Is JUDAISM the Religion of Moses?
December 1960
Vol. IX, Number
12
Many people have
erroneously assumed that the Judaism in the time of Christ was a religion
united in a common bond -- every Jew believing about the same thing -- all
united into one major Jewish denomination. This is the first illusion that
history reveals. Judaism was divided into MANY SECTS in Jesus' day. Each had
its peculiar beliefs. One of the most authoritative Jewish writers on Judaism,
Dr. Herford, tells us: "If it were possible to analyze the Judaism of the
New Testament period into all its component elements, the results of the
process would be to show HOW COMPLEX A VARIETY is summed up under that name,
and HOW FAR FROM THE TRUTH it is to speak of the Jews collectively as if they
were all alike, in respect to their Judaism" ("Judaism in the New
Testament Period," pp. 41, 42). Judaism was not one unified organization.
Actually, there were many religious sects comprising it. And, even within some
of these major sects there were many "splinter" groups which had
their own ideas and beliefs. In many respects, the Judaism of Christ's time was
not unlike our own world. We have many competitive sects representing
"Christianity." So likewise, the Jews had their divisions, differing
sects representing "Judaism." Some of these sects will be familiar to
readers of the New Testament. There were the Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees,
Zealots and Herodians. However, there were many more divisions of which we have
a good deal of history. Some of these were the Essenes, the Qumran sects (who
wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls of which so much has been written lately), and
others who are called, by contemporary religious historians, Apocalyptics.
There were other divisions among the Jews who lived in the surrounding areas,
such as Egypt, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Greece, etc. There certainly was not
just one single Jewish sect -- Judaism was split into many fragments. But
history reveals another shocking and little-understood fact. It will eradicate
the fiction from many people's minds that the Jews, as a whole, were deeply
interested in religion at this time in history.
The records show
that FAR LESS THAN 5% OF THE TOTAL JEWISH POPULATION OF PALESTINE BELONGED
DIRECTLY TO ANY OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUPS MENTIONED ABOVE! Unbelievable as it
sounds it is true! Over 95% of the total Palestine population were neither
Pharisee, Scribe, Zealot, Herodian, Essene, Qumran, or Apolcalyptic. These
people -- the overwhelming majority in Palestine -- had no direct membership in
these religious denominations of Judaism and in most cases were not
particularly religious at all. The Pharisees referred to the mass of the people
as the "Am ha-aretz." This word is Hebrew and signifies "The
People of the Land," or simply, "The Common People." These
people were the multitudes who lived in the cities, towns, and country. They
were, in many respects, like many non-church members today -- some went to the
synagogues frequently, many only occasionally, and many never attended at all.
The scholar Herford has this to say about these people: "It is clear that
the "Am ha-aretz" (the Common People) were not all of one type,
either in respect of their religion or socially and economically. Just as they
included rich and poor, capitalist and labourer, the merchant, the farmer, the
artisan, the tax-gatherer (publican) and the tradesman, so, on the religious
side, they included those who were just not Pharisees, and those who paid
little or no heed to religion at all, with every shade of piety and
indifference in between" (ibid. p. 72).
We can
demonstrate quite easily that far less than 5% of the population in Palestine
belonged to the Jewish religious sects in New Testament times. By comparing the
number of members within the Jewish religious sects with the sum of the total
Palestine population, we will arrive at some surprising answers. The figures
should be interesting. The "Encyclopedia Biblica" records that the
population of Palestine must have been somewhere between 2 1/2 and 3 million
inhabitants at this time (Column 3550). This is the figure that most scholars
represent as the total population of Palestine. There is a full discussion on
the Palestine population question in Salo Baron's, "A Social and Religious
History of the Jews," vol. i. pp. 370-372. This Jewish historian has
summed up the opinions of the experts in this matter. He quotes as his
conclusion to the whole question, the findings of Dr. J. Klausner, a
contemporary Jewish scholar: "J. Klausner, finally, has studied in
particular, the records pertaining to the wars between 63 and 37 B.C. and has
reached the conclusion that at the end of the Maccabean reign there lived in
all of Palestine approximately 3 million Jews, not including half of a million
Samaritans, Syro-Phoenicians, Arabs and Greeks"' (ibid., vol. i., p. 372).
This figure should not be far from right. There were nearly 3,000,000 Jews
living in Palestine in the days of Christ.
The most
prominent sect in Judaism at this time was the Pharisees. This was the group
Christ had more to say against than any other. One of the reasons for this is
because the Pharisees were the most influential group and had more members than
any of the other sects. They also had direct control over the majority of
synagogues and schools, and in this respect, were the most popular with the
people. But yet, even though the Pharisees were the most influential and the
most prominent religious group among the Jews in the time of Christ, it is
astounding and dumbfounding to realize that out of 3,000,000 Jews in Palestine
ONLY A MERE 6,000 WERE PHARISEES. The Jewish historian, Josephus, who was a
contemporary of the Apostle Paul, and a Pharisee himself, informs us of this
fact in his history "Antiquities of the Jews," xvii, 2, 4. But just
imagine what this means! Here were the Pharisees, the MAJOR RELIGIOUS SECT
AMONG THE JEWS, representing nothing more than an insignificant .2% of all the
Jews in Palestine. These facts will have to change the convictions of many
people who have had the erroneous idea that most of the Jews in Christ's time
were Pharisees. Most readers of the New Testament have never thought it
necessary to ascertain the religious condition of the Jews in Roman times. And
because of this, most people have been making erroneous assumptions based on
our own contemporary conditions.
All other sects within Judaism WERE OF LESS
SIGNIFICANCE than the Pharisees. The Sadducees, for example, were a sect that
Christ came into contact with frequently, but they were less prominent than the
Pharisees. There is no question about the fact that they had fewer members
("Antiquities of the Jews," xviii, 1, 4 and "Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah," vol. i, p. 322). If we number the Sadducees at less
than 3,000 members we will not be far from the truth. Another sect among the
Jews at this time, but not mentioned in the Bible, were the Essenes. Josephus
informs us that there were ONLY ABOUT 4,000 OF THEM ("Antiquities of the
Jews," xviii, 1, 5). A group known as the Qumran, associated with the Dead
Sea Scrolls just recently found, were a part of this Essene sect and
represented part of the 4,000 members. The rest of the sects in Palestine were of
minor importance and definitely had fewer members than the Pharisees, Sadducees
or Essenes (e.g., Herford, "Judaism in the New Testament Period," pp.
127, 128). These figures represent the startling truth that the overwhelming
majority of Jews DID NOT belong to the religious sects. With the facts staring
us directly in the face, it should not be difficult to understand why it can be
stated with absolute assurance that FAR LESS than 5% of the 3,000,000 Jews of
Palestine belonged to these religious sects.
The majority of
people, known as the "Am ha-aretz," the Common People, who were not
members of the religious sects, represented all classes and varying degrees of
feeling in regard to religion. It is definitely known that some of these Common
People were not totally irreligious. Some of them did hold to a form of
religion, even though they did not belong to the accepted religious sects.
Since there were synagogues scattered throughout Palestine, it is altogether
obvious that those Jews who did attend had some form of religious conviction.
Because the "ministers" in charge of most of the synagogues were
Pharisees, it is likely that much of the Pharisaical teaching influenced them.
However, these Common People WERE NOT PHARISEES! Most of the people had no
desire to practice the strict and disciplinary rules of the Pharisees.
Nevertheless, some of the people did attend the Pharisaic synagogues to hear
the Scriptures expounded on the Sabbath or on other occasions. The Common People
who did attend the synagogue services, however, were not required to hold to
the teachings of the Pharisees. The Pharisees exercised little real authority
over the religious life of the people. If a person desired to attend the
synagogue, he could; if he obliged himself to stay away, that was his
prerogative. There was no coercion to attend Sabbath services, for THERE WAS
LITTLE EXERCISE OF ANY CENTRAL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY WITHIN JUDAISM AT THIS TIME.
"PHARISAISM HAD NO MEANS OF COMPELLING THOSE WHO WERE NOT IN THEIR
FELLOWSHIP TO CONFORM TO THEIR REQUIREMENTS" (ibid., p. 137).
Even though the
synagogues ruled by the Pharisees were open to all the Jews and they could
attend them on the Sabbaths, this does not mean that all the Jews attended. In
fact, from the available evidence, it appears quite strongly that only very few
Jews, relatively speaking, attended the synagogues regularly. At least, if the
size and number of synagogues, of which records exist, are any guide, and they
obviously do represent a guide, then we can safely say that very few of the
Common People attended the synagogues with regularity. Take as an example the
Capernaum Synagogue.
It is a matter
of history, recorded in the New Testament, that there was only ONE synagogue in
the city of Capernaum in Galilee and even that was built by a Gentile (Luke
7:1-5). That ONLY ONE synagogue existed in such a large city SURPRISES even
Edersheim (one of the foremost Jewish writers on early Judaism), because
Capernaum was very significant in New Testament times and had a considerable
Jewish population. See "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i,
pp. 365, 432, 433. The ruins of this synagogue shows that it would have
probably seated around 500 people at the very most. This was certainly not
large for the city of Capernaum. Josephus tells us that there was no city or
village (township) in all of Galilee that had less than 15,000 inhabitants
("Wars of the Jews," iii, 3, 3). There is no reason to doubt
Josephus' statement regarding this, for he should have known. He was governor
of the province of Galilee under the Romans and was well aware of the number of
his constituents, especially since he was responsible for collecting taxes from
them. So, from Josephus, we can be certain that Capernaum had at least 15,000
inhabitants, but from other evidence which shows its political importance in
Galilee, there must have been considerable more inhabitants.
