The Jewish Roots of Our Faith, Part I: Jesus and Jewish Humor

Clifford F. Thies

Clifford F. Thies is a professor of economics and finance at Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA. He can be reached at: cthies@su.edu.

“. . .and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” Romans 11: 16b

Americans love humor, and Americans especially love Jewish humor.

Among the many famous Jewish comedians have been Jerry Seinfeld and Groucho Marx, Milton Berle and Rodney Dangerfield, Jerry Lewis and George Burns, Woody Allen and Mel Brooks.

But, what is Jewish humor?

Is there Jewish humor in the Bible?

And, is an understanding of Jewish humor useful for understanding the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?

According to the authors of The Big Book of Jewish Humor, (William Novak and Moshe Waldoks, ed., New York: Harper & Row, 1981) “Jewish humor frequently has a critical edge which creates discomfort in making its point.”

Traditional Jewish humor, arising from the experience of the Jewish people in Europe, when Jews suffered a variety of humiliations, pogroms and persecutions, has been described as “laughter through tears.”

Let me give some examples. Some classic jokes concern Jews dealing with petty bureaucrats who often mistreated them.

Levine, an old Jewish man, brings a package to the post office in Warsaw. The clerk tells him the package is too heavy, you’ll have to put more stamps on it. Levine replies, “And if I put more stamps on it, will that make it lighter?”

--------------------

Yankel asked the clerk at the main railroad terminal in St. Petersburg, “Excuse me, but how often does the train go from here to Moscow?” “To Moscow?” replied the clerk. “Every day.” Yankel thought for a moment, and then asked, “Does that include Thursday?”

Other classic jokes deal with economic hardships.

A Jewish woman asks a butcher how much are his chickens. The butcher replies, “$2.00 a pound.” The Jewish woman says the butcher across the street is selling chicken at $1.50 a pound. The butcher answers, “true, but he is out of chicken. And, when I am out of chicken, I lower my price to $1.00 a pound.”

--------------------

Ginsberg lost his wallet at a restaurant. He stood up and announced: “Ladies and gentleman. I’ve lost my wallet with $400 dollars in it. Whoever finds it will get a reward of fifty dollars.” A voice from the back of the room yelled: “I’ll give seventy-five!”

Other classic jokes deal with religious differences.

The mayor of a city went to the bishop, to tell the bishop that he wanted to expel the Jews so the city could take over their property. But, he needed a justification. The bishop said he would conduct what was called a “disputation.” He would ask the rabbi three questions and, if it were God’s will for the Jews to stay, the rabbi would be able to answer the questions. But, if the rabbi couldn’t answer the questions, the Jews would have to leave. This sounds fair, said the mayor, but how can you be sure the rabbi won’t be able to answer the questions? Simple, said the bishop, I will ask the questions in a special kind of sign language.

On the day of the disputation, the bishop met the rabbi in the public square. The Jews and Gentiles of the city were all gathered to watch. The bishop then waved a finger across the sky. The rabbi responded by pointing a finger to the ground. The bishop exclaimed to himself, “How did he know!”

The bishop then pointed one finger to the rabbi. And the rabbi responded by pointing two fingers back. The bishop again exclaimed to himself, “How did he know!” The bishop then pulled out an apple from his pocket. And the rabbi responded by pulling out a matzoh. The bishop raised his hands to the sky and proclaimed, “Praise be to God! The Jews can stay!”

While the people of the town both Jew and Gentile were thrilled with the revelation of God’s will, the mayor demanded of the bishop to know what had happened. The bishop explained, “First, I said, waving a finger across the sky, that God is King of the universe. To this, the rabbi said, pointed a finger down, but the earth is the footstool of his throne.”

“Then, I said, pointing one finger toward the rabbi, Remember, God is One. To this, the rabbi said, pointing two fingers back to me, Don’t forget the Son and the Holy Spirit.” “Finally, I said, pulling an apple out of my pocket, the earth is round. To this, the rabbi said, pulling a matzoh from his pocket, but it used to be flat.” “Somehow, God revealed to the rabbi the correct answer to each question, and revealed to us that it is His will that the Jews be allowed to stay in our city.”

