HEBREW ROOTS MEANS...

HEBREW ROOTS MEANS...
By
James Scott Trimm

The sad truth is that many of the teachers in the Hebrew Roots movement know very little about the actual Hebraic Roots of our faith. The Hebraic Roots of our faith take us literally back to the first century, and the period known as the Second Temple Era.

In the Second Temple Era Judaism was divided into three major sects: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. So we must understand what roots (if any) we have in each group.

Now in the past I have written articles about our roots in both Esseneism and Phariseeism, and those can be found at our website: http://www.wnae.org/articles.htm

Now it is time for me to explain how we have relationships with both groups, and just how it was that Yeshua, through Nazarene Judaism, combined truth from both sects. This is important, because understanding our roots in Essenism will help us understand how we should view the Dead Sea Scrolls and our roots in Phariseeism help us to understand how we should view Rabbinic Literature.

The Essenes split from mainline Judaism over three issues which they called “the traps of Belial”. These are laid out in a document commonly called “The Damascus Document” which is a sort of “Declaration of Independence” of Essene Judaism. (Likewise the “Manual of Discipline” is a sort of Constitution of Essene Judaism.)

The “Three Traps of Belial” “The first is fornication; the second is wealth; the third is defiling the sanctuary.”

The first, “fornication” dealt with the loose Pharisaic halacha on divorce, which the Essenes saw as back door polygamy and as a violation of a principle they called Yesod HaBriah, (The foundation of Creation). This is YHWH’s primary will for the universe as made evident through the nature of Creation itself (Compare with Romans 1).

The Pharisees were divided on the issue of divorce. The House of Shammai allowed divorce only in the case of an “unclean matter” while the House of Hillel allowed divorce even if the wife only spoiled a dish, and Akiva stretched this to allow a man to divorce his wife because he found a prettier one (m.Gittin 9:10)

The Essenes said the Pharisees had fallen into a trap of Belial saying:

They are caught in…Fornication, by taking two wives
in their lifetime although the Principle of Creation (Yesod HaBriah) is “male and female He Created them” (Gen. 1:27) and those who entered the ark “went into the ark two by two” (Gen. 7:9). Concerning the Leaders it is written “he shall not multiply wives to himself” (Dt. 17:17)
(Damascus Document 4,20-5,2)

The Essenes were accusing the Pharisees of effectively practicing polygamy in allowing divorce so easily, and in doing so, violating the Yesod HaBriah.

No doubt Messiah is citing Yesod HaBriah (The Principle of Creation) when he has the following halachic debate with a group of Pharisees:

19:3 And the P’rushim approached him, and tempted him,
saying, “Is it right for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
19:4 And he answered and said to them:
"Have you not read that he who made man the beginning,
'made them male and female' (Gen. 1:27)
19:5 And said,
'Wherefore shall a man shall leave his father
and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' (Gen. 2:24)
19:6 And now then, they are no more two but one flesh
only. What therefore Elohim has joined together man cannot separate."
19:7 But they said,
"And why then did Moshe then command
to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away
if she was not pleasing in his sight?” (Deut. 24:1, 3)
19:8 And he answered them and said,
"Because Moshe on account of the hardness of your hearts,
allowed you to put away your wives,
but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I tell you,
every man that has put away, or shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and takes another,
commits adultery. And whoever takes the divorced also
commits adultery.
(Mt. 19:3-9)

Notice that divorce and polygamy equally fall under the violation of the Yesod HaBriah. Neither actually violates the Torah itself, but both violate a halachic principle which is preferred.

Notice that Yeshua treats divorce as a last resort, which YHWH does not forbid, but does discourage. YHWH recognized that divorces happen in society and thus the Torah regulates divorce. The Torah does not encourage divorce, and certainly does not find it a blessing, because it violates the Yesod HaBriah (Principle of Creation).

Polygamy, like divorce, violates the Yesod HaBriah. The Torah does not forbid polygamy, it recognized that polygamy was practiced and thus regulated it. The Torah did not encourage polygamy, and certainly does not find it to be a blessing, because it violates the Yesod HaBriah (Principle of Creation).

The Second of the “Traps of Belial” is “wealth” and I think by this we can understand “materialism”. Clearly this is another issue about which Yeshua agreed with the Essenes.

