Jewish Sages on the value and necessity of being rebuked
When we stray from the truth in our faith or when we sin with our actions, is there someone to correct us, to get us on the right path? Wow unto us if there’s no one who cares, no one who is willing or able to set us straight. Our sages have taught that there much value in a reproof, and that we should seek it and even welcome, not shun it or the messenger who delivers it, whenever a rebuke comes our way:
We have been taught that Rabbi (Judah I, the Patriach] said: What is the right way a man should choose for himself? He should love reproofs. As long as there are reproofs in the world, peace of mind comes to the world, good and blessing come to the world, and evil departs from the world, as is said: “But to them that are eager to be reproved, there shall come delight, and the blessing of good shall come upon them” (Proverbs 24:25) (B. Tam 28a.)
When a person rebukes another who is on the wrong path, one acts as G-d would act:
R. Samuel bar Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: He who reproves his neighbor for Heaven’s sake is deemed worthy of being in the Holy One’s own portion, as it is said, “He that reproves a man is to be right behind Me” (Proverbs 28:23). More: a thread of favor is to be twined about him, as it is said, “He shall find more favor that he that flattereth with his tongue” (B. Tam 28a.)
To care about someone enough to rebuke him is an act of true caring and love. On the flip side, if a person on the receiving end is wise, he will accept the rebuke and will react not with anger, but with love:
R. Yose bar Hanina said: Reproof leads to love, as is said, “Reprove a wise man, and he will love three” (Proverbs 9:8). Such is the opinion of R. Yose bar Hanina, who on another occasion said: All love that has no reproof with it is not true love.
Resh Lakish said: Reproof leads to peace. Such is the opinion of the sage, who on another occasion said: All peace that has no reproof with it is not peace.” (Gen R. 54:3)
Gene,
Does this post have anything to do with our discussion from the other day? I only ask because this post was made at about the same time that you and I engaged in one of our longest back-and-forths to date.
-Peter
Peter… I have a book with sayings of Sages categorized by topic. This topic came up with the very first random opening of that book that day and it caught my eye. Relation to our or any other discussion, if you see any, is coincidental …. but you know what they say about G-d and coincidences.
The old illustration for not taking coincidences as being from G-d is the story about the guy who opens the Bible randomly and it says Judas “went and hanged himself” and then he opens it once more and it says “Go and do thou likewise.”
“old illustration for not taking coincidences”
The original joke you cited, Peter, is nothing to do with coincidences, but rather with a deliberate practice known as “prooftexting”, that is stringing together decontextualised Biblical quotations in an attempt prove a point that you want your audience to believe. Does it remind you of anything?
Getting back to the post: what do you think about the Sages’ view on the value rebuking?
Gene,
I value rebuking. That’s why I do two things: (1) I present my views with all their potential flaws on blogs like yours and then I wait to see if someone can point out a legitimate weakness in the view and; (2) I have a set of personal advisors to whom I frequently refer.
For example, when we had our longest back and forth the other day I asked my friend what he thought of our discussion. He said I was making valid points but that I tended to get stuck in “zing-back loops.” So I’m trying to learn from that.
I do, however, think that what I was saying corresponds to Romans 2, the idea that there are different forms of Jewishness. Perhaps Paul was saying that there are ethnic Jews and there are covenanted ethnic Jews and there are covenanted ethnic gentiles who now belong to the “politeia” of Israel. This seems like a reasonable way to understand the passage.
We know that lineage is important because this makes circumcision requisite. We also know that the person who does not circumcise will be cut off from his people. We know that the person who eats leavened bread during Passover will be cut off from his people.
We also know that the covenant was Passover:
“And in fact the OT often mentions the covenant ‘which the [L-rd] made with them when (on the day that) he brought them out of the land of Egypt’ (Deut 29:25; I Kg 8:9; Jer 31:32; 34:13).” Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi by Karl Rahner
We also know from passages like Joshua 5 that when you fall out of the covenant then you need to renew the covenant through Passover:
“It also seems as though the renewal of the covenant was sealed for preference by a solemn Passover (2 Kg 23:23; 21f.; cf. 2Chr 35:1-18 and 30:I-27).” ibid.
We know that Passover is what created Israel:
“”The creation of Israel as the people of [Adonai] (Isa. xliii. 15) commenced with the institution of the Passover. As a proof of this, it was preceded by the appointment of a new era, fixing the commencement of the congregation of [Adonai].” pg 10 of Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 2 by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch
So it was something spiritual that created Israel. So it makes sense that there must be some spiritual aspect that keeps one in the covenant.