The Jews similarly demanded an explanation from the rabbi. The rabbi said he wasn’t sure what happened. “First, the bishop, waving his finger across the sky, said you Jews must leave, to which I replied, pointing my finger to the ground, this is our home, this is where we stay.”

“Then, the bishop said, pointing a finger at me, if you don’t leave, I’ll poke out one of your eyes, to which I replied, pointing two fingers at him, and I’ll poke out both of your eyes.” “Finally, the bishop, pulling an apple out of his pocket, showed me his lunch, so I pulled a matzoh out of my pocket to show him my lunch.”

--------------------

An old Jewish man and a young Gentile man were sitting next to each other on a train, traveling to Berlin. “And why, sir, are you traveling,” the Jew asked the Gentile. The Gentile answered, he was going to Berlin where he was to enter the seminary. There, God willing, he would be ordained a priest. “A priest,” the Jew responded, “there must be thousands of priests.”

The Gentile replied, “True, there are thousands of priests. But it’s possible that one day I could become a bishop.” “A bishop,” the Jew responded, “there must be hundreds of bishops.” The Gentile again replied, “And if I become a bishop, one day I could become a cardinal.” “A cardinal,” the Jew responded, “there must be dozens of cardinals.”

The Gentile again responded, “And if I become a cardinal, one day, it is possible I could become the pope.” “The pope,” the Jew responded,” from one generation to the next, there is always a pope.” The Gentile, growing frustrated, said, “Well, what would impress you, that I become God?” The Jew answered, “One of our boys did.”

The authors of The Big Book of Jewish Humor say, in their introduction, that some people believe that the Bible is “replete with humorous tales and witty exchanges. . . . but the Bible itself is fundamentally a sober work. . . . ”

How can some people say the Bible is replete with humorous tales and witty exchanges, and the authors of The Big Book of Jewish Humor say the Bible is not? Could it be that some people are thinking of the gospels, and with the puns, the banter, the exaggerations, the sarcasm and the many other elements of Jewish humor employed by Jesus? Whereas the authors of The Big Book of Jewish Humor restrict themselves to what we call the Old Testament?

Probably the most famous pun used by Jesus was a play on the name of the apostle Simon Peter, or Shimon Petrus, the name “Petrus” sounding like the Latin word “petrum” meaning rock. Unfortunately, the pun is lost in English. “Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18)

A better translation might be, Thou are “Petrus” (in English, Peter) and upon this “petrum” (in English, rock) I will build my church.

Imagine that Jesus, instead of calling Simon Peter to be an apostle, had called Sylvester Stallone. Then, Jesus could have said, Thou art Rocky and upon this rock I will build my church.

Another pun used by Jesus has been almost completely lost in translation.

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matthew 7:9-11)

“. . . whom if his son ask for bread, will he give him a stone?” The Hebrew word for bread is “lechem,” and one of the Hebrew words for stone is “ragam.” “Lechem,” “ragam,” they kind of sound the same. It’s as though the child asks for bread, and the father doesn’t hear the child distinctly and, so, gives the child a stone.

I once wrote a skit for a Sunday School class, in which the class played out this teaching.

The first child asked the father for some cake. And the father replied, “Heh, you want a snake?”

Then, the second child said to the father it would be fun to watch some TV. And the father replied, “heh, you want a gun and some bee-bees?”

Then, the third child asked the father for the keys to the car. And the father replied, “Heh, you want some bees in a jar?”

The meaning of this passage from Matthew is clear: when we pray to our heavenly Father, we don’t have to fear He will misunderstand our prayer, and return something harmful to us.

A child may ask his parent for cake, but the parent may say, “First finish your meat and vegetables, and then you can have some cake.”

Or, a child may ask to watch television, but the parent may say, “First complete your homework.”

