Who Really Controlled
When did the Sadducees lose control of the
religious leadership of the Jews in ancient
the Pharisees gain control, and keep it, even
when the high
priest was a Sadducee? This may not seem like a very impor-
tant question --
but on it depends the solution to the problem
of on what day should Pentecost be
celebrated! Here is historical and
Biblical evidence which provides the FINAL SOLUTION
to this crucial question!
William F. Dankenbring
Believe it nor not, the question of when God’s people
should observe the Feast of Pentecost is really not all that difficult to
answer – if we have sincere, unprejudiced, and open minds, and are willing to
seriously consider the historical evidence!
A number of churches which believe in celebrating God’s
Festivals, however, insist that Pentecost – what the Jews call the Festival of
“Shavuot” – must be celebrated on a Sunday every year. They claim that the ancient Jewish sect of
the Sadducees were correct in counting the fifty days till Pentecost from the
Sunday which falls during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In some years, however, when the Passover
falls on the weekly Sabbath, then churches who follow this reasoning have a
serious problem – do they count from that first Sunday, which begins the Feast
of Unleavened Bread, or from the last Sunday, following the weekly Sabbath
which occurs as the final day of the Feast?
Apparently, since there are no Biblical guidelines to
answer this question, different churches come to different conclusions on this
matter! Some do it one way, and others
the other way, thus celebrating Pentecost a week apart!
But God says in His Word, “There is a way that seems
right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov.14:12). Surely none of us wants to be mistaken, and
pay for our error at the cost of our life!
God’s commandments are SURE – and “in keeping them there is great
reward” (Psalm
Furthermore, why should we follow the example of the
Sadducees? Just who were they? Were they really the religious leaders during
the time of Christ? Were
Jesus Christ – Yeshua the
Messiah – on one occasion severely rebuked the Sadducees. They as a religious body did not believe in
the resurrection of the dead. They tried
to trip Christ up in His teaching of the resurrection by presenting a story of
a man who married a woman, and then died, having no children. Then his six brothers married her, and each
died in order, from the first to the last, none of them having any
children. So, they asked Him, figuring
He was “cornered” – whose wife would she be in the resurrection?
“You are mistaken,” He said, “not knowing the
scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew
Just who were they, anyway, and what did the teach? What kind of power did they exercise in
Jewish religious daily worship?
After Alexander the Great conquered the known world in
333 B.C., and spread the teachings of Hellenism throughout the
Writes Paul Johnson, in A History of the Jews, “To
promote their ultimate aim of a world religion, they wanted an immediate
marriage between the Greek polis and the Jewish moral God” (A History
of the Jews, p.101). Johnson goes
on:
“Unfortunately, this was a contradiction in terms. The Greeks were not mono-
theists but
polytheists, and in
ization of innumerable overlapping deities by hanging them
together into synthetic polygods. One such
mutant was Apollo-Helio-Hermes, the sun-god. They blended their
own Dionysiac rites with the Egyptian Isis-cult. Their god of healing, Asclepios, was conflated with the Egyptian Imhotep. Zeus, the
senior god, was the
same as the Egyptian Ammon, the Persian Ahura-Mazda and, for all they
cared, the
Jewish Yahweh. That, needless to say,
was not how the pious Jews saw
it” (p.102).
After the death of Alexander the
Great,
The succession of high priests in
Antiochus Epiphanes was in many
respects a forerunner of the “Antichrist,” the “Beast” of the book of
Revelation. Says Alfred Edersheim, “cruelty and recklessness of tyranny were as
prominently his characteristics as revengefulness and unbounded devotion to
superstition” (Life and Times, p.669).
The
movement into Hellenistic idolatry and syncretism got a big boost in the time
of Antiochus Epiphanes, in 175 B.C. He was anxious to speed up the Hellenization of his dominions, and since
“Jason began the transformation of
In
167 B.C. the conflict came to a head. A
decree was published which in effect abolished the Mosaic Law, replacing it
with secular law.
Says Alfred Edersheim,
“All sacrifices, the service of the
of
feast days were prohibited; the
to
take part in heathen rites; a small heathen altar was reared on the great altar
of
burnt offering – in short, every insult was heaped on the religion of the Jews,
and
its every trace was to be swept away” (Life and Times, p.670).
The
By December 164 B.C. the revolution brought success to
the Maccabees, and they drove the Greeks out of
Says Paul Johnson, the assault against the Law of God was
met by a corresponding zeal for the Law.
Henceforth talk of “reform” was denounced as “nothing less than total
apostasy and collaboration with the foreign oppression” (p.105). Pious Jews began to develop a national system
of schools where Jewish boys were taught the Torah. This led to the development and spread of the
synagogue, and “the birth of Pharisaism as a movement
rooted in popular education, and eventually in the rise of the rabbinate” (A
History of the Jews, p.106). They
taught, in addition to the written Law, the Oral Law, “by which learned elders
could interpret and supplement the sacred commands. The practice of the Oral Law made it possible
for the Mosaic code to be adapted to changing conditions and administered in a
realistic manner” (ibid.).
“By contrast,” says Johnson, “the
Simon’s third son, John Hyrcanus,
succeeded him and ruled from 134-104 B.C.
His son, Alexander Jannaeus, ruled from 103-76
B.C., calling himself “Jonathan the king” on the coins produced in his
realm. Says Johnson of the Hasmoneans,
“They began as the avengers of martyrs, they ended as religious oppressors
themselves. They came to power at the
head of an eager guerrilla band; they ended surrounded by mercenaries. Their kingdom, founded on faith, dissolved in
impiety” (p.107).
Alexander Jannaeus became a
“despot and a monster” and persecuted the religious Jews. He was drawn to Greek
Hellenism and came to despise the “barbarous” aspects of the Jewish religion,
the Torah, and its requirements.
As high priest, leading the celebration of the Feast of
Tabernacles, he refused to perform the libation ceremony, according to the
custom, and as a result pious Jews pelted him with lemons. Outraged by their behavior, he proceeded to
slay about 6,000 of them, according to the history of Josephus. As a result, civil war once again erupted,
and in the following six years some 50,000 Jews lost their lives. Says Johnson:
“It is from this time we first hear of the Perushim
or Pharisees, ‘those who separated
themselves,’ a religious party which repudiated the royal religious establishment,
with its high-priest, Sadducee aristocrats and the Sanhedrin, and placed
religious observance before Jewish nationalism.
“Rabbinic
sources record the struggle between the monarch and this group, which was
a social and economic as well as a religious clash. As Josephus noted, ‘the
Sadducees draw their following only from the rich, and the people do not support
them, whereas the Pharisees have popular allies’” (p.108).
