In the tradition of Moses, the development of a group called the "Pharisees" sustained the spiritual teachings of the Law. Because of their commitment to Halakah and Agadah, both distinct methods of teaching Torah, it is clear that Torah and the Jewish people are one. One without the other is as inconceivable as Christendom is without Christ.[1] This Pharisaic spirit is visible in the ethical and moral standards of Jewish life. It should be the controlling element in the daily life of each person and in society as a whole. The foremost concern of the Pharisaic spirit is to pursue truth and promote the spiritual welfare of man. Judaism is a religion today only because of the Pharisees.

To understand how this sect of individuals played such an important role in the survival of a religion, a closer look at the word Pharisee, and the attributes it embraces, is essential.

The word "Pharisee" is derived from the Hebrew word, Parush, or the Aramaic Perishaya, which carries the meaning "separated.”[2] The Greek language sources (particularly Josephus and the N.T.) refer to perishaya as pharisaioi. The Semitic language sources (particularly rabbinic sources) refer to the parush as perushim. This concept of being separated, according to the rabbis, can be seen in the books of Ezra, as it speaks of those who returned from the Babylonian Exile. They had parush/separated themselves from the filthiness of the nations of the land (Ezra 6:21). R. Jose said:

Ezra was worthy for the Torah to have been given by him, had not Moses come before him.[3] About Moses, a "going up" is mentioned, and about Ezra, the same, as it says, "And Moses went up to God" [Ex.xix.3], and of Ezra, "And he, Ezra, went up from Babylon" [Ezra vii.6].[4]
In a comparison of Ezra (who was seen as one of those who had separated and devoted himself to the study and observance of the laws of God), the rabbis saw him in the same measure as Moses. "And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments" (Deut. 4:14). Here too, Ezra went up from Babylon and taught Torah to Israel, as it is said, For Ezra had prepared his heart to expound the law of the Lord and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments (Ezra 7:0).[5] The attributes of Ezra, the scribe or the sofer, who was also one of the Men of the Great Synagogue, became a founding principle for the Pharisaic movement.

The rabbinic tradition continues this growing concept of what is a Pharisee, by connecting “Simon the Just" with the Men of the Great Synagogue. Simon used to say: "By three things is the world sustained: by the law, by the [Temple-]service and by deeds of loving-kindness."[6] The identity of this Simon has been disputed among scholars.[7] However, the Apocryphal work of I Maccabees mentions a Simon as a prince in connection with the Men of the Great Synagogue. It also identifies him as a Hasmonaean.[8] This Pharisaic attitude is, seen in the actions of Simon as written in I Maccabees 14:4,15:

The land had rest all the days of Simon. He sought the good of his nation; his rule was pleasing to them, as was the honor shown him, all his days. To crown all his honors he took Joppa for a harbor, and opened a way to the isles of the sea. He extended the borders of his nation, and gained full control of the country. He gathered a host of captives; he ruled over Gazara and Beth-zur and the citadel, and he removed its uncleanness from it; and there was none to oppose him. They tilled their land in peace; the ground gave its increase, and the trees of the plains their fruit. Old men sat in the streets; they all talked together of good things; and the youths donned the glories and garments of war. He supplied the cities with food, and furnished them with the means defense, till his renown spread to the ends of the earth. He established peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy. Each man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to make them afraid. No one was left in the land to fight them, and the kings were crushed in those days. He strengthened all the humble of his people; he sought out the law, and did away with every lawless and wicked man. He made the sanctuary glorious, and added to the vessels of the sanctuary.[9]
Simon the Just played a very important role in the continuing development of the coming Pharisees. His actions were consistent with that of Ezra and Moses. This developmental concept, the attribute that embodies the character of a Pharisee, would also be seen in other Jewish sects. Jesus speaks of the Scribes and the Pharisees in a manner as if they are one and the same, since it is hardly likely that the Scribes sat on one-half of Moses' seat and the Pharisees on the other.[10] In the writing of Matthew, the Scribes-Pharisees are a single class, but the words "...woe to you, Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites..." almost make the reader think of three parties. If we analyze the content of the statement, in light of rabbinic sources, we are at a loss to find any difference between the Scribes and the Pharisees.[11]

There are two key words that embellish the understanding of the Pharisee, Hasidim and Hakamim. Hasid denotes "pious," and Hakam, "wise"; these are two distinct but different words. However, when they are being applied to the Pharisees, they are one and the same. To the pious he put his trust in God, in an active practice of kindness. This word chasid (kindness, merciful) also refers to God, “The Lord is just in all his ways, and merciful in all his works.” Just as the word tzdak designates God as employing justice, so does chasid describe him as employing love towards his creatures.[12] These same words are being used to imply the characteristic held by his people.

In rabbinic literature, tzdak is used in connection with Hillel. A story is told of elders who went to the family of Gadia in Jericho, and a heavenly voice came forth saying, “There is among you a man worthy of the holy spirit, only the generation is not worthy of it." All eyes turned towards Hillel the elder.[13] This sense of worthiness is seen in the action Hiilel displays in his life. Moses is said to have been a very meek man. The rabbis saw that it was not that Moses was humble in money or in physical strength or beauty, but exceedingly humble in character.[14] "Now the man Moses was very meek, more so than all men upon the face of the earth" (Num. 12:3). The statement of his humble character stands out as the central principle of the Pharisaic development. The question is asked: was Moses meek in the sense that he was not of magnificent appearance? No. Was he more meek than the ministering angels? No. Was he more meek than the generations of old? No. Moses was only ten cubits in height, but he was not more meek that the ministering angels or the generations of old. But the soul of Moses was more humble than them all.[15] The rabbis placed Hillel, and his innate meekness and humility, in the same categories as Ezra and Moses.

