The twelfth passage of the Sefer Yeshua is based on Mt 11:7-15, Lk 7:24-28a (a reed in the wind, a man in fancy clothes, prophet to be sent before the Day of YHVH, prophet like Elijah, no one greater than John); Lk 10:23 (‘those who have ears to hear’). The likely source of the words in both Mt and Lk is the Q-gospel. The midrash (verses 5-8) about the followers of John realising that Yeshua is the one John was waiting for, is based on Mt 11:3, Lk 7:19-20 (‘are you the one to come’)
12. 1Yeshua began to speak to the crowds about Yochanan. ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed agitated by the wind? Well, if the wind be strong enough, the reed will be broken by it! 2Then what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Well, those who wear fancy clothes live in royal courts! 3So what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than just a prophet. This is the one of whom it was written, “Behold, I will send the prophet Eliyahu to you before the great and terrible day of our God comes.” 4Believe me I tell you, among those born of women, no one alive today is greater than Yochanan! And if you are willing to accept it, Yochanan was himself the Eliyahu who was prophesied to come. Anyone who has ears to hear, let him hear!’
5Now when Yochanan’s two emissaries heard Yeshua speak this way, saying much more besides; 6and when they heard him speaking words which God Most High had given to both Yeshua and their master to say, 7they became convinced that Yeshua was indeed the prophet whom God had told Yochanan to expect – the one whom God would call and send after him – and that they need not look for anyone else. 8So they returned to their master, and told him the good news.
Overview
This passage – the original section from the Q-Gospel that SY verses 12:1-4 are ultimately based upon – is one of the most astonishing and revealing, in my view. At first glance, the modern reader will not glean much at all, especially from the first two verses (the ones about a reed in the wind, and the man in fancy clothes). Not being familiar with the culture or language of the time, most readers in the 21st century will not be able to discern what these two things are referring to.
At the beginning of the passage, I am speculating that Yeshua was addressing the political situation of his time, as well as the widespread expectations about a messiah – and both of these with regard to understanding who Yochanan the Immerser (‘John the Baptist’) was.
As I will explain in this commentary, I believe that the passage is about Yeshua’s views on the Zealots, on messiahs, and on his important conclusion that Yochanan the Immerser is the promised prophet like Elijah.
‘What did you go out into the wilderness to see?’
There now follows a set of three questions, to which Jesus only provides answers to two – at least in the gospels.
This first question refers to a certain biographical detail about Yochanan – that he lived in the desert, and had begun his ministry in the wilderness near the Jordan river (see Mt 3:1, Lk 3:2, Lk 1:80). In various places in the gospels, we are also told that not only his followers went out to him, but also sceptical enquirers who wanted to ascertain who Yochanan was.
In Jewish eschatology (beliefs about the end of the world), there were three people who were expected to come in ‘the end-times’. The first and most obvious person was the messiah. The second was Elijah, and the third was someone who ‘Torah-only’ groups like the Sadducees and Samaritans awaited, ‘the prophet like Moses’.
As Talmidis, we normally don’t pay much attention to the Gospel of John. However, there is an interesting episode that takes place in Jn 1:19-24. People come up from Jerusalem to try and figure out who John is claiming to be. They ask if he is the messiah, or Elijah, or the prophet like Moses. He ends up denying that he is any of them – which is a very curious answer, given that his response later on suggests that he in fact does believe he is Elijah – ‘the voice crying out in the desert’.
My personal opinion is that what Yochanan was actually rejecting, were the widely perpetuated misconceptions of who these eschatological characters were believed to be. In particular, by saying that he was not Elijah, I think that he was specifically rejecting the Pharisaic beliefs about who and what Elijah was – which was as the forerunner of the messiah (this is who modern Rabbinic Judaism believes Elijah will be). Instead, I think he was rejecting this Elijah, in favour of accepting the identity of who the Bible said that Elijah would be – the voice crying out in the wilderness (as per Isaiah 40:3), which alludes to the general prophetic view that a prophet like Elijah would be sent by God to warn people about a coming time of tribulation – or as the Prophets call it, ‘a great and terrible Day of YHVH’ (Mal 3:23 / Xtian bibles Mal 4:5).
In Jn 1:19-24, those who questioned Yochanan wanted to know who he believed himself to be, so that they could decide whether to pay heed to him or not. If he was not who they believed the prophet like Elijah was, then they would ignore him.
So basically, Yeshua’s question, ‘who did you go out into the desert to see?’ refers to how people first wanted to know who Yochanan was, before they would accept his prophetic message, which was, “Repent, for the Kingship of God is fast approaching” (Mt 3:1-2).
