The Gospels and early Christian writings were deeply rooted in Jewish culture, which is essential for understanding their full meaning. The writers of the Gospels were observant Jews, participating in the religious and cultural practices of their time. They did not operate in isolation from Jewish customs but were thoroughly embedded within the Pharisaic tradition. A Pharisaic lens—one that honors both the written and oral Torah—sheds light on how these texts were originally meant to be read and understood.
Greek or Hellenistic thought, by contrast, brings a different set of philosophical assumptions to scripture, often introducing dualism between the physical and spiritual realms. Over time, this Greek influence would affect how the Gospels were interpreted, often disconnecting them from Judaism and transforming them into more abstract or allegorical texts under a new and very separate religion. But by returning to the Hebraic context, we can see how observant Jewish life, with its emphasis on both Torah law and oral tradition, shaped the Gospels' authors and their message before Greek philosophy was injected into it.
Hebrew Approach
The Hebraic approach of studying scripture involved not only the written Torah (the written word) but also the Oral Torah—interpretations, laws, and teachings passed down by word of mouth. This oral tradition was preserved and taught solely by the Pharisees, who emphasized the need for ongoing interpretation and application of the law. The synagogue, a central institution in Jewish life, was a Pharisaic space where both the written Torah and the oral traditions were taught. The Gospel writers, who often reference Jesus’ participation in synagogue life, indicate that they were part of this Pharisaic culture.
For example, in Luke 4:16, it is said that Jesus went to the synagogue “as was his custom,” demonstrating his adherence to Pharisaic Judaism and his participation in Pharisaic religious life. Synagogues were centers of learning and debate about the Torah and its interpretation, often led by Pharisees who believed in both the written and oral Torah. This contrasts with the Sadducees, a different Jewish sect who rejected the Oral Torah and followed a more hellenized (and later Christian adopted) view of "scripture alone", focusing strictly on the literal text of the Torah without the added layers of rabbinic interpretation.
The fact that Jesus and his disciples regularly attended synagogues shows that they were immersed in the Pharisaic culture of interpretation and debate. This context is essential because it demonstrates that the teachings in the Gospels did not emerge in isolation from Jewish thought, but rather were part of the ongoing Jewish conversation about the Torah and its application to everyday life.
Hebraic Approach of PaRDeS
The Pharisaic approach to scripture is deeply layered and practical, often explained through the method of Pardes, which involves four levels of interpretation: Pshat (literal meaning), Remez (allusion), Drash (homiletical or moral teaching), and Sod (mystical meaning). This method reflects the belief that scripture can be interpreted on multiple levels without losing its essential connection to real-life practice. When we see the gospel writers mention prophecies being fulfilled, they are using the method of Pardes to make their point.
One of the most notable examples where the Gospel of Matthew claims the fulfillment of a prophecy that is not explicitly written anywhere by any prophet.
"And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)
The challenge with this passage is that there is no direct prophecy that says the Messiah or any significant figure would be called a "Nazarene" or that someone would come from Nazareth. This raises the question of what Matthew is referring to and what method of interpretation he might be using.
The method of Pardes most likely at work here is Remez, meaning "hint" or "allusion." This interpretive method looks for subtle or indirect references in the text that may not be immediately obvious in the plain or literal sense (Pshat). Rather than quoting a direct verse, Matthew could be hinting at a thematic connection or wordplay based on the sound or meaning of words in Hebrew.
Additionally, Matthew could be using a play on words between "Nazarene" and the Hebrew word Netzer (נֵצֶר), which means "branch." The word Netzer appears in passages such as Isaiah 11:1:
"A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots, a Branch (Netzer) will bear fruit."
Isaiah 11:1 is a messianic prophecy, referring to the Messiah as a "branch" (or descendant) from the line of David, which could be linked to Jesus being metaphorically referred to as a "Nazarene" (a term possibly derived from Netzer).
This form of Remez allows Matthew to draw a connection between the messianic "branch" prophecy and the town of Nazareth, even though the text itself doesn’t explicitly say that the Messiah would come from Nazareth. Matthew might be using Remez to hint at a deeper meaning in the text, connecting Jesus to the prophetic imagery of a "branch" from Jesse’s line.
Greek Approach & Hellenism
A Greek or Hellenistic approach to scripture, in contrast to the Pharisaic tradition, often emphasizes abstract principles and philosophical dualism. In Greek thought, there is often a separation between the spiritual and physical realms, with the spiritual being seen as superior. This mindset can lead to a more allegorical reading of biblical texts, focusing on spiritual metaphors while downplaying the practical commandments and rituals that are central to Jewish life.
For example, the Jewish expectation of the messiah was grounded in a tangible, earthly hope—a future king from the line of David who would restore Israel and bring peace and justice to the world. However, under Greek influence, this expectation could be transformed into a more abstract, spiritualized idea of salvation, focused on the soul’s escape from the physical world. This shift from the physical to the spiritual often distorts the original Hebraic meaning of messianic prophecy.