Likewise Yeshua said “Woe to you rich” (quoting 1Enoch 94:8) “because you have received your comfort.” (Luke 6:24)

19 Lay not up for yourselves stores upon earth, and moth devour,
and where thieves break through and steal,
20 But lay up for yourselves stores in heaven, where caterpillar and moth waste not,
and where thieves do not steal,
21 For just where your store is, there your heart will be also.
22 The lamp of your body is your eye; if therefore your eye is sound, your whole body
will be in great light.
23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body shall be gloomy. If therefore the light that
is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or
else he will love the one, and hate the other. You cannot serve Elohim and Mammon.
(Matthew 6:19-24)

In Matthew 19:21 Yeshua advises a rich man:

21 And Yeshua said to him: If you will be wholehearted, go sell all that you have, and
give to the poor. And you will have great store in heaven, and, come follow Me.
(Matt. 5:21)

The canonical Matthew gives no explanation for this recommendation, but the version of this event as recorded in the Goodnews according to the Hebrews does. A similar account appeared in the Goodnews according to the Hebrews in a quote preserved in the Latin version of a commentary on Matthew attributed to the third century “Church Father” Origin:

It is written in a certain Gospel which is called according to
the Hebrews (if at least anyone care to accept it, not as
authoritative, but to throw light on the question before us):

The other of the two rich men said to him:
Master, what good thing must I do that I may live?
He said to him, “Man fulfill the Torah and the Prophets.
He answered him, “That I have done.”
He said to him, “Go and sell all you possess and distribute
Among the poor, and then come and follow me.”
But the rich man began to scratch his head and it pleased him
not. And the Lord said to him, “How can you say,
‘I have fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets?”
For it stands written in the Torah “Love your neighbor
as yourself” and behold many of your brothers,
sons of Abraham, are begrimed with dirt and die
of hunger—and your house is full of many good things
and nothing at all comes forth from it to them.
And he turned and said to Simon his disciple,
who was sitting by him, “Simon, son of Jona,
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of
a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom
of Heaven.”
(Origin; On Mt. 15:14 on 19:16ff in the Latin Version)

In this version of the story this recommendation “go sell all you have” is seen as an application of the Torah command “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).

So Yeshua clearly agreed with the Essenes in teaching against materialism.

The third of the “Traps of Belial” was “defiling the sanctuary” of which the Damascus Document goes on to say:

They also defile the sanctuary, for they do not separate clean from unclean according to the Torah, and lie with a woman during her menstrual period. Furthermore they [permit] each man to marry the daughter of his brothers and the daughter of his sister, although Moses said, "Unto the sister of your mother you shall not draw near; she is the flesh of your mother" (Lev. 18:13). But the law of consanguinity is written for males and females alike, so if the brother's daughter uncovers the nakedness of the bother of her father, she is the flesh of
her father.
(Damascus Document 4, 6b-11a)

The exact meaning of the first example is unclear***, but the second point is a clear dispute with Pharisaic Halacha as found in the Talmud:

Concerning him who... marries his sister's daughter ... Scripture says, Then shall you call, and YHWH will answer; you shall cry and He will say: `Here I am'.
(b.Yeb. 62b-63a)

(It should be noted that while Yeshua never addresses this issue, the International Nazarene Beit Din has adopted the Essene halacha on this matter.)

Eventually some Essnes defined this “Defilement of the Temple” and the failure to “separate clean from unclean according to the Torah” with the Doctrine of Ma’aseh HaTorah (“Works of the Law”):

…we separated from the majority of the people
and from all their uncleanness and from being party
to or going along with them in these matters.
(4QMMT C:7-9)

These are some of our pronouncements concerning the Law of God. Specifically, some pronouncements concerning the Works of the Law that we have determined [are beneficial] and all of them concern
defiling mixtures and purity....

A lengthy list of pronouncements is then given. Then the document concludes:

Now we have written to you some of the Works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people,... And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness...
(4QMMT)

Much of the confusion about Paul's teachings on the Torah involves two scripture phrases, which appear in the New Testament only in Paul's writings (in Rom. Gal. & 1Cor.). These two phrases are "works of the law" and "under the law", each of which appears 10 times in the Scriptures.