‘A reed agitated by the wind’
If you don’t know Aramaic, then this first question will be a total mystery to you (some commentators theorise that it is a metaphor for a fickle person, who adapts their message to suit the occasion – I personally don’t agree with this speculation). Yeshua’s first question is in fact a very clever play on words, and only an Aramaic-speaker would be able to pick up on the nuances.
The Galilean Aramaic word for ‘reed’ is qannā, and the word for ‘Zealot’ is qanayā (or qana’ā in the standard dialect). Etymologically they are not related – qannā is from the root qanah (qof-nun-heh): ‘to be erect’, and qanayā is from qana’ (qof-nun-alef): ‘to burn with zeal’. However, the roots are pronounced identically, and the words themselves are very similar in sound – ‘reed’ is pronounced kan-NAA, and ‘Zealot’ is ka-na-YAA (emphasis is always on the last syllable in Aramaic). The image of the reeds itself was likely chosen in connection to Yochanan, because of the stands of reeds that grow along the banks of the river Jordan, where Yochanan was in the habit of baptising people.
Then you have the Aramaic word for ‘wind’, which is rūhā (with the ‘h’ as a grating sound at the back of the throat, like the ‘ch’ in the Scottish word loch, or in the German word Buch). The Aramaic word rūhā can have several different meanings, and in this saying, there is a deliberate play on two of those meanings. The obvious meaning in context is to mean ‘wind’ or ‘breeze’, but it can also mean ‘spirit’ or even ‘emotion’. As part of a compound noun, it can also imply something done for a vain or empty purpose (eg Job 16:3 – divrey ruach: vain or pointless words, literally, ‘words of wind’).
The double meaning of this phrase, ‘a reed agitated by the wind’, can therefore also be a reference to, ‘a Zealot driven by his wild emotions’, or even, ‘a Zealot propelled by his tempestuous emotions to follow the winds of conflict’ – these are important word-plays and allusions to understand. The implication in this question is to ask, ‘Did some of you go out into the desert to find John, thinking that he was starting up a Zealot campaign against the Romans?’ We have to remember that the Zealots were the anti-Roman terrorists of the time. The question would become even more poignant, if my speculation that some of Yochanan’s followers later became Zealots is correct. Such followers would have been acting contrary to Yochanan’s message.
A reed can be broken by the wind
Of the three questions in this passage, the second question (that of asking if people went out to see a man in fancy clothes), is provided with the answer that ‘men in fancy clothes live in royal palaces’. The third question (is John a prophet?) is answered with a yes.
It seems strange then, that Yeshua’s first question (about a reed agitated by the wind) is not given any recorded answer in the gospels. Some commentators therefore theorise that there may indeed have been an answer in the original Q-Gospel, but unfortunately this wasn’t taken up by the writers of Matthew or Luke, so it is now lost to us.
In the Sefer Yeshua version of the passage, I have reconstructed what this answer might have been, based on the Aramaic understanding that the question is an oblique reference to Zealots:
“Well, if the wind be strong enough, the reed will be broken by it!”
In this reconstruction, the wind is the wind of conflict and war, suggesting that Yeshua may have believed that the Zealots will be broken by war – and they indeed were, in both the First (66–73 CE) and Second (132–136 CE) Jewish-Roman wars.
Ultimately, we cannot know what Yeshua’s own answer to this question might have been; I can only humbly suggest that my reconstruction is a likely possible answer.
‘A man in fancy clothes’
From the Greek, the phrase is usually translated as ‘a man in soft raiment’. This likely renders the Aramaic phrase, gevar di-levushin rakhikhin lavīsh. The term, levushin rakhikhin, ‘soft clothing’, is the Jewish Aramaic way of saying, ‘fancy clothes’.
Yeshua’s second question ostensibly asks if people went out into the desert to see a man dressed in fancy clothes. I believe this might be a tongue-in-cheek jab at the expectation of people looking for the messiah. The messiah was, after all, a king, and one who was expected to be dressed like a king, and live like a king.
In contrast, the image of John presented in the gospels is that of a man in rough clothing (Mt 3:4). This is an allusion to the prophet Elijah (2Kgs 1:8). If people were going out into the wilderness to find John, thinking he was the messiah, then they would have been sorely disappointed.
Yeshua’s self-supplied answer to his second question is equally tongue-in-cheek – that such men are already living in royal palaces. In the Galilee, the king was Herod Antipas; if anyone wanted to go and look for an anointed king, then they would need look no further than Antipas’s royal palace in Sepphoris (the capital of the Galilee).