It is known that
the great bulk of the synagogues of Galilee were quite small in size even
though there were a considerable number of Jews living in every city. (Mathews,
"History of New Testament Times in Palestine," p. 149). In Nazareth,
where Jesus was brought up, there was ONE synagogue. This, in itself, is not
surprising, for Nazareth was not of the same prominence as Capernaum. Yet,
Nazareth, with its immediate environs, to again cite Josephus, had at least
15,000 inhabitants. It was certainly no mean city, even though it was smaller
than Capernaum. Edersheim informs us that Nazareth was a religious center for
certain of the priests who ministered in the temple ("Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah," vol. i, p. 147). Also, Nazareth was one of the major
cities located on the great caravan route from the Mediterranean Sea to
Damascus (ibid.). This location gave it a particular importance. But even with
these advantages, the ruins of the synagogue at Nazareth show that it was so
small that it could hardly seat more than 75 souls. This size shows how
insignificant was the synagogue compared to the population of the township of
Nazareth, which numbered over 15,000 inhabitants. This again serves to indicate
that the synagogues were not attended regularly except by the most pious of the
Common People. The rest of them were not particularly interested in religion.
Undoubtedly many of them did attend the annual festivals which were held in the
synagogues and at the Temple in Jerusalem. To the Jews the annual festivals
were like national holidays. But the evidence is clearly against the masses
attending the synagogues REGULARLY every Sabbath. It has been conjectured by
some that the Nazareth synagogue may have been built later than the time of
Christ because it was not situated in the highest part of the city, as they
supposedly think it should have been. However, Edersheim shows that this is not
a proper criterion and rejects the supposition. (ibid., vol. i, p. 433). There
is every reason to believe that this small synagogue was the one Jesus
attended. In their visit to Nazareth in 1956, both Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong came
to the same conclusion as did Edersheim -- it is the very synagogue that
existed in Jesus day. This religious condition in Palestine nearly 2,000 years
ago should not surprise us much. Today it is common for many of the people who
profess Christianity to attend church only on the two pagan holidays that
almost all churches celebrate today -- Easter and Christmas. The rest of the
year finds the majority not attending church with any regularity. The Jews, in
Christ's day, can be compared in like manner with the common tendency today.
It is not known exactly how many synagogues
there were throughout Palestine in Christ's time. However, there are some hints
as to the number. Herford tells us that almost every area which had a
considerable Jewish population had at least one synagogue in each of its
cities. ("Judaism in the New Testament Period," pp. 27, 133). It must
be remembered that Capernaum, as large as it was, had one synagogue. There can
be little question about the fact that there was at least one synagogue in
almost every town of any size. This seems to be a foregone conclusion of all
the writers on the subject. We happen to know, again from Josephus, that there
were 240 cities and villages in all of Galilee ("Life of Josephus,"
p. 45). Galilee was much more prosperous than Judea in the south, and in fact,
Galilee was far and above the province of Judea in material blessings.
Edersheim says the cost of living in Judea, for example, was five times that of
Galilee because of Judea's relative scarcity of good soil and crops ("Life
and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i, pp. 224, 225). However, if we
allow Judea to also have had about 240 cities and villages as did Galilee
(although there were probably less), then we arrive at about 500 cities and
villages in all of Palestine that could have had a synagogue. This would
represent about 500 synagogues. But, if we allow some of the cities to have had
two or more synagogues, the number could be raised to about 1,000 synagogues.
That is, if every city and village did have a synagogue. If there were, being
extremely liberal, about 1,000 synagogues scattered throughout Palestine out of
a population of 3,000,000 people, this would mean one synagogue for every 3,000
people. The sizes of the synagogues were from the very small, held in the home
(ibid., vol. i, p. 433), to the size of the Capernaum synagogue with as many as
500. There were certainly none which could hold 3,000, nor even a third of that
amount. And the majority were small synagogues not much bigger than the one in
Nazareth. That there could hardly be more than 2,000 synagogues throughout
Palestine is obvious in another respect, too, when we consider that there were
only 6,000 Pharisees to minister in these synagogues. THE PHARISEES WERE THE
SYNAGOGUE RULERS (Herford, "Judaism in the New Testament Period," p.
134). However, not all Pharisees were religious leaders in the synagogues. For
example, Josephus, the Jewish historian, was a Pharisee but was not a ruler or
synagogue official. In fact, a good percentage of Pharisees were not a part of
the synagogue government. And besides this, there were several offices to be
filled in each synagogue (ISBE, vol. v, pp. 2878, 2879). The limited number of
Pharisees available could hardly have filled the necessary posts for more than
1,000 separate synagogues. With about 3,000 Jews for each synagogue in
Palestine, and the synagogues ranging in size from around 75 members (even 10
if held in a home, as was sometimes allowed) to around 500 people, it can
easily be seen that a good number of the Common People DID NOT ATTEND.
The religious condition
of the Jews during the days of Christ can be compared with our own society.
Today, there are about 750 million people who claim to be Christians, but how
many of these are fervent in their beliefs? How many are consistent church
goers? How many are zealously interested in their church? How many put their
church above anything else in their lives? How many really know God? Even the
major Protestant and Catholic leaders are appalled at the seeming lack of real
interest expressed by so many of their members. It is a known fact that the
majority of people today just aren't interested in real, heart-felt religion at
all -- even though most claim to be Christians. Should we then be amazed that
over 95% of the Jews of Christ's time were no more religious than our own
people? Of course not! People were the same then as they are today. The false
notion that the Jews of Christ's day were intensely interested in religion --
the religion of Moses -- must be eradicated from our minds. Such deception must
be replaced by the cold facts! The Jews were no more fervent about the religion
of Moses than the majority of Christians are today about the religion of
Christ!
January 1961
Vol. X, Number 1
How much do you
know about the Jewish sects mentioned in your New Testament -- the Pharisees,
Sadducees, Scribes, and the Herodians and Zealots? Were they all really God's
Old Testament Church?
There are
"pentecostal" sects that cater to those of certain emotional
tendencies. Others appeal to the educated and the intellectual. There are
puritan and fundamentalist denominations and at the other extreme, cold, formal
and modernistic ones. On the other hand, we find certain denominations having a
strong central government and in others the congregations rule. There are those
with pomp and ritual, and those having no religious adornment. And yet, the
irony of the whole thing is the fact that all these opposing and irreconcilable
denominations claim to be the Church that Christ founded while they preach
conflicting and contradictory "gospels." It certainly is obvious that
they are not preaching the ONE Gospel of Christ (I Cor. 1:10-13). Our people --
claiming to be Christians -- have gotten themselves into a chaotic state of
confusion in regard to religion. They have abandoned the Gospel of Christ --
which is clearly and plainly revealed in the Word of God -- and substituted for
it their various opinions and beliefs resulting in our modern
denominationalism. It should therefore not be surprising to us today, who are
so used to the splits and schisms based on the opinions of men, to find that
the Jews in the New Testament times were ALSO SPLIT UP INTO MANY DIFFERING AND
OPPOSING SECTS.
It is a common
law of human nature that when mankind uses human reasoning to arrive at the
truth of a religious subject, there are going to be many differences of
opinion. The Jews in the New Testament period were not one unified denomination
preaching one message. They were far from common agreement with one another in
many basic points of religion. Judaism had its sectarian divisions as we have
ours. How did they originate -- and why? Let the Jews themselves answer. Here
are the candid admissions of Hereford: "If it were possible to analyze the
Judaism of the New Testament Period into all its component elements, the result
of the process would be to show HOW COMPLEX A VARIETY is summed up under that
name, and HOW FAR FROM THE TRUTH it is to speak of 'the Jews' collectively as
if they were all alike, in respect to their Judaism" (Herford,
"Judaism in the New Testament Period," pp. 41, 42). "When looked
at from a distance, as is usually the case with non-Jewish students, Judaism
appears to be a well-defined and fairly simple system, with a few strongly
marked lines of thought and practice capable of easy description, and supposed
to be not less easily understood. But, when studied from near at hand, and
still more when studied from within, Judaism is seen to be by no means simple.
THERE WERE MANY MORE TYPES THAN USUALLY APPEAR, MANY MORE SHADES OF BELIEF AND
PRACTICE THAN THOSE WHICH ARE COMMONLY DESCRIBED. In this sense it is true to
say, in the words of Montifiore, that THERE WERE 'MANY JUDAISMS' ..."
(ibid., p. 14). The fact that there were all types of conflicting and opposing
sects in Judaism is important to recognize if an adequate understanding of the
New Testament Period, and especially Paul's writings, is to be gained. These
various sects, TO WHICH ONLY A VERY SMALL PART OF THE POPULATION BELONGED,
disagreed among themselves on many religious doctrines. Even within the sects,
many individuals or groupings were at variance with one another. This condition
of religious discord among the various sects, with the independent and
differing views of many even within the sects, undoubtedly was a prime factor in causing the Common People of the
land to dissuade themselves from joining the sects of Judaism. When there is
not unanimity of belief in religious teaching, there is a natural repulsion on
the part of most people to religion itself -- or at least in taking a serious
interest in it. This is the condition existing in our contemporary world, and
it was the very condition that existed among the Jews of Palestine during the
days of Christ. The overwhelming majority of the Jews did not directly belong
to the religious sects, and the sects, themselves, were in a state of confusion
as to religious belief. Let us look at some of these divided sects of Judaism
in order to help us better understand the New Testament period.