Greek thought also introduced the idea of interpreting texts without the oral tradition or commentary that Judaism deemed essential. This approach started as a resemblance to the Sadducees' view, which relied solely on the written Torah and rejected the Oral Torah. In the same way that the Sadducees interpreted the Torah in isolation from rabbinic teaching, Hellenistic thinkers approached the Bible without the layers of Jewish understanding that had been passed down over the centuries. This shift leads to a fragmented understanding of scripture, one that is disconnected from the communal and interpretive framework that shaped Jewish religious life. Eventually, Christianity abandoned all rabbinic and started to create their own traditions while condemning the traditions that existed before it.
Deeper Contrasts to Hebraic
In Hebraic thought, the concept of flesh is not inherently evil. Instead, it is seen as part of G-d’s creation, with the potential to be transformed and sanctified through carrying out the commandments. The physical body is viewed as a vessel through which holiness is brought into the world, whether by keeping Sabbath, honoring parents, or engaging in acts of kindness. The challenge is not to escape the flesh but to elevate it and infuse it by making it 'set apart' (holy) by using it in service of G-d’s will.
By contrast, in Greek thought, especially as influenced by Plato, the flesh is seen as a prison for the soul, something inherently flawed that must be escaped in order to achieve purity. This dualistic approach pits the physical and spiritual against each other, with the body viewed as an obstacle to spiritual enlightenment.
Just as Greek philosophy separates the powers of good and evil into opposing forces that must ultimately destroy each other, it views the flesh as something to be discarded. The Hebraic worldview, however, emphasizes the unity of all creation, seeing good and evil not as opposing entities but as forces that can be transformed. The physical world, including the body, is not something to flee from, but to refine. The path to spiritual fulfillment is not found in the destruction of the body or the obliteration of evil, but in the ongoing transformation of both into tools for divine service and the fulfillment of G-d’s ultimate plan for unity.
But they wrote to Gentiles!
Paul, the one who was tasked with bringing the gospel to Gentiles, is often viewed as a figure who separated from Jewish tradition and law, was actually a Pharisee and a rabbi. His writings were directed to early Christian communities, many of which were composed of Gentiles, but his role as a rabbi meant that he approached the texts and issues from within the rabbinic interpretation of scriptures. In fact, the majority of what Paul writes is found in the Pharisaic writings and commentaries such as the Mishnah and Targums. Paul was trained in the Pharisaic method of interpretation, which valued both the written Torah and the oral traditions that provided deeper understanding and guidance for Jewish life.
In Acts 23:6, Paul himself declares, "I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees," showing his deep roots in this interpretive tradition. Paul’s audience included Gentiles, but he often addressed the leadership within these early communities, many of whom were either Jewish or trained in Jewish thought. These leaders would have understood the Torah and the oral traditions, enabling them to interpret Paul’s letters with the proper context and respond to the needs of their congregations.
This is a crucial distinction: while many of the early Christians were Gentiles, their leaders were often well-versed in Judaism and the rabbinic understanding and could serve as intermediaries, translating Paul’s writings within the context of Jewish law and thought to the Gentile congregations. This connection to the Pharisaic tradition gave them a deeper understanding of Paul’s teachings, which were grounded in the unity of the written and oral Torah. However, as Christianity distanced itself from its Judaism and the rabbinic understanding, this luxury of interpretation was lost. Without this connection, many of the nuances in Paul’s letters and the Gospels themselves became harder to understand. By moving away from the Pharisaic framework of scripture interpretation, Christianity developed a more Hellenistic approach, littered with Greek Philosophy which favored allegorical and spiritual readings over the practical, legal, and communal aspects that were so central to "the way" of "the spirit of the law" which was a Pharisaic approach to the law commonly associated with Hillel the Elder, the president of the Sanhedrin in Jesus' youth, and also the grandfather of Gameliel (Paul's rabbi).
Examples of Greek vs Hebraic Mindset in Scripture
If you separate the culture and tradition from the text, you could end up with widely different theology or understanding than what is intended.
A classic example of something that can be easily misunderstood if removed from its cultural or linguistic context is the phrase "It’s raining cats and dogs" in English.
For a native English speaker, this is a well-known idiom meaning that it’s raining very heavily. However, if you translate this phrase literally into another language or share it with someone unfamiliar with the idiom, it could lead to confusion. Without the cultural understanding that this is an idiom, a literal translation might cause someone to imagine animals falling from the sky, which obviously makes no sense in the intended context.
Here are some excerpts taken from the Gospels and Paul’s writings that have ties to Oral Torah or Jewish tradition, along with brief explanations of how they are understood from Hebraic vs. Greek perspectives:
Matthew 5:38-39
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person."