This was the low point of the Pharisees. Their leaders killed, or banished, their
influence fell. The Sadducees reigned
supreme, and began to inaugurate their own
Alexander
Jannaeus returned to
Before Janneuas died, in his
fiftieth year, he bequeathed the throne to his wife Salome. He told her, “Be not afraid of the Pharisees,
nor of those who are not Pharisees, but beware of the painted ones” (that is,
the hypocrites who had ulterior motives).
Alexander’s widow, Salome, saw that his policies were leading to disaster,
and sought to change matters and restore national unity. Salome then brought the Pharisees back into
the Sanhedrin and made their Oral Law acceptable in royal justice. She died in 67 B.C. Says Afred Edersheim of this period of the rule of Salome:
“The nine years of Queen Alexandra’s (in
Hebrew Salome) reign were the GOLDEN
AGE OF THE PHARISEES, when heaven itself smiled on a land that
was WHOLLY SUBJECT TO THEIR RELIGIOUS SWAY” (Life and
Times, p.677).
Edersheim continues:
“Queen Salome had appointed her eldest
son, Hyrcanus II, a weak prince, to
the Pontificate. But, as Josephus puts it (Ant. XIII, 16, 2), although
Salome had
the title, THE PHARISEES HELD THE REAL RULE OF THE COUNTRY, and
they administered it with the harshness, insolence and recklessness of a fanatical
religious party which suddenly obtained unlimited power. . . . First of all, all who were suspected of Sadduccean leanings were removed by intrigue or violence
from the Sanhedrin. Next, previous
orders DIFFERING FROM PHAR-
ISAICAL
VIEWS WERE ABROGATED, and others breathing their spirit substituted. SO SWEEPING AND THOROUGH WAS THE CHANGE WROUGHT,
THAT THE SADDUCEES NEVER RECOVERED THE BLOW, AND
WHATEVER THEY MIGHT TEACH, YET THOSE IN OFFICE WERE OBLIGED
IN ALL TIME COMING TO CONFORM TO PHARISAIC
PRACTICE”
(ibid., p.678).
Those are very plain words!
In other words, from the time of Queen Salome, 78-69 B.C., the Pharisees
held exclusive religious dominion in ancient
From that time forward, the PHARISEES exercised
religious domination and rule in the
After her death, Salome’s sons fell out fighting over the
succession, and Hyrcanus, one of them, had a powerful
chief minister, Antipater, who was Idumean. He brokered
a deal with
“His first act on assuming power in
the Egyptian and
Babylonian diaspora” (p.111).
During
his reign, Herod was exceptionally generous to the
Nevertheless, Herod down-graded the importance of the high priest, who was usually a hated Sadducee. In so doing, Paul Johnson points out:
“Herod
automatically raised in importance his deputy, the segan,
a Pharisee, who
got
control over all the regular
high-priests
performed the liturgy in a Pharisaical manner.
Since Herod was on
reasonable terms with the Pharisees, he avoided conflict between the
Who Controlled the
Let’s review that
last quotation from Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, once
again. Notice! By the time of Herod, who ruled from 37 B.C.
to 4 B.C., the position of high priest -- usually held by one of the
aristocratic Sadducees, who was himself appointed to the office at the whim and
discretion and pleasure of the king, Herod himself -- was down-graded in
importance. The actual power to rule and
regulate and control all the normal Temple functions, including holy day
observances, dates, and liturgies, rested with the office of the “segan” -- who was a PHARISEE appointed to “assist” and
“ensure” that the Sadducee high priest did everything according to the
prescribed manner. Thus the Pharisees
had control over all the
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, was himself
a priest and a Pharisee. In his Antiquities
of the Jews, he informs us that the Pharisees were the dominant religious
party in
Josephus himself was a Pharisee, but he did not endorse everything they taught and did. He wrote very objectively about them, and some of his language was very unflattering. He declared of them:
“For there was a certain sect of men
that were Jews, who valued themselves highly
upon
the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they
were
highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are
those
that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly
opposing
kings. A cunning sect they were, and
soon elevated to a pitch of open
fighting
and doing mischief” (
Again, giving further insight into this religious body,
Josephus writes:
“Now, for the Pharisees, they live
meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they
follow
the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them,
they
do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates
for
practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years . . . . on
account of
which
doctrines, THEY ARE ABLE TO GREATLY PERSUADE THE BODY
OF
THE PEOPLE; AND WHATEVER THEY DO ABOUT DIVINE
WORSHIP,
PRAYERS, AND SACRIFICES, THEY PERFORM THEM
ACCODING
TO THEIR DIRECTION . . .” (
What about the Sadducees?
H. H.. Ben-Sasson writes that they “held only
the written Torah holy and did not concede to the Pharisee hakhamim
authority . . . In many matters that were connected with the
Ben-Sasson points out that the Hasmoneans were natural leaders of those circles influenced
by the Pharisees “and, until the last years of John Hyrcanus,
Pharisaic halakhah OFFICIALLY
DETERMINED the rules of procedure and law that were binding throughout the
kingdom. Under John Hyrcanus
the rift between the Hasmonean rulers and the
Pharisees became apparent for the first time.
It widened under John’s sons, until the Hasmonean
dynasty ONCE AGAIN came to terms with the Pharisees. The latter’s standing
improved vastly under Queen Alexandra [Salome]” (p.237).
How powerful did the Pharisees become? Says Ben-Sasson,
the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin formed a consolidated group which “became
increasingly important and influential through the whole-hearted support
that it received from the people. Their
opinion usually carried the day. The
chiefs of the priesthood who were of Sadducean
persuasion, RARELY DARED take actions against the express wishes of the
Pharisaic hakhamim [representatives] in the
Sanhedrin” (p.250).
Ben-Sasson declares that
“Because of the decisive influence of
their Pharisaic opponents . . . the Sadducees
had
NO CHOICE, EVEN WHILE THEY HELD THE HIGHEST OFFICES, BUT
TO
MAKE MANY CONCESSIONS TO THE PHARISEES.
Only on rare occasions
did
they attempt to enforce their own views in various areas of public life and
religious
ceremonial” (p.271).
The Talmud records such an instance, when a Sadducee
attempted to circumvent a procedural ruling of the Pharisees concerning the
high priest entering the Holy of Holies and offering incense. The Talmud shows that the Pharisees came to
require that a sitting high priest who was a Sadducee give an OATH that he
would perform the ceremony according to Pharisaical teaching.
Says the Talmud:
“And why do they require an oath of
him? Because of the Boethusians
[leading
family
of Sadducees], who said: let him cense
from outside and let him enter
from
inside. We are told of one who did so,
and when he came out, someone
said
to his father: ‘Though ye have taught
this all your lives, ye have never done
so
until this man came and did it.’ The
other replied: ‘Though we have taught
so
all our lives, we have done as the hakhamim
[Pharisees] willed and I wonder
if
this man will live long.’ It is said
that there were no easy days until he died;
and
some said that worms came out of his
nose” (Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma
I, 39a, quoted
on page 272).
