Judaism – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:28:51 +0000 en hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/cropped-LaVistaBanner-Copy-1-32x32.png Judaism – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms 32 32 157465916 Jewish Sects: Essenes https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jewish-sects-essenes/ Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:51:43 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=69093

by Fred A. Shewmaker

Origin, Name, and Organization

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 12, pp. 6-7 January 27, 1972

There is no record in the Bible that the Essenes ever existed. Their importance as far as Christians are concerned can probably be easily gauged by this fact. Certain scholars have speculated about the influence of the Essenes over John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Regarding such speculation, I am inclined to take to heart the statement made by a colored preacher boy several years ago. The report was made to me that he said, "I suppose, now when I say, 'I suppose,' that means I am speculating. When I am speculating, that means you can take it for what it is worth. But when I show you it in the word of God, then you are going to have to believe it." When men suggest that the Essenes influenced John and Jesus, it appears that their efforts are exerted to belittle the ideas that the Holy Spirit influenced John and that Jesus was divine rather than an attempt to elevate the position of the Essenes in Jewish history.

Our primary source of information regarding the Essenes is Josephus's writings. He is said to have had first-hand information concerning them because he took the preparatory instructions for entrance into this sect. However, he was never initiated.

Pfeiffer calls the Essenes "A religious communal Jewish sect or brotherhood in Palestine in the latter half of the second Temple Period (ca 2nd Century B.C. end of Ist Century A.D.)."1 In another book, he wrote, "It is certain that Essenes existed for two centuries before the Christian era and those they lived first among the Jewish communities."2 I have found no other claim to certain knowledge of the sects' early history. However, J.E.H. Thomson wrote, "It would seem that not only the Pharisees but also the Essenes were derived from the Assidaens or hasidkin."3 The Essenes were quite different from the Pharisees. The Pharisees were not monastic. "While asceticism was practiced widely in the ancient world, Essenism was the first form of organized monasticism."4

"The term 'Essene' seems to have quite an elastic usage, however, including various groups of monastically minded Jews who differed among themselves in certain of their practices."5

"Strict discipline was enforced by an overseer."6 "Leaders directed the activities, and each member was assigned to live in constant submission to an overseer."7 "Seniority and learning were the basis of rank in the community."8 "They also appoint certain stewards to receive the income of their revenues and of the fruit of the ground."9 They would "not suffer anything to binder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all."10

Josephus placed their numbers at "about four thousand men."11 "There is in every city where they live one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and provide garments and other necessities for them."12

The Essenes also had a judicial system. They did not "pass sentence by the vote of a court that is fewer than a hundred."13 "What is once determined by that number is unalterable."14

"Two things are done among them at everyone's own free will, which are, to assist those that want it and to show mercy; for they are permitted of their own accord to offer succor to such as deserve it, when they stand in need of it and to bestow food on those that are in distress."15

In their prohibition against marriage, they differed with the Pharisees, who "expected every man to take a wife at the age of eighteen,"16 according to Pfeiffer. The progress of Saul as a Pharisee without being a married man either becomes just that much more spectacular, or else the emphasis the Pharisees placed on marriage must be considered to be questionable. Josephus wrote about some Essenes who differed with the majority "in the point of marriage."17 "The excavations of the cemetery at Qumran similarly reveal that women were a part of the Qumran community."18 Concerning those who reject marriage, Josephus wrote, "They ... chose out other person's children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning; and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners."19

"After the time of their preparatory trial is over, they are parted into four classes; and so far are the juniors inferior to the seniors that if the seniors should be touched by the juniors, they must wash themselves."20

Footnotes

  1. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 327.
  2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 117.
  3. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vol. IV, p. 2361.
  4. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 329.
  5. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 116.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, Ibid.
  8. Ibid.
  9. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. I, See. 5).
  10. Ibid.
  11. Ibid.
  12. F. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, London: 1842), p. 615 (B. 11, Ch. VIII, Sec. 4).
  13. Ibid., p. 616, Sec. 9.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Ibid., p. 615, Sec. 6.
  16. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 117.
  17. Josephus, Ibid., p. 617, Sec. 13
  18. Pfeiffer, Ibid., p. 116.
  19. Josephus, Ibid., p. 615, Sec. 2.
  20. Ibid., p. 617, Sec. 10.

Initiation, Attitude, and Doctrine

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 13, pp. 5-7 February 3, 1972

"A candidate for admission waited a year before he was bestowed the emblems--a hatchet, belt, and white garment. If he proved worthy, he was admitted, after two more years, to the society, but only upon the exaction of fearful oaths."1

Essenes "devoted their lives to a study of the Torah in its minutest details."2 The "Scriptures and other religious books were studied and c.opied."3 They "deemed themselves the only true Israel, considered the religious observances in city and temple corrupt, and withdrew from them."4 "They declined to take part in the Temple rites involving animal sacrifice and brought to the altar offerings of only flour and oil."5 These they offered for themselves.

"The sect of the Essenes affirm that fate governs all things and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination."6 This belief is related also in these words: "All things are best ascribed to God."7 This hardly seems consistent with the following comment by Josephus: "They carry nothing with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them for fear of thieves."8 If fate decreed that they should be harmed and fate alone governed all things, their weapons would seem useless.

"They teach the immortality of souls and esteem that the regards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for."9 "Bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal and continue forever."10 In short, they did not believe in a bodily resurrection.

"These Essens (sic) reject pleasure as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over passions to the virtue."11 "They neither marry wives nor are desirous to keep servants, as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives -the handle to domestic quarrels."12 But their rejection of marriage went deeper than that. "They did not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage and the succession of 'mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man."13 Obviously, their aversion to marriage was rooted in a distrust of women.

They were also opposed to war.

"The life of the Essene was one of rigor and simplicity."14 "Before sun-rising, they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers."15

"They think that oil is a defilement; and if anyone of them be anointed without his approbation, it is wiped off his body; for they think to be sweaty is a good thing."16 "They despise luxury and pleasure."17 They did not "allow of the change of garments, or of shoes, till they be first entirely torn to pieces, or worn out by time."18

"Each Essene was required to perform manual labor to make the community self-supporting."19 "They labor with -great diligence till the fifth hour after.-which they assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water."20 "They go after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple, and quietly set themselves down.... A priest says grace before meat, and it is unlawful for anyone to taste the food before grace is said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says gram again after meat; . . . after which they lay aside their (white) garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening; then they return home to supper after the same manner."21 "Strict silence was maintained at the meal."22

"They observed the Sabbath with particular rigor."23 "A passage in the Damascus Document, related to the Dead Sea Scrolls, says that it is unlawful to lift an animal out of a pit on the Sabbath day"24 Jesus certainly did not honor this view of the Sabbath (Luke 14:5).

