Restoration
|
|
|
|
Between the Testaments by Ernest Martin and Harry Eisenberg Part I Just who were the Pharisees
and where did their religious doctrines originate? In the Old Testament? If
so, why did Christ so strenuously oppose their ideas? Is the Bible -- both
Old and New Testaments -- a house divided? An examination of the period
"between the Testaments" shows that while men may be divided -- the
Bible is not! PHOTO CAPTION: During the
Ptolemaic period, Hellenistic culture rapidly spread among the Jewish people.
One reason why was the existence of numerous Greek cities in their midst,
such as Gerasa (Jerash)
pictured below. Another bastion of Hellenism was MUCH OF the professing Christian
world today suffers from the mistaken notion that Christ came to do away with
His Father's religion -- the religion of the Old Testament. Nothing could be
further from the truth! Jesus Himself said, "Think NOT that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill
(fill to the brim)" (Matt. Christ plainly said that He did
not come to do away with His Father's religion but to COMPLETE God's
revelation. Then why are so many confused on this point? Why do some
mistakenly preach that the Law was "done away"? One of the major assumptions in
this connection is that most theologians ASSUME that the Pharisees and the
other religionists of Jesus' day were the representatives and the exponents
of the revelation given to Moses -- God's Old Testament religion. But the
Bible shows that the One who later became Jesus Christ was the Lord of the
Old Testament: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God .... All things were made by him; and without him
was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1, 3, see also Eph. 3:9 and
Heb. 1:2). Just where and when did the Pharisees get their practices which
Jesus condemned? The Return From Chronologically speaking, the
last three authors of the Old Testament are Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi. These
three men all worked among the Jewish community that had returned to Because of this, God granted
them special protection and privileges by a series of miracles, at the coming
of Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. This is described in Josephus'
"Antiquities of the Jews", Book XI, Chapter X, Parts 5-6. A New Way of Life At his death, Alexander's empire
was divided into four parts (Dan. The basic philosophy behind
Hellenism was this: Every man had the right to think for himself on any
matter as long as there was not a real departure from the customs that were
essentially Greek. This philosophy -- freedom of
thought or individualism, which is SEEMINGLY altruistic in-principle --
resulted in myriads of confusing and contradictory beliefs among the Greeks
in every phase of life. Every man was allowed his own ideas about the
sciences, the arts, law and about RELIGION. So varied were the opinions among
the Greek scholars in the various fields of study that individuals took pride
in contending with one another over who could present the greatest
"wisdom" and "knowledge" on any particular subject. With the encouragement of the
rulers, Hellenism spread rapidly in the Ptolemaic Empire. Great Assembly No Longer in
Authority Within a score of years after
the coming of the Greeks, the Great Assembly disappears from history as an
organized body having religious control over the Jewish people. It is not
known how the Greeks dismissed this authoritative religious body from its
official capacity as teachers of the Law. But it is obvious that the
authority of the Great Assembly was eroded and the Greek leaders forbade them
to teach. Without the religious guidance
of the Great Assembly, many Jews began to imbibe the Greek customs and ideas
which were inundating the land. "With the change from
Persian to Greek rule (the Ptolemies were Greeks,
remember), Hellenism made its influence felt, and came pouring like a flood
into a country which had known nothing of it. There was no escape from its
influence. It was present everywhere, in the street and the market, in the
everyday life and all the phases of social intercourse" (R. Travers Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha", Soncino Press, London, 1933, page 77). Much of this Hellenistic
influence came from the numerous Greek cities which were established under
the Ptolemies. Most of these were on the
Mediterranean seacoast or on the east side of With the Great Assembly removed
from the scene and this new culture substituted for the Law of God, the Jews
began to absorb many elements of Hellenism. The Jews had no one to guide them
in understanding the Law except a few isolated teachers here and there who
lacked the official authority of the Great Assembly. After a few years of this
influence, the people literally came to a state of religious confusion. Some
endeavored to keep a form of the Scriptural teachings, but with Hellenism
everywhere, it became almost impossible to adhere to the true form of the law
of Moses. Almost everything the Greeks brought to the Jews was antagonistic
to the laws of God, and, without the religious guidance of the Great
Assembly, many of them began to tolerate these innovations and even, as time
progressed, to take up many of the Greek ideas and customs themselves. 100 Years of Ptolemaic Rule After a series of battles with
the Syrians, Ptolemy I, the Greek king of This one-hundred-year period of
Greek-Egyptian domination is very important in the religious history of the
Jews. This is the period in which many great and significant changes first
began to take place in Jewish religious life. "During the comparatively quiet
rule of the Ptolemies, Greek ideas, customs and
morality had been making peaceful conquests in There was little resistance to
these inroads. We are informed by Dr. Jacob Lauterbach,
a learned Jewish scholar, that Jewish tradition knows of no religious teacher
who taught any form of religion from the death of Simon the Just (270 B.C.)