In another passage, illustrating the power of the Pharisees
over Temple rituals and service, we read in the Mishnah
the following rules relating to the function of the High Priest on the Day of
Atonement:
“1. l. Seven days before the Day of
Atonement the High Priest was taken apart
from
his own house unto the Counsellors’ Chamber . . .
“3.
They delivered unto him elders from among the elders of the Court, and they
read
before him out of the [prescribed] rite for the day; and they said to him, ‘My
lord
High Priest, do thou thyself recite with thine own
mouth, lest thou hast
forgotten
or lest thou hast never learnt’ . . .
“5. The elders of the Court delivered him to the
elders of the priesthood and they
brought
him up to the upper chamber of the House of Abtinas. They ADJURED
him
[made him to swear an oath] and took their leave and went away having said
to
him, ‘My lord High Priest, we are delegates of the Court [Sanhedrin], and
thou
art OUR delegate and the delegate of the Court.
We ADJURE thee by Him
that
made His name to dwell in this house that THOU CHANGE NAUGHT OF
WHAT
WE HAVE SAID UNTO THEE. He turned aside
and wept and they turned
aside
and wept” (Mishnah, Yoma
1:1-5, pages 162-163, translated by Herbert
Danby,
Oxford University Press).
How clear! Even the
High Priest himself was totally under the authority and supervision of the
Pharisees and was rigorously taught and trained and required to perform every
act of worship according to the dictates of the Pharisees. This was very important. The people feared that if the High Priest
offended the Most High in any way, while in the Holy of Holies, he might never
come out again alive! Therefore a rope
was tied to his ankle, so that just in case something went wrong, and he stayed
in the Holy of Holies much too long, they could pull him out with the rope!
Writes Alfred Edersheim
regarding the High Priest’s duties and training:
“Seven days before the Day of Atonement
the high priest left his own house in
Jerusalem,
and took up his abode in his chambers in the Temple. . . During the
whole
of that week, he had to practice the various priestly rites, such as sprinkling
the
blood, burning the incense, lighting the lamp, offering the daily sacrifice,
etc.
For,
as already stated, every part of that day’s service devolved on the high
priest,
and
he must not commit any mistake. Some of
the elders of the Sanhedrin were
appointed
to see it, that the high priest fully understood, and knew the meaning of
the
service, otherwise they were to instruct him in it. On the eve of the Day of
Atonement
the various sacrifices were brought before him, that there might be
nothing
strange about the services of the morrow.
Finally they bound him with
A
SOLEMN OATH not to change anything in
the rites of the day. This was
chiefly
for fear of the SADDUCEAN NOTION, that the incense should be lighted
before
the high priest actually entered into the Most Holy Place; while the
Pharisees
held that this was to be done only within the Most Holy Place itself”
(Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, p.245).
The rituals of the Day of Atonement were regarded as of
the most serious consequences. If the
High Priest failed to perform every duty properly, He could invoke the wrath of
God upon not only himself but the entire nation! Therefore, it was considered most important
that the High Priest be carefully tutored and rehearsed the duties he would be
required to perform on that most holy day.
The Pharisees saw to it that he even had to swear before Almighty God
that he would change nothing in the established rituals and service.
Says Ben-Sasson, “The whole
Second Temple period was dominated by the leadership of the Pharisees. . . . As
a matter of course, the Pharisees were led by the most famous hakhamim of the time. In the Sanhedrin itself the Pharisees were
represented by a united faction of Torah authorities whose influence on
Sanhedrin decisions was enormous. The
Pharisaic camp also included many priests, some of whom were from respected
families, such as the historian Josephus” (p.272).
During the time of Christ, the Pharisees were the religious powerhouse in ancient Judea. Everything in religious matters was done according to their dictates. The Sadducees, their religious opponents, were completely subservient to them in all religious duties and practices.
Writes Alfred Edersheim in Sketches
of Jewish Social Life,
“Pharisaism .
. . had not only become the leading direction of theological thought,
but
its principles were solemnly proclaimed, and UNIVERSALLY ACTED UPON –
AND
THE LATTER, EVEN BY THEIR OPPONENTS THE SADDUCEES. A Sad-
ducee in the Temple or on the seat of judgment would be
obliged to act and decide
PRECISELY
LIKE A PHARISEE. Not that the party had
not attempted to give
dominance
to their peculiar views. But they were
fairly VANQUISHED, and it
is
said that they
themselves destroyed the book of Sadducean
ordinances, which
they had at one
time drawn up. And the Pharisees
celebrated each dogmatic victory
by a feast!”
(page 219).
What does the historian Josephus tell us directly about
the Sadducees, and their relationship vis-ŕ-vis the Pharisees?
Josephus discusses “the sect of the Sadducees, whose
notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees” (Antiquities, 13,
10, 6). He continues:
“. . . the Sadducees are able to
persuade none but the rich, AND HAVE NOT
THE
POPULACE OBSEQUIOUS TO THEM, BUT THE PHARISEES HAVE
THE
MULTITUDE ON THEIR SIDE” (Ant., 13, 10, 6).
Says Josephus, their
doctrine
“is
received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity; but they
are
able
to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates,
as
they are unwilling and by force sometimes obliged to be, THEY
ADDICT
THEMSELVES TO THE NOTIONS OF THE PHARISEES,
because
the multitude would not otherwise bear them” (Ant., XVIII,
1, 4).
So it should be obvious that the real holders of power
and religious sway in ancient Judea were the Pharisees – not the
Sadducees. Even the Sadducees had to bow
to the authority of the Pharisees in all matters religious. They performed all religious rites,
ceremonies, and rituals according to “the notions of the Pharisees,” and “their
direction.”
What could be plainer than that?
Writes H. H. Ben-Sasson in A
History of the Jewish People, “The Pharisees . . . set their imprint on the
entire internal development of Judea and in effect even laid the foundations of
Judaism as it was to be after the destruction of the Temple. In the main, the Pharisees carried on a trend
that had its origins in the Persian era and had encompassed the activities of
the sopherim [scribes] and interpreters
of the Torah in the days of Ezra and thereafter. Their immediate predecessors were the Hasidim,
who chose martyrdom in the persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes.
“The basic tenet of the Pharisees was an unswerving
faithfulness to the Torah and its infusion into all aspects of life” (page 235,
Harvard University Press). Besides the
Scriptures, the Torah they taught also included the ‘Oral Torah,’ which was
“the entire living tradition of the halakhah
[rules] as it had evolved in the course of generations” (ibid.). These were the “traditions of men” or of the
“elders” that Jesus Christ said often conflicted with the true word of God
(Matt.15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13).
Says Ben-Sasson further, “The
Pharisee influence extended far beyond the direct adherents of the sect. Their followers included the bulk of the
nation, who regarded the Pharisees as their natural leaders and Pharisaic halakhah as the self-evident expression of
Jewish religion” (p.236).