A pattern is slowly being developed. Ezra patterns himself after Moses, Simon patterns himself after both Moses and Ezra. Hillel is now taking on the pattern of all three. This should not be seen as the forming of a "sect" that would later become a special group. It was individuals taking on the God-like characteristics, which is a pattern for life. Hillel displays his action from his heart, which is seen as doing honor of God. An example of this concept can be seen in the statement:

When Herod built the Temple, it rained at night, and in the morning the sun shone, the wind blew, and the earth was dry, so that the workmen could go to their work; this showed them that their doing was, in the honor of God. The support of God demonstrated to them that the building of the Temple by the sinful king was not disapproved of by God as soiled and unholy, but was, at least as far as the share of the workmen was concerned, carried on with pure intentions, in the honor of God. R. Nathan in Sifre Deut. 11. 14.42, 80a, Mekhil: Exod.12.11,7b.[16]
The pious man wanted to avoid all sin. Whenever he acted, his only motive was God, whose will he was carrying out. Hillel passed this concept on to his disciple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai, who, along with R. Jose the priest, said: "Let all thy deeds be done for the sake of God." The intent is to express the highest principle that would guide man's action. The rabbis believed that God should ever be present in his mind, and whatever he does, whether it is great or small, important of indifferent, religious or moral, he should, like Hillel, think of God, and measure his deed by the will and honor of God; not for his own benefit or pleasure, nor his own ambition and glory, but only God's honor.[17] True to heart is the attitude of the hasid Pharisee, his day-by-day duties are centered in God.

The word Hakam in the writings of Josephus is related to the Pharisaioi. Historical reference is extremely rare in most rabbinic sources. In looking at these two bodies of sources, namely that of Josephus and that of the Rabbinic works, a dear fact emerges, that of the distinct identity of the Pharisaloi and the Perushim. Josephus does not refer to the Perushim as the predecessor of the Pharisalol. But he does make strong cross-references to the Pharisaioi and the Hakamim.

As a man separates himself from the fruit of growth for the first three years, so will those who become entangled with handmaids be separated (prushim) from the righteous on the day of judgment. Bem.Rxi[18]
He also annulled the confession and decreed in respect of demai, because he sent [inspectors] throughout the Israelite territory and discovered that they only separated the great terumah but as for the first and second tithes some fulfilled the law while others did not. Sot.48a[19]

The perushim is being referred to as the separation of tithe, but it could also be used as separation of people (Ber.ix.5). The rabbis made it clear that the word perushim is to be detached from that of the Hakamim. A distinction between the two is suggested by R. Johanan b. Zakkai; one of the greatest figures in the Hakamic/rabbinic tradition. He speaks of the perushim as though the word is separate from himself. It is important to note that he also argues for the perushim being against the Sadducees. R. Zakkai gives a measure of distinction, but he also gives a measure of association as well:

The Sadducees say, We cry out against you O ye Pharisees, for ye say, “The Holy scriptures render the hands unclean” [and] “The writings of Hamiram do not render the hands unclean.” Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said, Have we naught against the Pharisees save this?-for lo, they say, “The bones of an ass are clean, and the bones of Johanan the High Priest are unclean." They said to him, As is our love for them so is their uncleanness-that no man make spoons of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them, Even so the Holy Scriptures: as is our love for them so is their uncleanness; [whereas] the writings of Hamiram which are held in no account do not render the hands unclean (Yad.iv 6).[20]
In the text above, Johanan's reference to the perushim as if it were distinct from himself is not a standard, but the distinction is being made. The essence of the comparison is not in whether they are the same, but that they did embrace the same moral, ethical, and religious values. The Hakamim function was to issue rulings or interpretations on moral or ethical principles in the Temple, while the Sadducees were the controlling body. This implies that the Hakamim, the soferim, the sages, the ones called to holiness in the service unto God, were interwoven into the developing concept of the Pharisaic belief. A story is told of R. Jose b. Kisma:

I was once walking by the way, when a man met me and saluted me, and I returned the salutation. He said to me, "Rabbi, from what place are you?" I said to him, "I come from a great city of SAGE and SCRIBES." He said to me, "if you are willing to dwell with us in our place, I will give you a thousand golden denarii’s and precious stones and pearls." I said to him, "Were you to give me all the silver and gold and precious stones and pearls in the world, I would not dwell anywhere but in a home of the Torah; and thus it is written in the Book of Psalms by the hand of David, King of Israel, "The law of Thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver."
The rabbi in this statement is connecting himself with this Pharisaic belief. R. Kisma not only referred to himself as a scribe and a sage, but it is acknowledged by the person speaking to him that he was also a rabbi.

In conclusion, the Pharisaic belief can be seen in those who were and are faithful to the study of Torah. The study of Torah leads to faithfulness to God. R. Akiba said study is greater. The other rabbis agreed with Akiba, and they all decreed that study is more important, because study leads to practice (kid. 40b). During the development of the characteristic of the Pharisaic belief, the individuals who embraced these qualities set themselves apart as God's people. The study of Torah teaches the behavioral principles that were the developing beliefs of the Pharisees. These characteristics form a consistent pattern of life for those serving God, from Moses to Ezra, to the Men of the Great Synagogue, to the Hasid, to the Hakam, to the Pharisees\Rabbis, and as it was also displayed in the life of rabbi Jesus.

NOTES

[1] Samuel Umen, Pharisaism and Jesus. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1963), p. 1.

[2] Ibid., p. 2.

[3] Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta. vol. IV (New York: Ktav Publishing House Inc., 1981), p. 208.

[4] John Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees. (Great Britain: Cambridge Press, 1973), p. 121.

[5] Jacob Neusner, p. 209.

[6] Herbert Danby, The Mishnah. (London: Oxford Press, 1933), p. 446.

[7] Asher Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth. (Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1964), p. 17.

[8] Ibid., p. 17.

[9] Bruce M. Metzger, The Apocrypha. (New York: Oxford Press, 1957), p. 257.

[10] Ellis Rivkin, Hebrew Union College Annual. vol.xlix Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites: (Cincinnati: 1978), p. 135.

[11] Ibid., p. 135.

[12] Adolph Buchler, Types of Jewish Palestinian Piety. (New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc. 1968), p. 7.

[13] Ibid., p. 8.

[14] Ibid., p. 9.

[15] Judah Goldin, The Fathers According To Rabbi Nathan. (London: Yale Press, 1955), p. 56.

[16] Adolph Buchler, p. 17.

[17] Ibid., p. 18.

[18] John Bowker, p. 164.

[19] B. D. Mien, The Babylonia Talmud. "Sotah" (New York: Traditional Press,), p. 95.

[20] Herben Danby, p. 785.

[21] A. Cohen, Everyman's Talmud. (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), p. 131.