until about the year 190 B.C. (Jacob Z. Lauterbach,
"Rabbinic Essays", Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, 1951,
page 196). "This would have been
impossible," Dr. Lauterbach says, "if
there had been any official activity of the teachers in those years"
(ibid.). But there was none. In fact,
whole generations came and went, offering no great resistance to the new
customs which were encouraged by the commercial and educational intercourse
taking place between the Jews, Greeks and Hellenistic Egyptians. In fact,
thousands of Jews migrated to A prime example of Hellenistic
influence is the PAGAN concept of the immortality of the soul. This doctrine
was widely publicized in the writings of the pagan Greek philosopher Plato. The Coming of the Seleucids In 198 B.C. the Seleucid At first, conditions in Conditions rapidly changed,
however, with the coming to the throne in 175 B.C. of Antiochus Epiphanes. Shortly after he ascended the
throne, there was a contention among several of the priests in Jason was Hellenistically
inclined and was followed in this by many of the people. "A passion for
Greek costumes, and Greek names (Jason's Hebrew name was Joshua) seized the
people. Large numbers were enrolled as citizens of Antioch (the capital of
Syria). Many even endeavored to conceal the fact that they had been circumcised .... To demonstrate that he had left all the
traditions of his race behind, Jason sent a rich present for sacrifices in
connection with the great festival at Tyre in honor
of the god Hercules" (Kent, "History of the Jewish People",
pp. 324-325). Of course, not everyone in Judaea
went this far, but by and large, most people are
inclined to follow their human leaders, at least to a certain extent. About three years after Jason
assumed office, Menelaus (Hebrew name "Onias"), a man most believe to have been of the
tribe of Benjamin (not a descendant of Aaron and therefore not truly a
priest) offered Antiochus a larger bribe than Jason, and he was named High
Priest instead. Because of this, Jason fled beyond Jordan to the Ammonites
for refuge. (See McClintock and Strong, "Cyclopaedia
of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature", Vol. I, pp.
271-272; and II Maccabees, Chapter 4). Many of the Jews thought Jason
had been unjustly deprived of becoming High Priest. Many of the people began
to take sides -- some for Jason, some for Menelaus.
Fighting broke out between the two groups, both of whom were led by outright
Hellenists. Jason's forces won out and Menelaus fled to Antioch. There Antiochus became
infuriated to learn that many of the Jews had taken sides against his
appointed official or, in effect, against his government itself! At that time Antiochus was
planning to conquer Egypt. When that failed, due to the intervention of the
Romans, he decided to take out his anger on the rebellious Jews at Jerusalem.