As we have seen, the Sadducees were the aristocratic,
Hellenistic party, which only had some of the rich on their side, but the vast
multitudes followed the Pharisees, as Josephus himself tells us. Whatever their own belief, it did not matter
so far as the public Temple services were concerned. The Temple services were controlled by the
Pharisees! The Pharisee SEGAN made sure
that the Sadducee high priest did everything correctly, at the appointed time,
as the Pharisees taught!
In his Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus
tells us that Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, therefore, was celebrated fifty
days after Passover. Josephus writes:
“But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth
day of the
month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that they do not
touch them . . . They also at this participation of the first-fruits of the
earth sacrifice
a lamb, as a burnt offering to God. When a WEEK OF WEEKS has
passed over
after this sacrifice, (which week contains forty and nine days,) on
the fiftieth
day, which is PENTECOST, they bring to God a loaf, made of wheat
flour . . .” (Ant., bk.III, chap.X, 5-6).
The
hated Sadducees, however, figured Pentecost by counting fifty days from the
Sunday which falls within the days of unleavened bread. They interpreted the expression “morrow after
the Sabbath,” found in Leviticus 23:15, from which date the count to Pentecost
is to begin, as being the day after the weekly Sabbath.
The Pharisees, as Josephus says, however, claim the
“Sabbath” immediately before the “counting” to Pentecost was the Passover
annual Sabbath or 1st Day of Unleavened Bread.
Says Alfred Edersheim, in his book The Temple:
“The expression
‘the morrow after the Sabbath,’ has sometimes been mis-
understood as
implying that the presentation of the so-called ‘first sheaf’
was to be always
made on the day following the weekly Sabbath of the Passover-week. This view, adopted by the ‘Boethusians’ and the Sadducees
in the time of
Christ, and by the Karaite Jews and certain modern
interpreters,
rests on a
misinterpretation of the word ‘Sabbath.’
As in analogous allusions
to other feasts
in the same chapter, it means not the weekly Sabbath, but the day
of the
festival. The testimony of Josephus, of
Philo, and of Jewish tradition,
leaves no
room to doubt that in this instance we are to understand by the
‘Sabbath’ the
15th of Nisan, on whatever day of the week it might fall”
(The
Temple: Its Ministry and Services, p.257).
How plain!
What is there to argue about? Nevertheless,
some modern churches, including United Church of God, International Church of
God, Philadelphia Church of God, the so-called “Living” Church of God, and
others – today follow the reckoning
of the ignorant, erring, mistaken SADDUCEES!
Amazing! But true!
Where did they get this idea? It
was originally one of the errors of Herbert W. Armstrong who founded the
“Worldwide Church of God.” His influence
has been pervasive, as today even some Messianic “Jews” follow the error of the
Sadducees, which is another reason they are considered pagans by Orthodox Jews
and outside the pale of Judaism.
Modern adherents to the Sadducean
theory claim that the Pharisees were wrong, and the Sadducees were right. They claim that the Sadducees were the high
priests of the time of Christ and that they controlled the Temple and its services. As we have carefully proved, that contention
is pure nonsense. They did no such
thing. They were completely under the
domination of the ruling PHARISEES when it came to public worship, Temple
services, and religious ceremonies and rulings!
But we also have Biblical evidence that the Sadducean teaching was in utter error!
We have the teaching and
examples of Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul, which utterly repudiate the Sadducean views!
As additional New Testament proof that the Pharisees were
correct, and the Sadducees were “out in left field” by themselves, take note of
the following facts:
When the Sadducees came to Him, trying to trick Him up
with a tough question, Jesus Christ Himself rebuked them, saying, “You are
mistaken. You understand neither the
Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). In the New Testament in Contemporary
English, we read Jesus’ words:
“You’re off base on two counts:
You don’t know your Bibles, and you don’t know how God works.” Says the Jewish New Testament version, “Yeshua answered them, ‘The reason you go astray is
that you are ignorant of the Tanakh and
of the power of God.” That is – they
were ignorant of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings of the Scriptures,
which were comprised of the books of the Old Testament! So declared the Messiah Himself!
These Sadducees were so far off base that they even
denied the resurrection! (Matt.22:23).
They also denied the existence of angels and spirit beings (Acts
23:1-8). How incredible it is to me,
therefore, that some churches today would validate their “take” on the
Pentecost question! It is simply
flabbergasting – makes me incredulous – their minds are like concrete made in a
cement mixer – all mixed up, but permanently set! What will it take to bring them to the
truth? A spiritual “jack-hammer” or the
direct voice of God?
Of the Pharisees, however, Jesus said in approbation of
their teaching concerning the Law: “The
scribes and the Pharisees are occupying Moses’ seat: therefore do and observe whatever they
tell you, but do not behave as they do” (Matt.23:1-2). This sounds like a ringing endorsement of the
authority of the Pharisees, although Jesus rebuked them for their other
egregious sins and hypocrisy and attitudes.
Take note! Not
ONCE in the four gospels does Jesus Christ EVER take issue with the Pharisees
for their calculation or method of counting to Pentecost! NOT ONCE!
If they had been doing it incorrectly, and leading the
masses of the people astray, don’t you think Christ would have REBUKED them in
a stinging indictment for their error?
But He didn’t! Why not? Obviously, because on this point they were
teaching the law of God correctly!
The apostle Paul himself was a Pharisee, taught at the
feet of Gamaliel, a leading Rabban
of the Jews of that period. As a
Pharisee, therefore, he had been taught that Pentecost was to be observed
normally on Sivan 6, or fifty days after Passover. He did not endorse the dating of the
Sadducees.
Did Paul repent of his Pharisaic teaching and background,
when he was converted, and begin endorsing the Sadducean
concept? Not at all! Nowhere in the writings of Paul does he ever
suggest that the Pharisees were wrong, and the Sadducees were right!
To the contrary, he told the Jews in Jerusalem, “I am a
Jew, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in
this city. At the feet of Gamaliel I have been educated with exacting care in our
ancestral Law. . .” (Acts 22:2-3). Gamaliel was a leading rabbi of the Pharisees.
Paul later told the Sanhedrin, whom he noted were part of
Sadducees and part of Pharisees (Acts 23:6), “‘Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the
son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am
accused.’ At this saying a dispute arose
between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and there was division in the
meeting. For the Sadducees maintain
there is neither resurrection nor angel nor spirit, while the Pharisees confess
the one as well as the other. So the
outcry grew deafening. Some of the
scribes of the Pharisees’ party got up and argued, ‘We find nothing bad in
this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him . . .’ And the discord grew so bitter that
the commander, afraid that Paul might be torn to pieces by them, ordered a
detachment to march down and snatch him from their midst” (Acts 23:6-10,
Berkeley Version).
As final evidence, consider the fact that in his letter
to the Philippians, Paul wrote that he had been taught the law of God as a
Pharisee blamelessly, faultlessly.