The first of these phrases, "works of the law", is best understood through its usage in Gal. 2:16. Here Paul writes:

knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Yeshua the Messiah,
even we have believed in Messiah Yeshua,
that we might be justified by faith in Messiah
and not by the works of the law;
for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Paul uses this phrase to describe a false method of justification which is diametrically opposed to "faith in the Messiah". To Paul "works of the law" is not an obsolete Old Testament system, but a heresy that has never been true.

The term "works of the Torah" has shown up as a technical theological term used in a document in the Dead Sea Scrolls called MMT which says:

Now we have written to you some of the
works of the law, those which we determined
would be beneficial for you...
And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness,
in that you have done what is right and good before Him...
(4QMMT (4Q394-399) Section C lines 26b-31)

The second of these phrases is "under the law". This phrase may best be understood from its usage in Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace." Paul, therefore, sees "under grace" and "under the law" as diametrically opposed, one cannot be both. The truth is that since we have always been under grace (see Gen. 6:8; Ex. 33:12, 17; Judges 6:17f; Jer. 31:2) we have never been "under the law". "Under the law" then, is not an obsolete Old Testament system, but a false teaching, which was never true.

This is because the Torah was created for man, man was not created for the Torah (Mk. 2:27).

The Essene Halacha concerning Shabbat was the strictest of any sect of Judaism. Josephus writes of the Essenes:

"…they [Essenes] are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they not be obliged to kindle a fire on that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go to stool thereon."
(Wars 2:8:9)

The Damascus Document says:

“And if any person falls into a place of water or into a place of… he shall not bring him up by a ladder or a cord or instrument. No man shall offer anything on the altar on the Sabbath, save the burnt-offering of the Sabbath, for so it is written `Excepting your Sabbaths'."
(Damascus Document 11, 18)

On the other hand, Pharisaic Halacha placed human life above the
Sabbath. As we read in the Mishna:

Rabbi Mattiah ben Harash said, "He who has a pain in his throat, they drop medicine into his mouth on the Sabbath, because it is a matter of
doubt as to danger to life. Any matter of doubt as to danger to life overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath."
(m.Yoma 8:6)

The Gemara that discusses this Mishna in the Talmud gives several instances where the Sabbeth is overridden by value of Human life (b.Yoma 84-85) and finally sums up the point saying:

R. Jonathan b. Joseph said: For it is holy
unto you; I.e., it [the Sabbath] is committed to your hands, not you to its hands.
(b.Yoma 85b)

Likewise Yeshua taught:

“…The Sabbath was made for a son of man, Thus also, the Son of Man is the Adonai of the Sabbath.
(Mk. 2:27-28)

I am convinced that the “Under the Law” teaching was rooted in this radical concept that human life was of less value than the Torah and that man existed to serve the Torah rather than the other way around.

There can be no doubt that Paul sees "works of the law" and "under the law" as categorically bad, yet Paul calls the Torah itself "holy, just and good" (Rom. 7:12), certainly Paul does not use these phrases to refer to the Torah itself.

Now Yeshua certainly agreed that the Temple had been corrupted:

12 And Yeshua entered into the Temple of Elohim, and cast outside all the vendors and buyers in the Temple: and overturned the tables of the money-changers, and the stalls of them that sold the doves,
13 And said to them: It is written, For My house will be called a house of prayer: but you have made it a robber's den.
(Mt. 21:12-13)

However Yeshua was much more concerned bout inner purity than ritual purity:

1 Then came near to Him scribes and P'rushim from Yerushalayim, saying,
2 Why do your talmidim transgress the decrees of the elders? For they clean not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But He answered them and said: And why do you transgress the commandments of Elohim--by means of your decrees?
4 Is it not written in your Torah from the mouth of Elohim, Honor your father and your mother? And moreover written, And he that curses his father and his mother will surely die?
5 But you say, Whoever says to father and mother, It is all an offering-- whatever of mine might profit you,
6 And he honors not his father and his mother. Thus have you made void the commandments of Elohim, on account of your judgments.
7 You hypocrites! Yesha'yahu did well indeed to prophesy concerning you, saying,
8 This people honors Me with their mouth and with their lips, but have removed their heart far from Me.
9 And their fear of Me, is a commandment learned of men.
10 Then He called the crowds to Himself, and said: Hear, and know,
11 What enters into the mouth defiles not the man: but what proceeds out of the mouth, that, defiles the man.
(Mt. 15:1-11)