He planned not only to subdue the Jews but to put an end to their religion
once and for all. Antiochus, feigning peace,
proceeded to take the city. He polluted the Temple by burning swine's flesh
on its altar, and erected a statue of Jupiter Olympus in the Holy Place. This
had been prophesied by Daniel (Dan. 11:29-31). He plundered the Temple of all
objects of value and then issued a decree forbidding the Jews to worship God
or in any way to exercise their religion. Despite the severity of this
decree, there were many Hellenistically inclined
Jews who nonetheless accepted it without protest. Many of these Hellenists
were priests and Levites. On the other hand, for many
other Jews, the majority of whom may have been only slightly interested in
religion previously, this decree forbidding such basic practices as
circumcision and requiring idol worship was simply too much. The Maccabean
Revolt In the small village of Modi'in, the head of a priestly family, Mattathias, and his five sons, stood up to oppose
Antiochus and his decree. "If anyone zealous for the laws of his country
and for the worship of God, let him follow me," he proclaimed (Josephus,
"Antiquities of the Jews", Book XII, Chapter VI, Part 2). Thousands flocked to his banner
and a full revolt was under way. Just before his death, Mattathias made his third son, Judah (called Maccabee), general of their army. After a long series of
battles with his forces greatly outnumbered, Judah defeated the Syrians and
their Samaritan allies. In 165 B.C. he went up to Jerusalem and purified the
Temple, restoring the true ritual of God. Judah was killed in a later
battle. Finally Simon, the last survivor
of Mattathias' sons, was able to proclaim an
independent nation with himself as High Priest. The nation was now, at last,
free of foreign domination. But the years of religious anarchy and
Hellenistic influence had taken their toll. Dr. Lauterbach
states: "During the seventy or eighty years of religious anarchy, many
new practices had been gradually adopted by the people" (Lauterbach, page 205). The British scholar Travers Herford adds: "In the absence of authoritative
guidance, the people had gone their own way; new customs had found a place
among old religious usages ... new ideas had been formed under the influence
of Hellenism which had permeated the land for more than a century, and there
had been no one to point out the danger which thereby threatened the
religious life of the people" (Herford,
"Talmud and Apocrypha", pp. 64-65). The Sanhedrin We are now at the point where
the Pharisees first make their appearance in history, some time after the Maccabean wars. But before we note this, we need to
examine briefly the rise of the Sanhedrin, the body which they dominated
during much of its existence. While some sources would lead us
to believe that the Sanhedrin was the direct successor to the Great Assembly,
this was not the case. It was not until about 196 B.C. after a hiatus of some
eighty years that the Sanhedrin was first established. This is shown by an
ancient manuscript found today in a text called "Fragments of a Zadokite Work". This text points to 196 B.C. as the
year the Sanhedrin first met. This body is said to consist of "men of
understanding from Aaron" (that is, priests), and "from Israel wise
teachers" (that is, non-priestly teachers) (Lauterbach,
"Rabbinic Essays", page 203). This is significant! The writer
mentions there were both priests and lay teachers in the new Sanhedrin. This
was an innovation. Until this time only the priests, with their assistants,
the Levites, were considered to have the authority to teach religion to the
people. This would not have been
permitted while the Great Assembly, the successor of Ezra, was in authority.
This is clearly shown from the writings of Malachi, who was contemporary with
Ezra, Nehemiah and the early days of the Great Assembly. "For the
priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his
mouth: for he (the priest) is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (Mal.
2:7). The law of Moses, which God had directly commanded him, dearly enjoined
that the priests and Levites were to perform the functions of teachers, not
just any layman who would presume to do so. (See Deut. 18:1-7, 33:10 and also
Ezek. 44:23.) Lay Teachers Reject Sole
Authority of Priests to Teach Why this radical change? Again
we must briefly go back to the period of religious anarchy when the Egyptian Ptolemies ruled Judaea. Both the Ptolemies
and the later Seleucid rulers looked upon the High Priest as the head of the
Jewish nation. In turn, it was the High Priest, with his assistants (other
priests) who dealt with the Hellenist rulers on behalf of the nation. Outstanding among these were
Joseph, the son of Tobias, and his son Hyrcanus. In
order to be successful diplomats at the Hellenistic court in Alexandria, they
felt it necessary to adopt Greek ways. And these they brought back with them
to Judaea. Thus, it was the priests, the ones who
should have been teaching the people God's Law, who became the chief
proponents of Hellenism. From 206 to 196 B.C. a series of
battles between the rival Hellenistic kings of Syria and Egypt devastated
many parts of Judaea. Some blamed Hellenism for
this trouble and began to seek to return to the laws of their fathers. But to
whom could they turn? The priests as a whole had
become thoroughly Hellenized. In fact, different
priests were taking sides in the wars and were even raising
up armies to help either the Syrians or the Egyptians. The only ones who had
studied God's Word and remained committed to it in any form were a few laymen
and some minor priests. These sat in the new Sanhedrin. What Was God's Way? Prior to and during the Maccabean revolt, the outwardly Hellenistic priests and
their followers supported Antiochus Epiphanes. The
lay teachers and the Sanhedrin as a whole supported the Maccabees.
Religiously speaking, the major result of the Maccabean
victory was the TOTAL DISCREDITING OF HELLENISM in Judaea.
