The Messiah and His Miracles (Continued)

WHAT WAS THE DECISION OF THE NATION’S LEADERS?

The third stage of investigating a Messianic Claim is the stage of decision and declaration. From the foregoing it is clear that the bulk of the Sanhedrin had already decided to reject the Messianic claim of Jesus. One group, the Pharisaic Sanhedrists, decided to reject the Messianic claimant because:

(1) He would not protect their position in the nation.

(2) He opposed their doctrine.

(3) He condemned their lifestyle.

If He were not stopped, they would

(1) Lose the adulation of the population.

(2) Lose the power they held as interpreters of the oral law.

(3) Lose the wealth that their position in the nation provided.

The other main group, the Sadducean Sanhedrists, decided to reject the Messianic claimant because:

(1) He opposed their moneymaking ventures.

(2) He opposed their doctrine.

(3) He condemned their lifestyle.

If He were not stopped they would:

(1) Lose their political power with Rome

(2) Lose their influence over the nation as intermediaries between Israelites and God.

(3) Lose the wealth generated by the monopolies they controlled.

However, these reasons for the rejection of the prophet of Nazareth could not be publicised. So the nation’s leaders begun a rumour-mongering programme to smear the prophet from Galilee. They needed some public issue to bring the general population to support of their decision. So they brought to Him a very difficult case of healing, significantly a man with an unclean demon, who was both blind and dumb.

Although in the T’nach exorcisms are almost unknown, at the time of the Messiah, Jewish exorcists were having some success. Their pattern of exorcism was to establish communication with the demon, ascertain its name and then addressing it directly, command it in the name of a higher authority to leave. The disciples of the Lord also used this pattern. For example, the seventy returned from their mission saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in Your name” (Luke 10:17). Another example, though not typical, is recorded in Acts: “Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches” (Acts 19:13). However, with a dumb demon this communication is difficult, in most cases, impossible. The Lord Himself acknowledged the extra difficulty when the disciples confessed they could not cast out such a demon in the name of the Messiah. Because, in the Jewish mind, only Messiah would be able to heal these extreme cases, here was a decisive test for Jesus. In this case, because the man was also sightless, the degree of difficulty was increased, yet “He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw” (Matt.12:22). The onlookers immediately understood the significance of this Messianic miracle: “… all the multitudes were amazed and said, Could this be the Son of David?” (Matt.12:23)

The Sanhedrists were ready with an explanation. Wishing to discredit the sign, they repeated their previously published opinion that Jesus was demon possessed. “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons” (Matt.12:24). The Sanhedrists’ accused Jesus of being in league with Satan, and that Satan gave Him His power. Their position, whether they understood it or not, was that the temptation in the wilderness had been successful. Jesus had taken the bribes offered and was now a follower of Satan and a sinner like the rest of Adam’s ‘fallen race’. Since Satan had failed to make Jesus the ‘cast down’ one, he was now getting the population to treat Him as such, by this insidious lie. The lie became the accepted opinion of the population. The Sanhedrists never disputed that Jesus performed miracles, but the Talmud reiterates the reason for His rejection - he did it by sorcery, expanding it further by saying He brought magical charms back from Egypt (Egypt was regarded as the special home of magic, an opinion expressed in the Talmud). The Pharisees rejected Jesus as Messiah because He would not endorse the oral law, and support their position in the nation. The Sadducees rejected Jesus as Messiah because He opposed their unholy practices in the Temple, and undermined their position in the nation. But the reason they gave to the nation was not the real reason. They published that Jesus was demon possessed and therefore could not be Israel’s Messiah. Thus the climax of the investigation was over the issue of the key attesting sign – the serpent in subjection! They declared that Jesus did not have the serpent in subjection, but the serpent had Jesus in subjection!

