To begin with - Christ would have them understand, that, in warning them of the incompetence of Israel's teachers for the position which they occupied, He neither wished for Himself nor His disciples the place of authority which they claimed, nor yet sought to incite the people to reisitance thereto. On the contrary, so long as they held the place of authority they were to be regarded - in the language of the Mishnah [5221] - as if instituted by Moses himself, as sitting in Moses' seat, and were to be obeyed, so far as merely outward observances were concerned. We regard this direction, not as of merely temporary application, but as involving as important principle. But we also recall that the ordinances to which Christ made reference were those of the Jewish canon-law, and did not involve anything which could really affect the conscience - except that of the ancient, or of our modern Pharisees. But while they thus obeyed their outward directions, they were equally to eschew the spirit which characterised their observances. [5222] In this respect of twofold charge is laid against them: of want of spiritual earnestness and love, [5223] and of more externalism, vanity, and self-seeking. [5224] And here Christ interrupted His Discourse to warn His disciples against the first beginnings of what had led to such fearful consequences, and to point them to the better way. [5225]
This constitutes the first part of Christ's charge. Before proceeding to those which follow, we may give a few illustrative explanations. Of the opening accusation about the binding (truly in bondage: desmeo) of heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and laying them on men's shoulders, proof can scarcely be required. As frequently shown, Rabbinism placed the ordinances of tradition above those of the Law, [5226] and this by a necessity of the system, since they were professedly the authoritative exposition and the supplement of the written Law. [5227] And although it was a general rule, that no ordinance should be enjoined heavier that the congregation could bear, [5228] yet (as previously stated) it was admitted, that whereas the words of the Law contained what lightened' and what made heavy,' the words of the Scribes contained only what made heavy.' [5229] Again, it was another principle, that were an aggravation' or increase of the burden had once been introduced, it must continue to be observed. [5230] Thus the burdens became intolerable. And the blame rested equally on both the great Rabbinic Schools. For, although lthe School of Hillel was supposed in general to make the yoke lighter, and that of Shammai heavier, yet not only did they agree on many points, [5231] but the School of Hillel was not unfrequently even more strict than that of his rival. [5232] In truth, their differences seem too often only prompted by a spirit of opposition, so that the serious business of religion became in their hands one of rival authority and mere wrangling. [5233]
It is not so easy to understand the second part of Christ's accusation. There were, indeed, many hypocrites among them, who might, in the language of the Talmud, alleviate for themselves and make heavy for others. [5234] Yet the charge of not moving them with the finger could scarcely apply to the Pharisees as a party - not even in this sense, that Rabbinic ingenuity mostly found some means of evading what was unpleasant. But, as previously explained, [5235] we would understand the word rendered move' as meaning to set in motion,' or move away,' in the sense that they did not alleviate' where they might have done so, or else with reference to their admitted principle, that their ordinances always made heavier, never lighter - always imposed grievous burdens, but never, not even with the finger, moved them away.
With this charge of unreality and want of love, those of externalism, vanity, and self-seeking are closely connected. Here we can only make selection from the abundant evidence in our support of it. By a merely external interpretation of Exod. xiii. 9, 16, and Deut. vi. 8; xi. 18, practice of wearing Phylacteries or, as they were called, Tephillin, prayer-fillets,' was introduced. [5236] These, as will be remembered, were square capsules, covered with leather, containing on small scrolls of parchment, these four sections of the law: Exod. xiii. 1-10; 11-16: Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21. The Phylacteries were fastened by long leather straps to the forehead, and round the left arm, near the heart. Most superstitious reverence was attached to them, and in later times they were even used as amulets. Nevertheless, the Talmud itself gives confirmation that the practice of constantly wearing phylacteries - or, it might be, making them broad, and enlarging the borders of the garments, we intended for to be seen of men.' Thus we are told of a certain man who had done so, in order to cover his dishonest practices in appropriating what had been entrusted to his keeping. [5237] Nay, the Rabbis had in so many words to lay it down as a principle, than the Phylacteries were not to be worn for show. [5238]