This could hardly have been true if they had been all mixed up on the
correct date to observe Pentecost!
Notice! Paul
wrote, explaining, “If anyone else imagines that he has some basis for
confidence in the flesh, I am ahead of him:
circumcised on the eighth day, a native Israelite of the tribe of
Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as to the Law a Pharisee, as to zeal
a persecutor of the church, as to LEGAL RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT BLAME” (Phil.3:4-6). Says The New Testament in Contemporary
English, in these verses: “You know
my pedigree: a legitimate birth,
circumcised on the eighth day; an Israelite from the elite tribe of Benjamin; a
STRICT AND DEVOUT ADHERENT TO GOD’S LAW; a fiery defender of the purity of my
religion, even to the point of persecuting Christians; A METICULOUS OBSERVER OF
EVERYTHING SET DOWN IN GOD’S LAW BOOK.”
It should be perfectly clear to any reasonable mind, not
blinded by prejudice and hatred of the truth, that Pentecost should be observed
on the date ascribed to it by the Pharisees -- and in the manner which they
approved of. Jesus Christ Himself never
found fault with them as to the date they observed Pentecost. He never criticized them on this issue.
And, on the other hand, the Pharisees never criticized
either Christ or the early Church for departing from their approved date for
observing Pentecost. They never rebuked
Him or His disciples for heresy or false teaching in this regard -- which by
itself proves that they were in agreement with Him on this issue and point of
God’s Law, and He was in agreement with them!
Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan Calendars
In 1901, the Anglican Bishop Sherrard
Beaumont Burnaby, a fellow in the Royal Astronomical Society, published a book
entitled Elements of the Jewish and Muhammadan
Calendars. In chapter IX of his book
he deals with the “Megillath Ta’anith,”
believed by scholars to have been written in the period 67-69 A.D. The original of this scroll is in
Aramaic.
Notice what this author has to say about the Pharisees,
and their rivalry with the Sadducees:
“After the independence of Judaea had
been assured there commenced a long
series of
disputes between the two sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This
was kept up
until after the death of Alexander Jannaeus, in B.C.
79. Graetz
says
that the bitter
rivalry of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, in the days of
Rehoboam and Jeroboam, was repeated in the history of the
strife between the
Pharisees and
Sadducees.
“Under the reign
of Queen Salome Alexandra, B.C. 79-70, who was devoted
to the
Pharisees, the chief of that sect obtained the ascendancy, and the
PHARISEES
CELEBRATED ALL THE DAYS UPON WHICH THEY HAD
BEEN ESPECIALLY
SUCCESSFUL AGAINST THEIR ADVERSARIES” (p.258).
“The unfriendly
relations between the Pharisees and the Sadducees did not exist,
to any extent,
in the time of Hyrcanus. He made use of both parties according
to their
capabilities; the Sadducees as soldiers and diplomatists; the Pharisees as
teachers of the
Law, judges, and functionaries in civil affairs . . . In point of fact
Hyrcanus was personally in favour
of the Pharisees, but as Prince he could not
quarrel with the
Sadducees . . . Until he was overtaken by old age Hyrcanus
managed to solve
the difficult problem of keeping in a state of amity two parties
who were always
on the verge of quarreling; but in the last years of his life he
went quite over
to the Sadducees. He had been bitterly
offended by a certain
Eleazar ben Poira,
who had stated that his mother had been taken prisoner by the
Syrians, and
that it was not fitting for the son of a prisoner to be a priest -- much
less a High
Priest. Hyrcanus
then deposed the Pharisees from the various important
posts that they
had filled; and the offices belonging to the
of law, and to
the High Council were given to the followers of the Sadducees.
“Hyrcanus died in B.C. 106, a short time only after these
events. He had proclaimed
his wife to be
Queen, and his eldest son Judah, better known by his Greek name
Aristobulus, to be High Priest. Aristobulus
supplanted his mother on the throne, and
put her in
prison, together with three of his four brothers. He died after a reign of
one year, in
B.C. 105.
“He was
succeeded by his brother Alexander Jannaeus, the
third son of Hyrcanus.
He reigned for
twenty-seven years. During his reign the
Pharisees were again
allowed to
appear at Court. . . Ever since the secession of Hyrcanus
from Pharisaism
the Great
Council had been composed entirely of Sadducees, but Jannaeus
was
disposed to
bring about some kind of equality between the two parties by
dividing between
them the offices of state. . . After a time . . . Jannaeus
became
an inveterate
opponent of the Pharisaic teaching, and made his view public
in a most
insulting manner. . . .
“Alexander Jannaeus died from fever, B.C. 79, during his siege of one
of the
trans-Jordanic fortresses.
On his deathbed, he repented of his cruel persecution
of the
Pharisees, and gave various directions respecting them to his wife,
Salome
Alexandra, who succeeded him as Queen. She was a woman of gentle nature,
and of sincere
piety; she was still devoted to the Pharisees, and entrusted them with
the management
of affairs without persecuting the opposing party. The chief post
in the Great
Council was given up to them. It was
offered in the first place to her
brother, Simon ben Shetach, who, however, waived
his own claim in favour of
the help of
Simon, the REORGANIZATION OF THE COUNCIL, AND THE
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
OF RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES. These two
celebrated
reformers have been called ‘REBUILDERS OF THE LAW,’ ‘Restorers
of the glory of the crown (of the Law).’ . .
.” (p.259-260).
The
Jewish Calendar gives us then the origin of various Jewish days of
observance. Discussing the time of Queen
Salome Alexandra, circa 79 B.C., we read:
“Nisan 8-22. Recalls the
ordinance of the Pharisees that the Feast of Weeks –
Pentecost –
should be celebrated on any day of the week, and not be restricted
upon the first
day of the week, ‘the morrow after the Sabbath.’ . . . M. Schwab
says, ‘It must
be believed that for a certain time,
under the Sadducees, the
Feast of
Pentecost had been celebrated in conformity with their teaching,
that is to say,
on ‘the morrow after the [weekly] Sabbath.’
“The Commentator
says that when the Pharisees came into power they changed
this day to the
fiftieth, counted from the second day of the Passover.
IN
REMEMBRANCE OF THEIR TRIUMPH THEY CELEBRATED ALL THE FIFTEEN
DAYS, FROM NISAN 8 TO 23 . . .” (p.263).
Alfred Edersheim, in his book Sketches
of Jewish Social Life, comments on this very document, the “Megillath Taanith,” or “roll of
the fasts.” He declared:
“What is perhaps the oldest post-Biblical
Hebrew book – the ‘Megillath Taanith,’
or roll of fasts
– is chiefly a Pharisaic calendar of self-glorification, in which
dogmatic
victories are made days when fasting, and sometimes even mourning,
is
prohibited. Whatever, therefore, the
dogmatic views of the Sadducees were,
and however they
might, where possible, indulge personal bias, YET IN OFFICE
BOTH ACTED AS
PHARISEES” (p.219).