The High Priesthood was given to the Hasmonean (Maccabean) family itself, which descended from minor
priests. No one was an outright Hellenist any longer. Many were desirous of
following God's way. But whatever religious unity there might have been was
short-lived. The question basically was one
of determining just what was God's way. There was,
of course, the written Bible (the Old Testament). But how were the people to
apply its teachings to the various problems and events that arise in daily
life? The Jews, remember, had just emerged from a
period where the teaching and practice of God's Law had been forbidden. And
this had been preceded by an era of some eighty years during which Hellenism
had made great inroads into the daily lives of the people; and all this while
there had been no organized body directing religious life. Hundreds of years before, Ezra
and those priests and Levites assisting him had "... read in the book in
the law of God distinctly, and (had given) the sense, and caused them to
understand the reading" (Neh. 8:8.). Through
the ages, God's servants have been responsible to show the people (with His
guidance) how His Law applied in various situations in their lives. This was
never the prerogative of anyone who wanted to choose "the
ministry," "the priesthood" or "the rabbinate" for a
vocation, but only those whom God specifically chose. And in ancient Israel,
under the Old Covenant, God chose the priests, primarily, with the Levites to
assist them, for this purpose of teaching. The Pharisees Come on the
Scene Following the Maccabean victory there were many priests who were ready
and willing to resume their ancient, God-given role as teachers and
expounders of the Law. But there were also the lay teachers who had come to
sit in the Sanhedrin and had made a notable contribution to the Maccabean cause at a time when many priests were outright
Hellenists and supporters of Antiochus Epiphanes. Lauterbach says that the lay teachers "refused to
recognize the authority of the priests as a class, and, inasmuch as many of
the priests had proven unfaithful guardians of the Law, they would not
entrust to them the regulation of the religious life of the people" (Lauterbach, page 209). It was these lay teachers who
organized themselves into the party of the Pharisees. Although many of the priests had
indeed become Hellenized, this did not necessarily
give the lay teachers the right to usurp some of the priests' God-given
authority. But, sadly they insisted on following the way that seemed right to
them (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). However, two wrongs did
not make a right in that day any more than they do today. What these two wrongs did result
in will be shown in the next installment. Watch for it in an upcoming issue
of TOMORROW'S WORLD. Part II PHOTO CAPTION: Top: Floor of
ancient synagogue uncovered at Beth-Alpha, Israel. Mosiac
shows the 12 signs of the zodiac of pagan astrology. It is illustrative of
the influence of Greek culture in Israel of the intertestamental
period. Above: Graeco-Roman amphitheater was
located in the shadows of the Temple Mount. Hellenism influence cultural and
religious life of many in Judaea. IN THE LAST INSTALLMENT we saw
how a majority of people were weaned away from their observance of God's laws
by the pressures of the Hellenistic culture. Under the rule of the Egyptian Ptolemies, they became interested in the education and
culture of the surrounding nations. Later, under the domination of a
cruel Seleucid Syrian king, the Jews revolted against Syria. The revolt was
successful, and Hellenism, as a culture of which the Syrians were great
exponents, was now discredited. The priests (those descended
from Aaron), many of whom had been leading Hellenists, were looked upon with
distrust by many. Now laymen were beginning to make their voices heard in
religious disputes. This was the rise of the Pharisees. It was a layman's
party, though some priests also belonged to it. The Sadducees No one questioned the right of
the priests to officiate in the Temple. But the priests pointed to
Deuteronomy 17:8-13 as giving them, and not the lay teachers, the authority
to teach and to decide questions pertaining to religion. They and their
supporters organized themselves into the party of the Sadducees (name taken
from Zadok, the High Priest in Solomon's day). The priests as a whole were
wealthy. This and their previous support of Hellenism caused the people to
mistrust them by and large. Josephus tells us, "The Sadducees are able
to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them,
but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side" ("Antiquities
of the Jews", XIII, x, 6). Lay Teachers Justify the
People's Errors And yet the main reason for the
popularity of the Pharisees and the rejection of the Sadducees was neither
the tainted past nor the wealth of the priests. It was in the teachings of
the Pharisees themselves. During the period of religious
anarchy under Hellenistic rule, the continuity of official teachers of the
law had been broken. Hellenism had made its inroads. Consequently, when the Maccabean War came to an end, and some teachers did think
of returning to God's Law, it was found that "many new customs and
practices for which there were no precedents in the traditions of the
fathers, and not the slightest indication in the Book of the Law, were
observed by the people and considered by them as a part of their religious
laws and practices" (Lauterbach,
"Rabbinic Essays", Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, p. 195).