"They zealously studied the books of their ancestors and had some knowledge of medicine."25

"Blasphemy was punishable by death."26

"Whatever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury."27

Given that the Essenes, as far as the Bible record is concerned, are not once mentioned, some may wonder why I have written about them. You may not consider my reasons valid, but regardless of that, they are: (1) The Essenes were a Jewish Sect. (2) I had heard of the Essenes for years but had almost no knowledge of them before preparing this series. (3) I was persuaded that most folks, including preachers, were in the same boat of "little knowledge" with me. (4) The material presented was available. (5) I considered this information interesting and believed others would also.

Footnotes

  1. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966). p. 329.
  2. Ibid., p. 327.
  3. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 116.
  4. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 329.
  5. Ibid.
  6. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 351 (B. XIII, Ch. V, See. 9).
  7. Ibid, P. 484 (B. X VIII, Ch. I Sec. 5)
  8. F. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 615 (B. 11, Ch. VIII, Sec. 4).
  9. Josephus, Antiquities, Ibid.
  10. Josephus, Wars, Ibid., See. 2.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Josephus, Antiquities, Ibid.
  13. Josephus, Wars, Ibid.
  14. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, Ibid.
  15. Josephus, Ibid., Sec. 5.
  16. Ibid.
  17. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, Ibid.
  18. Josephus, Ibid., Sec. 4.
  19. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, Ibid.
  20. Josephus, Ibid., Sec. 5.
  21. Ibid.
  22. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, Ibid.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 117.
  25. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, Ibid.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Josephus, Ibid., p. 616, Sec. 6.
Jewish Sects
]]> 69093 Jewish Sects: Pharisees https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jewish-sects-pharisees/ Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:26:06 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=69089

by Fred A. Shewmaker

Proselytes and Traditions

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 7, pp. 8-9 December 16, 1971

The Pharisees were by far the largest sect among the Jews. They are mentioned in the New Testament more often than other Jewish sects.

The origin of this sect is somewhat obscure. Peloubet wrote, "They were founded in the period before the Maccabean war as a protest against the Hellenistic influence that was becoming very strong."1 Charles F. Pfeiffer, writing of the Assideans, tells us the date of their origin is uncertain but probably third or fourth century B.C. He writes that the name was first used "when the members joined the Maccabean revolt against the Syrians in the second century, B.C."2 He also gives the information that the Assideans have been linked with the Essenes, but scholarly consensus places them as the spiritual forerunners of the Pharisees."3 Thus, if we trace the Pharisees back through the Assideans, we find them to have originated well after the return from Babylon and shortly after the close of the Old Testament writings.

J.E.H. Thomson wrote, "The earliest instance of the Pharisees intervening in history is that referred to in Jos (Ant. XIII, X, 5), where Eleazar, a Pharisee, demanded that John Hyrcanus should lay down the high-priesthood because his mother had been a captive, thus insinuating that he  Hyreanus -- was no true son of Aaron, but the bastard of some nameless heathen to whom his mother had surrendered herself."4 F. F. Bruce wrote concerning this incident, "This marks the emergence of the Pharisaic party as an opposition group to the Hasmonaean dynasty -- a position they retained for half a century."5 They "emerged as a distinct religious and political party shortly after the Maccabean revolt 165 - 160 B.C."6

Concerning the name, we find that "Pharisee is the Greek form of the Hebrew Parush- to separate and properly denote one who is separated."7 "Although some have suggested that the separation was from the common people, it is more probable that the Pharisees were so named because of their zeal for the law which involved separation from the influence of Hellenism."8 "Under John Hyreanus the Pharisees were expelled from membership in the Sanhedrin and branded with the name Perushim, 'the expelled ones.' This was meant as a taunt but its alternant Hebrew significance is 'exponents' which made the name acceptable to them."9

The organization of the Pharisees is somewhat of a mystery. There is apparently no reliable account of their organization. The Pharisees seemed bound together more by what they believed than by organizational structure.

The Pharisees proselyted extensively. Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte" (Matthew 23:15). "Each candidate was required to promise in the presence of three members that (i) He would set apart all the sacred tithes on the produce of the land, and refrain from eating anything which had not been tithed, or about the tithing of which there was any doubt; and (ii) He would scrupulously observe the most essential laws of purity which so materially affected the eating of food and all family affairs."10 The effect of the first promise can be seen in the "woe" Jesus pronounced in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithes of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters, of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone." The worth of tithing in the mind of the Pharisees can also be seen in the story Jesus told in Luke 18:10-14 about the two men going up to the temple to pray. "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself ... I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all I possess." The attitude of the Pharisees toward the second promise is to be -seen in Mark 7:1-5. "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Geikie informs us, "A special initiation, training, and time trial was required for each grade, from thirty days for the lowest, to twelve months for the highest."11

Contrary to the popular conception, the Pharisees were not the conservative party but the liberals of their day. "Their principle being so to develop and modify the Mosaic Law as to adapt it to the requirements of the time."12 As we progress with this study, I believe the reader will quickly see that the Pharisees were, indeed, the liberals of New Testament times. Josephus wrote, "The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers who are not written in the Law of Moses."13 The Pharisees believed that their traditions were given Moses to the elders of his day and by them passed on orally through the years. According to Geikie, the written law was written in a language no longer spoken by the people "so that it was left up to the Rabbis to explain and apply it."14 We might note here that the term Rabbi is equal to "teacher" (John 3:2). Thus, the Rabbis of the Pharisees were the scribes, lawyers, and doctors of the law. Now notice the freedom, or liberal attitude, with which the law was to be interpreted. "The commandments of the Law were to be interpreted in conformity with the standard of the teachers of each generation and made to harmonize with advanced ideas. When a precept was outgrown, it was given a more acceptable meaning so that it would harmonize with the truth resulting from God-given reason. When the letter of the law seemed to oppose conscience, it was to be taken, according to the primary authority of the teacher, in its spirit.15 "Along with these traditions and traditional interpretations, the Pharisees were close students of the sacred text. On the turn of a sentence, they suspended many decisions. So much so that it is said of them later that they suspended mountains from hairs."16

In Matthew 15, it can be seen that the Pharisees held their traditions to be greater than the written law. But Jesus put tradition in its proper place when he asked these scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 15:3, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Notice Matthew 15:9 and compare this incident with Mark's account in Mark 7:1-13.