The Parable of the Net

By: Dr. William V. McDonald Posted: February 22 2007

The Parable of the Net Matthew 13:47-50

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.

So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus a master in Rabbinic teaching, often used parables to teach His followers. Today if we are to understand the words of Jesus, we must take a closer look at key words or terms Jesus used in His historical setting. In the Parable of the Net, verse 47 states “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like,” implying that this parable is about the expansion of Gods’ Kingdom on earth.[i] When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven, He is referring to the expansion of God’s rule or reign as it breaks forth into this world, with more and more people accepting the rule and reign of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 11:12; Micah 2:13-14).[ii]

However, it is clear that this parable is addressing end time eschatology or judgment, and not the expansion of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. It is also clear, in the Greek manuscript the phrase Kingdom of Heaven is a part of the text. Now based on the knowledge that the New Testament was first written in Hebrew and not Greek, it is important to first ask the question, “what is the meaning of this parable, and would Jesus have spoken of the end time or final judgment by beginning His words with the phrase the Kingdom of Heaven?” Many New Testament scholars such as C. H. Dodd have struggled with this concept, and have not interpreted these words of Jesus correctly. Dodd in his book The Parables of the Kingdom, writes:

Here then we have an interpretation of the parable that brings it into line with other sayings of Jesus, and relates it to the actual course of His ministry. The Kingdom of God is like the work of fishing with a drag-net, for the appeal is made to all indiscriminately.[iii]
When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven in His other parables, such as the Parable of the Pearl, which appears just before the Parable of the Net, He is obviously referring to His Kingdom that is expanding on earth. Jesus’ kingdom is a continuance of God’s reign or rule, where His people take on the yoke of the reign or the yoke of the Kingdom of God (Ex. 15:18; Zech, 14:9).

The phrase Kingdom of Heaven, Malchut Shamayim, is not found in the Old Testament, but the Rabbis interpreted malchut as meaning “Kingdom,” or melech as meaning “king,” and malach as meaning to “rule,” referring to the Kingdom of Heaven/God. The word Heaven is often used as a synonym for God. According to the commandment not to take the name of the Lord in vain, the Jews used synonyms for the name God such as: (Hamakom the place), or (Hashamayim Heaven), in order to avoid breaking or transgressing the law.

When we look at Matthew 13:47, the phrase Kingdom of Heaven is without a doubt being used in the Greek manuscript. However, in a personal interview with Dr. Lindsey, he stated that the usage of the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” was a proliferation of the phrase, and that it is his personal belief that the Greek writer of Matthew added this term. He also stated the phrase was added possibly because of the presupposition scholars hold in thinking that the Kingdom of Heaven/God is futuristic. It is very likely that Jesus did not originally use these words in this parable.[iv] The use of Kingdom of Heaven in the Parable of the Net presupposes this theme of the end-time on all of Jesus’ parables. Thus, New Testament scholars like C.H. Dodd support this interpretation of all parables as referring to the Kingdom of Heaven with a futuristic view.

The second key phrase that needs to be examined in order to establish the main point of this parable is the word “net” (mikmoreth). Jesus using a rabbinic style of teaching called remez, which means hinting or alluding that paints a beautiful picture in which His hearers can put together the meaning of His message. Here, net may be referring back to the wicked mentioned in Psalms 141:10 and Psalms 140:4-5, 10. His point is that wrongdoers will not go unpunished, as He refers to the net catching both good and bad. Jesus, in speaking of the end times or final judgment, compares the people with fish, the Hebrew word dag. Fish were a large part of their daily life. During the second Temple Period, fishing was a highly developed industry. Many of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen who fished on the Sea of Galilee.

According to the Bible and the Oral Law, fish were divided into clean and unclean. Anything with fins and scales was eatable, while everything without fins or scales was considered as an abomination (Lev. 11: 9-11). There are some sixteen separate types of fish, which live in the Sea, of which about eight species are mouthbreeders. The perch or bream and the catfish, also know as Clarias Machro, are among the different type of fish found in the sea.[v] Dr. Lindsey mentions this catfish as possibly being the bad fish that Jesus said would be thrown away. The catfish is not kosher because it does not have fins and scales.

The Hebrew word Jesus probably used for bad is tamay, which carries the meaning of being spoiled, rather than bad. Jesus says the good fish will be collected in baskets and the bad fish will be thrown away. The word for good is often used to characterize people in the bible: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matthew 5:16). But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you (Matthew 5:44). But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it (Matthew 13:23).

In Genesis 1:8, the creative God brought forth all the creatures from His hand and said they were all very good. This is the same word, which Jesus uses to describe the person who will receive eternal life. Jesus uses the phrase, “and throw them into the fiery furnace,” referring to the bad or evil persons who will receive judgment. In the book of Amos, God said he would bring judgment on the nations surrounding Israel. Amos used the term “fire, to depict God’s judgment which would come upon those who sin. When Jesus spoke of a fiery furnace, He could have been referring back to a cluster of passages in the Old Testament. Psalms 21:9-11 speaks of a fiery furnace that the Lord will use to swallow up those who plot evil and devise wicked schemes on the earth. Isaiah 66 describes the Lord in His anger and fury, rebuking with flames of fire, executing judgment upon all men. Jesus is saying that at the end of the age or judgment it will be like a fiery furnace.

In Archibald Hunter’s book, Interpreting the Parables he interprets the Parable of the Sower, the Tares, and the Net as being the explanation of early Christian exposition, with the main point of the parable focusing on the last judgment. C.H. Dodd interprets the Parable of the Net as having allegoric meaning of the last judgment. Dodd acknowledges that this parable’s main point is problematic in its interpretation. He refers to this phrase as the future history, a period of development before the consummation of the Kingdom of God.[vi] This parable is not about the expansion of the future Kingdom that is in part manifested and yet to be manifested.

David Flusser in his book, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, points to Jesus as Bar Enash (Son of Man) a figure of an almost super-human judge.[vii] This judge will sit on the throne of God and divide the righteous from the wicked. “He is to deliver the righteous to everlasting life and the wicked to everlasting punishment.” This is the main point of the Parable of the Net, Jesus (the Judge) brings judgment.

In order to understand the context in which Jesus would have used this parable, a reconstruction of the parable is offered by Dr. Robert L. Lindsey in his manuscript, Jesus: How We Have Misunderstood Him, is given:
As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciple James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them (Luke 9:51-55).