The major sect
among the divisions of Judaism was that or the Pharisees. This was the most
influential group at the time and can be called the leading division. Even
though their membership was only 6,000 out of a population near 3,000,000, they
had greater religious influence over the people than any other group. The main
reason for this is because the individuals in charge of the majority of
synagogues were Pharisees. Being in charge of the synagogues gave them a
certain amount of sway over the Common People who attended the synagogue
services. We must remember, however, that the evidence shows that only a
minority of the Common People attended the synagogues with regularity. The
Pharisees had no direct control over the bulk of the people at all.
The Pharisees
were not exactly like a church as we know it. They were, instead, a group of
men, and even some women, representing many different walks of life --
teachers, ministers, businessmen, politicians, etc. These men had voluntarily
bound themselves together in a covenant to live a particular manner of life.
Instead of calling them a church, they can best be described as a RELIGIOUS
FRATERNITY or ASSOCIATION (Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah," vol. i, p. 311). These were Jews who bound themselves together
into an exclusive fraternity to perform certain religious customs and
traditions that the Common People did not wish to keep, or did not wish to keep
with the strictness of the Pharisees. Edersheim continues: "The object of
the association was twofold: to observe in the strictest manner, and according
to traditional law, all the ordinances concerning Levitical purity, and to be
extremely punctilious in all connected with religious dues (tithes and all
other dues)" (ibid., vol. i, p. 311). It is important to note that the
Pharisees were merely an association of men who had bound themselves to keep
the Levitical laws of purity and also to conform very strictly to the laws or
tithing. THEY HAD NOT BOUND THEMSELVES TO ACCEPT ANY CREED OR SET OF DOCTRINES.
"The Pharisees WERE NEVER a homogeneous body possessed of a definite
policy or body of doctrine" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. xxi,
p. 347). AT NO TIME WAS IT REQUIRED OF ALL PHARISEES TO BELIEVE ALIKE. This
fact is very important! By understanding this, we can come to a clear
comprehension of the true activity of the Pharisees during the time of Christ.
It can be plainly shown that the Pharisees exercised little central authority
among themselves at all. In fact, other than their uniformity in their desire
to keep the laws of purity and the other religious dues, the Pharisees
represented a group of men WITH UNLIMITED DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. They were not
one unified group in the matter of religious doctrines. One Pharisee would
teach his opinion on a religious question and another would teach another
opinion, in many instances, often totally different or diametrically opposite.
Each Pharisee could teach whatever he pleased concerning the Scripture and
STILL BE A PHARISEE so long as he kept bound to the Pharisaical rule of life.
You can imagine what confusion this would bring among the Pharisees!
JUST A FEW YEARS
BEFORE THE BIRTH OF CHRIST, and also during His lifetime, we have record of
many divisions within the Pharisaical group. These divisions resulted from
differences of opinion among the Pharisees. Some Pharisees, who might believe
one particular set of doctrines, would tend to associate themselves together
into their own societies. Some of the prominent of these societies would also
form themselves into schools where any differences of opinion on religious
questions among themselves could be discussed and then accepted or rejected by
the whole of the school. Two of the most distinguished schools at this time,
representing the two major divisions of the Pharisees, were the School of
Hillel and the School of Shammai. These two schools were the rivals of one
another. The points over which they disagreed were practically innumerable
("Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical
Literature," by McClintock and Strong, vol. ix, p. 472). There was hardly
a point of religious doctrine that these two schools completely agreed on.
Edersheim says that at one time there was such violent disagreement between
these two schools that blood was shed between them ("Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah," vol. ii, p. 13).These two schools were NOT THE ONLY
DIVISIONS of the Pharisees, however. There were many more! Dr. George H. Box,
of the University of London, informs us: "The Pharisees at this time WERE
SHARPLY DIVIDED INTO VARIOUS SECTIONS which were NOT exhausted by the rival
schools of Hillel and Shammai" ("Abbington Bible Commentary," p.
841). There were many other splinter groups existing even among the Pharisees,
almost all teaching different doctrines.
It is readily
understandable why the rulers of the synagogues were adherents to the code of
the Pharisees. It was a mark of religious piety to keep the Levitical laws of
purity and to be scrupulous in keeping the laws of tithing, etc. So, the
majority of the rulers or the synagogues (ministers) were Pharisees. This does
not mean that these synagogue rulers taught a unified creed. The ruler of the
synagogue, in most cases, would teach what he, himself, thought was proper.
Some of these Pharisees would conform as near as possible to the Hillel School
of interpretation. Others would lean towards the Shammai School. Many would
teach a combination of the two schools' doctrines infused with their own
peculiar beliefs. No creed existed in the synagogues ruled by the Pharisees.
This is the reason why almost every opinion was tolerated in the synagogues.
THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES NEVER TAUGHT WITH AUTHORITY as did Jesus! (Herford, "Judaism
in the New Testament Period," p. 170). Now we can understand why it was
not difficult for Christ and the Apostles to speak in most of the synagogues
without molestation. Each ruler of the synagogue could teach what he pleased
and he allowed those of the congregation to express their opinion if they
wished. There was little government of God -- and there was little truth. The
Apostle Paul spoke many times in the Jews' synagogues about the TRUTH of
Christianity (Acts 13:15; 14:1; 17:1-2). Sometimes Paul met with approval and
other times with opposition. Jesus also preached the true gospel in many of the
synagogues throughout Judea and Galilee without being prohibited (John 18:20).
Because the majority of the synagogues were under the control of individuals
who were Pharisees, it is safe to conclude that the Common People who attended
endeavored to keep some form of the Pharisaical teaching. In this sense, it
would be proper to say that those who attended the synagogues were following a
type of NOMINAL Pharisaism -- even though they were not Pharisees themselves.
"The popular religion therefore, SO FAR AS IT WAS ENTITLED TO BE CALLED
JUDAISM, might be described as more or less DILUTED PHARISAISM" (ibid., p.
136). And because the Pharisees did control the synagogues, and had greater
influence over the Common People who attended, they assumed the position of
being the major sect of Judaism. They by no means represent the only religious
group, however. There were many more!
It is necessary
to mention the Scribes. They adhered to the Pharisaical rules of piety and, in
fact, represented a particular group within the Pharisees. They were the
SCHOLARLY PHARISEES -- sometimes called "doctors of the law" (Lake
5:17). In other words, they were the ones most learned in the Law. Both Hillel
and Shammai, who founded the two prominent Pharisaic Schools, were Scribes, or
Doctors of the Law. Not all Pharisees were Scribes, but ALL SCRIBES WERE
PHARISEES (ibid., p. 158). To them was committed the copying of the Hebrew
Bible.
Another major
group within Judaism at this time were the Sadducees. Even though the members
in this sect were fewer than the Pharisees, they could command attention
because they were in influential political positions in Jerusalem. Actually,
MANY OF THE SADDUCEES WERE PRIESTS who ministered in the Temple in Jerusalem.
Performing these functions was about the ONLY religious service that the
priests were doing at this time. In the distant past, it had been the job of
the priests, along with the Levites, to be the religious leaders in Israel.
But, by the time of Christ, the Pharisees, who were not priests, had been
allowed by Queen Alexandra (79 B.C.) to take this leadership to themselves,
while the priests were relegated to the place of performing only the rituals at
the Temple. Jesus recognized the Pharisees' authority, however (Mat. 23:2-3).
Because the Pharisees had deprived the priests of their rightful position as
teachers of the people, we can see one reason why the priests did not favor the
Pharisees nor what they taught. This is why the majority of priests were
Sadducees! They had a spite for the Pharisees, so they joined themselves to the
sect which disapproved of the Pharisees the most. The Sadducees had no set
religious creed EXCEPT that they ALL DISBELIEVED in the resurrection from the
dead, in angels, and spirits (Acts 23:8). They claimed to believe explicitly in
the Scriptures, but even in their fundamental doctrines just quoted, it is
clearly obvious that they rejected much of the Scripture, for the Word of God
plainly teaches the resurrection, the existence of angels and spirits (Job
14:14; Eze. 37:1-14; Dan. 12:1-3; Ex. 14:19; Dan. 6:22; I Sam. 18:10). Probably
they rejected such essential and basic doctrines because the Pharisees held all
of these as indispensable doctrines of the Scriptures. Perhaps it was our of
spite that the Sadducees rejected them. They certainly had no Scripture proof
for doing so. It is known that the Sadducees detested the Pharisees so much
that they would counter almost every belief the Pharisees would teach. These
doctrines of the Sadducees were not popular with the people. Very few of the
Common People ever joined with them. And, the Sadducees made no attempt to
proselyte. They also had no synagogues in which to worship (Herford,
"Judaism in the New Testament Period," p. 122). Nor did they have any
real centralized authority among themselves. The individual members of this
group could believe whatever he pleased, and there was "A CONSIDERABLE
VARIETY OF TYPE AMONG THE SADDUCEES," declares Herford. Their real
prominence was mainly POLITICAL. During the time of Christ, the Sadducees were
in control of the civil Supreme Court of the Jews (the Sanhedrin). Because of
their being majority leaders in this powerful judicial organization, they had
recognizable respect from the people. The Sanhedrin was the high
civil court,
allowed under the Romans to try legal disputes which would arise between Jews.