Next Time: The Response of the Messiah to their decision

The Messiah and His Miracles (Continued)

Stage of Interrogation (Continued)

Returning now to the stage of interrogation, delegates from the Sanhedrin were required to observe the life and ministry of the claimant, and if they thought any action or teaching was questionable they could voice their concerns. When dealing with Jesus of Nazareth, the objections of the Sanhedrists were almost exclusively in the area of the oral law, with questions concerning the Sabbath the most frequent, since they had given ‘Sabbath keeping’ such a high profile. The fourth command of the decalogue had been expanded by hundreds of additional rules and regulations regarding Sabbath observance to cover most eventualities. For example, the Shabbat section in the Mishnah begins with the detail of those acts of transporting objects from one domain to another, some of which violate the Sabbath. It reads:

1:1 A. [Acts of] transporting objects from one domain to another [which violate] the Sabbath

(1) are two, which [indeed] are four [for one who is] inside,

(2) and two which are four [for one who is] outside.

B.How so?

I C. [If on the Sabbath] the beggar stands outside and the householder inside,

D.[and] the beggar stuck his hand inside and put [a beggar’s bowl] into the hand of the householder,

E. or if he took [something] from inside it and brought it out,

F. the beggar is liable, the householder is exempt.

II G.[If] the householder stuck his hand outside and put [something] into the hand of the beggar,

H. or if he took [something] from it and brought it inside,

I.the householder is liable, and the beggar is exempt.

III J. [If] the beggar stuck his hand inside, and the householder took [something] from it,

K. or if [the householder] put something in it and he [the beggar] removed it,

L. both of them are exempt.

IV M. [If] the householder put his hand outside and the beggar took [something] from it,

N. or if [the beggar] put something into it and [the householder] brought it back inside,

O. both of them are exempt.

Jesus condemned this legalism with the words, “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”  (Matt.23:24) At the time of Jesus, questions as to what is proper on the Sabbath constantly occupied the minds of the legalists. If a Pharisee was asked, “Why did God make Israel?” it was likely he would have replied, ‘To honour the Sabbath’. In Pharisaism, the Sabbath was personified as the Queen of Israel and the Bride of YHWH.

Each of the synoptics records the incident when Jesus’ hungry disciples plucked the ears of corn to provide sustenance. Since it was on the Sabbath, the investigating Sanhedrists raised it as an issue: “And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” (Matt.12:2: cf. Mk.2:24; Lk.6:2) The Pharisees themselves would not normally walk through a field in case they accidentally uprooted a wayward stalk of grain, thereby becoming guilty of reaping on the Sabbath.

Jesus responded to the question by giving pertinent examples from the T’nach. The first was of David who, when in need, ate of the bread that by law was reserved for the priests. The second was of the priests themselves whose work substantially increased on the Sabbath because of the higher number of offerings. Neither the actions of David, nor the activities of the priests, received the disapproval of the interpreters of the law. Jesus took the first example from the period of David’s rejection, when the officers of a dying dynasty were hounding him. The selection of this event seems to suggest that Jesus knew already that the Sanhedrin would officially reject Him. The second example related to the killing of sacrificial lambs in the Temple as sin offerings, a parallel of some significance. However, the coup-de-gras was the claim of the Messiah that, “the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matt.12:8; cf. Mk.2:28; Lk.6:5); again driving home the point that He was more than Messiah. By this time, it was clear that Jesus was not going to support the Pharisees and endorse the oral law.

While the delegation involved in assessing His Messianic credentials were mostly Pharisees, there were others on the Sanhedrin that had an interest in the investigation and decision. They were the Chief Priests - Sadducees who rejected the immortality of the soul, and attributed all human activity to free will and none to providence. Because they did not believe in the resurrection, they expected neither reward nor punishment after death. Therefore, with no restraint placed on their actions by their religious beliefs, they exercised power, not for the good of the nation, but for their own individual gain. Influenced by Greek culture, they cultivated good relations with Rome. They were not interested in any Messiah, other than one who would improve their power base in the nation. Jesus rejected their Epicurean lifestyle, their corrupt ‘business’ practices and their defective doctrines. At the beginning of His public ministry, He upset more than just the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple. He had made it clear that if He were confirmed as Messiah He would ‘clean up’ the Temple, and Annas, Caiaphas and the chief priests could expect to lose their lucrative business. This meant that Jesus would not get their support!