Footnotes

  1. F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary, (Athens, Ala.: 1947), p. 597.
  2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966) p. 324.
  3. Ibid.
  4. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vol. IV, p. 2362.
  5. F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 171.
  6. Pfeiffer, Ibid.
  7. McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. VIII, p. 68.
  8. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 112.
  9. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 325.
  10. McClintock & Strong, Ibid, p. 69.
  11. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, New York & London: 1920), Vol. 1, p. 239.
  12. McClintock & Strong, Vol. IX, p. 235.
  13. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 360 (B. XIII, Ch. X, Sec. 6.
  14. Geikie, Ibid., p. 71.
  15. Pfeiffer, Ibid.
  16. I.S.B.E., p. 2363.

Influence and Doctrines

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 8, pp. 6-7 December 23, 1971

As would be expected, leaving the teacher as the primary authority to interpret the law "in its spirit" led through the years to a mass of conflicting opinions. No one should miss the lesson so plainly illustrated by this reliance upon mere men to explain the commandments of God. When men are accepted as authorities and disagree, the result will be confusion every time. Regarding Pharisaical interpretations of the law, Geikie wrote well, "The 'hedge' round the Law had proved one of thorns, for Rabbis and people alike."1

"During the first century before Christ, two influential Pharisaic teachers gave their names to the two historic schools of legal thought among the Pharisees. Hillel was the more moderate of the two in his legal interpretations... Shammi, on the other hand, was more strict in his interpretation and was bitterly opposed to the Romans."2 About the end of the 2nd century A. D., the Jewish traditions were written, and that writing is called the Talmud. "The Talmud preserves the record of 316 controversies between the schools of Hillel and Shammi."3 The reader should be able to see the folly of adding to the written word of God.

Since the Pharisees regarded tradition as equal to and even above the written law, it should be no surprise that their doctrines were at variance with Christ's teachings and that he condemned their practices.

The influence of the Pharisees during New Testament times was far-reaching. Geikie wrote, "The influence of the Pharisees was so overwhelming that even the high priests were glad to respect their opinions, to secure public favor."4 This influence is observable in John 12:42. "Among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him test they should be put out of the synagogue." This verse also nicely illustrates the observation of J. E. H. Thomson, "They had a tendency to despise those who did not agree with them."5 This observation is also well illustrated in John 9:34.

The fear of being "put out of the synagogue" by the "chief rulers" for confessing belief in Christ was due to the relationship the Pharisees sustained with the synagogue. "In that they believed God was everywhere, they fostered the synagogue as a place of worship and raised it to a central and important status in the fife of the people which rivaled the Temple."6 "The particular domain of the Pharisees in the pre-Christian Judaism was the synagogue."7

Even though the synagogue's "status" may have, as Pfeiffer puts it, "rivaled the Temple," we must remember that it had not been substituted for the worship required by God to be offered in the temple. Certainly, our Lord would not have taken part in that which was being substituted for the thing God required. Yet we often find him in a synagogue participating in the activities carried on there.

John 9:34 shows that the Pharisees held the doctrine that babies are born in sin. They told the man Jesus had healed of blindness, "Thou wast altogether born in sins." This directly violated the commandment of God found in Ezekiel 18:1-3, 20. But men obsessed with overestimating the worth of their opinions are apt to have little concern for the inspired word of God.

Pfeiffer wrote that they "believed in a combination of free will and pr destination."8 Josephus put it, "When they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit."9 But he also wrote, "These ascribe all to fate (or Providence) and to God, and yet allow that to act what is right or the contrary is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action."10 This should shed some light on the advice given by Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-39. Notice another quotation that may have a bearing on Gamaliel's advice. "They reject the appeal to force and violence, believing that God was in control of history and that every true Jew should live in accordance with the Torah."11 However, this view of things did not always restrain them from applying force and engaging in violence. See Mark 3:6; Luke 23:10, 13, 18, 21, 23.

"As a matter of doctrine, they believed in the resurrection of the dead on the day of Judgment, reward and retribution in the life after death, the coming of the Messiah, and the existence of angels and also Divine foreknowledge along with man's free choice of, and therefore responsibility for, his deeds."12 Probably, the belief of the Pharisees in the resurrection is the most familiar of their doctrines to the readers of this article. "They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments."13

The Pharisaic belief in angels and spirits seems to be closely connected with their concept of the "providence" of God. The "scribes of the Pharisees" (Acts 23:9) attribute the action of Paul to the possibility that "a spirit or an angel hath spoken unto him." It appears to me that this passage should give us an insight into the belief of the Pharisees regarding angels and spirits. They did not believe that the truth about them should be obvious. All too often, brethren have taken Acts 23 and suggested, or implied, that the Pharisees held the truth regarding angels and spirits. They did not. They did not merely believe in their existence, but they also believed that they were active in the affairs of men. In their thinking, angels and spirits constantly intervened in the affairs of men. This is exactly what they suggested in Acts 23:9. The truth is that angels and spirits did intervene in the affairs of men back then; however, such intervention was only upon momentous occasions and not a common occurrence. I am persuaded that it was this erroneous concept the Pharisees held regarding angels and spirits with which the Sadducees took issue.

Footnotes

  1. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, (New York & London: 1920), Vol. II, p. 61.
  2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 113.
  3. Ibid., p. 114.
  4. Geikie, Ibid., Vol. I, p. 66.
  5. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vol. IV, p. 2364.
  6. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 326.
  7. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 113.
  8. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 324.
  9. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. I, Sec. 3.
  10. F. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 617 (B. II, Ch. VIII, Sec. 14
  11. Pfeiffer, Ibid., p. 326.
  12. Ibid, p. 325
  13. Josephus, Antiquities, Ibid.

Expectations, Righteousness and Decline

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 9, pp. 8-9 January 6, 1972

We noticed that the Pharisees believed in "the coming of the Messiah." Many have puzzled over the question, "Why did the Pharisees reject the Messiah when he came?" A great deal of light may be focused on this matter in an observation by Geikie. "From Ezra's time, the dream of a restored theocracy had been cherished by a portion of the people. The political system of the Pentateuch was their sacred ideal ... The impossibility of restoring such a state of things after the changes of so many centuries may have been felt but was not acknowledged."1 Yes, "the Messiah" of their dreams was to come and restore a "theocracy." The political system of the ancient times was to be reinstated by "the Messiah" when he came. How could those who held their interpretations of the law and traditions to be of more worth than the written word possibly accept the spiritual kingdom that Jesus preached when they had their hearts set on an earthly kingdom embracing a political system? They could not. And that is why they rejected the very Son of God. Jesus showed them that Christ was not to be an earthly king by asking them, "If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?" See Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44.