I think that the need for this spiritual aspect if how you can resolve passages like Gen 17:14
“Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
So if the physical circumcision is spiritual in that it’s a provision of a spiritual covenant then this proves that the physical birth/lineage is not enough to stay with your people (i.e. not enough to stay Jewish in the fullest sense).
And don’t these things correspond to Paul’s words in Romans 2?
Romans 2:
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) ….
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
Conclusion: One is a Jew is some sense by virtue of birth. But this Jewishness is not enough to keep you with your people–you must be circumcised. And even circumcision isn’t enough to keep you with your people (e.g. you can’t get cut off from your people by eating leaven during Passover, etc). But even following those things doesn’t give you the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant. In other words, physical circumcision may keep you connected to your people ethnically and even spiritually in some sense but if you don’t become spiritually circumcised then you are in as bad a situation as the Israelites in Joshua 5 who were uncircumcised (and in need of recovenanting through Passover)–you’ve become an ethnic Israelite who has been cut off from the spiritual commonwealth of Israel. The ethnicity becomes less important in that context.
I’m just trying to resolve Paul’s nuanced approached to Jewishness. Do you have a better Pauline hermeneutic? I’m open to listen. I don’t claim to have a perfect hermeneutic here. But it’s a lot better than most in that it recognizes the different layers of Jewishness and accords each layer a certain validity in regard to the Old and New Covenants.
Cheers,
Peter
correction: I meant to say you CAN get cut off by eating leaven during Passover (in regard to the Old Covenant).
“Romans 2, the idea that there are different forms of Jewishness. Perhaps Paul was saying that there are ethnic Jews and there are covenanted ethnic Jews and there are covenanted ethnic gentiles who now belong to the “politeia” of Israel. This seems like a reasonable way to understand the passage. ”
I would have to disagree on the point that Paul was trying to include Gentiles into Israel in Romans 2-28-29. He’s speaking to an “imaginary” Jewish reader who took pride in the externals but ignored the internals. However, to shame his “imaginary” Jewish reader, Paul does imbed the idea that a righteous Gentile (even though, as Paul explicitly writes, he doesn’t have the written Torah of the Jews, i.e. he is not a Jew nor is he observant of Torah in the way Jews are) demonstrates by his actions that he has a circumcised heart. A righteous Gentile is far better off than a wicked Jew.
“We know that Passover is what created Israel”
I would agree that Passover was indeed a watershed moment in Israel’s history, but Israelites (i.e. Children of Israel) the people (along with promises made to them through their forefathers) have existed well before that. This is not dissimilar to Yeshua’s (the second “Moses”) own Passover for an already existing Israel.
“One is a Jew is some sense by virtue of birth. But this Jewishness is not enough to keep you with your people–you must be circumcised. And even circumcision isn’t enough to keep you with your people (e.g. you can’t get cut off from your people by eating leaven during Passover, etc). But even following those things doesn’t give you the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant. In other words, physical circumcision may keep you connected to your people ethnically and even spiritually in some sense but if you don’t become spiritually circumcised then you are in as bad a situation as the Israelites in Joshua 5 who were uncircumcised (and in need of recovenanting through Passover)–you’ve become an ethnic Israelite who has been cut off from the spiritual commonwealth of Israel. The ethnicity becomes less important in that context. ”
Peter, I don’t think I can disagree with anything you said in your conclusion above. However, G-d operates with far more compassion when it comes to actually “cutting off” Jewish people for violations of Torah commandments that call for that (and there are many such commandments, not just circumcision or violations of Passover minutiae).
“I would have to disagree on the point that Paul was trying to include Gentiles into Israel in Romans 2-28-29.”
He does explicitly include them in Ephesians 2. Ephesians 2 says that gentiles are “politeia” and “sumpolites” in Israel. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary defines these terms as follows:
“”2. sumpolites…denotes ‘a fellow citizen,’ i.e., possessing the same ‘citizenship,’…3. politeia…signifies (a) ‘the relation in which a citizen stands to the state, the condition of a citizen, citizenship,’ Acts 22:28, ‘with a great sum obtained I this citizenship’ (KJV, ‘freedom’). While Paul’s ‘citizenship’ of Tarsus was not of advantage outside that city, yet his Roman ‘citizenship’ availed throughout the Roman Empire and, besides private rights, included (1) exemption from all degrading punishments; (2) a right of appeal to the emperor after a sentence; (3) a right to be sent to Rom for trial before the emperor if charged with a capital offense…” pg. 103 of Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary
Conclusion: an Israeli citizen is an Israeli. Just as I am an American because I have American citizenship. Also, it follows that a citizen is bound by the laws of the country in which he is a citizen.