It even had power, in some instances, to give capital punishment. And, by the
Sadducees having the majority vote in this court (called "the
council" in the New Testament -- Luke 22:66), they could command certain
political esteem from the people -- even at times from the Pharisees. Religiously
speaking, however, very few of the Jews were Sadducees. Their materialistic
concept of Scripture and the fact that they were mainly priests plus some rich
and influential men, caused this sect not to be in any way popular. "The
priestly and aristocratic Sadducees were rigidly exclusive, and insignificant
in numbers" ("The Cambridge Companion to the Bible," p. 134).
The last MAJOR
group of Judaisers to be considered as representing Judaism, and having about
4,000 members, were the Essenes. This sect is not mentioned in the New
Testament, although they were in existence at the time. Because Jesus never
directly by name condemned this group, as He did the Pharisees and Sadducees,
some modern scholars have been led to assume that perhaps Jesus was a member of
this sect! Nothing could be further from the truth! Members of this group were
ascetics who lived in the desert near the Dead Sea. They were anti-social in
the extreme, withdrawing from society altogether, having no social intercourse
with any except members of their own sect. They practiced celibacy (repudiating
marriage entirely), drank no wine, did not attend Temple services, nor did they
sacrifice (Cyclo. Bib., Thes. & Ecc. Lit., vol. iii, p. 302). Their order
was similar to the practices in monasteries and nunneries of the Catholic
Church with which we are familiar (Herford, "Judaism in the New Testament
Period," p. 63). They even had their own synagogues in which to practice
their ascetic customs. Christ practiced none of their basic tenets! Simple
reference to the New Testament shows us that He was certainly not an ascetic.
HE CAME EATING AND DRINKING WINE (Matt. 11:19). He went out into the highways
(Matt. 22:9) and even ate with the Common People of the land, called SINNERS by
the Pharisees (Matt. 9:11). He attended the annual Holy Days ordained of God
(John 2:23; 5:1; 7:14). ALL these things the Essenes WOULD NOT DO! The Apostle
Paul CONDEMNS asceticism as a way of life (Col. 2:21-23), while the Essenes
believed in it as a fundamental doctrine. Neither Paul nor Christ was in any
way connected with this sect of the Jews nor did they propound any of this
sect's peculiar doctrines. Even the most skeptical of scholars must admit this
fact ("Abington Bib. Com., p. 842). Most of the doctrines adhered to by
the Essenes actually came from heathen influences, not from the Bible.
Another sect --
or perhaps sects -- connected directly with the Essenes, were the Qumran group.
Before 1947, no one knew that this sect existed in Palestine. In that year,
however, some scrolls were found by an Arab in a cave near the Dead Sea. It was
found that these scrolls were hidden by this sect now known as the Qumran.
Subsequent archeological discoveries revealed that this group were like the
Essenes in many ways. They preferred a life of asceticism and lived in
monastery-like institutions (Thompson, "Archaeology and the Pre-Christian
Centuries," p. 107). However, a study of their writings indicated that
they may have been a splinter group of the Essenes. Their own writings tell us
that there were differences of opinions among themselves and that there were
different sections within the group (ibid., p. 115). That Jesus had nothing to
do with them is apparent! Professor Thompson says that the teaching off these
Qumran sects differed from that of Christ in a thousand ways (ibid., p. 118).
The Zealots were
a religious group (Herford, "Judaism in the New Testament Period," p.
66), who had as their basic philosophy -- the defense of the Law of Moses. At
least, this was their supposition. In their religious beliefs they sided with
the Sadducees IN ONE RESPECT: they rejected the authority of the Pharisaic
teachings (ibid., p. 68). But they were not Sadducees! They held that the Law
of Moses was sufficient to guide the religious life, and that it did not need
the extra teachings of the Pharisees or any other group to make it clear. It is
not known just how fervent they really were in adhering to this religious conception. Their main point of
doctrine, and the one which gave them their name, was their ZEALOUSNESS for the
Law. They were supposedly willing to fight or even to die for the Law if
necessary. However, we find that this seemingly good quality was actually a
tool by which they could get the Common People to come to their aid in order to
accomplish their own nationalistic desires of driving all foreigners from the
land of Palestine. It was the overthrow of the Roman yoke more than anything
else that gave them impetus for zealousness. We often meet with this sect in
the New Testament only because one of the Apostles WAS ONCE a member of it
before becoming a Christian (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Their importance was not
overly great during the time of Christ, but their influence grew, after the
crucifixion, to the extent that much of the blame for the rebellion against
Rome, that caused the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D., is to
be accorded directly to them. Their fundamental doctrine of rebellion against
all foreign domination (using the pretext of fighting for the Law of God)
brought much of the misery the Jews suffered during the destruction of
Jerusalem nearly 40 years after the crucifixion. This sect was extinguished from
Judaism after that destruction.
During the time
of Christ there was another minor group represented in Judaism called the
Herodians. They are mentioned twice in the New Testament (Matt. 22:16, Mark
12:13), and are in both cases aligned with the Pharisees against Christ. Little
is known of them except that they had independent doctrines of their own. It
has been CONJECTURED by some that they were endeavoring to proclaim Herod the
Great as the King and Messiah. The Jews were well aware that the Messiah was to
come at about this time because of the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. It is
possible -- say some scholars -- that the Herodians were proclaiming Herod as
their coming King. However, this is entirely conjecture. It is not known how
many members were in this MINOR group, nor is it really known what they taught.
Other than the
sects and divisions already mentioned, THERE WERE MANY OTHER MINOR RELIGIOUS
GROUPS IN JUDAISM. That these sects existed is readily recognized because they
wrote many erroneous and fantastic apocryphal books which show that they were
people who believed doctrines totally different from the common sects. These
books express different opinions among themselves as well, and in every case
endeavor to teach what the Bible clearly does not teach. The name that has been
applied to many of these small and independent groups, or perhaps they
represent nothing more than a few individuals, is Apocalyptists. The word means
"the revealing-ones" or those who purport to give SECRET doctrines or
prophecies never heard before. Many of the writers of these books claimed the
names of famous Old Testament personalities, such as Enoch and Moses, as the
supposed authors of their books. However, it is well known that these books
were written about one to two hundred years before Christ. See R. H. Charles',
"Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha," Oxford University Press, page 123,
for the evidence of this. Instead of revealing many hidden truths, these books
reveal only the errors that some of the Jews had foolishly come to believe. The
important point to realize is the fact that these false books are at variance
with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. THEY DO NOT BELONG IN THE BIBLE!
They were all rejected by the Jews of Palestine. In a future chapter we will
see just what books really belong in the Old Testament and who had the
authority to decide it. It is important to know!
Let us summarize
the religious condition of the Jews during the time of Christ. Out of a total
population of about 3,000,000 Jews in Palestine, there were only about 6,000
Pharisees, about 3,000 Sadducees, 4,000 Essenes, and a few thousand
representing the other sects of Judaism. Those belonging to the religious sects
represented only a mere fragment of the population -- less than 5% of the total
population. The evidence shows that, relatively speaking, very few of the Jews
attended the synagogues each Sabbath. The synagogues were just too small or
there were not enough of them to allow all to attend. Of the sects themselves,
the Pharisees, the major group, WERE DIVIDED into many opposing divisions. Nor
were the Sadducees a unified group, for there WERE MANY VARIETIES OF BELIEFS
AMONG THEM. The Essenes and Qumran, by their own writings, were not a uniform
group, BUT WERE DIVIDED INTO VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF BELIEF. The rest of the sects
were minor in importance. Even the writings of the Apocalyptics show a variety
of opinions. They certainly did not agree with one another -- and especially
they did not agree with the Bible. Among all these differing sects we find some
keeping the traditions of the elders. Some believed in asceticism; others
repudiated it. There was disagreement over the rituals, marriage, the Sacred
Calendar, the correct observance of the Holy Days, etc. In fact, the points of
disagreement were virtually INNUMERABLE. About the only things held in common
by them all were some kind of observance of the Sabbath, the rite of
circumcision, the calling of Israel "a chosen people" and the expectancy
of the Messiah. However, even in these fundamental doctrines there were
countless shades of interpretations. The condition of the Jews in New Testament
times can best be described by the statement in the Bible: "every man did
that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). There is no question
but that the religion of the Jews, as taught by the differing sects, was not
the religion that God gave Moses. In truth, the message that Christ brought
re-emphasized the religion of Moses IN ITS TRUE SPIRITUAL INTENT, and to give
it to a people who had forgotten the true spiritual application of the Law! In
the next chapter we shall see how the Jews originally departed from the Mosaic
faith; how they instituted the commandments of men which Christ condemned (Mark
7:7); how the religious sects first arose; and why the Jews came to such a
state of religious confusion during Christ's time.
February 1961
Vol. X, Number 2
The proper place
to begin a study of the development of Judaism is with the Babylonian captivity
of the Jews. Between the years of 604 B.C. and 585 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar, king
of the Babylonians, made war with the Kingdom of Judah. The Jews were not
successful in any or the skirmishes with the Babylonians. In the first years of
this war, Nebuchadnezzar carried away the majority of the Jews from Judah to
Babylon. At the end of the war, in 585 B.C., ALL THE JEWS, except those under
Gedaliah, were finally carried to Babylon. And even those under Gedaliah
finally fled Palestine. This was a complete captivity. The Babylonian captivity
came to an end with the downfall of the Babylonian Empire in October 539 B.C.