"Believing themselves the saints of God and therefore His peculiar treasure, they regarded any association with the heathen as faithlessness in Jehovah."2 "Even to touch the clothes of a 'common man,' defiled a Pharisee."3 "A Pharisee might not eat in the house of a 'sinner,' although he might entertain the 'sinner' in his own house. When this was done, however, the Pharisee was required to provide the 'sinner' with clothes to wear, for the 'sinner's' own clothes might be ceremonially impure."4 It was this concept of things that caused the scribes and Pharisees to murmur when Levi (Matthew) made Jesus "a great feast in his own house" (Luke 5:27-30). This murmuring brought forth from the lips of Jesus the famous saying. "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Luke 5:31). It was this same attitude toward sinners on the part of the Pharisees that in Luke 15 led Jesus to tell the very popular stories of the lost sheep, the lost piece of silver and the Prodigal son. Too often, I am afraid, we who preach have failed to call attention to the fact that these stories are made in response to the murmuring of the scribes and the Pharisees because, as they put it, "This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them" (Luke 5:2).

"All righteousness with them was external."5 One author wrote, "Religiousness consisted, above everything, in avoiding ceremonial defilement, or removing it at anytime contacted, by prescribed washings and bathings."6 Another wrote, "They elevated almsgiving into an equivalent for righteousness."7 No doubt, the statement of Jesus, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20), was directed against this pharisaic concept of external righteousness. In Luke 16:15, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." In Luke 11:37-40 and Matthew 23:25-28, he attacked the Pharisaic concept of what constitutes defilement. In Mark 7:15, he said, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." As a completion of the denunciation Jesus made of the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, we notice Matthew 6:2. "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."

Josephus wrote about the Pharisees' eating habits: "They live meanly, and despise delicacies in the diet."8 In Matthew 9:14, the disciples of John came to Jesus and asked, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?" Fasting was not and is not wrong. It may even be advantageous to health, but it was not and is not an indicator of an individual's personal righteousness before God.

It should not be supposed that all or every Pharisee was of those hypocrites whom Jesus unmercifully upbraided. There were among the Pharisees, no doubt, honest, conscientious, and sincere persons. I feel that this was the type of man we are introduced to in Nicodemus (John 3:1-21; 7:50-53; 19:39-40) and Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38). As a party, Josephus tells us that they "pay respect to such as are in years."9 "Religious values were so much more important than politics in Pharisaical thought that they would rather submit to foreign dominion than support an impious government of their own"10 Even Jesus acknowledged that they taught the people the right way to live even though they did not live as they taught. "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not" (Matthew 23:2-3).

Pfeiffer wrote, "The active period of Pharisaism extended well into the second century A.D."11 He also wrote, "Modern Judaism traces its roots to the party of the Pharisees." 12 But Geikie has given us the closing thought for our study of the sect of the Pharisees. "They gave themselves up largely to formalism, outward religiousness, self-complacency, immeasurable spiritual pride, .love of praise, superstition, and deceit, till at last after the destruction of the temple, they, themselves laid the name Pharisee aside, from its having become the symbol of mingled fanaticism and hypocrisy."

Footnotes

  1. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, (New York & London: 1920), Vol. I, p. 252.
  2. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vo. IV, P. 2361.
  3. Geike, Ibid., p. 239.
  4. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 113.
  5. I.S.B.E., p. 2365.
  6. Geikie, Ibid,
  7. I.S.B.E., p. 2363.
  8. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. 1, Sec. 3.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical Work (Grand Rapids: 1966), pp. 324-25.
  11. Ibid., p. 326.
  12. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 115.
  13. Geikie, Ibid., p. 66.
Jewish Sects
]]> 69089 Jewish Sects: Zealots and Herodians https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jewish-sects-zealots-and-herodians/ Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:13:33 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=69084

by Fred A. Shewmaker
via Truth Magazine, XVI: 14, pp. 6-8 February 10, 1972

Josephus referred to the Zealots as "the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy," as we noticed in the first article of this series, "Some Terms Considered." In that article, we classified the Zealots as a political party. However, we also observed that "the conduct of the various sects indicate that a religious sect would have definite political leanings while a political sect would be composed of those having definite religious views." This is true of the political party designated Zealots. We might even describe the Zealots as a sect very much preoccupied with Jewish nationalism. It would be very difficult to imagine a Jewish nationalist without "definite religious views."

Hezekiah, under whose leadership the Zealots arose, was martyred by Herod. Their appearance on Palestine's political horizon came early in the Roman occupation. They "were particularly active in A.D. 6 during the revolt of Judas of Gamala, in Galilee, who maintained that compliance with the Roman demand for a census would constitute an act of enslavement 'among Palestinians."1 Josephus was apparently unaware of Hezekiah's role in the rise of the Zealots. This appears from his reference to Judas as their author.

They "were most influential in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, especially from the time of Herod (37 B.C. - A.D. 4) until the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)."2

"They refused to pay taxes and considered it a sin to acknowledge loyalty to Ceasar."3 They "harassed the Roman administration with every means at their disposal."4 They "relentlessly opposed the Roman attempt to bring Judea under her idolatrous rule."5 Josephus wrote that they "agree in all things with the Pharisaic notions, but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only ruler and Lord."6

It was from among the Zealots that the extreme Sicarri arose. "They were called Sicarri from their custom of going about with daggers (sicae), hidden beneath their cloaks with which they would stab any person found committing a sacrilegious act or anything or provoking anti-Jewish feelings."7

The Zealots "regarded themselves as the defenders of the law and national life of the Jewish people."8 They "claimed the right to assassinate any Roman who dared to enter the consecrated parts of the Temple, a privilege which was officially recognized."9

In article three of this series, we noticed the two "schools of legal thought among the Pharisees." One of these schools took its name from its foremost teacher, Shammi. Shammi was "bitterly opposed to the Romans." Pfeiffer wrote, "This viewpoint ultimately found expression in the Zealots, whose resistance to the Romans brought on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70."10 Josephus wrote, "They do not value dying any kinds of death ... nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord."11

Before the rebellion of A.D. 66, the Zealots became popular with all classes of Jews. Their followers increased in number. They gained control in Jerusalem, removed the high priest, cast lots to elect his successor, and fortified the city. The popularity of the Zealots after they gained control was short-lived. They "terrorized their political opponents who had accepted foreign rule."12 The people then drove the Zealots into the inner court of the temple. During this conflict, the Zealots were under the leadership of Eleazar Ben Simon. The Idumeans came to the aid of the Zealots, and they were able to "regain control of Jerusalem, under the leadership of John of Gischala and resumed their acts of terror."13

"When the final siege of Jerusalem by the Romans began, the Zealots advocated and used most extreme measures, which brought about the collapse and destruction of the city in A.D. 70."14

One of our Lord's apostles was "Simon called Zealotes" (Luke 6:15). This designation appears to refer to Simon's party affiliation before he became a follower of Christ.