Yeshua echoed the Essenes in calling Pharisees “whitened sepulchers” and “brood of vipers”- The Damascus Document referred to the “builders of the wall” (Pharisees) as “the daubers with plaster” (see Ezek. 13:10) (Damascus Document 8, 12) Ezekiel 13:10-11 refers to those who build up a wall and white-wash it by daubing it with plaster. The connection with Matt. 23:27, 33 is clear, for the Damascus Document also, within close proximity, calls the “wall builders” a “brood of vipers”. However Yeshua’s charge was related to a charge of hypocrisy on the part of Pharisees (Matt. 6:2-15; 23:29). While Yeshua often charged Pharisees with "hypocrisy" the Talmud makes the same association:

King Jannai said to his wife', `Fear not the Pharisees and the
non-Pharisees but the hypocrites who are the Pharisees; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri but they expect a reward like Phineas'
(b.Sotah 22b)

The Talmud also lists Hypocrites as one of four classes who will not receive the presence of the Shekhinah:

R. Hisda also said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Four classes will not recieve presence of the Shechinah, — the class of scoffers, the class of liars, the class of hypocrites, and the class of slanderers. `The class of scoffers' — as it is written, He withdrew His hand from the scoffers.(Hosea 7:5) `The class of liars' — as it is written, He that telleth lies, shall not tarry in my sight.(Ps. 101:7) `The class of hypocrites' — as it is written, For a hypocrite shall not come before him.(Job 13:15) `The class of slanderers — as it is written, For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee,'(Ps. 5:5) [which means] Thou art righteous, and hence there will not be evil in thy abode.
(b.San. 103a)

So while Yeshua agreed with the Essenes that the Temple had become corrupt, Yeshua was more concerned about hypocrisy and inner impurity. Yeshua’s problem with the Pharisees is not that he thinks their halacha was to loose, but that they were not wholehearted and sincere.

This creates a polarity between Yeshua’s teaching and that of the Works of the Law, Under the Law Essenes. These Essenes believed that a stricter halacha, even stricter that the Pharisaic school of Shamai was the solution (i.e. “Works of the Law” and “Under the Law”) to what ailed Judaism. Yeshua however gravitated to the opposite side, and the School of Hillel as the solution.

The Pharisees had polarized into two schools of thought: The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. The two schools held differing view on many halachic issues and argued throughout the first century. Eventually the School of Hillel prevailed in these arguments and serves as the foundation of modern Rabbinic Judaism. There are also many important connections between the School of Hillel and the ancient sect of the Nazarenes.

Within Rabbinic literature we have record of over 350 disputes between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. Generally Shammai gave the stricter interpretation, while Hillels understandings were more relaxed. According to the Zohar (Ra'aya Meheimna 3:245a) The School of Shammai was based on GEVURAH ("severity") while the School of Hillel was based on CHESED ("grace"/"mercy").

A classic example of the conflict can be seen in one of the first passages of the Mishna, which records a conflict between the two houses over how to recite the Shema:

The House of Shammai says:
In the evening one should recline in order to recite the shema, and in the morning they should stand. As it is written “when you lie down and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7)
But the House of Hillel says:
Everyone may recite the Shema in his own way, as it is written:
“And you shall go by the way” (Deuteronomy 7:7)
(m.Berachot 1:3)

Note that the House of Shammai were concerned primarily with the outward expression, with whether one was standing or reclining, while the House of Hillel were less concerned with such outward expression and much more concerned with the way in which one recited the Shema, that they made it their own way, that they meant it and walked in it. Note the difference in emphasis of the two houses.

Hillel was more concerned with the inner man, while Shammai was more concerned with the outer man. Hillel was concerned with the Spirit of the Law, while Shammai was more concerned with the Letter of the Law.