As in the case of a Sadducean
High Priest performing the rituals of the Day of Atonement, says Edersheim, the Pharisees “took care to bind him by an oath
to observe their ritual customs before allowing him to officiate at all”
(p.220).
Any arguments they made in protest
were in vain. Says Edersheim,
“They had to submit, and besides, to join in the kind of half holiday which the
jubilant majority inscribed in their calendar to perpetuate the memory of the
decision. The Pharisees held, that the
time between Easter [that is, Passover] and Pentecost should be counted from
the second day of the feast; the Sadducees insisted that it should commence
with the literal ‘Sabbath’ after the festive day. But despite argument, the Sadducees had to
JOIN when the solemn procession went on in the afternoon of the feast to cut
down the ‘first sheaf,’ and to RECKON PENTECOST AS DID THEIR OPPONENTS” (p.220).
Obviously, even the Sadducees were
compelled to observe the festival of
Pentecost at the same day when the Pharisees did! Their “private opinions” on the matter
didn’t make any difference at all – they were as worthless as diddly-squat!
Alfred Edersheim
in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, writes in appendix V, giving
a translation of “Megillath Taanith,
or Roll of Fasts.” For the month of
Nisan, we read in this ancient document:
“1.
From the first day of the month Nisan, and to the 8th of it,
it was settled
about the daily
sacrifice (that it should be paid out of the Temple-treasury) –
mourning is
prohibited.
“2. And from the 8th to the end of the
Feast (the 27th) THE FEAST OF
WEEKS WAS
RE-ESTABLISHED – mourning is interdicted” (page 698).
Edersheim’s appendix apparently has a
misprint, as the time involved as we have seen was from the 8th to
the 22 or 23rd of the month.
The Feast itself of course was from Nisan 15-21. This whole period of
time was considered a time of rejoicing since the Pharisees had regained
control of the Temple and religious services in the land. This occurred during the time of Queen
Salome, circa 77 B.C. This was when Pharisaism gained the supremacy and ascendancy over all
religious issues. This was not, as
some falsely claim, a reference to the destruction of the Temple itself in 70
A.D., by the Romans under Titus and Vespacian. This was not a reference to the total
collapse of the Sadducees, who disappeared from history when the Temple itself
was burned, and the nation of Judea was sent into exile, banished from the
land, and no longer had a political existence.
When
all the evidence is put together, then, it becomes increasingly clear -- like
the shining light of the dawn, rising toward midday -- that the Pharisees were
in control of the Temple, and conducted and supervised the Temple services,
during the time of Christ and the apostles.
It is also clear that Jesus Christ never reprimanded them
for observing the incorrect day, even though He remonstrated against them on many
other accounts. It is difficult to
imagine that He would not have lashed out at their error, if they were
observing Pentecost on the wrong day!
His very silence on this issue, and His pronouncement that they -- not the Hellenistic Sadducees --
sat in Moses’ seat, and held Mosaic authority in respect to teaching and
interpreting the Law (Matt.23:2-3) -- should be conclusive.
Some believe, however, that the Sadducees controlled the
Temple during the time of Christ. It
would appear that this conclusion is based solely upon the fact that the high
priest himself was often a Sadducee. For
example, Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned
Christ to execution, was a Sadducee (Matt.26:3, 57; John 18:13, 14, 19,
28). However, as we have seen, the high
priest himself was subject to the directions of the religious-minded Pharisees
as to rituals and observances and ceremonies held at the Temple. The scroll of the Megillath
Ta’anith lists the days Nisan 8-22 as the days
the Pharisees celebrated for their gaining control of the counting of Pentecost
which they did from the second day of Passover.
The Sadducean Apostates
James Hastings, in
his authoritative multi-volume Dictionary of the Bible, tells us the
real nature of the Sadducees and their true apostasy -- the sect which the
Worldwide Church of God and all its present off-shoots follow concerning
Pentecost calculations. Hastings
declares:
“The Sadducees were the spiritual descendants of the priestly
party in Jerusalem,
which, towards
the close of the Greek period of Israel’s history, was ANXIOUS
TO HELLENIZE the
Palestinian Jews. The Maccabean rising, which was caused
by the attempt
of Antiochus Epiphanes to accomplish this by
violence, taught
these
HELLENIZERS the folly of tampering with the national religion . . .
Their
descendants, however, SPEEDILY ACCOMMODATED THEMSELVES
to the new order
of things, which was in many respects after their mind . . .
“The successors
of the Hellenizers . . . were in full sympathy with
the secular
policy of the Hasmonean princes, and, unlike the Pharisees, took no
exception
to the
illegitimacy of their high priesthood.
They entered the service of the new
princes as
soldiers and diplomatists, and, drawing around them the leading
adherents of the
new dynasty, formed the party, to which was given their family
name of Zadokites or Sadducees.
Taught by experience, this party made no
violent attempts
to introduce Greek customs; but they were a PURELY
POLITICAL PARTY;
their main interest was in the Jewish State as an indepen-
dent State, and
not, like that of the Pharisees, in the legal purity of the Jews as
a religious
community. . . .
“From their
first appearance in history as a distinct party (during the reign
of John Hyrcanus, B.C. 135-105), the Sadducees were the devoted
adherents
of the Hasmonaean princes.
Under Aristobulus I, and Alexander Jannaeus,
the immediate
successor of John Hyrcanus, their party was
supreme. Under
Alexandra Salome
the Pharisees were for a short time in possession of power;
but when Aristobulus II became king the Sadducees once more came to
the front.
They supported
him in the conflict with Hyrcanus II, Antipater, and the
Romans, and they
also stood by him and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus,
in their attempt
to restore the Hasmonaean dynasty. BUT THE DAY OF
THEIR POLITICAL
POWER WAS NOW PAST. Their numbers
were
also
considerably reduced. When Pompey captured Jerusalem (B.C. 63)
he
executed many of
their leaders, as did also Herod (B.C. 37).
Herod
further
DIMINISHED their influence by appointing and removing high priests
according to HIS
OWN PLEASURE, and by filling the Sanhedrin with his own
creatures”
(“Sadducees,” vol.IV, p.349).
Says
Hastings concerning the Pharisees, “But the latter were the REAL POSSESSORS OF
POWER, for, in order to render themselves tolerable to the people, the
Sadducees were COMPELLED TO ACT IN MOST MATTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PHARISAIC
PRINCIPLES. And when Jerusalem was
destroyed and Israel ceased to exist as a nation, they speedily
disappeared entirely from history” (ibid.).