I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law (Luke 12:49-53).

It is like a man who sowed good seed in his field but while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from? An enemy did this, he replied. The servants asked him, do you want us to go and pull them up? No, he answered, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat, with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn (Matthew 13:24,30).

Then he left the crowed and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field. He answered, the one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Again it is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13;47-50).

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you sick or, in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me. Then he will say to those on his left, depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or in prison, and did not help you? He will reply. I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46). [viii]
The reconstructions above place the parable of the net within a historical context that brings clarity to the teachings of Jesus. However, it is important to note that many German scholars believed in a simpler chronology concerning the words of Jesus. Rudolf Bultmann was one of many scholars who believed the narratives of Jesus life were questionable and as of such, became a serious reason for skepticism about the Gospel story. According to Bultmann:
There must be some reason for this, said Bultmann, ans along with two or three other German scholars of note he concluded that the units themselves were probably first just little stories which were taught by Greek Christian teachers to young adherents of the early Greek-speaking Church. Bultmann supposed that each unit had, therefore, a “history of its own.” Very little of such material went back to Jesus. We no longer can hear his voice. Worse, we cannot know much with certainty about Jesus at all. So he said.[ix]
It was during the seminars held at the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus at the end of January 1979, when Robert Lindsey and David Flusser began discussing the problem they saw concerning the strange manuscript order found in the text of Matthew and Luke. Lindsey first noticed that Luke 5:31,32 was a continuation of Luke 15:4-7. Lindsey writes:
“Lindsey” said Flusser, “you are right. These two passages once stood together as a single story!” It was the beginning of a series of what both Flusser and I now think of as extremely exciting discoveries. The very next day I found that the famous story of the rich man who came to Jesus to join the Kingdom (Luke 18:18-30), must originally have preceded a parable passage in Luke 14:26-33 (I later noticed that Matthew 13:44-46, the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven, evidently once stood also in this reconstruction between the Luke 18 and Luke 14 passages).[x]
From this seminar between Lindsey and Flusser came the theory that Jesus used an opening incident, a discourse and finally two parables. In the Parable of the Net there is an opening incident Luke 9:51-55, then a teaching discourse of Jesus Luke 12:49-53, and two parables Matthew 13:24-30, Matthew 13:47-50 and more to my benefit Lindsey added Matthew 25:31-46.

With the reconstruction of these passages, many theological questions scholars and others have asked are completely answered. How much more important it is to continue the work of Lindsey and Flusser.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

[I] Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, To Pray As A Jew, Basic Books, 1980. “The first of the middle blessings is known as Malkhuyot, (kingship). It emphasizes God’s sovereignty over the world.
[ii] David Bivin, Roy B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, (Dayton, Ohio: Center For Judaic-Christian Studies, 19984), p. 124
[iii] C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, (New York, N.Y. : Charles Scribner’s Son 1961), p.
[iv]Robert L. Lindsey, A Personal Interview, (Norman OK. 1989)
[v]Rachel Floersheim, Fish, Encyclopedia Judaica, (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter, 1971), vol. 6
[vi]Dodd, p. 15`
[vii]David Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (New York, N.Y.: Adama 1987), p. 56
[viii]Robert L. Lindsey, Jessu: How we Have Misunderstood Him, (Unpublished manuscript 1989)
[ix]Robert L. Lindsey, Jesus Rabbi & Lord, (Oak Creek, Wisconsin: Cornerstone Publishing 1990) p. 86
[x] Lindsey, p. 80. “I have already mentioned a number of times in this book that by putting together a story with a teaching of Jesus and a couple of parables we have, apparently, hints of a longer and earlier story.” “Gradually I began to realize that there must have been a scroll written prior to the scroll known to our weiters and that it must have displayed many stories in the life of Jesus which had three kinds of materials in each: 1. An opening incident, 2. A teaching discourse of Jesus, and 3. Two parables.

Free Will - Part I
By: William V. McDonald, Ph.D. Posted: July 24 2006

Free will is a philosophical and theological concept dealing with man's ability, or inability, to choose between a number of courses of action. There are several beliefs, which philosophers accept as being the true account of how men act. However, the dominant position held by philosophers, concerning the freedom to choose, is that man "is the author of his own actions." [1] Thus, it is believed that the doctrine of free will is absolutely necessary in order to account for the moral and ethical choices, which are made by man, good or evil. Closely related to this position, and a fact which influences man's ability to choose, is the explanation that God is just in punishing those whose choices embrace acts of evil.

The question that arises is, how much influence does God have upon the choices made by man? This question will be dealt with by looking at the writings of Jewish philosophers and, to some extent, a look into the literature of the Church Fathers. This article will examine the various positions held in both Jewish and Christian sources.

Philosopher Martin Buber sets the stage for positions held by many Jewish scholars. Buber in his later years "came to see the Pharisees, those imitators of the Rabbinic tradition, as one of the most creative forces in the history of the Jewish faith. " [2] Thus, Martin Buber extracts his philosophical position from the teachings of the Rabbis, on the will to choose. He points to the Talmudic era and the teaching of the two basic urges or inclinations as the pathway to understanding the concept of free will. These two urges are the “yetzer hatov”, the inclination to do good, and the “yetzer hara”, the inclination to do evil.

In explaining the inclinations, Buber said that "Human nature is, by virtue of man's freedom, paradoxical." [3] Man "must choose and strive to become that which he truly is. He must relate himself to the world in a way that enables him to actualize his unique potential. " [4] Buber viewed the process as a hazardous enterprise of becoming whole, and he firmly believed that many people never embark upon this journey. He saw most people as being caught in a drifting state. In this state they fail to choose the good, because they lack a sense of direction, thereby being slowly devoured and compelled to choose the opposite component, evil. Buber seems to be pointing to the elements of life, conditions, circumstances, that man experiences each day as being the paradox which places so many people into drifting or a giving up stage of life.