Elsewhere, Paul implicitly includes them in Israel when he speaks of their tevilah, spiritual brit milah (which he feels acts as a constructive form of circumcision), obedience to the “requirements” of Torah, etc.
Cheers,
Peter
Peter…. I’ll see if I can move this thread of comments to be under a more appropriate post.
“He does explicitly include them in Ephesians 2. Ephesians 2 says that gentiles are “politeia” and “sumpolites” in Israel. ”
No, of course it doesn’t say THAT, Peter. It says: “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel”, meaning they were strangers to it. Through Yeshua, they are no longer strangers and aliens to Israel and especially the G-d of Israel – but that still doesn’t make them Israel or Jews. Paul never refers to a non-Jewish person as an Israelite nor is a Ekklesia = Israel. He never confuses Israel and Gentiles who drew near Israel’s covenants. Such thinking is basic Supresessionism, and it’s about time you shook that off.
Further down Ephesians, Paul says to Gentiles, “you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of G-d”. Notice that he doesn’t say “citizens of Israel”. The righteous Gentiles are citizens of G-d’s Kingdom and of Household of G-d, with all the saints (including those who preceded Israel’s existence).
However, a case can be made that since Israel will be the center of the world, the whole earth will become a Commonwealth of Israel (not dissimilar to the British Commonwealth). Does this mean, then, that everyone is an Israelite and a Jew? Of course not! The prophets make it clear that there will be many nations in the Kingdom, not just Israel (Isaiah 19:25 is a good example), making the theology that everyone becomes an Israelite and a Jew by faith bunk.
Those who hold to this sort of teaching loudly echo the resentful and antisemitic words of Martin Luther, who exclaimed:
“The Jews make a point of the name Israel and claim that they alone are Israel and we are Gentiles. Now this is true so far as the first part of the prophecy and the old covenant of Moses are concerned….. But according to the second part of the prophecy and the new covenant, the Jews are no longer Israel, for all things are to be new, and Israel must become new. Those alone are the true Israel who have accepted the new covenant, which was established and begun at Jerusalem.”
Peter, throughout your comments you have been saying pretty much the same exact thing as Luther above, i.e. when you say that Jews who do not yet believe that Yeshua is the Messiah are not full and rightful Israelites in every respect because they didn’t partake in Yeshua’s Passover (a standard not found anywhere in scriptures, btw!), while Gentiles who do believe become the true Israel. I hope you will see this for what it is, but you seem to have a lot invested in your beliefs. However, over the past few years I’ve seen MANY One-Law adherents repent of this stuff, and I’ve become good friends with quite a number of them. It does take a lot to overcome (pride often gets in the way), but I hope you will take the steps in the right direction. Now, this is more appropriate to this post about rebukes.
Gene,
You wrote: “No, of course it doesn’t say THAT, Peter. It says: “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel”, meaning they were strangers to it. Through Yeshua, they are no longer strangers and aliens to Israel and especially the G-d of Israel – but that still doesn’t make them Israel or Jews.”
It says that gentiles are no longer “excluded from citizenship [politeia] in Israel” in verse 12. I hate to break it to you Gene but if they are not excluded from being Israeli citizens then that must mean they are included as Israeli citizens.
How do you get around that?
Sitting on the edge of my seat,
Peter
Gene,
Martin Luther offered a seven step plan for the destruction of Israel in his anti-Semitic pamphlet “On the Jews and Their Lies.” This plan was lauded by Hitler and put into action on Kristallnacht. I’ve visited the holocaust memorial and I’ve seen the desecrated Torah scrolls–the fruit of Luther’s hatred for Israel. But that pails in comparison to the six million lives that were lost because of Martin Luther’s teachings. So you are need of a rebuke when you write: “Peter, throughout your comments you have been saying pretty much the same exact thing as Luther…” That kind of rhetoric has no place in civil discourse.
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, as you may know, the Greek word “politeia” has many English translations and is notoriously vague to our modern understanding. That said, an overwhelming majority of English Bible translations render that Ephesians verse as “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel”, meaning Gentiles were estranged from Israel the people, from the Jewish national body/government/community- politeia – (and its covenants, as per the rest of the verse). To jump, as you do, from no longer being strangers or even enemies of Israel to Gentiles actually becoming JEWS and ISRAELITES is to do violence not only to Ephesians 2, but to the whole Bible. It also makes being a Jew/ Israelite meaningless (after all, everybody is!), and makes scriptural verses, prophecies and promises that pertain specifically to the nations and Jewish people just as meaningless.