Next Time: The Stage of Decision

The Messiah and His Miracles (Continued)

The conflict over the oral law (Part 1)

So, at the time of the Messiah the oral law, a binding set of rules which did not prescribe what a person must believe, only what a person must do, (sometimes called, “the tradition of the elders”), was in its second stage. It was designed to cover every contingency of life and conduct.

The oral law is designated in the New Testament by various forms of words, some of which include the word ‘tradition’, for example, “tradition of the elders” (Matt.15:2; Mark 7:3,5)), or, “your tradition” (Matt.15:3,6; Mark 7:9,13), or, the “tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). Paul, himself a Pharisee of the Pharisees, in his unregenerate state, was a zealous supporter of the oral law and he refers to it as the “traditions of my fathers” (Gal.1:14). Jesus, in referring to the oral law in His teaching, used the phrase, “it was said by them of old time” (Matt.5.21,27,33,43). This is in direct contrast to His references to the Pentateuch where He used the phrase, “it is written” (Matt.4.4,7,10).

The difference between Rabbinism and the teachings of Christ is that Rabbinism, in practice, emphasises what a man should do, while it is concerned less over what he should believe. Christ prescribes what a man should believe, while his conduct is largely left to his own conscience. Rabbinism insists on works and gives liberty of faith, while Christ insists on faith and gives liberty of works.

The contrast between Jesus’ attitude to the Hebrew written scriptures, and His attitude to the ‘oral law’ is clear in the Gospels. The evidence of the Gospel writers shows that He honoured the Hebrew Scriptures. He quoted the Pentateuch when Satan tempted Him. He often quoted the prophets. He acknowledged Old Testament events such as Noah and the flood, Solomon and the Queen of the south, Jonah and the sea creature and Jonah’s preaching at Nineveh, as well as Sodom and Gomorrha. He referred to events from the first and last books of the Hebrew Scriptures - the death of Abel in Genesis and the death of Zacharias in Second Chronicles. If the definition of ‘Torah’ had been confined to the Pentateuch or even to the Hebrew written Scriptures, the Messiah would have been supportive. He said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil” (Matt.5:17). But He was unwilling to endorse the ‘oral law’, and led opposition to it.

As was intimated earlier, the Pharisees were the champions of the ‘oral law’. They thought of themselves as the logical descendents of the Torah movement, begun by Ezra and continued by the ‘Hasidim’ (pious/priests) who so valiantly resisted the Hellenisation of the Jews. The Hasidim fought, often to the death, every effort of foreign invaders, to replace Hebrew culture with Greek culture. The Pharisees, in the same spirit, wished to defend any attack on the traditions for which their fathers had fought and died. As the descendents of the Hasidim, they focused on ritual purity, calling on all households to apply the same standards of purity to the home that the priests observed in the Temple. The Pharisees wanted to establish a kingdom of priests. They were also very concerned with table fellowship (including dietary restrictions), Sabbath observance, tithing and circumcision.

Being guardians of the oral law, they expected Messiah to both commend them and support their work. They reasoned that Messiah would surely expect the nation to be a law-abiding people. However, Jesus asserted that Pharisaic legalism was external and though giving the impression that it was designed to please God was, in fact, directed towards man. It was hypocritical, and it negated both faith and love, the two basic ingredients in any relationship with God. Jesus’s attitude to the ‘oral law’ became the focus of conflict and opposition. When He opposed them and their doctrine, they opposed Him and His Messianic claim.

The Scribes and Pharisees, interpreters of the law, used legalism to keep power in their own hands. However, God had never been interested in legalism. Even during Israel’s training under the Mosaic Law, the truth was ever, “the just shall live by faith”. The Talmud indicates as much. A Talmudic passage (Mak.23b-24a), states God gave to Moses 613 precepts, but that later seers and prophets reduced these to certain basic principles:

(1) David reduced them to eleven.

In response to the question: “LORD, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill?" (Psalm 15) he answers: 

(i) He who walks uprightly, (ii) And works righteousness, (iii) And speaks the truth in his heart; (iv) He who does not backbite with his tongue, (v) Nor does evil to his neighbour, (vi) Nor does he take up a reproach against his friend; (vii) In whose eyes a vile person is despised, (viii) But he honours those who fear the LORD; (ix) He who swears to his own hurt and does not change; (x) He who does not put out his money at usury, (xi) Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.