In short, the people had adopted
many customs and ideas which were in truth clearly pagan. The best example of
these is the belief in the immortality of the soul already mentioned. "The difficulty was to find
a sanction in the Torah (the Law) for the new customs and practices which had
established themselves in the community ..." (Herford,
"Talmud and Apocrypha", Soncino Press,
London, 1933, p. 66). The teachers should have shown the people they were
sinning (Isa. 58:1). Instead they chose to justify
them. This should not seem strange. It was done in Jeremiah's day (Jer. 23:21-22) and in Isaiah's (Isa.
30:10). Pagan Customs Called Jewish! And yet the Scripture plainly
states: "Learn not the way of the heathen" (Jer.
10:2). Consequently, the teachers taught that the new customs the people had
adopted were not really pagan -- they were actually Jewish! They reasoned this: "It is
hardly possible that foreign customs and non-Jewish laws should have met with
such universal acceptance. The total absence of objection on the part of the
people to such customs vouched for their Jewish origin, in the opinion of the
teachers" (Lauterbach, p. 211). These teachers told the people
that it simply was not possible for them, being Jews, to have inherited any
heathen custom or practice. They furthermore taught that
since the customs were "Jewish," then they must have been taught by
Moses himself. (This is no different from
today, when churchgoers by the millions assume that the original apostles observed
Sunday, Easter, Christmas and the like.) "Accordingly, the teachers
themselves came to believe that such generally recognized laws and practices
must have been old traditional laws and practices adopted by the fathers and
transmitted to the following generations in addition to the Written Law. Such
a belief would naturally free the teachers from the necessity of finding
scriptural proof for all the new practices" (ibid.). In other words they claimed that
these customs, since they were not WRITTEN in the Old Testament, must have
been handed down ORALLY from Moses -- by word of mouth. Actually, these traditional laws
-- these oral laws -- were not from Moses nor any of
the prophets. There is not a single reference in the Scripture that Moses
gave the Israelites any oral or traditional laws that were to be transmitted
to posterity along with the written Word. The Bible states just the opposite.
It plainly says that Moses wrote the whole Law in a book. Notice. "And it came to pass, when
Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they
were FINISHED ..." (Deut. 31:24). There is no such thing as an
"oral law of Moses." Oral Law Gains Acceptance The theory of the "oral
law" was accepted only gradually -- a matter of a few years, rather than
months. "The theory of an
authoritative traditional law (which might be taught independently of the
Scriptures) was altogether too new to be unhesitatingly accepted ... the
theory was too startling and novel to be unconditionally accepted" (Lauterbach, p. 211 ). The greater opposition to the
so-called "oral law" came from the priests who, as a whole,
declared that the Scripture was the only necessary code of laws to obey. "This apparently simple
solution offered by the priestly group in the Sanhedrin did not find favor
with the lay members of that body" (ibid., p. 209). And, with the
passage of time, the lay teachers ultimately came to constitute the majority
of representatives in the Sanhedrin. These Pharisaic lay teachers succeeded
in convincing the people that they were right and that the priests were
wrong. Some of the people's fears
concerning the priestly Sadducees were apparently valid, however. Many of the
priests did become worldly minded and they found worldly politics far more interesting
than religion. The Sadducees eventually adopted the belief that there was no
resurrection and that angels did not exist (Act 23:8). This was probably a
result of the influence of the Greek Epicurean philosophy. It taught that
there was no future life of any kind and that man should therefore seek as
many physical pleasures in this life as possible, since that was all there
was. New Laws of the Pharisees Many of the Pharisees came to
believe what they were doing was God's will. "It is certain that they
(the Pharisees) regarded themselves as the successors of the prophets, and
not merely in fact but by right" (Herford, p.
71). Based on this claimed authority,
they adopted a method of teaching what they believed to be laws of God,
without any initial reference to Scripture for authority. "Finding no convincing
proof for such laws in the Bible, they taught them independently of
scriptural proof, i.e., in the MISHNAH-form" (Lauterbach, p. 229). MISHNAH-form was the name given for laying down laws to be
observed, apart from Scripture. This is not to say MISHNAH-form
avoided Scripture altogether. But it was only AFTER a law had already been
accepted that the Scriptures might be checked for corroboration. Sometimes
"affirmation" of a new law was forced from Scriptures totally
unrelated to the particular subject. The word MISHNAH
is related to the Hebrew root meaning "second" and
"study." MISHNAH-form was the SECOND form
that the Pharisees adopted for "STUDY" as opposed to the original
form of properly expounding the Scriptures, which was called MIDRASH-form. This older, original form was known as
"teaching after the manner of Moses" ("Talmud", Temurah 156, "Yebamoth" 72b). MIDRASH-form is based on deducing laws, teachings, legends,
etc., from the Scripture. As time went on it too became perverted.