Concerning the differences between the Sadducees and
Pharisees, Hastings notes the following:
“The Pharisees were, in their own peculiar way, intensely
religious [just as
the apostle Paul
tells us -- Romans 10:1]; their great desire was to mould
their fellow
countrymen into a ‘holy’ nation by means of the Law; they looked
forward to a
future, in which their hopes were sure
to be realized, and could
therefore
meanwhile endure the foreign dominion, provided it allowed them
perfect
religious freedom. The SADDUCEES, on the
other hand, WERE
LARGELY
INDIFFERENT TO RELIGION, except in so far as it was a
matter of
custom; their great care was for the State as a purely secular State;
they were
satisfied with the present, so far as it permitted them to live in
comfort and
splendor” (p.350).
Concerning
the matters of the Festivals, the Sadducees differed from the Pharisees on the
figuring of Pentecost, as we have noted.
Hastings points out:
“As to the Feasts, the two parties differed in the manner of
fixing the date of
Pentecost. According to Lev.23:11, 15, seven full weeks
had to be counted from
‘the morrow after
the sabbath’ upon which the priest waved the sheaf of
first-fruits
before the
Lord. The PHARISEES followed the
TRADITIONAL interpretation
(e.g. in the
LXX; cf. Ant.3,X,5), that the ‘sabbath’ meant
the first day of the feast,
and that
consequently Pentecost might fall on any day of the week. The Sadducees
(or rather,
according to Schurer . . . the Boethusians,
a variety of the Sadducees)
held that the ‘sabbath’ meant the weekly sabbath,
and that therefore Pentecost
always fell on
the first day of the week” (p.351).
Witness of the Septuagint
Hastings mentions
the LXX, or Septuagint, as being one of the sources showing that the true,
traditional interpretation of the “sabbath” in
Leviticus 23:11, 15 refers to the first holy day of the Feast of Unleavened
Bread -- that is, the Passover Holy Day, when the Passover was eaten, on Nisan
15. What is the Septuagint? It is commonly referred to as LXX, a
reference to the “70 Jewish scholars” (there were 6 from each tribe, according
to tradition, one from each of the twelve tribes -- thus there may have
actually been 72 translators) who translated the Pentateuch from Hebrew into
Greek during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus,
approximately 250 B.C. This was the
official translation of the Sanhedrin and the Jewish Court and the first
translation of the Holy Scriptures into a foreign language. Greek was the language of most of the
Mediterranean world at that time, and the Egyptian king desired a copy of the
famous Jewish “Law” in his world renowned library at Alexandria, Egypt.
This was the OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew
Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) into Greek. As such, it was used by Jews throughout the
Mediterranean, in synagogues everywhere, and even in Palestine.
What does the Septuagint say about the calculation of
Pentecost? Notice its clear voice in
this English translation:
“(4) These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations, which ye
shall call
in their
seasons. (5) In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month,
between the
evening times [i.e., during the afternoon of Nisan 14, between
noon and sunset;
Josephus tells us the lambs were actually slain between
3-5 o’clock --
see Wars of the Jews, Bk.VI, ch.IX, para.3] is the Lord’s
passover. (6) And on
the fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened
bread to the
Lord; seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread.
(7) And the
FIRST DAY
shall be a holy convocation to you; ye shall do no servile work.
(8) And ye shall
offer whole-burnt offerings to the Lord seven days; and the
seventh day
shall be a holy convocation to you: ye shall do no servile work.
(9) And the Lord
spoke to Moses, saying, (10) Speak to the children of Israel,
and thou shalt say to them, When ye shall enter into the land which
I give you,
and reap the
harvest of it, then shall you bring a SHEAF, THE FIRST-FRUITS
of your harvest,
to the priest; (11) and he shall lift up the sheaf before the Lord,
to be accepted
for you. ON THE MORROW OF THE FIRST
DAY THE
PRIEST SHALL
LIFT IT UP. . . .
“(15) And ye
shall number to yourselves FROM THE DAY AFTER THE
SABBATH, FROM
THE DAY ON WHICH YE SHALL OFFER THE SHEAF
OF THE
HEAVE-OFFERING, SEVEN FULL WEEKS: UNTIL
THE
MORROW AFTER THE
LAST WEEK ye shall
number FIFTY DAYS . . .”
(The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L.
Brenton, Hendrickson Publishers; Lev.23:4-15, p.159-160).
What
does this passage clearly tell us? The
wave sheaf offering was performed by the priest on the “morrow of the first
day” -- and the “first day” was the FIRST DAY OF THE FEAST! Compare verses 7 and 11, and you will see the
truth, plain as day, clear as crystal, and as obvious as the sun on a bright
day.
Now, what is also interesting, is that Jesus Christ and
the apostles of the early New Testament Church often quoted from the
Septuagint in their Biblical references to the Old Testament! Many scholars and commentators have
remarked on this amazing and undeniable fact.
It becomes very obvious when comparing Biblical quotations in the New
Testament Greek language with the Septuagint, as opposed to the Massoretic text!
Clearly, therefore, Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint many
times, and in so doing must have considered the texts they used from it
authoritative and inspired Scripture!
There can be no question, therefore, as to the real
meaning of Leviticus 23:11, 15. It
refers to the day after the Passover -- or Nisan 16 -- just as the Pharisees
themselves taught and practiced! The
Septuagint uses the word “WEEK” in this place.
It says: “You shall number to
yourselves from the day after the sabbath . . . seven
FULL WEEKS: UNTIL THE MORROW AFTER THE LAST WEEK ye shall number fifty
days.”
Notice! The word
the King James translates “sabbaths” in this case
ought to be translated, as the Septuagint has it, “WEEKS.” Many modern translations do so. The Jewish Tanakh
has this passage: “. . . you shall count
off seven weeks. They must be
complete: you must count until the day
after the SEVENTH WEEK.” The Septuagint,
however, makes this passage perfectly plain.
Why do people get mixed up on this?
Jesus Christ Versus the Sadducees
Jesus
Christ did not come into conflict with the Sadducees till the close of His
ministry, since they were not the religious teachers of the people, but more of
a political party concerned mainly with the spoils and patronage of the
political system and used the high priesthood for the wealth and opulence it
brought to them. Says James Hastings:
“It was only toward the close of His life that our Saviour came into open
conflict with
them. They had little influence with
the people, ESPECIALLY
IN RELIGIOUS
MATTERS; His criticism
was therefore mainly directed
against the
Pharisees and scribes, the supreme religious authorities, although,
according to
Matt.16:6, 11, He also warned His disciples against the leaven
of the
Sadducees, meaning, probably, their utterly secular spirit. They, on their
part, seem to
have ignored Him, until, by driving the money-changers out of the
Temple
(Matt.21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45), He interfered with the prerogatives
of the
Sanhedrin. His acceptance of the
Messianic title ‘son of David’ also
filled them with
indignation against Him (Matt.21:15).
