Is there Biblical support for the rabbinical method of Bible interpretation known as PaRDeS?

Firstly, פרד"ס PaRDeS (Garden) is an acronym that describes the traditional rabbinical method of interpretation. פ P = פְּשָׁט P’shat (Surface: Plain meaning), ר R = רֶמֶז‎ Remez (Hint), ד D = דְּרַשׁ‎ Drash (Inquire: Comparative), ס S = סוֹד Sod (Secret: Mystery). All subsequent interpretations are subject to the פְּשָׁט P’shat, plain meaning.

The word פרד"ס Pardes means Orchard or Garden and is a reference to paradise.

Secondly, there is no explicit Biblical instruction that gives a schematic for Bible interpretation. Those who claim therefore that Christianity’s Greco-Roman Schematic detailing exegesis, hermeneutics, the flawed ideal of eisegesis etc. is the most reliable methodology but that the rabbinical schematic of PaRDeS is not, are being intellectually dishonest. It’s equally foolish to claim that textual criticism is more trustworthy than the traditional rabbinical method. It’s the Torah that critiques us and not the other way around.

So, is there any implicit support for the rabbinical method within the texts of the Bible?

The פְּשָׁט P’shat or plain meaning is self-explanatory. There is no need to explain to a reader that the book means what it says. Therefore, there is no need to show evidence from the Bible that God intends for us to take it at face value relative to context, figurative, poetic and metaphorical language.

The first mention of the practice of examining the Scriptures in an exegetical way is in the book of Ezra the scribe.

"For Ezra had set his heart to l’drosh inquire of the Torah of Adonai, to observe and to teach its statues and ordinances in Israel.” –Ezra 7:10

The root “דרש Darash (D’rash)” is used specifically in relation to the Torah and therefore describes a practice of interpretation and an intention to walk according to that interpretation and teach it to others. This is the perfect example of what it means to make a דְּרַשׁ D’rash, or comparative teaching.

In addition to examples from the TaNaKh (OT), as Jews who follow Yeshua, we should look to Him and His disciples for evidence of the use of rabbinical interpretive method. If He doesn’t teach using the PaRDeS method, then why would we?

Let’s take a look at just a few of the many New Testament examples of פרד"ס PaRDeS found in the book of Matthew.
​
As stated earlier, every part of Scripture has a plain meaning, therefore פְּשָׁט P’shat is the basis for the subsequent methods of interpretation.

Examples of the use of PaRDeS in the HaBrit HaChadashah (NT):

Remez (Hint)
Matthew 2:15 - "Out of Egypt I called my son." This is a quote from Hosea 11:1 and is being applied to ישוע Yeshua by Matthew. If we read it to refer to the פְּשָׁט p’shat (plain meaning) of Hosea 11:1, we must interpret it to refer to ancient Israel’s collective escape from Egypt. However, Matthew, the disciple of ישוע Yeshua, divinely inspired by God, interprets it as a רֶמֶז remez (hint) which is alluding to the Messianic King as God’s Son. This is just one of many examples of Matthew’s use of רֶמֶז remez.

D'rash (Inquire)
Matthew 18:18 - "... Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This verse taken literally and out of context is often used by Christians to demand that spiritual powers submit to them. However, within the context of Matthew 18:14-18 the פְּשָׁט p’shat (plain meaning) refers to the practical application of principals concerning those who are sinning within the body of believers. Thus the plain meaning indicates a דְּרַשׁ d'rash (comparative teaching) concerning the binding and loosing of our own actions according to הֲלָכָה Halakhah the way we walk (Yet another rabbinical teaching that ישוע Yeshua and His disciples applied to daily life).

Sod (Mystery)
Matthew 26:28 - "Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them saying, Drink from it all of you, This is my blood ..." If the figurative language here were taken literally it would not only violate the Torah commandment against consuming blood, but along with other verses concerning the eating of Yeshua's flesh (John 6:51-56), could be understood as teaching cannibalism. ישוע Yeshua explains to His disciples that it is the Spirit that produces the deeper understanding (John 6:63), and that His words are spirit and life. This is evidence of a סוֹד sod (mystery) that cannot be gleaned from the פְּשָׁט p’shat (plain meaning) of the text. A concept that is illuminated through spiritual revelation alone and by no other means. This particular סוֹד sod (Mystery) would be fully revealed following His death and resurrection.