"Whenever there was the remotest possibility of doing so, they would
seek by means of new hermeneutical rules (rules pertaining to Biblical
interpretation) to find in the words of the Torah support for these traditional
laws" (Lauterbach, p. 212). Thus the Pharisees were able to
"find" the traditions they were now approving of by twisted
interpretations of Scripture. In doing this they still claimed to be using
the MIDRASH-form. Ezra is said to have taught in MIDRASH-form when he, and his
helpers "read in the book in the law of God distinctly and gave the
sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Neh.
8:8). There was, however, one major
point which Ezra was aware of, but which the Pharisees missed. It is this:
God, in the Bible, never contradicts Himself. Malachi, a contemporary of Ezra
was inspired to write: "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye
sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal. 3: 6). But many of the traditional
laws the Pharisees approved of did contradict Scripture. What's more, many of
them even contradicted one another. With the introduction of the new
MISHNAH-form, Scripture came to be less relied on
than before. New laws, which were not even necessarily traditional, could be
enacted. The Pharisees found the MISHNAH-form to be an important weapon in their conflict
with the Sadducees. Laws that were accepted after being handed down in the MISHNAH-form tended to enhance the authority of the
Pharisees, since it was SOLELY on their authority that the law was accepted. The very first individual of
whom we have any record who began to teach new commandments in the MISHNAH-form, apart from the scriptural basis, was Jose ben Joezer of Zareda. Jose laid down three new
commandments. The first concerned the eating of a certain locust; the second,
the blood of slaughtered animals; and the third, the touching of a dead body.
In doing this he became known as "Jose the Permitter"
("Talmud", Abodah Zarah
37b). "Furthermore, Jose is
called 'the Permitter,' evidently because in all
three decisions he permits things that were formerly considered
forbidden" (Lauterbach, p. 219). These new laws of Jose were not
customs the people had inherited from Hellenism. "It is therefore
evident that these Halakot (rules) ... were not
older traditional laws transmitted by Jose as a mere witness, but Jose's own
teachings. He was the one who 'permitted' and he deserved the name (the Permitter)" (ibid., p. 218). These commandments of themselves
were not earth-shaking violations, but they did set a precedent! Eventually
others began to set down all sorts of new laws. These are what Jesus called
"the commandments of men" (Mark 77). The Prosbul
of Hillel Many others ultimately followed
in the steps of Jose. If the majority of Pharisees agreed on a new decision,
it was accepted as the Word of God -- even if Scripture taught just the
opposite. Of the myriad of new laws laid
down, perhaps the best example and the best known is the Prosbul
of Hillel. Hillel the Old headed a Pharisaic school in the days of Herod.
He was noted for his gentleness and was greatly beloved among the people, but
his decisions, nonetheless, were not always in keeping with the Word of God. For example, "All private
loans are automatically remitted at the end of the Sabbatical Year (Deut.
15:2) and hence it became difficult to obtain loans immediately before the
onset of that year. In order to avoid hardship and encourage lending, Hillel instituted the "Prosbul"
(Greek: "for the court"), which is a declaration made before a
court of law by the creditor, and signed by witnesses, stating that all debts
due him are given over to the court for collection. Since the remission of
loans during the seventh year applies only to individuals but not to public
loans, the effect of the Prosbul is to render the
individual's loan public, and it is therefore not remitted" (Werblowsky and Wigoder,
"The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion", art. "Prosbul," p. 312). Hillel's motive was apparently quite practical. And yet the Bible
clearly states: "Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart,
saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry
unto the LORD (Eternal) against thee, and it be sin unto thee" (Deut.