The question and answer are meant to be delivered with wry humour, but the underlying point is important to realise: Yeshua seems to have had a mistrustful attitude towards messianic expectations.
Yeshua asks of his audience: when you went into the desert to find Yochanan, did you expect to find a messiah? The sardonic tone in his answer suggests to me that, not only did Yeshua not think that Yochanan was the messiah, but also that looking for a messiah was pointless (if you want an anointed king, there’s already one sitting up in his palace, and look what kind of a self-serving, pro-Roman anointed king he is)!
For most modern people, we think that ‘messiah’ means ‘saviour’. Most people also ignore the fact that the original meaning of moshiach was simply ‘anointed one’ – that is, an anointed king, and that was it. Furthermore, we forget that there were three anointed Jewish kings in the New Testament period: Herod Antipas (4 BCE to 39 CE), Herod Agrippa I (41 to 44 CE), and Herod Agrippa II (44 to 66 CE).
During the Second Temple Period, ‘messiah’ was given a meaning that it did not have originally: ‘an anointed descendant of David, who would be victorious over Israel’s enemies, liberate the Jewish people, and reestablish an independent Jewish kingdom, free of her enemies’.
In the late Second Temple Period, of the three anointed kings who reigned in the Holy Land, none of them fitted this description – if anything, they were puppet-kings of the Roman Occupation, there to ensure that the Jewish populace remained obedient to Rome.
A note on the Davidic ancestry of the messiah
As regards the question of the messiah being a descendant of David, genealogists say that if you go back far enough – say a thousand years – then you are effectively a descendant of everyone who ever lived in your country from a thousand years ago and before. So for example, everyone with European ancestry can say that they have royalty in their family tree, because every European king and queen, over the 40 generations that cover the last 1000 years, will have had so many descendants, that every single person with even just one European ancestor is a descendant of some king or other (same goes for everyone in Asia and Africa – you can realistically claim the royalty native to each continent somewhere in your ancestry).
This is all because the number of your ancestors doubles with every generation – two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents, and so on. There comes a point where you have far more theoretical ancestors than would have been alive on the entire earth a thousand years ago! This logically means that everyone has far more ancestors in common than most people realise.
What I’m trying to get at in explaining all this, is that every male Jew who is of genuine ethnically Jewish descent, can legitimately claim to be a descendant of King David somehow, even if it might be by a circuitous route (i.e. not every man will be a direct male-line descendant, that is, father’s father’s father etc etc). Even the three Herodian kings I mentioned, were Jewish through a female ancestor, the Jewish princess Mariamne, who was descended from the Hasmoneans. Somewhere way back in time, we can guarantee that they would be able to find King David as one of their ancestors, though not by direct male-line descent (so for example, it is not improbable that Yeshua and his family were not direct male-line descendants of David).
Whatever one’s descent may be, the sobering fact though is that it is God who will choose the next anointed king of Israel, not any human being alive today or in the future. Even though the rabbis insist that they must have the final say, and claim they can even reject someone who has God’s blessing beyond all measure of a doubt, nevertheless it is God, according to the prophets, who will place a king on the throne of Israel (eg Ezek 37:15-23).
Did you go out to see a prophet?
Yeshua’s third question is the most definitive one, as regards who Yeshua himself thought Yochanan was. Was he a prophet? Yes, and that is one of the reasons why modern Talmidis view Yochanan as a prophet.
God called Yochanan to be a prophet (Lk 1:76). Josephus mentions him as well, and understands him in general terms to have been a prophet. However, to Yeshua he was not just any run-of-the-mill prophet. Yochanan had a special purpose and mission.
In the gospels, Mal 3:1 is quoted. However, the wording is cut and changed to force it to refer to Jesus. The original verse from Malachi reads,
“Behold, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before Me, and the Sovereign whom you seek will suddenly come to His temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you take delight – he is already coming, says YHVH of hosts.”
This verse is used by both Jews and Christians to ‘prove’ that Elijah will precede the coming of the messiah. However, everyone who uses it this way, fails to note that it is God speaking, and Elijah is coming to prepare the way before ‘Me’ i.e. God, not the messiah.
The manner in which this long verse is shortened and changed in the gospels (from ‘before Me’ to ‘before you’) makes it refer to Jesus as a messiah:
‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’
As you can see, it bears only a passing resemblance to the verse it is supposed to be quoting. One commentator suggested that this might be how it was misremembered and so misquoted, and thereby ended up in the form it did before finding its way into the gospels (see John Fenton in his commentary on Matthew). Either it is a deliberate misquote, or it is a misremembered quote (in which case neither Matthew nor Luke checked their biblical source in Malachi – even the Greek Septuagint doesn’t say this).