Isaiah had prophesied, about 200 years before, that Cyrus, the king of Persia,
would be responsible for the overthrow of Babylon and for making it possible
for the Jews to return to Palestine (Isa. 45:1-4). Thus, Cyrus and his armies
captured the capital of the Empire and Babylon was absorbed into the Persian
Empire. Cyrus was so betook over the exact prophecy by Isaiah concerning
himself, that he determined to honor the God who had granted him victory over
the Babylonians. He issued an edict that the Jews who had been carried captive
by the Babylonians could return to Palestine and rebuild the Temple of God (II
Chron. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1,2). The issuance of this decree resulted in about
50,000 Jews later returning to Palestine. These Jews were under the leadership
of two men. Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, and Joshua, the High Priest. The
reason for the Jews' return was to rebuild the Temple, which had been destroyed
by the Babylonians, and to again establish the true worship of God. The books
of Haggai and Zechariah were written during the period when these Jews were
returning to Palestine and during the building of the Temple. These books
describe the condition of the Jews at this time.
It must be
remembered, however, that the majority of the Jews did NOT return to Palestine.
Most of them elected to remain in the Babylonian area. Under the benevolent
rulership of Cyrus, many of the Jews had their own homes, substantial
properties and not a few were wealthy and influential. They did not want to
give all of this up in order to go back to the wasted land of their
forefathers. Even Cyrus did not want all of them to leave the Babylonian area
since the bulk of the population in some provinces was principally Jewish.
Depopulation would have been a serious setback to the ECONOMY of the area
(Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," vol. i, p. 8). The
majority of the Jews were content with the situation in Babylon. They had no
desire to return, and in consequence, they built permanent schools, colleges,
and synagogues. They were settling down to stay. And, even though there were
several migrations from Babylon back to Palestine, the bulk of the Jews
remained in the Mesopotamian area. Even as late as the New Testament times,
there were still more Jews in Babylon than there were in Palestine (ibid., vol.
i, pp. 7-9). THIS EXPLAINS WHY THE APOSTLE PETER WAS IN BABYLON IN THE LATER
YEARS OF HIS LIFE. He wrote his two epistles from near Babylon on the Euphrates
(I Pet. 5:13). Since the Apostle Peter was the apostle to the Circumcision
scattered abroad -- the Jews in the Diaspora (Gal. 2:7), it is not difficult to
see why he went to Babylon, where many of the Jews lived.
After the deaths
of Zerubbabel and Joshua, who led the first wave of returning Jews to
Palestine, the people began to take a lackadaisical attitude concerning the
services in the Temple and religion in general. Even though the Temple had been
completed in the early months of 515 B.C., the people of Palestine took no
interest in rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. It still remained in ruins! The
people had also begun to intermarry freely with the idolatrous Gentile people
round about. The religious life of the people in general was becoming corrupt.
This condition was prompted because the people in general did not have any real
spiritual leaders after the death of Zerubbabel and Joshua. As the years rolled
by, the condition became worse and worse. Finally, in the summer of the year
457 B.C., the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Jewish reckoning, Ezra came to
Palestine to rectify the situation that was beginning to get out of hand (Ezra
7:7-8). Ezra was a priest of no mean standing. He was a direct descendant of
Aaron and some of his forefathers had been former High Priests in Israel. His
grandfather was the High Priest who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua to
Jerusalem in the first migration back to Palestine ("Cyclopaedia of
Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature," vol. iii, p.435).
Ezra, himself, was a "scribe," a "ready scribe of the law of
Moses," "a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord and of
His statutes to Israel," "a scribe of the law of the God of heaven"
(Ezra 7:11, 12). He was considered by Josephus, the Jewish historian of the
apostles' days, to have been, in a sense, the "High Priest" of the
Jews who were still living in Babylon ("Antiquities of the Jews," xi,
5,1). The Scriptures say that Ezra "had prepared his heart to seek the law
of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments"
(Ezra 7:10). From these Scripture references alone, we can say confidently that
Ezra was determined to live by the laws of God and to teach them to the people.
So profound an influence had Ezra over the Jews, and so righteous was his
character, that a later Jewish writer said he would have been the lawgiver to
Israel had not Moses preceded him ("The Talmud, Sanhedrin," c.ii).
Ezra knew the laws of God -- he was well trained in them. And God directed that
he go to Jerusalem to beautify the Temple, establish its services in proper
order, to teach the people the laws of God, and to rebuild the city of
Jerusalem. He went to Palestine, in the year 457 B.C., with authority from the
Persian government to carry out these reforms. About 2,000 people went with
Ezra to Palestine. These were notably priests, Levites and servants of the
Temple. The object of Ezra and these other important dignitaries in going to
Jerusalem, was to restore the worship of God that was fast becoming defiled.
When Ezra and
his retinue went to Jerusalem from Babylon, they went with a royal decree from
the king of Persia -- Ezra had the power he needed to carry out the reform. The
decree gave him authority not only to establish the true religion in its
purity, but also he had governmental orders to "appoint magistrates and
judges which may judge all the people that are beyond the river (in Palestine),
all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye him that knoweth them not.
And whosoever will not do the law of thy God and the LAW OF THE KING, let
judgment be executed upon him with all diligence, whether it be unto death, or
to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment" (Ezra
7:25, 26). In other words Ezra was going to Jerusalem not only as a priest of
God to reestablish the religious worship, but also to establish law and order
by rebuilding Jerusalem as a Jewish capital city. Why was the king of Persia so
interested in the Jews' religion and why did he want Jerusalem to be rebuilt
and inhabited? The answer is plain. The Bible records how Esther, a Jewish girl
from the tribe of Benjamin, became Queen of Persia, and Mordecai, her uncle,
became Prime Minister of the kingdom (Esther 2:17; 10:3).Esther was married to
King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) who ruled according to Persian reckoning, from 485 to
465 B.C. The king under whom Ezra was appointed to rebuild Jerusalem was
Artaxerxes I -- the son of Xerxes. Esther was still, undoubtedly, the Queen Mother,
when Ezra left for Jerusalem in 457 B.C. Thus we see that there was
considerable Jewish influence in the king's palace at this time. No wonder Ezra
was given such responsibility by the Persian king. He had power from the king
to perform the needed restoration. Ezra's personality and authority had a
tremendous effect on the people. The real intent of Ezra was to establish the
Law of Moses as the constitutional law throughout Judea (Herford, "Talmud
and Apocrypha," p. 33) -- to make Judea a model state within the Persian
Empire -- one adhering to the law of Moses. The laws of the king were to be
few, dealing mainly with taxation. Herford, the Jewish scholar, continues,
"The Persian rulers, living far from Judea, seldom interfered with the
internal affairs of their Jewish subjects, and were content to leave their
public business in the hands of the governor of the province. If the royal
taxes were paid, and order maintained, the Jews might organize their own life
as a community in the way that seemed best to them" (ibid. p. 45). This
was the policy of the Persian rulers for the two centuries they governed
Palestine. This gave the Jews ample opportunity to settle down firmly in
Palestine and to practice their religion without undue molestation.
The first thing
Ezra found upon his arrival in Palestine was that most of the people possessed
only a nominal religion. The Temple services were not being conducted properly
and a great number of the people had intermarried with foreign women. Ezra, in
no uncertain terms, warned the people that these very acts were violations of
the Law that caused their forefathers to be carried into captivity (Ezra
9:5-7). Upon hearing this, many of the people covenanted before God to
disentangle themselves from their foreign wives (Ezra 10:2-5). However, we find
that not all of the people were so willing to do this. Some became quite
obstinate. It took about 13 years to get all the people to forsake their own
ways and be obedient to the Laws of God. The reason that the Law had commanded
the Jews not to marry with the heathen is that the natural tendency of a person
is to lean towards the religion of the wife or husband. Solomon even set up
heathen idols in Jerusalem and throughout Israel to please his pagan wives (I
Kings 11:4). And because the Law specifically commanded the Israelites not to
marry heathen women or men (Exodus 34:15, 16), Ezra commanded the Jews to
repent of their erroneous ways and to begin keeping the Law. (See also Deut.
7:3.) A paramount issue in the mind of Ezra was the establishment in Palestine
of the civil Law as given by Moses. In other words, he was determined to see
that the Jews obeyed the commandments of God as revealed in Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy. Within these four books are found the basic spiritual
commandments of God, plus many basic laws and statutes of a civil nature for
the governing of the physical nation of Israel. Also within these books are the
ritualistic and ceremonial laws of purity and the sacrificial ordinances that
formed such a distinctive part of the Law of Moses that by New Testament times
the term "Law of Moses" often became a special and exclusive term for
the sacrificial ceremonies and physical rituals (Acts 13:39; 15:5). Ezra was
commissioned by God to teach the people ALL these laws -- from obedience to the
spiritual laws to the observance of physical rituals. Ezra was fully qualified
in education, political power and divine favor to accomplish the job of
establishing the Law of Moses as the law of the land. "To place the Torah
(the Scriptures) in the position of supreme authority in Judaism, and to win
the people to that recognition and acceptance of that supreme authority was
what Ezra set out to do" (Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha," p. 37).
And, we find that Ezra succeeded in transforming the Jews from a nominal Mosaic
religion to the real thing. It took, however, the help of Nehemiah to finally
and fully implant the Law of Moses as the law of the land.
Nehemiah was a
Jew who was a high government official in the Persian kingdom (Neh. 2:1-8).