This overriding concept of sincerity is also found in the Mishna in tractate Menachot:

“…all are the same, the one who offers much and the one who offers little, on condition that a man will direct his intention to Heaven”
(m.Menachot 13:11)

In Mark's account of Yeshua's summary of the Torah (Mark 12:28-33) A "scribe" comes to question Yeshua. In Matthew's account this "scribe" is identified as a Pharisee (Matthew 22:34-36). According to Mark's account this Pharisee not only agreed with Yeshua's summary of Torah and repeated it adding:

…and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
(Mark 12:33b)

It is not unlikely from this context that the Pharisee was quoting a now-lost saying of Hillel here. In making this statement the Pharisee, who apparently was from the School of Hillel, was pointing to Hosea 6:6:

For I [YHWH] desire mercy (CHESED), and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of ELOHIM more than burnt offerings.

This Pharisee seemes to have identified "love your neighbor" of Leviticus 19:18 with the CHESED of Hosea 6:6. Remember the relaxed halachic positions of the School of Hillel were based on CHESED, it is indeed likely that Hosea 6:6 served as a proof text for many of their halachic rulings, since this passage assigns a halachic weight to CHESED. We also find Yeshau using Hosea 6:6 in support of his relaxed halachic rulings regarding the Shabbat (Matthew 12:7 = Hosea 6:6) here Yeshua argues from Hosea 6:6 that CHESED is of greater weight than the sacrifices. Since CHESED out weighs sacrifice, and sacrifice out weighs Shabbat, then CHESED out weighs Shabbat.

One of the most significant parallels between Yeshua and Hillel is Their profound teaching of Love. Yeshua's teaching of love was a radical departure from the teachings at Qumran. Now Philo tells us that the Essenes had great "desire to promote brotherly love" (Philo; The Hypothetica 11:2) this brotherly love seems to have been only to fellow members of the Yachad (unity). This is reflected in the Damascus Document's use of Leviticus 19:18. In the Torah Leviticus 19:18 reads:

You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of my people, But you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am YHWH.

Now the Damascus Document interprets this passage as follows:

As for the passage that says, "Take no vengeance and bear no grudge against your kinfolk" (Leviticus 19:18) any covenant member who brings against his fellow an accusation not sworn to before witnesses or who makes an accusation in the heat of anger or who tells it to his elders to bring his fellow into repute, the same is a vengence-taker and (Damascus Document 9, 2)

Note that this Qumran interpretation of Leviticus 19:19 would limit "neighbor" in Leviticus 19:18 to "any covenant member" i.e. a member of the Yachad. In fact the Qumran sect taught:

…bear unremitting hatred towards all men of ill repute… to leave it to them to pursue wealth and mercenary gain… truckling to a depot.
(Manual of Discipline IX, 21-26)

By contrast Hillel is quoted as saying:

Be disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them near to the Torah.
(m.Avot 1:12)

The Qumran attitude was one of hatred to the sinner. There was no concept of "drawing them near to the Torah" but rather to "leave it to them to [sin]… truckling to a depot." Yet Hillel took the opposite approach. Hillel's attitude was to "Love" the men of ill repute and draw them near to the Torah. This was also Yeshua's approach.

Yeshua taught:

You have heard that it was said "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
(Matthew 5:43-47)

Yeshua here begins by quoting the Tanak "Love your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:18) but then gives the Qumran corollary "hate your enemy." Yeshua differs with this "hate your enemy" teaching in agreement with the love philosophy of Hillel. Apparently the Qumran community inferred from "Love your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:18) that they should therefore bear unremitting hatred toward their enemies. To Yeshua (and presumably Hillel) the issue is the interpretation of "neighbor." In his Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-36) Yeshua argues that we cannot be sure who our "neighbor" is, so in order to make sure we do not violate Leviticus 19:18 we should love everyone.