15:9). Rather, God says: "Thou shalt surely give him, and thine
heart shall not be grieved when you givest unto
him: because that for this thing the Eternal thy God shall bless thee in all
thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto" (verse 10). It was because of rules like the
Prosbul that Christ told the Pharisees, "Thus
have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition"
(Matt. 15:6). Hillel saw that the poor were unable to obtain needed loans and
was trying to remedy the situation, but he was not doing it God's way! God
says: "Trust in the Eternal with all thine
heart; and lean not unto thine own
understanding" (Prov. 3:5). There were many such instances
where the Pharisees enacted many new laws, based solely on their own human
reasoning in an attempt to make what they thought would be a better way of
life. Yet God tells us: "There is a way which seemeth
right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways
of death" (Prov. Cause and Effect The Pharisees' error was a
classic one. Seeing wrong situations, but relying solely on themselves, they
attempted to treat the EFFECT rather than the CAUSE. Notice the case of Hillel's Prosbul. God plainly
tells us that the CAUSE of the problem was in the HEARTS of the people (Deut.
15:9). Today too many see the problems
besetting mankind. Governments have their solutions and the revolutionary
activists have theirs. But all attempt to treat ONLY THE EFFECTS of the
problems. None gets at THE REAL CAUSE -- which is to be found for the most
part in carnal human nature with its greed and pride. Today, God is treating the cause
of man's ills in some individuals. He is presently changing the hearts of a few.
"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you;
and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them an heart of flesh" (Ezek. 11.19). God's Law as revealed throughout
all of Scripture is indicative of God's CHARACTER. It is a giving, serving,
sharing, concern for the other person as well as the self, and can be summed
up by the word LOVE -- love first of all toward God and then towards
fellowman. God's Law shows us exactly how
He would live if He were a human being. And this is precisely what Jesus did
when He emptied Himself of His divinity and took on human flesh -- He never
once broke a single law of God. The rise of Pharisaism
in the period between the Testaments represented an attempt on the part of
these people to keep the Law. But they lacked a clear understanding of their
own human nature as revealed in the Scriptures. Notice God's deeply felt
near-lament in Deuteronomy 5:29: "O that there were such an heart in
them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it
might be well with them, and with their children forever"! But "such an heart" was not in them at that time. They had only
the human nature that we all naturally possess -- the heart that is "...
deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9.) Joshua told his generation,
"... Ye cannot serve the Lord nor is it in ours. But man was not left without
hope. There was a promise of better things to come. "And the Lord thy
God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of
thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine
heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest
live" (Deut. 30:6). The Pharisees as well as the
other sects of the period wanted to serve God and keep His commandments. They
had, as the Apostle Paul (who well knew) put it, "... a zeal of God, but
not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). Not aware of the necessity for a
change in their own human nature, they found it necessary to change God's
Law. Not that this was done outwardly, but rather by forced interpretations,
rationalizations, attempted codifications of laws that are all-encompassing,
and new laws that were not admitted always to be new. By changing the Law, they made
it of "none effect." That is, it did not have the effect that God's
laws should have on those who keep them. Inasmuch as the Pharisees did
keep SOME of the laws correctly SOME of the time, it did have SOME good
effects. But the overall results that come by living in total harmony with
the laws the Creator set in motion simply were lacking. Pharisaic society did
not abound with the love of God. You could never convince the Sadducees (with
whom they often disputed) that it was otherwise. Nor could you convince the
Romans. Nor could you convince the unlearned Jews of that day, whom many of
the Pharisees thumbed their noses at with the epithet "am-ha-aretz" ("people of the land" -- the term
is used in a derogatory sense throughout the Pharisaic writings). Pharisaic society was filled
with strife. When Alexander Jannaeus, one of the Maccabean kings, ruled, the Pharisees were virtually at
WAR with him and there was much bloodshed. The Talmud itself is a record of
the Pharisees striving among themselves, one with another in religious
DEBATES, each one trying to convince the others of the correctness of HIS
particular idea, rather than all working harmoniously to seek GOD'S will. Today, professing Christianity
is treading down the same well-worn path the Pharisees mistakingly
took. Where is the sect that has not attempted to read its own ideas into the
Bible which it professes to obey? And where is the denomination that is truly
bearing the fruits of God's Spirit -- love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance? Indeed which one even
knows what true love is? Don't YOU follow the crowd. DON'T be led down the garden path into religious
deception by any who would warp, distort and twist the scripture to their own
destruction. As you peruse the pages of your TOMORROW'S WORLD magazine, we
encourage you to search the scriptures daily WHETHER THESE THINGS BE SO (Acts
As you continue to prayerfully
study your Bible and this magazine of Biblical understanding, you will find
new vistas of truth continually opening before your very eyes! |