The other political party we listed in the article "Some Terms Considered" was the Herodians. Young wrote that they "favored Greek Customs."15

James Orr wrote that they were "supporters of the dynasty of Herod."16 Peloubet wrote that they "were supporters of the Herodian family as the last hope of retaining for the Jews a fragment of the national government, as distinguished from absolute dependence upon Rome as a province of the empire."17

The Pharisees counseled "with the Herodians against him, (Jesus--fas) how they might destroy him" (Mark 3:6). When Jesus was asked about paying tribute to Caesar, it was the Pharisees in league with the Herodians who presented the question. It would appear that these Pharisees were of the school of Shammi and thus opposed paying tribute to Caesar. The Herodians, on the other hand, would favor paying the tribute. They thought Jesus would have to side with one or the other. But Jesus dehorned the dilemma and disappointed their expectations by telling them to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17).

I found the study for this series very interesting and enlightening. I hope that these articles will help you, as I believe the study for and preparation of them have helped me, to have a greater insight into and better understanding of the many confrontations Jesus had with the representatives of the various Jewish sects.

Footnotes

  1. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 331.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 120.
  4. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 332. 5. Ibid., p. 33 1.
  5. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 485 (B. XV111, Ch. I, Sec. 6).
  6. Pfeiffer, Ibid., p. 332.
  7. Ibid., p. 331.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 114.
  10. Josephus, Ibid.
  11. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 332.
  12. Ibid.
  13. Ibid.
  14. Robert Young, Analytical Concordance of the Bible, (Grand Rapids) p. 477.
  15. "Orr," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957). Vol. 111, p. 1383.
  16. F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary, (Athens, Ala.: 19471, p. 253.
Jewish Sects
]]> 69084 Jewish Sects: Sadducees https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jewish-sects-sadducees/ Sun, 28 Jul 2024 21:02:49 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=69079

by Fred A. Shewmaker

Origin, Influence, and Theological Outlook

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 10, pp. 6-8 January 13, 1972

The Sadducees were second in importance to the Pharisees of the five Jewish Sects. They are mentioned in the Bible far more than the remaining three sects. This sect emerged after the return from Babylonian captivity. With the return, "this sacerdotal aristocracy, and especially the 'priests of the seed of Zadok, ' the 'sons of Zadok,' or, which comes to the same thing, 'the Zadokites'  were Sadducees, naturally continues to form the center of the newly formed state, and to be the time-honored guardians both of God's sacred heritage and their holy religion. The high-priests were also the chief functionaries of state."1 The high priest was now in power not only as the religious leader but also as the political leader. Pfeiffer calls the Sadducees "A Jewish religious sect of the latter half of the second Temple period, formed about 200 B.C. as the party of high Preacher Needed priests and aristocratic families."2

Concerning the time following John Hyrcanus's break with the Pharisees as a result of Eleazar's insult (see article II of this series), F. F. Bruce wrote, "For the next fifty years, then the Sadducees retained control of the Sanhedrin, which served as the council of the rulers of the Hasmonaean dynasty, and lent their support to the dynasty."3 The son of Hyreanus followed him in power and was a patron of the Sadducees while treating the Pharisees with violence and death.

There is a controversy regarding the origin of the name "Sadducees." Peloubet wrote, "The origin of their name is involved in great difficulties, but the most satisfactory conjecture is that the Sadducees or Zadokites were originally identical with the sons of Zadok and constituted what may be termed a kind of sacerdotal aristocracy, this Zadok being the priest who declared in favor of Solomon when Abiathar took the part of Adonijah, I Kings 1:33-45."4 Without going into the controversy here, I would accept this appraisal, noting only that the use of the name Sadducees is from the post-exile period.

The Sadducees were organized as "a priestly oligarchy."5 They controlled the temple, were in charge of its administration and carried out its rituals.

Proselyting was not a part of the Sadducees' activity. "The Sadducean party was closed. None but the High Priestly and aristocratic families of Jerusalem could be Sadducees."6 This exclusiveness apparently accounts for the fact that the Sadducees were never at any time a large party.

"Not a single undoubted writing of an acknowledged Sadducee has come down to us, so that for acquaintance with their opinions we are mainly dependent on their antagonists."7 One such antagonist was Josephus. He represents the Sadducees as saying "we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the traditions of our forefathers."8 "They represented the conservative position in religious matters, and so questioned the validity of oral tradition."9 "Not only were the Sadducees opposed to innovations in and departures from the written Law, but they denounced any reform in the functions of the temple."10 Although the Sadducees misinterpreted and misapplied the written law, at times, their refusal "to recognize any precept as binding unless found in the Torah"11 (law) was the right and proper attitude toward the word of God.

"The Sadducees supported zealously every government, which, in turn, was enough to set the people against them."12 Even though they remained aloof and were unpopular with the people, Pfeiffer observes, "The party was the most influential in the political and economic life of Palestine."13 Through the years, they had been able to hold many of the seats in the Sanhedrin. Many of them were wealthy and a large number were of priestly descent and as a result their influence "fully balanced that of their more popular rivals."14

Those who are not conservative in their outlook usually find it challenging to view objectively the positions taken by those who are conservative. Those who have written about the Sadducees have, for the most part, been unable to treat their subject with absolute fairness. Consider the following statement: "Theologically, the Sadducees must be described with a series of negatives."15

Yet, the same author in another book wrote, "They acted severely in cases involving the death penalty. The Mosaic principle of Lex Tallonis was interpreted literally."16 Thus, the first statement of this author is not completely accurate. The latter statement gives us a specific example of a positive position taken by the Sadducees. They believed in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This might be repulsive to those who stand opposed to capital punishment and for a soft approach to any violation of law. However, the theology of the Sadducees at this point cannot be correctly termed a negative theology. The only way that one might label this as negative theology would be to say that here, the Sadducees stand opposed to crime. But the fact is that, on this point, they were for law enforcement.

We could cite another statement by the same author and show that the Sadducees were positively for "the Written Iaw" and maintaining unchanged "the functions of the temple." We should learn the lesson from all this: Many times, the classification of another's position as negative or positive may easily be affected by the position from which the classifier views the other's position.

