“Jesus, whose Hebrew name was Yeshua, was born in Bethlehem of Judea. His mother’s name was Miriam, and His followers were named Yaakov and Shimon and Yehudah, among others. …And when He comes again, He is returning to Jerusalem.” - Michael Brown
Read Part 1.
In our day, we can find a plethora of Jewish Roots resources at our fingertips. Even a fresh translation of The Babylonian Talmud on CD1 offers us a wealth of traditional rabbinic teaching right at hand – for a very low price. Older translations are available online for free. There are many free resources online, including one particularly helpful resource: The Jewish Encyclopedia.
What is the big deal about Jewish Roots? How can we better understand Jesus by examining the debates of His day? Why should we care if He derived some of His teaching from Old Testament passages?
The answer is simple: context. Jewish Roots studies can contribute toward increasing the Biblical context; when we increase context, we increase understanding.
As a conservative evangelical, I hold the Scriptures in high regard. My reverence for the Scriptures means I seek to interpret them fairly, using a method described by the term, “Historical-Grammatical.” Norman Geisler comments in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics:
Over the many years I have been reading and writing about the Christian Faith, I have become just a little irritated by those well meaning people who try to tell me that in order to really know about Jesus, or ‘Yeshua’ as they like to call Him, it is necessary to get a Jewish perspective on the Gospels. (Actually, “Yeshua” is Hebrew, and Hebrew was rarely spoken in Israel in His day. According to the esteemed Jewish historian David Flusser, “Yeshu” would have in all probability been His name in Galilee (The Sage From Galilee, 6)).
I am a believer in the concept of biblical patterns and double or even multiple fulfillments of prophecy. The destruction of the Temple on the 9th of Av, 586 BC and again on the 9th of Av, AD 70 evidence the pattern-like nature of God’s dealings.
Still, prophecies usually have one “more literal” fulfillment (e.g., Isaiah 7:14). So it is possible to examine a verse, see how it was fulfilled somewhat near to the prophecy, but then see a fuller fulfillment in the future. Thus the Book of Revelation can have several fulfillments, one that is past, one that is ideological and not tied to particular dates, and one that is somewhat more literal, sequential, and tied to the End Times. Thus the “Futurist” approach to Revelation is not necessarily mutually exclusive, but is, I believe, primary.
Does Jewish literature leave us an example, a clue for interpreting Revelation 4-19 in particular? Although many of us tie this period to Daniel’s 70th seven (Daniel 9:25ff), others see it otherwise. So what evidence is there—outside of the Bible proper—that suggests understanding Revelation 4-19 as an expansion and detailed account of the coming seven-year world tribulation? Glad you asked.
Many scholars—whether non-Christians (such as David Flusser or Shmuel Safrai), Christians of a different flavor than we (such as Jacob Neusner), or evangelicals (such as Brad Young or David Bivin) have demonstrated that many NT passages are in the form of midrash: Jewish-style expositions, explanations and expansions of OT verses.
When one accepts the idea that many NT teachings are actually midrashim (the plural of midrash), the equation shifts. We are no longer trying to connect Paul to the Greek or Roman culture, neither are we interpreting him Platonically. We are asserting that much of the NT is based upon the OT—with some new revelation, yes, but not merely as much as many think. Most—of the major doctrines we believe and defend can be extracted from the OT. We are avowing that the NT writers were often such extractors.
Once we learn to interpret NT passages in conjunction with their OT origins (what I call “mother texts,”), we will find that many erroneous doctrines rescind and shrivel into non-existence. Conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have essentially overlooked the wealth midrash brings to apologetics, hermeneutics, and theology. Midrash is a good friend to conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, yet many of us are oblivious to it.
Most of us have already embraced the concept of midrash without knowing it. Biblical Theology—tracing the progress of doctrine from Genesis through Revelation—is a cousin to midrash. Proving the deity of Christ through Isaiah 9:6-7 is getting even closer. Interpreting the NT virgin birth teaching (Matt. 1:23 and Gal. 4:4-5) in light of Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14 is almost full-blown midrash.
Yeshua’s* teaching about the new birth is a Midrash (explanation and application of an Old Testament text). In the text below, Jesus faults Nicodemus for not understanding the concept of the new birth already, even if he did not recognize Yeshua’s terminology. Thus the concept of new birth cannot be an original teaching of Jesus. Nor is its mysterious nature (like the wind) a new teaching.