Or, a child may ask for the keys to the car, but the parent may say, “First, tell me where you are going and when you will be home.”

The same thing is true with our heavenly Father. He doesn’t always answer our prayer according to our wishes, but we can be sure that He will answer our prayer according to His plan.

In the passage from Matthew, the humor may have gotten lost in translation, but “getting the joke” isn’t important to understanding the meaning.

The New Testament is written in Greek. But Jesus and the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. Except perhaps for Luke, who is thought to have been a Gentile who converted to Judaism and, thus, would be considered to be a proselyte Jew. Timothy, who had a Gentile father, by reason of his choice to be circumcised, and the fact that he had a Jewish mother, would be considered Jewish.

All of the writers of the New Testament thought in Hebrew even though they wrote in Greek. The words “lechem” (or, bread) and “ragam,” (or, rock) when spoken by Jesus sounded alike. But when Matthew wrote the words in Greek, the pun got lost in the translation.

Of course, the whole of the Bible is translated from its original languages into English. A lot has gotten lost in the translation, and in the centuries of separation of Jews and Christians.

This evening, I would like to discuss three or four familiar Gospel passages, to show how understanding the Jewish humor of Jesus adds to our understanding of the Bible. Sometimes, the Jewish humor simply adds a little color to the passage, as with the word-play in Jesus’ teaching on prayer. But, sometimes, the Jewish humor deepens our understanding of the passage, or even protects us from misinterpretation.

The Miracle of the Fringes

I’ll start with the miracle of the fringes. In Matthew 9:20-22, we read, “And, behold, a woman which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment. For she said within herself, if I but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, “Daughter be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.”

Before I began studying the Jewish context of the Bible, I thought that this passage meant that this woman believed that Jesus had the power to heal, but was shy, and so she only tried to touch the edge of his clothes, hoping that would be sufficient.

But there is more to this passage. The “hem of his garment” refers to the fringes of a Jewish man’s prayer shawl. The strands refer to God’s law, each strand to a particular law, and all of them together to the whole of God’s law.

We know that it was through disobedience to God’s law that sin and disease and death came into the world. Therefore, this passage can be interpreted as meaning that getting in touch with God’s law would cure her of her disease.

But there is even more to this passage. Jewish folklore at the time of Jesus’ public ministry attributed healing power to the fringes of the Messiah’s prayer shawl. Aware of this folklore, this woman touching the fringes of Jesus’ prayer shawl was a testimony that she believed Jesus to be the Messiah. She was saying that Jesus was not simply another prophet, with the gift of healing power. She was saying, by touching his fringes, that Jesus was our savior!

The Jewish context of the Bible reveals the long-forgotten, wonderful meaning of this passage.

Turn the Other Cheek

The next passage I’ll look at is Jesus’ teaching to turn-the-other-check.

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39)

Jesus reference to “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is to Exodus 21:24. “If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

According to God’s Law, transgressors are to compensate their victims. If the damages are economic, and there was no evil intent, they are to compensate the victim on a one-for-one basis. For example, if your son throws a ball through your neighbor’s window, you repair the window. Even when there is bodily harm, but no evil intent, restitution is one-for-one; thus, Exodus 21:19 provides compensation (merely) for lost wages and medical expenses when “men strive together” and one is laid up, but no “mischief follows.” (verse 23)

If the damages are economic, and there was criminal intent or “gross negligence” (or, wanton disregard for others), then the transgressor is to compensate the victim on a two-for-one basis (or in some cases a higher multiple). For example, a thief is to pay back double. (This is when the stolen goods are recovered, Exodus 22:4. Exodus 22:1 provides for a higher multiples when an animal is killed or sold by the thief, perhaps because the animal might have been a prize animal.) This is called the Law of Restitution.

If the transgressor caused a bodily damage with evil intent, then the transgressor is liable to suffer the same bodily damage himself. For example, if during an assault a transgressor poked out an eye of his victim, then one of his eyes could be poked out. This is called the Law of Retribution.