On top of all that, you claim, in direct contradiction to many verses in the Bible, statements made by the Apostles as well as the Halacha, that Gentiles are obligated to the same exact Torah requirements as the Jews (the One-Law theology).
There we are, going in circles again. Peter, we are free to believe what we want. Go on and believe what you want, my friend.
“So you are need of a rebuke when you write: “Peter, throughout your comments you have been saying pretty much the same exact thing as Luther…” ”
Some your core beliefs regarding Israel mirror Luther’s (as I quoted) and are therefore superssesionist. Instead of being indignant at me (i.e. rebuking the one who rebuked you) for bringing this up to your attention, you should reflect on that and see if your views need some adjustment.
Gene,
“Peter, as you may know, the Greek word “politeia” has many English translations and is notoriously vague to our modern understanding.”
Notoriously vague? Is that supposed to be a joke? Well, you must have copious evidence for this view since you say it is “notoriously” vague. Show us this copious evidence.
The truth is that “politeia” is one of the most highly understood terms in the Greek lexicon because the Greeks wrote extensively about politics. If you try to offer any evidence that this word “politeia” is vague, you will see a rebuttal unlike anything you’ve ever seen before. I have studied the classics and so I have no intention of letting you get away with this absurd comment.
I’ve already submitted lexical evidence regarding this term (e.g. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary). You, in turn, submitted zero evidence regarding your assertions about this word. If you cannot disprove my evidence then you must admit that your assertion is wrong. Otherwise, everyone reading this will know that you are being intellectually dishonest.
Cheers,
Peter
“If you try to offer any evidence that this word “politeia” is vague, you will see a rebuttal unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.”
Peter, if your previous attempts to “prove” that Israelites in Joshua were not really Israelites (even though scripture calls them Israelites right there in that verse, Joshua 5:3) because they were not yet circumcised or participated in Passover are any indication, I’m willing to bet that I will see a “rebuttal” from you no matter what evidence I bring forth.
You’re funny, though, with your pompous statement about what you’re going to do to my arguments even before, amazingly enough, having seen them. If that’s not an indication about your modus operandi in debates (rejecting evidence even before it is presented in favor of you own preconceived ideas), I don’t know what is!
Gene,
I feel sorry for you. You made an assertion which was blatantly false, citing zero evidence. And now you think you can deflect and that no one will notice. In reality, the only way for you to do damage control at this stage is to admit that you shouldn’t have said politeia is a “notoriously” vague term. You should admit that there is unanimous agreement amongst reputable scholars as to what that term means.
[As to Joshua 5, I've already demonstrated how someone could be ethnically an Israelite without being connected to the polity of Israel--in other words, be an Israelite and be simultaneously cut off from Israel. Romans 2 shows why it's important to have the covenantal connection and not just the physical connection--Paul's words are actually a lot more blunt than anything I've said. He says "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly." If he said that a circumcised Jew could be a non-Jew then I wonder what he'd say about a voluntarily UNcircumcised Jew? So maybe take this up with Paul when you see him].
Sincerely,
Peter
Peter, you are beginning to troll this blog.
You said…. “You should admit that there is unanimous agreement amongst reputable scholars as to what that term means. ”
The ancient Greek word Politeia (πολιτεία) can mean a ‘government,’ ‘state, nation, country,’. It can also mean “conduct”, “behavior”, “adventures,” or even a single “town.” It could also mean “administration”. It is also translated as a “Republic” (e.g. Plato). KJV translates the word as “freedom”, while most English Bible translations use the word “commonwealth”. NIV is one of the very few translations that uses the word “citizenship”. It can also mean a specific form of government, according to Aristotle’s and others’ use of it. There’s no consensus on which forms of government the word Politeia represents, as it could either mean “rule of many”, and also it could mean a government that mixes different types of attributes of rule,… and a few other forms I won’t get into here. The word Politeia is sometimes used to denote “culture”. It could also mean “constitution”. For kicks and since English is not the only dog in town, I checked a Russian translation (Russian Synodal Version), it says that “Gentiles were alienated from the (общество) society of Israel”, while (surprise!) Martin Luther’s 1545 German translation uses the word “Bürgerschaft”, or citizenry.
Does that sounds like a “unanimous scholarly agreement” as to the meaning of the word “πολιτεία” to you, Peter? Again, stop with the grandiose claims and the constant boasts of your extensive studies and argumentative prowess. It falls flat when you say outlandish Al Goresque things like “unanimous agreement” (of scholars who unanimously agree with you?) and it doesn’t reflect well on you – it tells me that you are highly insecure.
[Comment deleted due to an extreme level of pedantic snobbishness by the comment author.]