This verse quoted in the gospels appears at the beginning of the chapter in Malachi, but the more revealing verse comes at the end of the chapter (at least in Jewish bibles). The more pertinent quote is Mal 3:23 –
“See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible Day of YHVH comes.”
If Yeshua had used this verse instead, it would then have been a far better segue into his conclusion that Yochanan is the prophet like Elijah. The whole of Malachi chapter 3 is speaking of God sending a prophet who will preach in the same style and manner that Elijah preached. This prophet would be sent by God to announce an imminent time of tribulation, as a preliminary warning to return to the good ways of God’s Covenant, so that this time of tribulation might yet be avoided.
I would encourage you to read the entirety of Malachi chapter 3 (Xtian bibles chs 3 and 4), because only then will you understand the real significance of the prophet like Elijah. The signs of this prophet like Elijah would be that he would speak with fire in his words against the unjust; he would come to call for a return to the Covenant, and reconcile parents with their children. He would purify the priests and Levites, so that they could serve God in righteousness. These are all things that Yochanan the Immerser fulfilled in the words of his preaching, and the actions of his ministry.
No one greater than Yochanan
I have already dealt with this verse in my commentary on the previous SY passage, but basically, Yeshua confirms in his words that he had a great and lasting respect for Yochanan. This line is a clue that Yeshua had once been a follower of Yochanan.
There is one thing I would add here though. With the current wording in the gospels (in Mt 11:11, Lk 7:28), the implication is that no one who ever lived is greater than John:
“Truly I tell you, among those born of women, no one has ever arisen greater than John the Baptist.” (Mt)
“I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John” (Lk)
This would imply that Yochanan was even greater than Moses and all the prophets! Talmidis, like all Jews, maintain that Moses was the greatest of all prophets. I think that Luke’s version is closer to what Yeshua probably meant – that of all those alive today (i.e. in Yeshua’s generation), no one is greater than Yochanan. The Jewish idiom, ‘all those born of women’ simply means, ‘all mortal human beings’.
Yeshua’s concluding words are definitive:
“and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.”
By this we know that it is not Elijah himself that is to come (Elias redivivus, Elijah come back to life), but rather a prophet like Elijah – that is the important difference. If Yeshua was not expecting Elijah to come back to life (which is the rabbinic belief), then neither should we.
Concluding midrash: The one who is to come
Editorially, passage 12 deliberately follows on from passage 11, where two of Yochanan’s emissaries arrive to ascertain who Yeshua is; they have specifically been sent by Yochanan to question him, and no one else. I think that reports must have got back to Yochanan in prison, through his followers, that there was a Galilean teacher who was preaching a particular message which had resonated with Yochanan. Not being aware that Yeshua had once been one of his followers, perhaps he still recognised that his own message and Yeshua’s message were very close in their emphases.
As I mentioned in my commentary on the previous SY passage, the question delivered by John’s followers does not specify the nature or identity of ‘the one who is to come’. If we purely go by the question John’s followers ask, all that we can surmise is that John was expecting someone to follow after him. My conclusion under passage 11, was that Yochanan had been told by God that a prophet would be chosen to succeed him, in order to carry on his work. So I think that Yochanan had sent two of his emissaries to ascertain whether Yeshua was indeed this prophet that God promised would succeed him.
Whereas the gospels say that these followers of John are convinced by Jesus’s miracles, in the Sefer Yeshua, it is the content of what Yeshua preaches that convinces them. In my humble opinion, it is more likely that if Yeshua preached a message similar or even identical to that of Yochanan, then this is what would have convinced Yochanan’s emissaries that Yeshua was indeed the one whom Yochanan was awaiting.
Overall implications
In my view, Yeshua’s facetious views in the first two questions in this passage – on both Zealots and messiahs – are important points for us to take in and digest. The reason why I said at the beginning that this passage was both astonishing and revealing, was because I don’t think the authors of either Matthew or Luke, not being native speakers of Aramaic, would have realised the true significance of this material they were including in their gospels. Consequently, this might be the best guarantee that they are quoting Yeshua’s genuine words – the hidden play on words, which is only apparent in Aramaic, is lost in Greek and every other language.
We also have in this passage the fact that Yeshua believed Yochanan was the promised Elijah; the logical follow-on from that, is that Yeshua was not expecting the original Elijah to show up one day. In the gospels, this passage is used to prove that John was the forerunner of Jesus, but in the Sefer Yeshua, the entire emphasis is on Yeshua explaining who Yochanan truly was – a prophet like Elijah, who would warn of a coming tribulation, and call Israel back to the good ways of God’s Covenant.