Sadducees who came from the elite classes. And I haven’t even talked about how awful they were.




The Woman with the Issue of Blood – The Story Behind the Story

I love it when I find something that I have never heard taught before.

In my studies of Israelite marriage and betrothal customs and laws, I was reading the Kehati Mishnah Commentary of Tractate Ketubot. Tucked away in Chapter 4, Mishnah 9 was a remarkable passage about the rights of a man to divorce his ailing wife and the various opinions of scholars on the subject, most notably Rambam and Ravad, both 12th-century commentators on the Mishnah. The Mishnah (finalized in 200 CE by Yehudah haNasi) contains Sanhedrin rulings and opinions gathered over the course of several centuries related to Torah Law – it is not much different than the formal written proceedings of the United States Supreme Court in that we have basic laws, and it is the job of the Courts to interpret those laws when disputes and cases come before them. The Sanhedrin, the “supreme court” of the Jews, served in that function as outlined in Exodus 16, as well as Deut 16, and 17.

As with the “right to privacy” here in America, which originally meant limitations on the right of the government to illegal search and seizure without probable legal cause, yet was later twisted into the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy – we also have cases of the Law of God being twisted out of its original purpose of commanding us to love our neighbors.

I believe that the “woman with the issue of blood” mentioned in Matthew 5, Mark 9, and Luke 8 suffered under just this type of twisting of the intention of the Law by men who were very much the products of their time:

Mark 9:25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years,26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

Kehati Mishnah Tractate Ketubot 4.9:

“If she was taken captive, he is obligated to ransom her. And if he said, “Here is her get (her divorce document) and her ketubah (the money owed her by contract if divorced), let her ransom herself!” – he is not allowed. If she fell ill, he is responsible for her healing. If he said, “Here is her get and her ketubah, let her heal herself!” – he is allowed.” (Pinchas Kehati, translated by Edward Levin, Mishnah Seder Nashim Vol 1, Ketubot pg 63-4)

Although this may sound confusing, when taken in context with the rest of the Tractate, and especially the whole of Chapter 4, it states that a man was not allowed to refuse to ransom his wife if she was taken captive. He could not simply take the opportunity to get rid of her by saying, “Wow, what a stroke of luck, I’ll just divorce her and give her the 200 dinars (if she was a virgin when he married her, otherwise 100 dinars) and she can ransom herself!” It was a literal court order that no matter what was written in the ketubah, he was in fact required to ransom his wife. In fact, it has been eye-opening learning exactly what was in a ketubah originally – it made divorce prohibitively expensive.

If the wife was sick, however, that was a different situation which was subject to much commentary. Healing was a part of the maintenance a husband owed his wife, in exchange for her acting the part of a wife – but a divorced wife was entitled to no such care from her husband. The question became: when can you divorce a sick wife?

RAMBAM (Maimonides aka Moshe ben Maimon d. 1204) interpreted this ruling as saying that if a woman had been ill for a long time and it was going to be too costly to care for her, a man could, in fact, divorce her if he was willing to give her the get and ketubah – however, in Hilcot Ishut 14.17 he plainly stated that “this is unfitting and improper behavior.” In other words, they may have ruled that this was kosher, but Rambam didn’t approve. As Rambam is the most respected commentator in history, his view is going to reflect the overwhelming majority view among Jews today.

RAVAD (Abraham ben David d. 1198) claimed that the case law applied only to a woman who was not bedridden. A bedridden wife had to be cared for until she healed or died. Therefore, a woman who was sick but not bedridden could be given a divorce and her inheritance money and forced to fend for herself. This interpretation brings us to the woman with the issue of blood.

The woman in the Gospel accounts was obviously not bedridden, as she was able to approach Yeshua and reach out for the hem of his garment. She had also spent “all that she had” in trying to be cured. I submit that this woman, sick for twelve years, had probably been cast off and paid off by her husband once it became clear that her disease would render her unable to provide him with children. A woman who was constantly bleeding, as per Torah Law, could never be approached sexually – it was an abomination (Lev 18:19). Because he could no longer derive that benefit from her, he divorced her and gave her the (probably) 200 dinars owed to her by the ketubah.

As Rambam rightly declared, “unfitting and improper behavior” indeed.

The woman who approached Yeshua committed no sin in doing so, as it was no sin either to be unclean or to render someone else unclean via an issue of blood (excepting in the case of sexual contact) as long as it was not done within a sacred area – in fact, anyone who wished to go to the inner Temple Courts would have had to mikvah and wait until after sundown anyway, and this changed nothing. If I am correct, then this was an ailing woman who had been handed a divorce by her husband, along with her inheritance money, and booted from her home. Her father and brothers owed her nothing once she was married, so she was probably on her own and had spent all of her money in a desperate attempt to be cured. At this point, her life was pretty much hopeless. She could not marry, or earn a living; she had no access to modern medicine and no money left for it anyway – this prophet from Galilee was her only hope in the world. And she believed with all her heart that merely touching his garment would heal her.

So she reached out and touched the hem of his garment – the hem of the firstborn son which traditionally carried the authority of the family. (If you are interested in the ancient context of the hem of the firstborn son, check out www.rootedintorah.com “The Hem and Garment Concept Block”)

I find it interesting, this phrase, “Who touched my garments?”

As a divorced woman, unattached to her father, her brothers, or a husband, she lacked identity in that world. She couldn’t say that she was X, wife of Y or mother of Z. Because of her issue of blood, she had been deprived of her identity as a woman – that of wife and mother – and when the Word says that she “told Him the whole truth,” I am pretty sure that she probably told Him a story akin to the one I just laid out for you.

How does Yeshua respond?

Daughter, your faith has made you well….”

Did you catch that? He gave her an identity again. Yeshua gave her life back, her health, her identity, and her honor as well. He reminded her (and the entire crowd) that even though her husband had abandoned her, she was still a daughter of Abraham. Yeshua had ushered her back into the realm of the living. Her husband unjustly cast her aside, while the Bridegroom, in an act of compassionate justice, healed her and gave her honor back.