After learning of the plight of the Jews in Palestine and the difficult time
Ezra was having getting the Jews to obey the laws of Moses, he resolved to do
something about the situation. Being in close communication with the king of
Persia and in good favor with him, he petitioned for the right to become
governor of the province of Judea, directly under the king himself. The
petition was granted! Ezra, who had also gone to Palestine in an official
capacity, was not the governor of the province. He acted more as a civil
servant of the king. But Nehemiah came with much more power. He went to
Jerusalem as governor of the whole province of Judea. Upon the arrival of Nehemiah
in Artaxerxes' twentieth year, Ezra's position was greatly strengthened.
Nehemiah was as much inclined toward getting the people back to God as was
Ezra. Nehemiah and Ezra both worked together in harmony towards accomplishing
their goal. And accomplish it they did! They established the Law of Moses as
the law of the land, they set up the Temple service in proper order and they
made the people put away their foreign wives. They established meeting places
where the law was preached and expounded. The ordained priests were judges,
teachers, and administers of the government. This was a phenomenal task to
accomplish among thousands of Jews who were not always in favor of the law. But
it was done.
Ezra and
Nehemiah brought all of the leaders of the people, the priests, Levites, and
all the principal men, and had them sign a covenant that they would henceforth
obey the laws of God. In the covenant they signed, they all agreed to perform
seven things. These articles of the covenant were mandatory: 1) They were to
keep all the laws, statutes, judgments and commandments of God; 2) not to
intermarry with the heathen; 3) to keep the Sabbath holy; 4) to observe the
Sabbatical year; 5) to pay the annual third of a shekel for the upkeep of the
Temple; 6) to supply wood for the altar in the Temple; 7) to pay all the tithes
that were commanded in the Law (Nehemiah 10:28-39). The leaders signed the
covenant on behalf of all the people. Consequently, all the Jews who lived in
Palestine, solemnly entered into this covenant. They all pledged to carry out
its requirements. Before this time, the people were content with a nominal form
of religion, but after the surge of spiritual zeal and determination of Ezra
and Nehemiah, with the Persian monarch backing them up, the people took on a
new outlook towards the truth of God. There arose a new kind of constitutional
government -- a government which had as its laws the Law of Moses. It was a
kind of Church and State government, under the authority of the Persian
kingdom, but with its own schools, colleges, synagogues, court houses and
Supreme Court. With this kind of central government established in Judea, the
result was a religious unity not known since the days of Joshua. No wonder that
Ezra, the principal figure of the time, was called the "second
Moses." This was a new beginning in the history of the Jews.
The convening of
these Jewish elders was of great importance. This assemblage was actually a
religious and political body of priests which was, under the leadership of Ezra
and Nehemiah, empowered by God to maintain the obedience of the people to the
Law of Moses for that and future generations. This organization was known as
"The Great Assembly." It was an assembly comprised of Ezra and
Nehemiah, two of God's chosen ministers, along with all the principal priests
of the Jews. This assembly was the ruling institution to guide the religious
life of the Jews. It was the religious supreme court. It was the center of
authority in regard to education and regulating the priests and Levites in
teaching the people the Law of Moses. In effect, the Great Assembly was the
governing body of the Jewish people in Palestine. This assembly initiated by
Ezra and Nehemiah has often been called by the Greek name "The Great
Synagogue." The word "synagogue" in Greek means ASSEMBLY. This
is the name most modern writers use when referring to this authoritative body
of priests. But whether the name Great Synagogue or Great Assembly is used, it
represents the same institution. "According to the most ancient tradition,
this assembly or synagogue was styled GREAT because of the great work it
effected in restoring the divine law to its former greatness, and because of
the GREAT AUTHORITY AND REPUTATION WHICH IT ENJOYED" (Cycle. of Bib.,
Thee., and Ecc. Lit., vol. x, p. 82).This assembly actually represented the
executive, judicial and legislative congress of the Jews. It was convened to
insure the observance of the Law of Moses. From history we know that it accomplished
its task. It brought the people back to the Law of Moses, and established that
Law as the constitutional law of the land. Some of the decisions of this Great
Assembly have had far-reaching effects -- even unto our present age. It is
necessary that we learn about this organization established by God under the
supervision of Ezra and Nehemiah.
The Jewish
historians are united in telling us that there were 120 members in the original
Great Assembly ("Berakoth," ii, 4; "Megillah," 17b). All of
these members WERE PRIESTS (Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha," p. 59).
There were no laymen in this authoritative assembly. The president or ruler was
the High Priest. According to rank, this should always be the case. However,
when the Great Assembly was organized by Ezra and Nehemiah, the High Priest,
Eliashib, did not meet with the Assembly. He did not entirely agree with the
covenant that the Great Assembly made binding. See Nehemiah 13:4-7. He did not
agree with the specific part of the covenant which commanded all Jews to give
up their Gentile wives. His grandson, Manasseh, was married to a very important
Gentile woman, of which more will be said later, and Eliashib did not
necessarily want this particular union to be broken. Because of this attitude,
he was rejected from having a part in the Great Assembly. Later on, however,
the High Priests did assume their proper place as head of the Assembly. The
rest of the Great Assembly were priests of varying rank occupying different
positions within the institution. Their jobs were to carry out the actual work
of the Assembly while the High Priest would supervise and oversee. These
priests were the leaders of the Jewish nation at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah,
about 440 years before Christ. They and their immediate successors were
responsible for many weighty and authoritative decisions that affected the
whole mode of Jewish life, and, in reality, settled a very important question,
the effects of which reach unto our own day. We shall see in the next
installment, how this Great Assembly, with the Spirit of God guiding them, put
together the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Our Old Testament comes to us
because of the work of this Great Assembly!
March 1961
Vol. X, Number 3
The firm
reestablishment of the religious and political government in Palestine was
accomplished by Ezra and Nehemiah. They convened the Jewish elders for the
purpose of signing and officially sealing a covenant to keep God's
commandments. It brought about the inauguration of a constitutional government
in Palestine. THE CONSTITUTION WAS THE LAW OF MOSES! Both Ezra and Nehemiah
were at this covenant -- signing, with the leaders of the Jews, to acknowledge
THE WRITTEN LAW OF MOSES as the law of the land -- as their constitution. All
the Jewish leaders, except a very small minority, happily covenanted to perform
the requirements of the Law. In consequence of this, the people put away their
foreign wives, started tithing, established proper Temple services and began to
keep God's Sabbath! This is the real beginning of the religion of Moses after
the Babylonian captivity. And it was the true religion of Moses, no additions
or subtractions!
In the previous
installment we found that Eliashib, the High Priest at the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah, did not countenance the decision of the Great Assembly in regard to
the putting away of foreign wives. One of his older grandsons was involved in
such an illegal marriage. This grandson, Manasseh, was married to one of the daughters
of Sanballat the Horonite -- a Gentile. Had Manasseh been married to an
ordinary woman of no repute, it probably would not have made a great deal of
difference. But he was married to the daughter of Sanballat who was governor of
the northern province of Samaria. Sanballat was an influential government
official of the Kingdom of Persia. The grandson of the High Priest of the Jews
being married to the daughter of the governor of Samaria offered a type of
alliance between the two peoples. This presented a delicate political
situation. If Manasseh repudiated his wife, in order to keep the Law, this
friendly relationship would undoubtedly have ceased. There were a few other
Jews along with Eliashib and Manasseh who felt that this marriage should not be
terminated even if the Law of Moses and the decision of the Great Assembly
commanded it. So, Manasseh openly rebelled against God's Government -- the
constitutional law -- defying Ezra and Nehemiah and the Great Assembly. When
Manasseh refused to adhere to the Law, Nehemiah, who was governor of Judea,
excommunicated him from the Jewish society and banished him from the country
(Neh. 13:23-31). Manasseh was exceedingly indignant over the excommunication.
He especially was angered because he would have become High Priest of the Jews
upon his father's death, had he remained faithful to the Law and had not been
excommunicated. In lieu of this, he, and some of his Jewish sympathizers, even
some of the priests, left Judaea and went northward to Samaria.
The Samaritans,
who nominally adhered to some points of the Law of Moses, only as it suited
their fancy, readily accepted these renegade Jews. The Samaritans had no
scruples over marrying Gentile wives, for they themselves were Gentiles who had
been placed in central Palestine about 250 years before by the Assyrians. With
the arrival of Manasseh in Samaria, Sanballat, his father-in-law, sympathized
with him because he had been deprived of the opportunity to be High Priest
among the Jews. But Sanballat had cunningly devised plans to honor his
son-in-law for his rebellion against Nehemiah and the Great Assembly. Since the
Samaritans had no temple in which to worship, SANBALLAT PETITIONED THE PERSIAN
GOVERNMENT DO GRANT HIM PERMISSION TO BUILD A TEMPLE FOR THE SAMARITAN PEOPLE.
Because it was the general policy of the Persians to allow their captive
nations to worship their own gods, this permission was granted. It was the
design of Sanballat to build this temple and install Manasseh, the son of the
Jewish High Priest, as the High Priest of the Samaritans. This plan was carried
out. The Samaritan temple was built on Mount Gerizim in Samaria and Manasseh
received his schismatic priesthood. This is the beginning of the Samaritan
religion.