The most common interpretation of Jesus’ turn-the-other-check teaching is that the Law of Retribution holds only as a maximum, and that we are allowed and should try to be merciful in cases where the Law of Retribution applies. This is certainly true. Indeed, this was known to be true at the time of Jesus’ public ministry.

The Talmud is a book of commentary on God’s law compiled during the third century, from the writings of the rabbis from just before, to just after Jesus’ public ministry. In the Talmud, methods are described to estimate the monetary value of a bodily harm.

For example, if a person lost a eye in an accident, you would estimate the monetary value by adding up (1) the medical expenses involved in treating the wound, (2) the reduced wages of a person having only one eye, and (3) how much a person such as the one injured would be willing to pay to not undergo the pain and suffering that was involved (admittedly, this is the most subjective part).

I am, by profession, an economist, and I am often called upon as an expert witness to estimate the loss of wages in wrongful death and injury cases. Nowadays, this involves comparing the wages of a person after the injury to his wages before, and extrapolating the reduced wages over the person’s remaining years of work until retirement. In Jesus’ day, according to the Talmud, it was much simpler. Just go to the slave market, and compare the prices paid for otherwise similar slaves with and without the injury.

My point is that, during Jesus’ public ministry, there was an accepted method for translating a bodily injury into a monetary value. Therefore, when the victim was satisfied that a criminal was repentant, he, the victim, could accept a monetary settlement from the transgressor instead of demanding that the transgressor be made to suffer the same bodily damage.

No, this is not what Jesus was saying, because this was already Jewish practice. Here’s what Jesus was saying: To be slapped on the right check is to be slapped with the left hand. That is, with the weak hand. This was considered to be an insult slap. In contrast, if you were slapped on the left check, by a person’s right or strong hand, that slap would cause actual harm. Jesus was saying, the Laws of Retribution does not apply to insults. If someone insults you, do not reply in kind. Instead, reply in kindness.

I have trouble with this teaching. When insulted, I tend to reply in kind. Let me just tell you, from experience, that responding in kind doesn’t work. Does this mean I’m telling you to do as I say and not as I do? I suppose you could say that. But, remember, I am not the teacher. Do as Jesus says, and do as Jesus does.

The Parable of the Talents

In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), Jesus describes what three servants do with the money entrusted to them while their master is on a journey.

Two of the servants invest the money, and do very well. I guess they had a booming stock market back then, like we had a few years ago. The third servant did not invest the money, but buried it in the backyard. “I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.”

The most common interpretation of this parable is that we should not bury our talents in the ground. Whether the Lord as given us five, or two, or only one talent, we should use our talents to God’s glory. This is a fine interpretation, but it doesn’t capture the whole story.

At the time of Jesus’ public ministry, the rabbis debated what a person should do with money entrusted to him by another. They decided that the only permissible thing was to safeguard it, such as by burying it. Any investment of the money would involve risk, and any risk of another person’s money was too much risk. Therefore, all investments at a fixed rate of interest (“neshech,” or bite) were prohibited. Even investments in a profit-sharing arrangement (“tarbith,” or increase) were considered suspect, and could only be entered into with a rabbi’s dispensation.

Jesus spoke directly against this rabbinic teaching. According to Jesus, not only was it perfectly acceptable for the two servants to invest their master’s money in profit-sharing arrangements even though there was risk involved, the third servant, who was afraid of losing the money, should have put the money into a bank where the master would have gotten interest.

Of course, the parable isn’t about banks at all. It’s about “the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 25:1) Because our salvation is secure, we should consider ourselves free, not just free in the negative sense free from sin, but free in a positive sense-free to do good. Trying to go good involves risk. We might make a mistake. But God will not judge us by our results. He will judge us by our intent.

Did the master judge the first two servants according to their results, or according to their intent? “His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” (Matthew 25:21, see also verse 23)

Render to Ceasar

Ask someone from the class for a $1 bill. Ask this person whose picture is on it? (The person will answer “Washington’s.”)