He who does these things shall never be moved.

(2) Isaiah reduced them to six, (Isa.33:15,16)

(i) He who walks righteously and (ii) speaks uprightly, (iii) He who despises the gain of oppressions, (iv) Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes, (v) Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed, (vi) And shuts his eyes from seeing evil:

He will dwell on high; His place of defense will be the fortress of rocks; Bread will be given him, His water will be sure.

(3) Micah reduced them to three. (Micah 6:8)

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you"

(i) But to do justly, (ii) To love mercy, (iii) And to walk humbly with your God?

(4) Habakkuk reduced them to one. (Hab. 2:4)

“… the just shall live by his faith”.

Moreover, when the Messiah quoted the summary of the Law, the Sh’ma, He emphasised love as the key, “The first of all the commandments is: Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” (Mark 12.29-31)

The conflict over the oral law (2): The Sermon on the Mount

Jesus addressed the teaching of the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount. They taught that apart from certain identifiable renegades, all Israelites “have a share in the world to come” (Sanhedrin 10.1 (Mishnah)). Therefore, to be born a Jew was sufficient qualification for entry into the coming kingdom. This is why the Jews of Jesus time would fall back on the defence, “we are Abraham’s children” (cf.Matt.3.9; John 8.33; Lk.16.24). The doctrine of the Pharisees was not designed to provide entrance into the kingdom of God, but rather to provide a righteousness that would gain status in the kingdom of God. It was a righteousness based on works with no regard to faith. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7, is the teaching of the Messiah in contra-distinction to the teaching of the Sanhedrists. His main thrust is to encourage true righteousness, and reject hypocritical righteousness. The key text is, “I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt.5:20). His position is clear. It is not enough to be born a Jew. And hypocritical, Pharisaic righteousness does not count. Pursue another kind of righteousness: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” (Matt.6:33)

This discourse of the Messiah included examples of the oral law which the Pharisees obeyed with outward, mechanical obedience, which were then contrasted with what is really required - a heart obedience to the true Torah. “It was said by them of old time”, or “it hath been said”, are the formulae used to introduce the oral law.

Matthew 5.21-26 gives the first comparison: “You have heard that it was said (the oral law) to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’” The Scribes and Pharisees taught that you were only guilty when the act was committed, but Jesus said, “I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment”. Jesus taught that murder is premeditated and that the sin is committed when the act is planned. God marks the premeditation, therefore Jesus taught, “agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.” In other words, murder in the heart will count against you at the bar of God.

The second comparison is in vv.27-32: “You have heard that it was said (the oral law) to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery’”. The Scribes and Pharisees taught that you were only guilty when the act was committed. “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. Jesus taught that adultery is also premeditated and that the sin was committed when the act was planned. Therefore, deal with lust quickly – metaphorically pluck out the eye and cut off the hand – lest at the bar of God it drags you down to hell. This, of course, is the context of the Messiah’s word on divorce, for He continued (first quoting the oral law), “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The desire of the adulterer to put away his wife is the context of this word of the Messiah designed to protect a very vulnerable group in Jewish society.

Jesus gave three more examples contrasting the righteousness of the oral law with true righteousness. The first of the three, it is better to have heart obedience to God than the outward performing of vows (vv.33-37). The second, it is better to have a generous heart when dealing with your fellow man, rather than follow legalism and seek “an eye for an eye”. The third example then challenged His hearers to rise yet higher still and follow the example of the Father and “love your enemies”.

It is proper and pertinent to draw attention to the phrase, “but I say to you”. The Messiah chose His words with great care, because He was formally announcing what was opposite to the teaching of the Tanaim and therefore unacceptable to the Pharisees. The oral law, identified in the Bible as “the tradition of the elders”, relied on precepts handed on from one generation to another. For example the Mishnah records the words of R. Joshua: “I have a tradition from Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his master, and his master from his master, as a law revealed to Moses at Sinai” (Eduyyot 8.7 A). But in the case of Jesus He was standing on His own authority as Messiah. Furthermore, in His office as Messiah He was declaring that He had the authority to interpret the law. There is also, in this phrasing, that element which implied deity, for the sub-text is that He was the giver of the law and therefore needed none other beside Himself to interpret it.