The first act of
Manasseh after being installed as the Samaritan High Priest was to repudiate
the true Temple of God located on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. He did this by
maintaining that the Temple should be located on Mount Gerizim and not in
Jerusalem. Manasseh's rebellious motive was to strengthen his own position
among the Samaritans and perhaps to gain some of the Jews in Judaea to his
side. In maintaining that the Temple should be situated on Mount Gerizim, he
encountered, however, an embarrassing situation. Throughout the writings of the
Old Testament prophets were the clear prophecies that the Temple of God should
be located only on Mount Zion in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2 and Micah 4). The
prophecies concerning this fact were so conclusive, so decisive, that it was
impossible for Manasseh to reconcile his temple being located on Mount Gerizim
with the statements of the prophets. Realizing that the writings of the
prophets and many of the Psalms specifically taught just the opposite from what
he was endeavoring to maintain, he seized upon the only alternative to
seemingly justify his temple being on Mount Gerizim. His way out of the dilemma
was to formally REJECT THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. To do this, he had to
represent them as the uninspired opinions of men. As a result of this, Manasseh
acknowledged that the only books which were really the inspired words of God
were the books of Moses -- the first five books of the Old Testament. The
reason he accepted this portion of the Old Testament was that in this section
there was no direct mention of the necessity of having the Temple of God on
Mount Zion in Jerusalem. By accepting only the first five books of the Bible
and none other, he put his own authority ahead of the Word of God. With Manasseh
ruling as the Samaritan High Priest and finally claiming that only the books of
Moses were the inspired word of God, the situation called for drastic action by
Ezra, Nehemiah and the Great Assembly. Here was a new temple built in Samaria,
and Manasseh loudly proclaiming that all the Jews in Judaea were in error.
Something had to be done about this situation. Ezra and Nehemiah knew it was
possible that there might be an internal disruption of the Jewish society that
they were developing in Judaea, unless a determinate and authoritative
counter-action could be launched against the falsehoods of Manasseh and his
heretical followers, especially since many of his ideas were being subversively
planted in the minds of many Jews in Judaea. The people had to know who was
right, Manasseh -- or Ezra and Nehemiah!
Under the divine
inspiration of Almighty God, Ezra and Nehemiah with the Great Assembly convened
to settle the matter. These two authoritative servants of God, along with the
ordained priests of God, were given the responsibility of assembling the
inspired books of the prophets and holy men of God. Their task was not to write
the books, for they were already written. They had to assemble the already
acknowledged inspired books into one book in a final order. Thus, we read:
"To erect a wall of partition between the Jews and these apostates
(Manasseh and his followers), and to show the people which of the ancient
prophetical books were sacred ... the men of the Great Synagogue (Assembly)
compiled the canon of the prophets" (Cycle. of Bib., Thee. And Ecc. Lit.,
vol. x, p. 83). The Canon of the Old Testament That Ezra, Nehemiah and the
Great Assembly, under the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God, compiled the
books of the Old Testament is the universal acknowledgment of all early Jews
and Christians (ibid., vol. ii, p. 75). All of the Old Testament books,
remember, WERE ALREADY WRITTEN. The task of the Great Assembly was merely to
put them together into one book in proper order! And this they did! It has been
thought by some modern critics that Ezra and the Great Assembly may have
sanctioned only the Law of Moses, the first five books. This is decidedly not
the case! The very reason the canon of the Old Testament had to be defined at
this time was that the renegade Jew, Manasseh, erroneously maintained that the
first five books of Moses were the only inspired books. He, out of his own
vanity, rejected the inspired books of the Prophets and Psalms. These books
were already as much a part of God's Word as the Law of Moses. It was not
necessary to OFFICIALLY proclaim the Law of Moses AS BEING INSPIRED FOR IT HAD
ALREADY LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS GOD'S WORD. See II Kings 22:8. It was, of
course, God's purpose that all the writings of the Prophets be transmitted to
those of future eras in final and unchangeable form. The books of the Prophets,
the Psalms and the other books were now officially established, properly placed
in the canon and PROCLAIMED as the authoritative Word of God.
We have the
testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, that the complete Old Testament
was finally settled and established in the days of Artaxerxes, king of Persia
("Against Apion," I, 8). By this, Josephus meant that the Old
Testament canon was completed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, for these two
men of God lived in Artaxerxes' time. Josephus also mentions that there had not
been any prophet who had left any writings from the time of Artaxerxes until
the New Testament Period (ibid.). Even the writer of Maccabees recognized that
up to his time the inspired prophets had ceased with Malachi. "And there
was great stress in Israel [in 168 B.C.], such as there had not been SINCE THE TIME
WHEN THE PROPHETS CEASED TO APPEAR TO THEM" (I Macc. 9:27). Without men of
God in a prophetical office, it was impossible to have inspired writings. It is
therefore plain that Josephus, who was one of the leading Pharisees of his day,
and other prominent Jews, believed the canon of the Old Testament was completed
under Ezra and Nehemiah.
When Ezra and
Nehemiah compiled the Old Testament books they placed them in three general divisions.
These are known as the Triparte Divisions. The first division was called THE
LAW, and consisted of the first five books. The second was called THE PROPHETS.
The third division was called, in Christ's day, THE PSALMS, because this
division commenced with the book of Psalms. Thus, the inspired Old Testament,
from Genesis to II Chronicles (the Hebrew order), was divided into three
divisions -- THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, and THE PSALMS. This arrangement of the
books has always been reckoned by the Jews as having had its origin in the time
of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ryle, "Canon of the Old Testament," p. 252;
Angus, "Bible Handbook," p. 568). There is no question about this
fact.
There are several
early references which show that the Old Testament was divided into the
Triparte Divisions. One notable mention is that of Sirach's grandson -- a
Jewish religious leader who lived in the second century BEFORE Christ. He says
in his prologue to the apocryphal book, Ecclesiasticus, that the recognized
Scriptures of official Judaism were those books found in "The Law,"
"The Prophecies," and "The Rest of the Books." This is a
clear reference to the authoritative Triparte Divisions established by Ezra and
Nehemiah. You will perhaps notice that the grandson of Sirach did not use the
name "The Psalms" for the third division. This is easily explained.
This third section did not have a proper name in the time of Sirach. It became
popularly called "The Psalms" by the Jews of Christ's time because
that particular book introduced the division. This is clearly indicated by
Philo, a Jew who lived a few years before Christ. He said that the Triparte
Divisions were then being called "The Law," "The Prophets,"
and "The Psalms" ("On the Contemplative Life," 3). Later,
in the third century A.D., however, the Jews began to refer to the third
division as "The Writings." This designation has been used by the
Jews up to our own times.
It is important
to realize that the Jews accepted only the books within the Triparte Divisions
as inspired. No other books were ever recognized as being canonical. The
Apocrypha were never accepted. But regardless of the beliefs of official
Judaism, we have the testimony of much greater authority, telling us of what
books the inspired Old Testament consisted. That witness is Christ Himself --
the very One who inspired the prophets of the Old Testament (See Colossians
1:15-17). After the resurrection of Christ, we are told in the Gospels, He
began to teach His disciples many important truths from the Scriptures. On one
occasion, mentioned in Luke 24:45, Christ referred to "THE
SCRIPTURES" of the Old Testament and about the prophecies concerning Him.
What books did Christ mean by the expression, "the Scriptures"? What
was the Old Testament to Him? Notice what Christ Himself related: "And He
said unto them, these are the words I spake unto you while I was yet with you,
that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in THE LAW OF MOSES, and
IN THE PROPHETS, and IN THE PSALMS, concerning me. "Then opened He their
understanding, that they might understand THE SCRIPTURES" (Luke 24:44,
45). Yes, the inspired Old Testament Scriptures for Christ comprised those
books found in "The Law, The Prophets, and The Psalms" -- the
Triparte Divisions. These were the very books compiled by Ezra and Nehemiah,
and the very books which have come down to us today in the King James Version.
We can assuredly know that OUR OLD TESTAMENT is the complete Old Testament of
God. Christ has told us this in the plainest of words.
You will notice
that the Old Testament in the King James Bible begins with the book of Genesis
and ends with the book of Malachi. However, in the original authoritative
arrangement of the Old Testament books by Ezra and Nehemiah, this was not so.
The Jews have never approved the King James arrangement because ITS ORIGIN WAS
IN EGYPT. About 250 years before Christ there was a Greek translation made of
the Hebrew Old Testament. This has become known as the Septuagint Version. The
translators of this version decided to CHANGE THE ORDER of the books. Our King
James Version follows the Latin which had this erroneous Egyptian arrangement
of the books in it. The Latin translations followed the Septuagint Greek
translation made in Egypt. The Septuagint does not follow the original Hebrew
order established by Ezra and Nehemiah. When the Jews of official Judaism
recognized the corruptions in the Septuagint Version, they completely
repudiated it. Notice how the early Jews looked on this translation: "The
day on which the translation of the Bible into Greek was made was regarded as a
great calamity, equal to that of the golden calf" ("Sopherim,"
i, 7). "The day on which it was accomplished ... was commemorated as a day
of fasting and humiliation (ibid.). The Septuagint Version translators did not
take away or add to the books of the Old Testament, but they did disrupt the
Divine order of the books and faultily translated much of the original Hebrew
into Greek ("Prologue to Sirach"). It will be profitable for you to
know what the authoritative order of the Old Testament books really is. And
notice that originally, before printing, the number of scrolls were 22 -- now
subdivided in the King James Version into 39.