So what can we conclude?
1. There is no explicit schematic for Bible interpretation within Scripture.
2. PaRDeS is implicit in Scripture. Both Messiah and His disciples employ it.
3. It’s arrogant and even misleading to use Greco-Roman techniques and post enlightenment textual criticism as tools for Scriptural interpretation while excluding the rabbinical interpretive tradition based on the hypocritical assumption that it’s not divinely appointed.

Yaakov Ben Yehoshua
Copyright 2024

There isn’t any conclusive way to determine the day or season of Messiah’s birth. We simply don’t have access to Biblical, historical, or archaeological information that gives us an accurate date for the birth of Yeshua. Those who presume to know are reliant on conjecture born from theological niceties and presumption.
 
Am I saying Messiah was born on the 25th of December? Certainly not. Does it matter which day He was born? Given the lack of Biblical evidence citing exact dates and times for His birth I would hazard a guess that God doesn't want us to know the date or season of His Son’s birth. He probably has a very good reason for this.
 
With regard to the “Sukkot birth” claim, the census recorded in Luke 2:1-4 is thought to be the first of two, taken between 1 C.E. and 7 C.E. (It’s probably the latter of the two that’s referred to in Acts 5:37). However, it’s more likely that Luke is referring to an earlier census, the record of which has been lost to history. While Quirinius was not physically governing in Syria until 6 C.E. he was responsible for the oversight of its operations and defence under Varus, during Herod the Great’s reign (Herod the Great is thought to have died between 5 B.C.E and 1 C.E.) Some scholars say Luke’s report of a census is in error, however, they base this on the presumption that they have access to all information regarding the various censuses of the time, they do not, much has been lost to us in terms of historical record for this period. Regardless, with certainty, a census was taken at the time of Yeshua’s birth. Scripture is inerrant.

It’s important to remember that for the people of Israel, a census was considered an affront to God. The taking of a census denoted a lack of trust in God’s provision (See Exodus 30:12; 2 Samuel 24). Therefore, the census taken at the time of Yeshua’s birth was something Jews were forced to participate in under an oppressive Roman occupation.
 
Given that a majority of governors over the provinces of Judea and Samaria (Occupied Israel) were keen to avoid further uprisings and the causes for them, it’s unlikely that a census would have been called during an Aliyot (a.k.a Regalim, going up) festival of Israel (Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot). In addition, a Jew whose ancestors were from a town other than Jerusalem could not be both in his ancestral home town and in Jerusalem (A requirement of the Aliyot festivals) on festival Shabbat at the same time. Something the census in questioned required.
 
Bethlehem is approximately 8 kilometres from Jerusalem (7x further than the permitted Shabbat walking distance) and approximately 136 kilometres from Natzret (Nazareth) in the Galil (Galilee).
 
While Bethlehem was close to Jerusalem, the majority of Israel’s outer communities were more than two days journey from Jerusalem, where the Temple stood.  This is just one of many reasons why a Sukkot birth for Messiah is extremely unlikely. In fact all of the Regalim (Aliyot) festivals fall into this category. Therefore, it’s more likely that Yeshua was born in the winter months and not during a going up festival.
 
Some misuse the following verse, claiming it proves a Sukkot birth:
 
“Now in the sixth month the messenger Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,” –Luke 1:26
 
There has been much needless conjecture relating to this text. Many who are desperate to claim a Sukkot birth for Messiah need to perform linguistic, contextual, chronological and cultural gymnastics—to name a few—in order to manipulate this date to fit their argument, something every good Bible student knows, is usually an indication that we’re headed in the wrong direction.
 
It’s most likely that this “sixth month” refers to the time as counted from the conception of John the Baptist (Yochanan) [ref. Luke 1:36]. The problem with confirming the date this way is that we don’t know which of the two times of year that Aviyah’s (Zechariah’s [John the Baptist’s father] clan) division was serving in the Temple, is intended by the narrative.
 