Hebraic Understanding: "Eye for an eye" in Jewish law, as clarified in the Oral Torah, was never meant literally but refers to financial compensation (Bava Kamma 83b-84a). Jesus’ teaching here aligns with rabbinic commentary, emphasizing mercy and reconciliation over strict retribution.
Greek Understanding: A Greek reading might see this as rejecting all forms of justice and punishment, focusing on transcending the physical and embracing a purely spiritual ethic of non-retaliation. Additionally, many Western/Greek lensed people believe that the law requires you to take an eye if you lost an eye! Because of this Greek view, Jesus must be saying, "the law was barbaric, but G-d changed his mind and now wants peace, so ignore the law."
Matthew 5:48
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Hebraic Understanding: The Hebrew word often related to this idea is tamim, which means "whole" or "complete," not flawless. In the Torah, when G-d tells Abraham to "walk before Me and be tamim," (Genesis 17:1) it means to live with integrity, sincerity, and wholeheartedness—striving toward ethical behavior and growth rather than attaining some idealized, static state of perfection. The Talmud and rabbinic literature stress that the path to "completeness/perfection" is one of constant improvement and repentance (teshuvah), rather than achieving some unattainable, metaphysical state of flawlessness. The key is not about becoming perfect in the Greek sense but about becoming complete by following G-d’s commandments and striving to fulfill one's potential.
Greek Understanding: In Greek philosophy, particularly in Plato's thought, perfection often refers to a state of flawlessness, purity, and unchanging ideal forms. The physical world is seen as inferior and corrupt, while the spiritual realm—the world of forms—is perfect and untainted by imperfection. In this view, perfection is an abstract, static state that one either attains or fails to attain. Humans, by virtue of being part of the physical world, are inherently imperfect and can only hope to escape this imperfection by transcending the material and embracing the pure, ideal spiritual forms.
In the Hellenistic context, being "perfect" aligns with reaching an ideal state of moral and spiritual flawlessness, often requiring the rejection or suppression of physical desires and realities. This dualism between the body (seen as corrupt) and the soul (seen as pure) is central to Greek thought and leads to the notion that perfection is a static, unachievable ideal in the physical world. This Greek philosophical influence leads the overwhelming majority of Christianity to believe that perfection is not attainable in this world because we have flesh.
Mark 7:8-9
"You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions."
Hebraic Understanding: This criticizes prioritizing certain customs over the Torah’s core ethical commands, a debate common among Jewish sects, including within Pharisaic circles. It is a call to return to the spirit of the law (as Hillel, the Pharisee demanded) rather than rejecting tradition entirely. To further this point, Paul himself says praises the people for keeping the traditions he passed down to people in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Jesus himself also participated in the tradition of Hanukkah (John 10:22-23). If Jesus and his disciples were against tradition, then they would be guilty of hypocrisy.
Greek Understanding: Greek thought might interpret this as a rejection of all Jewish traditions, creating a false dichotomy between the written law and "man-made" customs, further distancing Christianity from its Jewish roots. The Greeks often viewed the Oral Torah as just "human traditions," while Jews understood it as divine commandments, not merely customs. It’s like saying, "You follow the traditions of men instead of the laws of the government," and expecting someone to know that only federal laws count, while state laws are dismissed as mere tradition. It wouldn’t make sense in the same way, as both sets of laws are part of a unified system.
Conclusion
The shift from a Hebraic to a Greek approach in early Christian interpretation had profound effects on how scripture, law, and prophecy were understood. The Gospels, originally written by observant Jews deeply embedded in Pharisaic tradition, reflect a culture that valued both the written Torah and the Oral Torah—essential for interpreting and living the commandments. By attending synagogues, engaging with Jewish law, and participating in Pharisaic debates, Jesus and his followers were part of this ongoing Jewish conversation about how to apply the Torah to daily life. Paul, too, as a Pharisee, continued this tradition, writing to Gentile communities but with a distinctly Jewish foundation that their leadership would have understood.
However, as Christianity distanced itself from its Jewish roots, it lost access to the interpretive frameworks that had been passed down through the Pharisaic tradition. The introduction of Greek thought, with its dualistic view of the physical and spiritual realms, altered the interpretation of key biblical concepts, shifting the focus from practical observance to abstract spirituality. Where Hebraic thought sought to sanctify the physical world through the commandments, Greek philosophy emphasized escaping it. This divergence led to a loss of the rich, multi-layered approach to scripture found in Jewish tradition, replacing it with a more rigid, allegorical understanding that often overlooked the practical, transformative power of living the Torah.
By reclaiming the Hebraic context of the Gospels and Paul’s writings, we can better appreciate their original meaning, rooted in Jewish law and the Pharisaic tradition. This deeper understanding restores the unity between the physical and spiritual, emphasizing that holiness is not found in rejecting the world, but in elevating it through righteous action and obedience to G-d's will.
Commentaires