The
LAW: 1) Genesis 2) Exodus 3)Leviticus 4) Numbers 5) Deuteronomy
The
PROPHETS: 1) Joshua & Judges 2) I & II Samuel & I & II Kings 3)
Isaiah 4) Jeremiah 5) Ezekiel 6) The Twelve: Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah
Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi
The
WRITINGS: 1) Psalms 2) Proverbs 3) Job 4) Song of Songs 5) Ruth 6) Lamentations
7) Ecclesiastes 8) Esther 9) Daniel 10) Ezra & Nehemiah 11) I & II
Chronicles
Notice that the
first seven books are the same as in our King James version, but afterward
there are considerable changes. You will notice that the so-called "Minor
Prophets" -- from Hosea to Malachi -- are not really the last books of the
Old Testament. These Minor Prophets really belong in the center. The last books
are actually I and II Chronicles. This authoritative arrangement of the Old
Testament books is the one which the official Jewish community has always
recognized as authoritative. Other Books Rejected Let us clearly understand
that the books of the Apocrypha and all other spurious books NEVER found a
place in the official Triparte Divisions of the Jewish Old Testament. All these
"outside" books were totally rejected by the Jews. You will recall that
Josephus, the Jewish priest and historian, who represented the beliefs of
official Judaism in the days of the Apostle Paul, said that the Jews NEVER
accepted any other books as inspired other than those compiled in the days of
Ezra and Nehemiah. "It is true," says Josephus, "our history has
been written since the time of Artaxerxes [the time of Ezra and Nehemiah] very
particularly, BUT HAS NOT BEEN ESTEEMED OF THE LIKE AUTHORITY WITH THE FORMER
[writings] OF OUR FOREFATHERS, since that time" ("Against Apion,"
I, 8). Yes, the last prophet to write an inspired book was Malachi -- a
contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Another proof
that Christ used only the Scriptures recognized by official Judaism is the fact
that He never once quoted from or alluded to any of the Apocrypha or other
spurious books. Had He made even the slightest indication that the sources of
His doctrines were from these unrecognized books, the Jews would have
vehemently countered Him with all their intellectual might. They would have
loudly and persistently pointed out to the people that Jesus could not possibly
be the Messiah, for He was making use of uninspired books. But the Jews NEVER
had an opportunity of accusing Christ of such things. They railed Him for going
contrary to the doctrines of the Jewish denominations of His day, but they
never criticized Him for using uncanonical books. The silence of any Jewish
censure on this point IS DEFINITE PROOF that Christ utilized only the inspired
books in the official Jewish Old Testament as the Scriptures.
We have further
evidence throughout the New Testament that Christ and the Apostles recognized
only the books of the Jewish Version as the complete Old Testament. Notice how
it is taken for granted, in so many parts of the New Testament, that the Jews
had the "Scripture" (John 10:35; 19:36; II Pet. 1:20), "the
Scriptures" (Matt. 22:29; Acts 18:24), "Holy Scriptures" (Rom.
1:2, II Tim. 3:15), "the Law" (John 10:34), "the Law and
Prophets" (Matt. 5:17; 22:40), and the Law, Prophets and Psalms (Luke
24:44). All the New Testament writers recognized the Jews to have had the
complete Old Testament. Paul was also careful to let the Romans know that unto
the Jews, "WERE COMMITTED THE ORACLES OF GOD" -- the Old Testament
(Rom. 3:3; 9:4). Paul was fully aware that the oracles of the Jews were the
inspired books of the Jewish canon -- the same books that are in our King James
Version today. It is very clear, from secular history, and especially from the
Word of God, that we have the complete Old Testament. ALL OTHER BOOKS NOT FOUND
WITHIN THE BIBLE as we have it are entirely worthless for teaching true
doctrines, and are to be completely rejected in this respect. The Apocrypha,
and all other books, are the writings of men, not of God. With the canonization
of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Jews of this time entered into a period of
prosperity and happiness. They were keeping the Law and being taught by the
Great Assembly. This period from about 430 B.C. to 331 B.C., until the
overthrow of the Persian Empire by the Greeks, can be called a time when the
Law of Moses was adhered to by the people. We are now compelled to look to a
period later than the time of Persian control for the origin of the confused
and mixed-up condition of Judaism. The next installment will plainly reveal the
source from whence Jewish denominationalism arose.
April 1961
Vol. X, Number 4
Even though
Judea was properly a province of the Persian Empire, the Jews maintained a
semi-independent community. Since the days of Ezra, the Persians had shown
extraordinary consideration to the Jews. "God ... hath extended mercy unto
us in the sight of the kings of Persia" (Ezra 9:9). "The Persian
rulers," says Herford, "living far from Judea, seldom interfered with
the internal affairs of their Jewish subjects, and were content to leave their
public business in the hands of the governor of the province. If the royal
taxes were paid, the order maintained, the Jews might organize their life as a
community in the way that seemed best to them" ("Talmud and
Apocrypha," p. 45). The Persians had rule over Palestine until 331 B.C. --
for about one hundred years after Ezra and Nehemiah. During this entire period,
the Jews were allowed full freedom to practice their own customs and
traditions. This Persian period was especially propitious to them because they
were allowed to observe the Scriptures as ordained of God (Kent, "History
of the Jewish People," p. 224). And during this period the Law of Moses
was kept! At this time, the Jews were under the direction of the High Priest,
the president of the Great Assembly, and the other authoritative priests who
comprised its membership. No religious splits or schisms were tolerated and all
the people were kept in obedience to the laws of the Old Covenant. This
peaceful condition in Palestine led to many advances in the social and
religious life of the Jews.
The canonization
of the Old Testament, and the establishment of the Law of Moses as the constitutional
law brought about the necessity of teaching the law to the people on a grand
scale. Ezra had brought back with him from Babylon a good number of priests to
add to the 4,000 who had come back from the Babylonian captivity at an earlier
time (Ezra 8:17-20). These priests were brought back to Palestine in order to
assume their position as religious teachers of the people, for the Bible had
ordained that priests were to teach the people the laws of God (Lev. 10:11;
Deut. 24:8; 27:14, etc.). The book of Malachi, written immediately after the
return of Ezra and Nehemiah, records what these priests were ordained to do.
"For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law
at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts" (Mal. 2:7).
Because the Law of Moses had become the law of the land, it became the priests'
job to teach the law. These commands required meetings every Sabbath in all the
villages and towns around Judea. It was these Sabbath services that finally
merged into regular synagogue services. In time, all the areas within Judea
began to build their own synagogues. In some of the larger areas, a body of
priests would take up residence and have charge of the synagogue. Before the
Babylonian captivity, synagogues had existed throughout Israel and Judah (Psa.
74:8), but because all these previous synagogues had been completely destroyed
by the invading armies of the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Jews had to start
afresh after their return from Babylon to build completely new synagogues. This
fact has led some commentators to erroneously assume that synagogues had their
first development ONLY AFTER the Babylonian captivity, and that they were not
in existence before. This, however, is not true! These new synagogues which
were built in Palestine, were certainly built from scratch. But there had been
synagogues before. Buildings for religious assemblies are essential in every
age and dispensation. It was impossible for all the Jews throughout Judea to
journey each Sabbath to Jerusalem and to the Temple in order to learn of the
law and to worship God in holy convocation. The people had to have instruction
by the priests every Sabbath in their own communities. The proper instruction
of the Law of Moses could only be accomplished by the establishment of
synagogues throughout the land. And, under the benevolent rule of the Persians,
with peace and safety everywhere, there is no reason to doubt that synagogues
dotted the land from one end to the other (Herford, "Talmud and Apocrypha,"
p. 58). Not only did the synagogues offer opportunity for worship of God on the
Sabbaths, but we are informed in a Talmudical reference that Ezra ordained the
priests to hold periods of religious instruction on the regular market days of
the week -- Mondays and Thursdays ("B. Kamma," 82a, b). From this
evolved the custom of having instruction in the Law on those two days of the
week. This custom was even carried down until the time of Christ.
It is plain that the people during this one hundred year period under the Persians had adequate instruction in the Laws of God -- not only on the Sabbaths and Holy Days, but even on two market days during the week. The priests were kept busy in the occupation of teaching the people the Law. For their helpers the priests had the regular Levites who gave them proper assistance in teaching the people. These Levites really did much of the actual teaching, and the priests were the supervisors. It was impossible for the limited number of priests to do all the necessary duties. For that reason, a good deal of the help in teaching, judging, being dieticians and, in a limited way, being policemen, fell to the Levites. In effect, the Levites represented the professional class among the people. They were under the authority of the priests, however, who were the responsible organization for the over-all well-being of the nation (ibid., p. 59). The real leader of the whole nation was the High Priest, who was actually the head of state being the leader of the Great Assembly. The Great Assembly was the one organization that was the governing authority. This religious assembly, as previously pointed out, was composed of the chief priests of the land with the High Priest as official president and over-all ruler. All members of this authoritative assembly in the Persian period were priests AND PRIESTS ALONE (Lauterbach, "Rabbinic Essays," p. 28). "For the priests were the actual leaders of the community, since they alone were recognized by the Law (Deut. 17) as its official teachers and competent interpreters" (ibid., p. 28). These priests were not elected by the people to hold a high office in the Great Assembly. They assumed this position by heredity, as ordained by God (Deut. 17). Actually, no one but the priests, according to the Law of God, could teach or direct the people in their religious life. This is the reason why the Great Assembly was composed exclusively of the priests, with the High Priest being the recognized leader. With the canonization of the Scripture and the establishment of synagogues throughout the land, a problem confronted the Great Assembly. In order to teach the La