To illustrate this point, Buber tells a story, written by George Eliot, about a character named Tito Melema. The story "constitutes one of the most incisive studies of evil to be found in literature." [5] Tito had arrived in Florence in "the late fifteenth century with a handsome face, an attractive personality, and a bag of jewels. " [6] The jewels belonged to the step-father of Tito, Baldassare. Tito found himself in Florence alone having survived pirates taking over the ship he and Baldassare were on at sea. He did not know what had happened to Baldassare, but it was his intention to use the jewels to search for his step-father. The story tells how Baldassare found Tito at the age of seven and raised him. Thus, Tito was greatly indebted to Baldassare. Buber writes:

"But Tito, instead of setting out to seek Baldassare at once, procrastinates from day to day. In the meantime, his personality and talent enable him to gain the patronage of leading citizens and to win the love of a beautiful woman. As he moves from one conquest to another, Tito never decides against setting out to rescue Baldassare but postpones the decision with rationalizations, by thinking that Baldassare may have drowned or that, by staying in Florence, he will be more likely to get reliable information about him.”

"When Tito sells the jewels for a very good price, the moment of decision is thrust upon him, for the merchant who buys them offers to deposit the money to Tito's great advantage. Tito accepts. " [7]

Buber gives his analysis by stating that "Tito never decided to embark on a course of evil; he had failed to decide for a clearly defined good, and then fell into evil when he clutched at this chance that presented itself. " [8]

The process of evil begins with his failure to use the money as a means of starting a search for his foster father. Tito then falls into a pattern of dishonor whose culmination is reached when Baldassare, who had indeed been captured, and, after some months, entered Florence as a slave, escapes his captors and suddenly stumbles upon his foster son standing in the company of some influential friends. Once again, Tito impulsively seizes the chance possibility of the moment instead of the decision for the good. He turns from Baldassare's beseeching glance and tells his friends that the stranger is a madman, thereby protecting himself against the possibility of Baldassare's denunciations.

This is the last act of evil that Tito commits impulsively. From that moment on, driven by the fear that his treachery will be discovered, his evil is one of calculated choice. [9]

Two major points. Buber used this story from the novel “Romolo” to illustrate how the two inclinations influence the will to choose. In Rabbinic literature it is stated that "the influence of the evil “yetzer” makes itself felt in the child. From the moment man is born, the evil “yetzer” cleaves to him." [10] This teaching is reflected by the uses of the “yetzer” found in several passages in the biblical text and in the Mishnayoth. [11]

Genesis 6:5, And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (New King James Version)

Genesis 8:21, And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Berachoth 9:5, A man must offer a Blessing over evil just as he pronounces a Blessing over good, for it is said, And thou shalt love the Eternal thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might. With all thine heart, that is with thy two inclinations, with the good inclination and with the bad inclination; and with all thy soul, that is even if He take thy soul.

The Rabbis' taught that "he that spoils his “yetzer” by tender and considerate treatment (that is, allows him slowly to gain dominion over himself without rebuking him) will end in becoming his slave. [12] This is possible because "the seat both of the Evil and the Good “yetzer” are in the heart, the organ to which all the manifestation of reason and emotion are ascribed in Jewish literature." [13] Thus the outcome of Tito Melema, who displayed an inward tendency to be influenced beyond what he had purposed in his heart.

Solomon Schechter, “Aspects of Rabbinic Theology”, states that "the Evil “yetzer” resembles a 'fly' (according to others, a 'wheat' grain), established between the two [14] openings (valves) of the heart.” This analogy can be interpreted as the home whereby the will to choose functions. Schechter writes, "Two reins are in man: the one counsels him for good, the other for evil. [15]

The ability to choose is not simply influenced by the good or evil in the heart. The will to choose is the guiding path a man must encounter to become whole, complete, a person free. An example of this statement can be seen in these words, "the answer given is that but for the Evil “yetzer” a man would neither build a house, nor marry a wife, nor beget children, nor engage in commerce. Thus, Evil and Good are byproducts of the choice a man makes. Ecclesiastes 9:2,3 says "A wise man's heart is at his right hand: but a fool's heart is at his left. Yet also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool." 16 In these passages, a wise man is compared to the “yetzer hatov” and a fool is compared to the “yetzer hara”; both are the product of the will to choose.

Schechter, in responding to how the Evil “yetzer” serves a purpose, writes:

"Man has the power in his own hands, and it is only by man's own neglect and weakness that the Evil “yetzer”, who appears first quite effeminate and powerless, gains masculine strength, enabling him to dictate to man. If man does well, he finds forgiveness; but if he does not well, he is delivered into the hands of the Evil “yetzer” who lies at the door. [17]

"Nay, man has in his power not only to resist the Evil “yetzer”, but to turn his services to good purpose. At least the wicked are reproached for their failing to make the Evil “yetzer” good. It is simply a question of choice, the wicked preferring the Evil “yetzer”, which the righteous decide for the Good “yetzer”." [18]

Free will can be likened to Amos 3:1:7. "Hear this word the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel-against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt: You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore, I will punish you for all your sins. Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so? Does a lion roar in the thicket when he has no prey? Does he growl in his den when he has caught nothing? Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground where no snare has been set? Does a trap spring up from the earth when there is nothing to catch? When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." (New International Version)

Amos the prophet points out that the people naturally should have known that judgment was coming upon them, because of their sins. He used beautiful, poetic parallelism to establish a natural response, which was the outcome of their choices. The people chose sin and the outcome was judgment. When two walk together, they do so in agreement. When a lion is in the thicket, he is looking for a prey and would not be roaring. These are natural responses to natural conditions. Just as the people should have understood these examples, they also should have understood that their sins would bring judgment. Thus, free will can be seen as a natural response to “yetzer hatov” and “yetzer hara”.

If the hypothesis is correct, God created man with two inclinations, Genesis 2:7 and according to Rabbi Akiva, "God created the world in pairs, the one in contrast to the other, as life and death, peace and strife, riches and poverty wisdom and folly, the righteous and the wicked." [19] So, too, is the concept that free will is a natural outgrowth of these two inclinations.