Footnotes

  1. McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. IX, p. 240.
  2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 326.
  3. F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 171.
  4. F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary, (Athens, Ala.: 1947), p. 576.
  5. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), p. 2660.
  6. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 115.
  7.  McClintock d Strong, Ibid., p. 235.
  8. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London~ 1842), p. 360 (B. X111, Ch. X, See. 6.
  9. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, P. 326.
  10. Ibid., p. 327.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, (New York &London: 1920), Vol. II, p. 214.
  13. Pfeiffer, Ibid.
  14. I.S.B.E., p. 2659.
  15. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 115.
  16. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 327.

Doctrine and End

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 11, pp. 5-7 January 20, 1972

I hesitate to use the word superstitious, but it is probably the best single word that can be used to describe the Pharisaic concept of the providence of God. The Sadducees in no way shared such a view. Josephus wrote, "They take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly."1 They "seemed to have believed that God is not concerned with human affairs."2 They "rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of angels and ministering Spirits."3 With these tenets of their doctrine before us, let us examine each one separately.

Since all allow that the Sadducees believed in the Pentateuch, it becomes very difficult to think that they totally rejected the very idea of angels. I do not seek to ignore or reject any of Acts 23. My effort here is to understand this passage in the light of the fact that the Sadducees accepted, yea honored, the Pentateuch. The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word translated "angel" in Acts 23:8 appears over 20 times in the Pentateuch. In "Jewish Sects: Pharisees," it was pointed out that the Pharisaic concept of the function of angels and ministering spirits was erroneous. Acts 23, in the light of the reverence the Sadducees had for the Pentateuch, appears to be a consideration of the differences that existed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees regarding the function of angels and ministering spirits rather than a statement that one believed that such existed. In contrast, the other did not believe that such existed. The function attributed to them by the Pharisees is shown to be that of constantly directing the actions of men (Acts 23:9). After much study and consideration, I am forced to conclude and cautiously suggest that it was this function which the Pharisees attributed to angels and ministering spirits that Luke had under consideration when he wrote, "The Sadducees say that there is no angel, nor spirit" (Acts 23:8).

I firmly believe that angels exist and function occasionally to direct certain men's actions (both during the historical period recorded in the Pentateuch and during the life of the apostles). Still, I am ready to contend with those today who would and sometimes do say, "But if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God" (Acts 23:9). It seems entirely possible that this is the position held by the Sadducees in their day even though angels and ministering spirits still functioned occasionally to direct a man's actions. While the Pharisees credited the angels and ministering spirits with too much activity in directing the actions of men, the Sadducees rejected their activity in this area altogether. Thus, without qualifications, I cannot accept Pfeiffer's statement that the Sadducees "rejected the existence of angels and ministering spirits."

Regarding the resurrection of the body, Josephus wrote, "They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades."4 "The doctrine of the Sadducees is this: that souls die with the bodies."5

However, it must be remembered that Josephus was himself a Pharisee and -may have failed to be completely objective in his writings concerning the Sadducees. "It cannot be supposed that if the Sadducees had actually denied the immortality of the soul, so vital a point would be passed over in silence by the Talmudic doctors, when unimportant differences are minutely specified."6 Geikie wrote, "As to world to come, they left it doubtful, maintaining... that it could not be proved from the Books of Moses."7 Jesus took away this contention of the Sadducees when he answered their question about the woman who had been wife to seven husbands -- "In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the Seven:" (Mau. 22:28).

Jesus answered their question by saying, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage . . ." (Matthew 22:29-30). I do not know where this information is to be found in the Old Testament. Jesus did not say that this information was in the Scriptures. He merely answered the question that, to the minds of the Sadducees, posed a dilemma if there is to be a resurrection. With this answer, Jesus told them that the supposed problem they posed was nonexistent. Thus, their question carried no weight as an argument against the resurrection. The error of the Sadducees resulting from their "not knowing the scriptures" is related to the fact that the Scriptures touch on the matter of the resurrection. Jesus said, "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:31-32). The Sadducees had overlooked its application to the resurrection. They, no doubt, knew the words recorded in what we call Exodus 3-6, but knowing the words was not the same as knowing the meaning.

When Jesus was tried and crucified, it was the Sadducees who took the lead in opposing him and demanding that he be crucified. While studying this series of articles, I read that the Sadducees were not once mentioned in the gospel of John. It may be just as well that I failed to make a note so that I could document that statement because it is not altogether accurate. Indeed, the word Sadducee(s) is not found in John's gospel. However, it was shown in "Jewish Sects: Some Terms Considered" that the term "chief priest" has reference to those connected with the party of the Sadducees. The party is referred to in John by the designation chief priests ten times. This designation appears five times in chapters 18 and 19, which record the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, our Lord.

The Sadducees were the chief antagonists of the early church (Acts 4 and 5).

With the destruction of the Temple in A.D 70, the activities of the Sadducees ended.

Footnotes

  1. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 360 (B. XIII, Ch. X, Sec. 6).
  2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 327.
  3. Ibid, p. 326.
  4. F. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 617 (B. 11, Ch. V111, See. 14).
  5. F. Josephus, Antiquities, p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. 1, See. 4).
  6. McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. IX, p. 236.
  7. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Work of Christ, (New York & London: 1920), Vol. 1, p. 213.
Jewish Sects
]]> 69079 Jewish Sects: Some Terms Considered https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jewish-sects-some-terms-considered/ Sun, 28 Jul 2024 20:40:48 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=69073

by Fred A. Shewmaker
via Truth Magazine XVI: 6, pp. 9-11 December 9, 1971

Available sources of information on this subject are quite limited, and much of the information available is questionable regarding its accuracy. Nevertheless, I believe that studying this subject will be profitable. Those who pursue such a study should better understand the points made by Jesus in his numerous discussions with Jews of various sects.

Josephus wrote, "The Jews had for a great while three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves: the sect of the Essenes, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of called Pharisees."1 However, Josephus also writes of what he designates, "the fourth sect of Jewish Philosophy."2 This "fourth sect" has been commonly referred to as the Zealots.

The sects of the Jews were of "two kinds, arising from the fact that the differences of opinion, sentiment, and conduct were sometimes of a theosophical and sometimes of a practical character."3 But the conduct of the various sects indicates that a religious sect would have definite political leanings while a political sect would be composed of those having definite religious views.

J.E.H. Thomson wrote, "With the outbreak of the Jewish wars, the Sadducees with their allies the Herodians were driven into the background by the Zealots."4

The five Jewish sects introduced to us in this study may be classified as two "kinds" as follows:

  1. Religious: Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees.
  2. Political: Zealots and Herodians.

Before entering into a study of these sects, we should familiarize ourselves with specific terms in the Bible. The first such term is "scribe." We learn from Matthew 7:29 and Mark 1:22 that the scribes were teachers. But they did not teach with the authority which Jesus employed.