The sermon began with consideration of the inner life. The blessed are the poor in spirit, the ones that mourn, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart and those that hunger and thirst after righteousness. Chapter 6 of Matthew’s gospel returns to the theme of the inner life. For example, the matter of giving alms: “When you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” (Matt.6.3,4) Then the matter of praying: “When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father … in the secret place” (Matt.6:6). Then the Messiah turns to the subject of fasting: “When you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place” (Matt.6:16).

These were declared in sharp contrast to the hypocritical righteousness of the Pharisees that emphasised outward observances, hence the warnings. In respect of alms-giving: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So … do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honoured by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.” (Matt.6:2) And regarding praying: “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.” (Matt.6:5) And then in respect of fasting: “Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.” (Matt.6:16)The actions of the hypocrites were, according to the Messiah, designed only to impress others.

Who are the hypocrites Jesus had in mind? At this time, He identified, by implication, the Scribes and Pharisees, those guardians of the oral law, but after His official rejection, He named and shamed them: “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honour Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me” (Matt.15.1,7,8). Then the seven times repeated, “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt.23.13,14,15,23,25,27,29) There the Lord described them as fools and blind guides. On occasion, He coupled the Pharisees with the Sadducees; and sometimes with the Herodians, indicating that they too were hypocrites

In the same discourse, Jesus taught that Pharisaic righteousness had a wide gate. As has already been mentioned, they taught that all Israelites have a share in the world to come. Yet, even they would exclude some. “And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which does not derive from the Torah, (2) and the Torah does not come from Heaven; and (3) an Epicurean.” This section effectively excluded the Sadducees. A later inclusion seems directed at Jesus, “and those who whisper over a wound and say, ‘I will put none of the diseases upon you which I have put on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord who heals you’ (Ex. 15:26)”. Notwithstanding the exceptions, Pharisaic doctrine pronounced almost all Jews ‘safe’, it had a gate wide enough to take almost every Jew ever born.

Jesus further taught that Pharisaism was a broad road – only outward conformity was required. However, it was a way of works, done publicly, which would only bring the praise of men. It was a way that seemed right but led to destruction. The man that followed the way of the Pharisees would have built his house on sand, a foundation that could not hold it. Paul, the great expositor expressed it thus: “they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God”. (Rom.10:3)

The Pharisees were also guilty of judging, finding specks in the eyes of others, when they had planks in their own eyes. The condemnation pronounced by the Messiah was absolute. They claimed to speak for God but were, in fact, false prophets. They claimed to be the shepherds of Israel but were guilty of decimating the flock like wolves. They pretended to be righteous people, living righteous lives, and bearing righteous fruit, but were, in fact, corrupt trees bearing evil fruit. They practiced lawlessness, an amazing charge considering that they imposed additional laws on the population. Implicit in the condemnation of the Messiah is the understanding that the imposition of the oral law undermined the Torah.

In contrast, Messianic righteousness had a narrow gate. Only those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah could enter. His followers were on a firm foundation: “Whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock”.

Messianic righteousness was a narrow way, a way of faith and love.

A way of faith: “Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you”. (Matt.5.30-33)

And a way of love: “I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matt.5.44) ; “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”(Matt.22.37-40)

Next Time: More on the stage of interrogation

The Messiah and His Miracles (Continued)

How did the nation's leaders investigate Jesus' Messianic claim.

Investigating a Messianic Claim - Stage 2: The Stage of Interrogation

Most of the members of the Sanhedrin were either Pharisees or Sadducees. The Pharisees, who were in the majority, considered themselves guardians and cultivators of the ‘oral law’, a body of tradition that had been derived from, and then superimposed on, the T’nach. Therefore, they needed to know the attitude of Jesus to this additional legislation that they obligated the nation to obey – did he accept it or reject it? To understand this issue it is necessary to trace the history of the oral law in order to realise how great an issue it had become at the time of the Messiah.