Moses Maimonides in “The Guide For The Perplexed”, takes a different position concerning free will. He viewed natural responses as "events evidently due to chance are ascribed to God." [20] Maimonides writes: "It is clear that everything produced must have an immediate cause which produced it; that cause again a cause, and so on, till the First Cause; vis-a-vis, the will and decree of God is reached." The prophets therefore omit sometimes the intermediate causes and ascribe the production of an individual thing directly to God, saying that God has made it. This method is well known, and we, as well as others of those who seek the truth have explained it; it is the belief of our co-religionists. [21]

Maimonides said, "According to the hypothesis and theory accepted, it is God that gave will to dumb animals, free-will to the human being." [22] Maimonides does establish that it is God who created, as he gave, free-will to the human being. However, he had problems ascribing the result of actions taken by man as the outgrowth of free will, namely the two inclinations. However, Maimonides felt that the proliferation of the scribes accredited God for many actions, which were nothing more than accidents. [23]

Free will among the scholars in Christianity juxtaposed with that of Judaism reveals distinct and separate ideas. William James, “The Will to Believe”, wrote that the starting point for determining whether man is free or not should be to assume that it is true. Thus, our first act of freedom, if we are free, ought in all inward propriety to be to affirm that we are free. [24] James lays his foundation for his argument on two suppositions.

First, when we make theories about the world and discuss them with one another, we do so in order to attain a conception of things which shall give us subjective satisfaction and, if there be two conceptions, and the one seems to us, on the whole, more rational than the other, we are entitled to suppose that the more rational one is the truer of the two. [25]

James seems to be asking anyone studying this subject to limit the process of choice to his two assumptions thereby establishing grounds for his position, which centers around the concept of Determinism. James used two categories to define his position, determinism and indeterminism.

James writes: "What does Determinism profess? It professes that those parts of the universe already laid down absolutely appoint and decree what the other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb: the part we call the present is compatible with only one totality. Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every part, and welds it with the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning."

Second, Indeterminism, on the contrary, says that the parts have a certain amount of loose play on one another, so that the laying down of one of them does not necessarily determine what the others shall be. It admits that possibilities may be in excess of actualities, and that things not yet revealed to our knowledge may really in themselves be ambiguous. [26]

For William James, the truth of free will or freedom to choose "must lie with one side or the other, and by the fact that it lies with only one side makes the other false." [27] Determinism's and indeterminism's central focus seem to have been centered on two words, "freedom" and "chance," with each party striving to identify itself with these words. [28] However, the underlying fallacy of James and those holding this position lies not in which argument is more rational than the other, but within the belief that, uniformity, mathematical and physical science, along with the doctrine of evolution is the sum and total of freedom and the will to choose.

James writes that free will "proceeds from our indomitable desire to cast the world into a more rational shape in our minds than the shape into which it is thrown, thereby the crude order of our experience." [29] The world has shown itself, to a great extent, plastic to this demand of ours for rationality. How much farther it will show itself plastic no one can say. Our only means of finding out is to try; and I, for one, feel as free to try conceptions of moral, as of mechanical, or of logical rationality. If a certain formula for expressing the nature of the world violates my moral demand, I shall feel as free to throw it overboard, or at least to doubt it, as if it disappointed my demand for uniformity of sequence.

James seems to be saying that rational reasoning is the determining factor in understanding the concept of free will. By applying logical or rational choices to the circumstances of life, it has allowed men to make choices, which are not governed by the statutes of God.

James placed free will on the same level with that of the concept "uniformity." [30] Another strong supposition influencing scholars like James is the Apostles' Creed. [31] A good example of this influence can be seen in the teaching on original sin. The Apostles' Creed taught that man is born into this world basically evil. It is believed that this position satisfies the quest of the intellect, and that it was based upon the highest level of cognitive reasoning. This doctrine is stated within the Apostles' Creed and is to be accepted because of that fact.

NOTES:
[1] Encyclopedia Judaica, Ed. Vol. 4 (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972), 125.
[2] Malcolm L. Diamond, Martin Buber, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), 139.
[3] Diamond, 141.
[4] Diamond, 141.
[5] Ibid., 142
[6] Ibid., 142
[7] Ibid., 143-44.
[8] Ibid., 144.
[9] Ibid., 144.
[10] Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, (New York: Schocken Books, 1909, 225.
[11] Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. 1, Order Zeraim (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1983) 73.
[12] Schechter, 249.
[13] Ibid., “The heart sees, the heart hears, the heart speaks, the heart walks, the heart falls, the heart stops, the heart rejoices, the heart weeps, the heart is comforted, the heart grieves, the heart is hardened, the heart faints, the heart mourns, the heart is frightened, the heart breaks, the heart is tired, the heart rebels, the heart invents, the heart suspects (criticisms), the heart whispers, the heart thinks, the heart desires, the heart commits adultery, the heart is refreshed, the heart is stolen, the heart is humbled, the heart is persuaded, the heart goes astray, the heart is troubled, the heart is awake, the heart loves, the heart hates, the heart is jealous, the heart is searched, the heart is torn, the heart meditates, the heart is like fire, the heart is like stone, the heart repents, the heart is warned, the heart dies, the heart melts, the heart accepts words (of comfort), the heart accepts the fear (of God), the heart gives thanks, the heart covets, the heart is obstinate, the heart is deceitful, the heart is bribed, the heart writes, the heart schemes, the heart receives commandments, the heart does willfully, the heart makes reparation, the heart is arrogant.” 255-56. [14] Ibid., 256.
[15] Ibid., 256.
[16] Ibid., 267.
[17] Ibid., 270.
[18] Ibid., 270.
[19] Ibid., 265.
[20] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul LTD.), 250.
[21] Maimonides, 249.
[22] Ibid., 249.
[23] Ibid., 249.
[24] William James, The Will to Believe (New York: Longmans Green and Co., 1907), 146.
[25] Ibid., 146.
[26] Ibid., 150.
[27] Ibid., 151.
[28] Ibid., 149.
[29] Ibid., 147.
[30] Ibid., 147.
[31] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1907). “The Scriptures contain what is to be believed, but the authority of the Church establishes what these truths are. Articles of faith are to be accepted, not because they are demonstrable by reason. Reason is unreliable or at best, obscure, and many truths it cannot prove, such as the soul’s immortality, the unity of God, and transubstantiation. A doctrine such as the descent into hell, which is not found in the Scriptures is, nevertheless, to be accepted because it is found in the Apostles’ Creed.” 687.

