Jesus and His Disciples: Rabbinic Schools, Oral Law, and Distinct Callings – Discipleship in the Original Jewish Context, Part 5

Read the series.

The Two Rabbinic Schools in Jesus’ Day

The Jerusalem Talmud states that, “Israel went into exile only after it became divided into twenty-four sects.”¹ Most students of the Gospels are aware of the major division between the Pharisees and Sadducees, but that was not the only division. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees themselves were divided into two groups or schools (aka, “houses”), Beit (sometimes “Bet”) Shammai and Beit Hillel.² Modern Judaism has mostly descended from the Beit Hillel faction of the Pharisees.

Yeshua very often agreed with the Pharisees, but this does not mean he considered himself a Pharisee. Although Christ was caught in the crossfire between Pharisees from Beit Shammai and Pharisees from Beit Hillel, we have no reason to believe that Yeshua claimed allegiance to either of these two schools. Still, He operated—in a broad sense—within that tradition.³

The New Testament authors referred to “the Pharisees” as though they were a single group. Yeshua, however, may have originally used qualifiers not preserved in the Gospels. For example, Christ may have said, “The Pharisees of Beit Shammai…” or “that group of Pharisees.”⁴ Or perhaps He did not. What we can say with certainty is this: the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel authors to paint with a broad brush when it came to the Pharisees—and the Jews in general.

Beit Hillel was noted for its mercy and tolerance, missionary zeal to reach gentiles, and its less stringent view of the Law; Beit Shammai was noted for it harshness, intolerance, and bitterness toward gentiles.

Members of Beit Hillel would have been the most comfortable with Yeshua’s rulings, and thus more favorable toward Him (at least initially). Members of Beit Shammai would have been quickly irritated at Jesus’ message and conduct. Beit Hillel’s leading rabbi, Gamaliel (who was also the grandson of Hillel), initially took a tolerant view of the early Christians and even appeared open to the Gospel when advising the council what to do with the arrested apostles (Acts 5:34-39 passim):

But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men…So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice…

Gamaliel’s approach would be typical of Pharisees associated with Beit Hillel. Nonetheless, Saul of Tarsus was trained by Gamaliel!⁵ It seems even Hillel’s school took a harsh turn—in time—toward followers of Messiah Yeshua. Saul’s collaboration with the High Priest (a Sadducee) demonstrated Jewish solidarity against the Jewish messianic movement.

Yeshua and the Oral Law

In Jesus’ day, a disciple was not allowed to commit his rabbi’s teachings to writing. David Bivin enlightens us:

It may surprise us that a disciple of a sage was not permitted to transmit in writing the words of his master. A rabbi’s teaching was considered ‘Oral Torah’…and as such its transmission in writing was strongly prohibited. It therefore seems likely that Jesus’ first disciples would not have dared preserve his teaching in writing, but would have transmitted it orally. Rather than compromising Jesus’ words, this was more likely key to preserving them accurately for future generations.⁶

Such patterns of memorization make the “Q Document” theory unnecessary: the teachings and miracles of Yeshua would have been committed to memory by his followers, and these memorized portions would have served as anchor texts for the Gospel writers.

The memorized teaching of the early rabbis was considered “Oral Law” and supposedly passed down by Moses—even though it was spoken by rabbis who lived centuries after Moses. Michael L. Brown summarizes the Orthodox Jewish belief: “Moses not only received the entire Hebrew Bible on Mount Sinai, he received the entire Mishnah⁷ and Talmud.”⁸

We may think it absurd that Moses received the help of rabbis who lived more than 1500 years later—but that is nonetheless the belief. Such convictions, however, were still being formulated in the first century.

During the time of Jesus, not all Jews viewed the teachings of the sages as oral Torah.⁹ Even in modern times, Karaite Jews believe the entire Tanakh (Old Testament) while rejecting the Talmud (the oral Torah reduced to writing) as authoritative.¹⁰ In a sense, Karaites are the Jewish equivalent of “Sola Scriptura” evangelicals, but their Scriptures are, obviously, limited to the First Testament.

Nehemia Gordon, himself a Karaite, suggests that Yeshua embraced the Karaite viewpoint regarding the Scriptures, rejecting “the traditions of men”¹¹ as authoritative.

Jacob Neusner suggests that the Oral Law (beginning with the Mishnah, the most ancient part of the Talmud) gained this level of authority only after it was finally written down:

I refer to the Mishnah, a philosophical law code that reached closure about 200 C.E. and soon afterward was represented as part of the Torah God had revealed to Moses at Sinai. This component of the Torah represented revelation that was orally formulated and orally transmitted. The advent of the Mishnah in circa 200 demanded that people explain the status and authority of the new document. The Mishnah rapidly was accorded the status of the authoritative law-code of Judaism…¹²

I suspect that Yeshua’s viewpoint regarding the Oral Law is similar to that of Dr. Louis Goldberg:

First, as already noted from Hillel’s and Ishmael’s rules of hermeneutics, a good part of the Oral Law reflects sound interpretations of the Written Law and can be used appropriately on many occasions when seeking to enhance the witness of Messianic Jews.

Second, some features of the Oral Law can be adapted by believers to express a scriptural faith.

And third, certain elements of the Oral Law go far beyond and are even contrary to the Written Law.¹³

Since the Talmud did not even begin to be written down until the second century (while memorized tractates date back to 200 B.C.), and since the Gospels were penned much earlier (in the first century), we can draw a conclusion: the early believers considered Jesus’ teachings authoritative Scripture.

The Disciples: Called Multiple Times

There are several different “callings” of Jesus’ disciples in the Gospels. Let’s take a look at at least three of them.

1. Some of the Disciples were temporarily called the first time per John 1:35-51. While some of these men were not have familiar with Jesus, others were.¹⁴ They were initially disciples of John, and John pointed to Yeshua as the “Lamb of God…of whom I am not worthy to untie His sandal.”¹⁵ These disciples spent a period of time with Jesus and then returned to their vocations.
2. We see a second temporary calling in Mark 1:16-20 (also Matthew 4:18-22). Jesus was calling His disciples to spend another period of time with Him, followed by the disciples returning home.
3. About two years after the first calling, Jesus calls His disciples to follow Him for a third time (Luke 5:1-11). At this point, the disciples were called to leave their work and families for a period of about a year and a half. Luke records this call while omitting the others.

If a married man wanted to follow a rabbi for more than thirty days, he could only do so with the permission of his wife,¹⁶ so we assume such permission was granted.