They accordingly
joined the
scribes and Pharisees in opposition to Him, and sought to destroy
Him (Mark 11:18,
Luke 19:47), first, however, attempting to discredit Him in
the eyes of the
people, and to bring down upon Him the vengeance of the
Romans, by their
questions as to His authority, as to the resurrection, and
as to the
lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar (Matt.21:23, 22:23, Mark
11:27, 12:18,
Luke 20:1, 19, 27). In the Sanhedrin
that tried Him they prob-
ably formed the
majority, and the ‘chief priests,’ who presided, belonged to
their party”
(p.351).
It
should be obvious that the Sadducees were not really interested in religion, as
such, but rather in politics and temporal, secular power. All their religious teachings, therefore,
ought to make us suspect. Why the
Worldwide Church of God, and all of its modern off-shoot churches, should
continue doggedly to follow the Sadducees in their method and doctrine of
counting Pentecost, therefore, amazes me no end. Such spiritual “blindness” is difficult to
fathom, comprehend, or believe. Yet it
is a palpable fact, and the more one argues and protests, it seems, the more
adamantine and concrete-like they become in their opinions.
Unger’s Bible Dictionary tells us a little more
about this strange, political-religious amalgamation called the Sadducees:
“Their political supremacy was, however, of no long duration. Greatly as the
spiritual power
of the Pharisees had increased, the Sadducean
aristocracy
was able to keep
at the helm in politics. The price at
which the Sadducees had
to secure
themselves power at this later period was indeed a high one, for they
were IN THEIR
OFFICIAL ACTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE THEMSELVES
TO PHARISAIC VIEWS. With the fall of the Jewish state the
Sadducees altogether
disappear from
history. Their strong point was
politics. When deprived of this
their last hour
had struck. While the Pharisaic party
only gained more strength,
only obtained
more absolute rule over the Jewish people in consequence of the
collapse of
political affairs, the very ground on which they stood was cut away
from the
Sadducees” (“Sadducees,” p.954).
One
final witness as to the true position of the Sadducees, and their distinctive
lack of real religious authority or power, during the time of Christ, is Emil Schurer, author of the definitive four volume work, A
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (second division,
volume 2). Dr. Emil Schurer
writes:
“The stress laid upon religious
interests by the Pharisees had won the bulk
of
the nation to their side. Hence it is no
cause for surprise, that Alexandra for
the
sake of being at peace with her people ABANDONED THE POWER TO
THE
PHARISEES. THEIR VICTORY WAS NOW
COMPLETE, the whole
conduct
of internal affairs was in their hands. All the decrees of the Pharisees
done
away with by Hyrcanus were RE-INTRODUCED, and they
COMPLETELY
RULED
THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE NATION. And this
continued in all
essentials
EVEN DURING SUBSEQUENT AGES. Among all
the changes
in
government, under Romans and Herodians, the
Pharisees maintained their
spiritual
hegemony. Consistency and
principle was on their side. And this
consistency
procured them the spiritual supremacy.
“It
is true that the Sadducaean high priests were at the
head of the Sanhedrin.
But
in fact the decisive influence upon public affairs was in the hands, not of
the
Sadducees, but of the Pharisees. They
had the bulk of the nation as their
ally,
the women especially were in their hands.
They had the greatest influence
upon
the congregations, so that ALL ACTS OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, PRAYERS,
AND
SACRIFICES WERE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO THEIR INJUNCTIONS.
Their
sway over the masses was SO ABSOLUTE, that they could obtain a hearing
even
when they said anything against the king or the high priest, consequently
they
were the most capable of counteracting the design of the kings. HENCE TOO
THE
SADDUCEES IN THEIR OFFICIAL ACTS ADHERED TO THE
DEMANDS
OF THE PHARISEES, because otherwise the multitude would
not
have tolerated them” (pages 27-28).
Modern
Judaism traces its descent from the Pharisees, not the Sadducees. The Sadducees
were wiped out totally when the nation of Judah collapsed, and was
destroyed. Their whole reason for
existence was smashed. They were
annihilated. God had no reason to
preserve them, or their teachings, and they perished from off the pages of
history, as a mere “blip” in time, a mere “ripple” on the ocean of life. Their influence, prestige, and power vanished
with them.
But God Himself preserved the Pharisees, and the
teachings of the Torah, and the Oral Law, and kept His Word alive at the hands
of the Jews, the Pharisees, and their descendants, the Talmudists, and Massoretes, and succeeding generations of Rabbis and
scribes. Were it not for them, we would
have no holy sacred calendar, today, and we would have no idea of the beginning
of the sacred year, according to God’s Calendar, or the annual holy days
(compare Rom.3:1-2). Even though the
Pharisees were far from perfect, as the New Testament clearly shows, they were
head and shoulders above the Sadducees, and did preserve the Scriptures and
preserved the knowledge of the festivals of God (Matt.23:1-3).
But What Difference Does It Make?
Jesus Christ said, “You shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
The Messiah also said, “Do not suppose that I came to
annul the Law or the Prophets. I did not
come to abolish but to complete them; for I assure you, while heaven and earth
endure not one iota or one projection of a letter will be dropped from the Law
until all is accomplished. Whoever,
therefore, abolishes the least significant of these commands and so teaches the
people, he shall be of least significance in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever
shall observe and teach them shall be prominent in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness
surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not at all enter into
the kingdom of heaven” (Matt.5:17-20, Berkeley Version).
Is this “new truth” to you? Have you been observing “Pentecost” or the
“Feast of Weeks” on the wrong day all these years?
Have you been trying to keep “unholy” time “holy”? That’s like trying to keep cold water hot, or
keep an apple an orange. You can’t keep
cold water hot – it’s already cold; and an apple is an apple, not an orange!
Herbert Armstrong used to say that it is ten times harder
to unlearn error than to learn new truth!
Learning is one thing. Obeying is
another! It is one hundred times harder
to change a practice that is wrong, and to break a bad habit, and to begin to
keep a different day than one has kept in the past. Human nature, which tends to get into a rut
of habitual action and practice, doesn’t want to learn new things, and to get
up out of the rut, and to force itself to CHANGE!
The apostle Paul declared, “Therefore let him who thinks
he stands take heed lest he fall” (I Cor.10:12). Paul also wrote: “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed
to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken
through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience
received a just reward, how shall we escape IF WE NEGLECT SO GREAT
SALVATION . . .?” (Heb.2:1-3).
Some people will exclaim, “So what? What difference does it make?” In the eyes of men, perhaps no difference at all. But God demands OBEDIENCE to His Law -- and in this End-time, He gives us plenty of evidence and proof so that we can KNOW the Truth -- KNOW the Law!
Prior ignorance of the Law is no excuse! The “wages of sin” – law breaking – is “death” (Rom.6:23). Going the way that “seems right” also ends in “death” (Prov.14:12; 16:25). We must prove what’s right and do what’s right!
Your eternal life could hang in the balance!
What indeed are you going to do about it?