Then say to this person, “Render to Washington the things that are Washington’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

From Mark 12:14-17:

And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marveled at him.

As in so many instances during Jesus’ public ministry, members of the religious establishment came to him, seeking to entrap him.

They thought he was an ignorant preacher. But, time after time, he showed that he not only knew the letter of God’s Law, he knew the spirit of God’s Law.

This time, they sought to catch Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. Would Jesus say it was lawful, meaning in accordance with God’s Law, to pay tribute to Caesar, and thus get himself in trouble with the Jewish community, who knew that it was not lawful.

Or, would Jesus say it was not lawful to pay tribute, and thus get himself in trouble with the Romans?

Jesus not only deflected their thrust, he spoke to a greater truth. And he did so in a wonderfully humorous way. This is why the crowd “marveled at him.”

Just because Ceasar’s face is on our money doesn’t make it Ceasar’s. Same thing today. Just because Washington’s face is on our money doesn’t make it Washington’s. But what things are rightfully due to the government should be rendered to the government, remembering always that all things are rightfully God’s.

As much as I or any of us love this country, and I am not ashamed to be called a patriot, if ever there is a conflict between obeying God’s Law and obeying the laws of this country, we must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

The Eye of a Needle

The next passage I will look at is Jesus’ teaching on the-eye-of-a-needle.

And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:23-24)

Most commentators on this passage interpret it as an exaggeration. And, I will admit, exaggeration is used by Semitic people as a teaching device. They say while this passage means that though it is not impossible for a rich man to go to heaven, it is difficult.

Some commentators interpret “the eye of a needle” to mean a narrow and short gateway to a walled city, through which a camel can pass only by lowering itself onto its knees and crawling through. While it is absolutely impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a sewing needle, a camel could with extreme effort pass through a narrow and short gateway.

The idea is that if a rich person would humble himself, he, like this camel, can pass through. This idea has lead to a prejudice among certain Christians that it is easier for a poor person to go to heaven, than a rich person. Being poor is looked upon as a form of innocence.

This is just the opposite from the prejudice that Jesus confronted. To a Jewish person, God typically blesses the righteous in this life, as well as in the next. Not always. Indeed, sometimes we must accept indignation, injustice, and even torture and death for the glory of God. But, usually, a person who conducts himself in a Godly fashion will be blessed with material wealth, a happy family, long life, and the respect of his community. (e.g., Psalm 112)

Being wealthy, therefore, was viewed as a sign of the elect. But Jesus said, no, wealth is not a sign of the elect. Do you think the wealthy are going to heaven? It is impossible for the wealthy to go to heaven.

How did the apostles respond to Jesus’ eye-of-a-needle teaching? Did they say, “thank God we’re not wealthy?” No. They said, “Who then can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25) If the rich can’t go to heaven, who can go?

And how did Jesus respond? Did he say, “You Jews think the rich are going to heaven, and the poor aren’t. I’m here to tell you it’s the other way around?” No. Jesus did not seek to replace one prejudice with another prejudice. He said “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

Did Jesus say, a rich man can go to heaven if he gets down on his knees and crawls? No, a rich man goes to heaven the same way any other man does. Through grace. Through God’s mercy. Through accepting the atoning sacrifice provided by God Himself through his son Jesus Christ.

Brothers and sisters, are you trying to gain salvation on your own merit? Or have you accepted Jesus?

Do you think that your wealth, or your lack of wealth is some kind of evidence that you are saved? Or do you want the real proof, that you can have within yourself, that God forgives you and that He loves you?

Is the Bible “replete with humorous tales and witty exchanges?” Yes, if your Bible includes the New as well as the Old Testament.

Or, perhaps I should call it the Renewed Testament. For Jesus came not to put an end to the Law as revealed in the Old Testament, but to be the end of the Law. In him, in his atoning sacrifice and in his resurrection, was the Law fulfilled.