It is clear that the traditional teachings of the Apostles' Creed are accepted as God's truth and embraced by almost all Christian scholars. This doctrine stands in the way of evaluating Jewish sources as a means for biblical and cognitive growth. An example of this can be seen in the words of S. Schechter who wrote in The Jewish Quarterly Review, on the subject of Rabbinic Parallels to the New Testament. He writes:

"The best thing to be done at present is, that Christians should devote themselves to the study of Rabbinic literature. The history which would be written after such a study would certainly be more scientific and more critical."[32]

In the teachings of Rabbinic literature, Rabbi Akiba said in Avoth 3, Mishnah 15: "All is foreseen [by God], yet freedom of choice is granted; and by grace is the universe judged, yet all is according to the amount of the work."[33] R. Akiba is addressing himself to the concept of free will and points out that all is foreseen by God. This implied a degree of total control, and yet man still has the ability to choose freely. R. Akiba, in saying "all is foreseen [by God]," embraces a type of control in which the first element being God, controls all conditions surrounding the role of the second element. Thereby, the first party's will is forced upon the will of the second party. How then can the second party experience free will?
When the argument is reduced to saying that man is not free because of God being all foreseeing, a great injustice is done. It is like saying a person has the right to walk but not the right to run, or the right to stand, but not to walk. These functions superimpose themselves upon each other. Why? Because, within the order of creation, there is a process of evaluation taking place for the distinct purpose of the development of man. While God is the essence of the order of creation, man is free to choose which path best serves the order of that purpose. Bruce Metzger wrote in Sirach 15:11-20:

"Do not say, 'Because of the Lord, I left the right way;' for he will not do what he hates. Do not say, 'It was he who led me astray,' for he has no need of a sinful man. The Lord hates all abominations, and they are not loved by those who fear him. It was he who created man in the beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination. If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you wish. Before a man are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given to him for great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and seen in everything; his eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of men. He has not commanded any one to be ungodly and he has not given anyone permission to sin.[34] Verse 14 says that 'it was he who created man in the beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination."'
According to Abraham Joshua Heschel, God In Search of Man, "The grand premise of religion is that man is able to surpass himself. Such ability is the essence of freedom."[35] Heschel used two words to denote the essence of free will, "process" and "event," process being the element which limits freedom and event being the rare moments whereby freedom takes place.[36] For Heschel:

"To believe in freedom is to believe in events, namely to maintain that man is able to escape the bonds of the processes in which he is involved and to act in a way not necessitated by antecedent factors."[37]
Heschel seems to have acknowledged, in the above statement, the saying of R. Akiba, "All is foreseen [by God], yet freedom of choice is granted." George Foot Moor's book, Judaism, confirmed Heschel's position when he wrote:

"Power [of self-determination] is given [by God] to every man. If he chooses to turn himself to a good way and to become righteous, the power is his: if he chooses to turn himself to an evil way and become wicked, the power is his. This is what is written in the Law, 'Behold, the man is become like one of us, to know good and evil' (Genesis 3:22). That is to say, this species, mankind, has become unique in the world; there is no second one resembling it in this respect that, of itself, by its intelligence and reflection, knows what is good and what is evil and does whichever it chooses, and there is no one who restrains it from doing the good or the evil."[38]
God has set within the order of creation, by Law, a natural progression by which man attains the highest purpose of life. The question of whether man is truly free evolved from man's inability to understand an all-foreseeing God. If God is all foreseeing, men state, how then can man be free, without having or experiencing God forcing his will upon them? Thus, the establishment of a philosophical argument, which has and is a paradox to mankind.

To understand this paradox, we must begin with the order that was set in Genesis 1:26 when God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth. In order for man to have dominion over the earth, there must be a naturally progressing element by which he has the freedom to do so. To assume that man has no free will is to assume that the order of creation was false.

Free will is nothing more than the offspring, the outgrowth, the natural progression of an order that was set in order for man to attain the highest purpose of life. Each action man takes, produces positive and negative results and shapes the dimension by which man lives. Heschel wrote that:

"Man's ability to transcend the self, to rise above all natural ties and bonds, presupposes further that every man lives in a realm governed by law and necessity as well as in a realm of creative possibilities. It presupposes his belonging to a dimension that is higher than nature, society, and the self, and accepts the reality of such a dimension beyond the natural order. Freedom does not mean the right to live as we please. It means the power to live spiritually, to rise to a higher level of existence."[39]
This position of Heschel seems to only embrace part of the reality that is true. To imply freedom beyond the realm of creation would make man equal to God. Therefore, the argument is weak and in some ways a displacement of the purpose of God. Heschel seems to think that man attains true freedom when his spiritual self breaks through the order of creation. Heschel calls this spiritual ecstasy. I think that creation embraces both the natural and the spiritual order; thereby placing man in a realm wherein he rises above his natural environment, his social society, and even his selfish desires.

The order of creation has set the course to which man lives. The concept of free will is a natural outgrowth of yetzer hatov, and yetzer harah. Just as these two elements produce free will, so, too, does free will produce the outgrowth of needs. In Abraham J. Heschel's book, Man is not Alone, he writes:

"The will would remain dormant in human nature if not for the fact that there is a way in which it is constantly aroused. The way is the experience of needs, the feeling of pressure and urgency arising from internal or external causes, for the satisfaction of which man must bring his latent forces into action."
Needs, then, are man's system of communication with his inside and outside world. They report of the consciousness of the necessities of living, but they also determine the aims he selects for planning and action.

For thus it can be said, the order of creation has within its realm the natural progression of human existence. Creation also has the elements of digression, whereby man's choices will produce for him the lowest order of life. Genesis 4:7 sets before man the knowledge of existence. Nothing is stagnant; nothing that has life can remain the same. That is why the ability to choose had to exist. Man and man alone chooses the level of his existence. God has nothing to do with that choice, other than being the creator of all that exists within the operation or progression of creation. Therefore, man is destined to his choices and to his failure to choose. Man cannot stop the progress of freedom by his choosing not to choose. At this point, man, like Tito Melema, becomes the slave of the condition of his environment, his society. Because these elements are not stagnated, but evolving, they, along with other elements of life, will enslave man. This can be seen in the words of II Esdras 1:28-32:

"For the evil about which you ask me has been sown, but the harvest of it has not yet come. If therefore that which has been sown is not reaped, and if the place where the evil has been sown does not pass away, the field where the good has been sown will not come. For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam's heart from the beginning and how much ungodliness it has produced until now, and will produce until the time of thrashing comes! Consider now for yourself how much fruit of ungodliness a grain of evil seed had produced. When heads of grain without number are sown, how great a threshing floor they will fill!"[40]
Now to the event where the biblical text says that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, thereby implying the act of a higher power forcing that higher power's will upon another will. It must be noted that the elements of evil were already at work within the heart of Pharaoh. Thus, the Hebrew word for he strengthened, or he forced, as in himself, to be hardened, could also be understood opposite God's will being forced on Pharaoh. The last element of importance is that when God chooses to break through or intervene in His creative order, it is generally not understood as an action of violating the order which he established, even to force His will or any type of counter will upon the will of man's free will. All unexplained circumstances or elements which seem to control man's life are nothing more than the reactions to the choices man makes or does not make.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[32] S. Schechter, Rabbinic Parallels to the New Testament. The Jewish Quarterly Review 12 (1966), 433
[33] Blackman, 513.
[34] Bruce M. Metzger, The Apocrypha (New York: The Oxford University Press, 1965), 147
[35] Abraham Joshua Heschel (New York: Farrar, Straus & Cud)
[36] Heschel, 410
[37] Ibid., 410
[38] George Foot Moore, Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1954), 138
[39] Abraham Joshua Heschel (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1951). 181
[40] Metzger, 30.

The People of Qumran...
By: Dr. William V. McDonald Posted: February 09 2006

The People of Qumran: are we repeating their beliefs today?

The Dead Sea Scrolls are perhaps the most important archaeological find in Israel to date. Much has been written outlining the historical setting of the scrolls for the purpose of scholarly interpretation. In this article I will discuss the people of Qumran--their identity and lifestyle in the isolated community of Qumran.

The Qumranites were members of a Jewish sect which moved to the Judean desert near the Dead Sea (and possibly also to Damascus). They attempted to walk continually before the Lord in the ways of truth. According to their Manual of Discipline, their major purpose was to study the Law. Within the Qumran literature special importance was placed upon the Law. The Qumranians believed that they alone had been given the purpose of walking by the Law and not deviating to the right nor to the left.

Much emphasis was placed upon ethical, ritual, and ceremonial concepts such as truth, righteousness, kindness, covenant love, justice, chastity, and honesty. These concepts are repeatedly mentioned in their literature. The Qumranites became a separated community apparently consisting of mostly men, having all things in common. They also believed that they were the last generation, living at the end of the age. According to the Qumran writings (1 QM 1:5), this end time was for salvation and would be a time of peace and blessing to the people of God, whom they believed to be themselves.

The Qumran community believed the Bible was the word of God. They had someone reading the Bible 24 hours a day, because of the verse, 'Thy words shall not depart out of thy mouth day or night." Their whole system of faith and life was built around such principles.

According to Dr. William S. LaSor, Professor Emeritus at Fuller Theological Seminary, history proved that these people were wrong in their beliefs. LaSor points out five major factors which sealed the final history of the Qumran Community:

(1) They became a sectarian group which broke away from the historical community (the Jews of Jerusalem), calling and believing themselves to be the only elect. Evidence of such thought can be found in the text of the Covenant of Damascus, which states that they (the Qumranites) were the ones who "went out." Column VI mentions the digging of a well. This well is believed to have represented the Law, and the diggers represented the ones who went out from Jerusalem (the Qumranites) to dig the well.

(2) They had no concept of the historical context of the written word that they interpreted. The Book of Habakkuk is a good example of how they took a historical book and interpreted it to fit their own situation. In their commentaries, they understood the Teacher of Righteousness to be synonymous with the righteous spoken of by Habakkuk, and the wicked nation oppressing them to be a wicked priest (1 QpHab 8:1-3 and 1 QpHab 1:12).

(3) They had no perspective. According to them, everything in the Scriptures pointed to the end time and was happening to them now, in the end of redemption. In their writings, they spoke of themselves as the elect of the order of Israel, and the only part of Israel active in God's plan of redemption. This order is seen in IQSa: "This is the order for all the congregation of Israel, for in the last days when we were gathered in the community to walk according to the Sons of Zadok and the men of the covenant." Their understanding of the last days showed a lack of perspective concerning interpretation. They believed that God would raise up from among them a Teacher of Righteousness who would interpret the words of God for them, putting all things in order.

(4) One person was the inspired interpreter of the word. According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, God spoke his words through the prophets, but it was their Teacher of Righteousness who received the understanding of His mysteries. The Damascus document's first column helps set the historical stage for such interpretation. It speaks of the destruction that would come upon Israel by Babylon. The capital, along with their Temple, would be destroyed and only a remnant spared. Israel would then live under this rule for 390 years until God visited His remnant and caused a root to come forth. According to the Damascus document, God would then allow the remnant to wander blindly for 20 years until He saw their hearts and raised from among them a Teacher of Righteousness. This teacher would interpret the mysteries of God concerning the elect remnant and the disobedient (those in Jerusalem who were not a part of their sect).

(5) The Qumranites used allegory, word plays, and alteration of the text to make interpretation fit into their system, an example being Isaiah 24:17, "Fear, and the pit, and the snare are upon you, 0 inhabitant of the earth.” They somehow interpreted this Scripture to deal with matters of fornication, getting wealth for one's self, and the profaning of the Temple.
There is no doubt that one's personal beliefs can be strengthened by the study of such historical evidence. One can clearly see the Qumranite's mistakes being repeated today. As Dr. LaSor stated, history did, in fact, prove them wrong. Will it prove us wrong if we don't learn from their mistakes? They had but one interpretation. They had no perspective. Are not these same fallacies seen in the believing community today? I believe that many things are being over emphasized by some believers, for example, the Second Coming, the Rapture of the Church, or centering the whole New Testament message upon evangelism. These concepts are important and part of God's redemptive plan. However, we must be cautious in our interpretation of Scripture--especially prophetic Scripture--keeping in mind the teaching of Paul, "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." The Qumranites, by way of the Teacher of Righteousness, used proof texts, words plays, and allegoric teachings to make the text fit their interpretation. Are we doing the same thing today? Manipulation of the text got the Qumranites into trouble, and why should we assume that it will not get us in trouble as well? If history is a judge, will the judge not hold us accountable for the same mistakes?