We’re not told at what point during the year that the 24 divisions began to serve but we can make an educated guess that they began in the seventh month, Tishrei, following the inauguration of Solomon’s temple. If this continued to be the practice and providing the beginning of their service was not initiated at the spiritual new year of Pesach or at the giving of the Torah during Shavuot (Which are also possibilities [even if this were the case the math still wouldn’t conclude a Sukkot birth]), then we would calculate that each of the 24 divisions would serve one week twice a year. If they performed their duties in order of selection, Aviyah’s (Zechariah’s clan) division would have performed its duties eighth in order of priestly clans, in the last week of Nisan and the last week of Cheshvan, with some anomalies caused by the lunar calendar meaning that this would have varied slightly. If we count from Nisan, the sixth month would be Tishrei. If this is the month of Messiah’s conception then He was born in the month of Sivan. If we count from Cheshvan we arrive at Iyar, which makes Messiah’s birth in the eleventh month of the Hebrew Calendar, Shevat. Neither date is even remotely close to Sukkot.

However, the sixth month could also refer to the sixth month of the Hebrew calendar, Elul, which is the month prior to Tishrei, once again this leaves us with Iyar as a possible birth date for Messiah (not Sukkot).
 
Additionally because Luke is either a Greek proselyte or a Jew from the Greek Diaspora, he could also be referring to the sixth month of the Roman calendar. Regardless, any conclusion arrived at is pure conjecture. We have no definitive way of knowing when Yeshua was born.
 
Some, by misusing Hebrew say, “But He was born to sukkah (dwell) with us”, and John 1:14 says that He “became flesh and sukkot (dwelt) in our midst.”
 
But the text of John 1:14 does not say that Messiah sukkot with us, but that He שכן shakan (from משכן Mishkan) with us. He came in the flesh, as a Tabernacle in our midst to שכן shakan (dwell). Meaning, He is a human being Who is like the Tent of meeting (משכן Mishkan) which once dwelt in the midst of Israel. Thus, עמנו Imanu With us אל El God (fully God and fully man).
 
We note that the children of Israel dwelt in סוכות sukkot (shelters) surrounding the משכן Mishkan (a single tent). שכן Shakan is the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek ἐσκήνωσεν (eskenosen), used in John 1:14. Both are verbs and NOT nouns. סוכות Sukkot is a plural noun that is unrelated to the Hebrew שכן shakan. So no, He was not born to sukkah with us, rather He was born into time and space to שכן shakan dwell among us, our סוכות sukkot surrounding Him just as the סוכות sukkot of Israel surrounded the משכן Mishkan (Tent of Meeting).
 
While it’s true that Messiah dwells with us, it’s not proof of the date or season of His birth. Messiah is also the Lamb of God, that doesn’t mean He was born at Pesach (Passover). He is the substitutionary sacrifice for our sin, that doesn’t mean He was born during Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).
 
Conjecture of the kind associated with the Sukkot birth claim is at best naive and at worst a doctrine of men (false). Those who fixate on conjecture at the cost of divisions and contentions within the body are not aligned with the mind of Messiah but are in fact pushing their own flesh born agendas in a prideful attempt to elevate themselves and place fellow believers under bondage.
 
Conjecture does not elevate our faith, to the contrary, it diminishes it. We are not called to be teachers of conjecture but teachers of the Truth in Messiah Yeshua. As a result of pseudo learned conjecture and ignorant militancy, many in the Hebrew roots and Messianic denominations owe a debt of repentance to the wider body of believers. Forgiveness is offered to all but only the repentant are able to receive it.
 
-Yaakov Ben Yehoshua
 
Sukkot 5785
 
Sukkot Readings:
 
Exodus 23:14-16, 34:22
Leviticus 23:34-43
Numbers 29:12-40
Deuteronomy 16:13-15
1 Kings 8:2, 65; 12:32
2 Chronicles 8:12-13
Ezra 3:4
Nehemiah 8:13-18
Zechariah 14:16
Matthew 17:1-8
Luke 9:28-36
John 7:2-3