"In the earlier period after the exile, the scribes belonged to the Levites, but gradually an independent class of laymen sprang up, and at last they were nearly all laymen."5

"The duty of the scribes was (1) to add to the law the regulations for the minor details there omitted; (2) explanations of the law itself. These together formed the oral law. (3) The scribes were to teach the law to others, and later (4) make decisions or practically be judges, under the law."6

Numbers 1 and 2 would indicate that the scribes were not of the Sadducees. By comparison of Matthew 12:24 and Mark 3:22, we can see that the scribes were by party Pharisees.

The second term with which we should familiarize ourselves is the term "lawyer." In Matthew 22:35, we find a lawyer asking Jesus a question, "tempting him." "The term is equivalent to 'teacher of the law.'"7 Frank E. Hirsch wrote, "Their business was threefold: (1) to study and interpret the law; (2) to instruct the Hebrew youth in the law; (3) to decide questions of the law."8 Comparing this statement of the case with the work of the scribes will make our next quotation no surprise. "The title 'lawyer' is generally supposed to be equivalent to the title 'scribe.'"9 This is certainly in harmony with the Bible. When Jesus was asked the question about the great or first commandment, Matthew 22:25-26 has a lawyer asking the question, but Mark 12:29 attributes the question to a scribe. This means that the lawyers were of the sect of the Pharisees.

The third term we should consider is "doctors of the law." Jesus was found by his parents, "sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions" (Luke 2:46). When Jesus healed the "man which was taken with a palsy ... there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by" (Luke 5:17-18). But when Jesus told the one with palsy, "Man thy sins are forgiven thee... The scribes and Pharisees began to reason" (Luke 5:20-21). In that "scribes" were not mentioned at first and "doctors of the law" later, I conclude that these terms refer to the same men. The only other passage where the term "doctor of the law" is used is applied to "a Pharisee named Gamaliel" (Acts 5:34).

The next term we should become familiar with is the term "chief priests." We learn from Acts 9:1-2 that Saul "went unto the high priest and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues," but when Ananias discussed Saul with God, he said, "He hath authority from the chief priests." The Jewish priests were divided into 24 courses. "The heads of these courses, together with those who have held the high-priesthood (the office no longer lasting for life), are chief priests."10 We read in Acts 5:17, "Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees)." Therefore, we conclude that "the chief priests of the Gospels and the Acts were apparently consistently Sadducees."11

Another term that we should consider is "elders." In Numbers 11: 16, God told Moses to gather men "whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people and officers over them." Thus, the elders of the Jews were their rulers. They were members of the various sects.

The final term we will notice is "the people." The great majority of the Jews were not members of any sect. They no doubt sympathized with one or another of the sects but were not formally affiliated with one. Those not members of one of the sects were often referred to simply as "the people." We read in Luke 20:19, "The chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people."

Among the Pharisees were those called scribes, lawyers, and doctors of the Law. However, one might be a Pharisee and not rightly be called by any of these terms. Among the Sadducees were those who were termed chief priests, but there were Sadducees who were not chief priests. The leaders of the Jews came from various sects and were often termed the elders. The term "the people" refers to the Jews who were not members of one of the sects.

Footnotes

  1. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. 1, Sec. 2.).
  2. Ibid., p. 484 (Sec. 6.).
  3. McClintock & Strong, "Pick," Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical, Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. IX, P. 500.
  4. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vol. IV, p. 2660.
  5. F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary, (Athens, Ala.: 1947), p. 597.
  6. Ibid.
  7. McClintock & Strong, Vol. V, p. 296.
  8. I.S.B.E., Vol. III, p. 1859.
  9. Peloubet, p. 355.
  10. McClintock & Strong, Vol. VIII, p. 580.
  11. Ibid., p. 581.
Jewish Sects
]]> 69073 Jewish Sects https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jewish-sects/ Sun, 28 Jul 2024 20:14:11 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=69070

by Fred Shewmaker
via Truth Magazine

]]> 69070 Things Foretold https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/things-foretold/ Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:31:22 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=68564

by Terry Wane Benton

Peter drove a point home to the Jews who did not believe in Jesus but gave lip service to believing their scriptures. It is impossible for them to actually believe the Old Testament scriptures, the scriptures the Jews claimed to believe because the Old Testament scriptures are “those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled” (Acts 3:17-18). Their very participation in rejecting Jesus was also foretold. Psalm 118:22 said, “the stone which was rejected by you builders, has become the chief cornerstone”, and Peter reminded the Jews of this. God foretold that they would “not believe the report,” and they would think Jesus was suffering because He was rejected by God and afflicted (Isaiah 53). Thus, they fulfilled their own scriptures by rejecting Jesus, and their own scriptures said Jesus would suffer, and the real explanation was found in their scriptures that He was God’s “Servant” suffering for “our transgression” (not His own), and their own scriptures telling that this Servant of God “after His soul was made an offering for sin” would “prolong His days,” which implies He would be raised from the dead to prolong His days. All of this foretelling of

  1. the Jews rejecting Jesus,
  2. Jesus was raised after He was offered for our sins, and
  3. very few seeing the arm of the Lord in these activities, were “foretold things.”

Because Jewish scholarship fails to see Jesus in their scriptures, they have had to move into very liberal scholarship that rejects the divine hand in their own scriptures. Thus, their scriptures have become fascinating and wonderful, which Christians believe with awe and amazement but are categorized as myths among blind scholars.

Jesus had told the Jews that “if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for He wrote of Me” (John 5:46,47). Peter wrote later that “we have the prophetic word made more sure” (II Peter 1:16-21). Failure to see the “hand of the Lord” in the death of Jesus, seeing it properly as not someone dying because of His own sins but making His soul an offering for our sins, and failure to see that God blessed Jesus by prolonging His days (raising Him from dead) is why there is a vast divide in modern scholarship. If you see Jesus in the foretold things, you will greatly appreciate the prophetic word, but if you fail to see Jesus, you will find yourself explaining away the scriptures and attaching a bias of myth to much of it. Isaiah asked, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed” (Isaiah 53:1f). If you see Jesus in the foretold things of the Old Testament, you see the wonderful arm of the Lord in the predictions and fulfillments, and your love of the Bible will soar. If you don’t see Jesus as the fulfillment, then you will fail to see the Bible properly and you will tend to dismiss it without a real honest search to know the truth. To Christians, “we have the prophetic word made more sure.” The Bible is absolutely wonderful in revealing God’s arm in the great redemptive death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

Have you seen the arm of the Lord in all these great prophesies?