The history of the oral law

The Mishnah declares, “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue ….” (Abot 1.1 ff) And so on, down to Hillel and Shammai who were contemporary with the beginning of the Christian era. The Rabbis traced their own system to Ezra and Nehemiah. Their theory was that the Torah, which Moses himself handed down, included the oral law as well as the written law.

The word ‘Torah’ means ‘teaching’ and was understood to be inclusive and regarded as containing the whole of divine truth, not only that which had already been discerned but also all that in future ages might be brought to light. The explicit was contained in Scripture, the implicit was the further yet undiscovered meaning contained in the Torah. The Talmud says, “Even that which an acute disciple shall teach in the presence of his Rabbi has already been said to Moses on Mt. Sinai” (j.Hag.i.8.76c). Therefore, ‘Torah’ denoted the whole of what, according to Jewish belief, was revealed to man, not merely the written but also the unwritten ‘tradition’, the ‘oral law’.

The foundation of the Torah is the Decalogue and the summary of the Decalogue is the Sh’ma: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” (Deut.6:4,5) According to Rabbinical theory, the T’nach rests on the Pentateuch , the Pentateuch rests on the Decalogue and the Sh’ma is the summary of the Decalogue. All Scriptures were to be interpreted in conformity with the Pentateuch. A key figure in the development of the ‘Torah’ was Ezra. Historically, he is the founder of Jewish legalism.

The historical succession is developed thus: “In the beginning, when the Torah was forgotten, Ezra went up from Babylon and founded it; again it was forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian went up and founded it; again it was forgotten and Rabbi Hija and his sons went up and founded it.” (b.Succ.27a) 

Ezra, the founder of Jewish legalism, started the school of Scribes called the Sopherim. He had reasoned that the Babylonian captivity was a judgement of God, the cause of which was broken law. Moses had warned:

“So watch yourselves, that you do not forget the covenant of the LORD your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a graven image in the form of anything against which the LORD your God has commanded you. For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. When you become the father of children and children’s children and have remained long in the land, and act corruptly, and make an idol in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD your God so as to provoke Him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will surely perish quickly from the land where you are going over the Jordan to possess it. You shall not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed. The LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD drives you.” (Deut.4:23-27)

Ezra reasoned, to avert a further judgement, Israel must obey the law of God. Therefore, Scribes were to examine and teach the Law of Moses to overcome the lack of knowledge.

However, to the foregoing, laudable aim they added the seed of something that was to undermine the written Hebrew Scriptures themselves, for to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue, was ascribed the ancient saying, “Make a hedge for the Torah” (Abot 1.1.I.C(3) (Mishnah)). There are 613 explicit laws in the five books of Moses. These were to be examined and re-enforced. The purpose was to set the bar higher, to make the law stricter, thus preventing even breaking the Mosaic Law inadvertently. It was second generation Sopherim who sought to fulfil that ambition. The principle on which they worked was, a Sopher could disagree with a Sopher but not with the Torah. When they reached a majority agreement then it became binding on all Jews. They used ‘Pilpul’, that is, the logic of deriving another law from the original law. For example, from, “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk” (Exod.23:19), came the kosher food laws. Therefore, an observant Jew should not eat meat and dairy products together so there could be no chance of having both the milk of the mother and the meat of the kid seething together in their stomach, thus breaking the Mosaic Law.

In about 30 BC a new school arose - the Tanaim (Repeaters). They said there were too many holes in the fence around the Law. They worked on the principle that a Tana may disagree with a Tana but not with the Sopherim. This meant that the work of the Sopherim could no longer be challenged, so it became as important as the Pentateuch. The work of the Tanaim was still proceeding at the time of the Messiah, which partially explains why the Sanhedrists questioned Him so closely on these matters.

Up to about AD220 the work of the Sopherim and the Tanaim, had been committed to memory and mostly passed on orally. It had never been organised and recorded. But in the third century, Rabbi Judah the Patriarch gathered together the work of seven centuries of Jewish Rabbis and teachers and wrote it down - it is called the Mishnah (denoting both teaching and repetition).

The Sopherim and Tanaim claimed great authority for their work. They said, “a more strict rule applies to the teachings of scribes than to the teachings of Torah” (Sanhedrin 11.3 (Mishnah)).

Next time : The conflict over the oral law.