]]> 68564 I am grateful for the support of your site https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/i-am-grateful-for-the-support-of-your-site/ Sat, 01 May 2021 20:32:51 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=34788

Question:

I have used lessons from the site the past few years to help in the creation of my own. I am writing to you after looking over the lesson on Judaizing teachers. It is helpful because you give the background that keeps things in their context, which is important. I am extremely grateful for the support of the site.

Answer:

It is good to hear that this site has benefited your personal studies.

]]> 34788 A Conversation with a Rabbi https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/a-conversation-with-a-rabbi/ Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:31:28 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=33832

by Jefferson David Tant

As the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah approached, the Atlanta Journal ran a story, focusing on its observance by a Chabad-Lubavitch sect of the Hasidic movement. This is an ultra-conservative denomination in Judaism. I wrote a letter to the young rabbi mentioned in the article, and from that was able to set up a meeting with Ruvi New.

From the first, it was evident that he desired no sort of discussion. In fact, during our conversation, I recall that he only asked one question: “What can I do for you?” I explained my desire to know more about his faith so that I could better understand it for myself, and better answer other’s questions. He admitted that he had never read the New Testament, and had never considered the evidence of Christ’s claims to be the Son of God.

This particular sect began in Lubavitch, Russia, as a pietist movement coming out of Eastern Europe in the late 1700s. Hasidic Jews wear beards, black hats, and clothing that are seen in the news from time to time. They tend to live in close-knit neighborhoods, as they cannot drive on the Sabbath, but must walk to their synagogues for worship.

At the time of our conversation, they strongly believed that their rabbi Menachem Schneerson was the Messiah and that he would soon reveal himself to be so. This gentleman, or rebbe, as he was designated, was in his 90s, and at the time of our conversation (January 1994) was quite ill following a stroke. When I asked about his qualifications in light of the Old Testament prophecies, particularly Isaiah 53, I was informed that he met the criteria, including suffering, “for he is suffering now in his illness,” for the sins of the world. (I wasn’t really sure about that.) According to Ruvi New, two things are necessary for the revealing of the Messiah. First, the temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and second, there must be enough good deeds by faithful Jews to usher in his coming. New told me that they pray 60 times a day for his coming and that as the Jews do more and more good deeds, this will hasten his coming.

I inquired about the priesthood and was informed that they do have priests, whose roles are largely ceremonial since there is no temple where sacrifices could be offered. Mr. New said that among the Jews, the genealogical records had been kept, even after Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70, and thus a few could trace their lineage from Levi.

Schneerson was said to be of the tribe of Judah through David. It was interesting to hear that they do not believe in the necessity of a virgin birth, for the Messiah is to be just a man, although a righteous and scholarly man. The Messiah is likened to Moses, for they believe there is a Moses in every generation. When the Messiah is revealed, the Jews will return to Israel, and from Jerusalem, the King will rule over the earth forever.

This sect reminds us of the Pharisees in their strict observance of the Law. At exactly 18 minutes before Friday’s sunset, Mrs. New lights the Shabbat, or Sabbath candles in preparation for dinner, but the dishes remain unwashed until sundown Saturday. They will not turn on a light or use hot water on the Sabbath, for they say this kindles a “fire,” which is forbidden. (When the contacts in the light switch connect, it creates a spark, which they say is a fire.) They will even unscrew the light bulb in the refrigerator so it will not come on when they open the door. As to other lights in the house, they will either leave them on during the Sabbath or if they have non-Jewish servants, they can operate the light switches.

In a 24-page booklet Mr. New gave me, the Jewish scholar Maimonides is quoted: “Whoever does not believe in (Moshiach) (Messiah—jdt) and does not anxiously anticipate his coming, but also the Torah and Moses…”

But He has come, and is coming again! His name is Jesus Christ, and the proof of his identity is solid and cannot be disproven.

]]> 33832 Jesus was nothing more than a good Jewish man https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jesus-was-nothing-more-than-a-good-jewish-man/ Fri, 29 Jan 2021 04:04:17 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=31304

Question:

Note: I basically left this note as it was received.

Incidentally, before I delete your nonsense comments of alleged religious significance. I don’t understand why you call the Jewish Essene Rabbi Yehoshua, (who lived over 2000 years ago) Jesus and/or Christ.

Also, Yehoshua ate Kosher and you eat pork.

Yehoshua did not eat meat and milk products at the same time...but you do.

Graven images and statues were prohibited in the TEN COMMANDMENTS that the JEW Yehoshua followed to the letter.

Your churches and places of worship are filled with icons, paintings, idols depicting Jews, including Mary Yehoshua’s mother, and Yehoshua on a cross.

Yehoshua was circumcised and you “Christians” are not.

Yehoshua celebrated his Bar Mitzvah, and you don’t.

What on Earth does your mumbo jumbo religion have anything to do with the religion of Yehoshua the Jewish Essene?

Nothing...NADA!!

Sabbath (the day when G-d rested) started on Friday at sundown for Yehoshua... your Christian Sabbath is on Sunday.

Yehoshua would NEVER have condoned the non-stop murders and wars between Catholics and Protestants... or the evil crusades, the “Holy” Inquisition and its forced conversion and auto da fé, the pogroms, the Shoah!

The 2000 year old dead and buried JEW you imagine was a messiah must be turning in his grave!

Answer:

My previous answers must have bothered you since you are writing again after telling me not to contact you again.

The name "Jesus" is used because that is how his name is spelled in English, which is the language we are speaking. The Greek form of his name is "Iēsous" and the Hebrew form would be "Yeshua." I noticed that you have no problems using the English translation for "Mary," instead of the Hebrew name "Myriam" or the Greek name "Maria."

There is no historical indication that Jesus was a part of the Essene sect. Yes, Jesus was Jewish and lived under the Old Testament laws. Since he lived without sin, he would have kept the Law perfectly. "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). This was as Isaiah prophesied, "His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth" (Isaiah 53:9). However, this does not mean that Jesus thought the Law was to continue. He stated that he came to bring the Law to a conclusion. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). This too was prophecies. "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" " (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

You clearly have never been to a Church of Christ. The room where we gather has nothing on the walls. We have no statues. We pray only to God.

I agree that Jesus has nothing to do with religious infighting. These people claim to follow Jesus but they really follow their own traditions. Much like the Jews in the past and today. "Then the Lord said, "Because this people draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote" (Isaiah 29:13).

But I disagree with your statement that Jesus is in the grave. As David prophesied, Jesus did not remain in the grave. "I have set the LORD continually before me; because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; my flesh also will dwell securely. For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay" (Psalms 16:8-10). As David also said, Jesus is now at the right hand of God. "The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet" " (Psalms 110:1).

]]> 31304