Another strong parallel between Hillel and Yeshua is that of the so called "Golden Rule." There is a story in the Talmud in which Hillel gives a summary of the Torah. The Talmud says:

…it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the builders cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him "Do not to others what you would not have them do to you: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it."
(b.Shab. 31a)

A similar incident occurs in the Gospels:

But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
Yeshua said to him, " 'You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."
(Matthew 22:34-40 = Mark 12:28-31 = Luke 10:25-37)

Here Yeshua is pressed to summarize the Torah and answers with the Sh'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) and the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). This is remarkably similar to Hillel's answer to the same question. It is important to note that the Pharisees agreed that Yeshua's answer was correct. Yeshua elsewhere gives a summary of the Torah which parallels Hillel's answer even closer:

Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even to them, for this is the Torah and the Prophets.
(Matthew 7:12 = Luke 6:31)

House of Hillel Pharisaic Judaism was the succession of the Chassedim and the main line of Judaism. From this point forward the only Pharisee Sanhedrin we know of was led, not by “pairs” but by Hillel’s descendants.


Thus it appears that Yeshua agreed withe the Essenes regarding the three Traps of Belial, but saw the corruption of the Temple as a problem of hypocrisy to be resolved through the CHESEDIC sincerity of House of Hillel Phariseeism

When Yeshua was criticizing hypocrisy among Pharisees, he was calling for a return to authentic Pharisaic Judaism, which is why Paul was able to say confidently “I am a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6)

In Acts 23:6 Paul proclaims without reservation “I am a Pharisee”. This comes as a shock to many Christians who have a poor understanding of what it means to be a Pharisee.

Part of the reason for this is that the Christian understanding of what a Pharisee is has been defined by Christian commentators, not by Pharisaic sources. As a result, in Christian culture, the word “Pharisee” has come to be used idiomatically to mean “hypocrite”.

I recall some years ago seeing a Reverend Twistruth comic strip several years ago in which the Reverend had just been teaching on the parable of the Pharisee and the Plebian. He asked a church lady to close with a prayer and she begins “Thank you Lord for not making me like that Pharisee…”

Of course Rabbinic Judaism is the modern descendant of Phariseeism. If one wants a good understanding of what Phariseeism taught, one should look to primary sources of the actual teachings of the Pharisees, the Mishna, the Talmuds and the early Midrashim.

Upon the invasion of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity the monarchy of Israel was brought to an end. When the Babylonian captivity finally ended and exiles returned, Ezra reestablished the council of Elders:Ezra 7:25; 10:14, 16) which immediately began making halachic decisions (Ezra 10:10-19). This body became known as the Great Assembly.

The Mishna records the foundations of Pharisaic Judaism as follows:

Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets handed it on to the men of the Great Assembly…
(m.Avot 1:1)

This was a body of 120 Elders and is said to have introduced a regular order of prayers including the Shemoneh Esreh (eighteen benedictions) which eventually evolved into the Siddur. The Great Assembly collected the sacred writings and determined which books were to be regarded as canonical.

We do not know much more about the Great Assembly. We do know that one of the last members of this counsel was “Simon the Righteous” (219-196 B.C.E.). The Mishna says:

Simeon the Righteous was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say, “On three things the world stands: On the Torah, On the [Temple] Service, and on acts of piety (chasidim).
(m.Avot 1:2)

Ben Sira calls him “the leader of his brothers and the pride of his people.” (Sira 50:1) and dedicates an entire chapter to his good reputation. Simon was the earliest post-biblical sage cited in the Mishna. Simon was succeeded as High Priest by his son Onias III of whom we read in 2 Maccabees:

While the holy city was inhabited in unbroken peace and the laws were very well observed because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness.
(2 Maccabees 3:1)

About this time Antiochus Epiphanies rose to power over Israel and at about this same time period the High Priesthood passed from Onias III to his brother Jason by way of corruption:

…Jason the brother of Onias obtained the high priesthood by corruption, promising the king at an interview three hundred and sixty talents of silver and from another source of revenue, eighty talents… he at once shifted his countrymen over to the Greek way of life… and introduced new customs contrary to the Torah.
(2 Maccabees 4:7-8, 10, 11)

Jason’s High Priesthood was illegitimate and not regarded as valid as we read in 2Maccabees:

…Jason, who was ungodly and no high priest…
(2 Maccabees 4:13)

The corruption of the High Priesthood and the banishment of the true High Priest must have forced the disbandment of the Great Assembly.

At this time (175-140 BCE) many who wished to remain true to Torah escaped into the wilderness (1 Maccabees 1:62-64; 2:29) These refugees became know as the Chassidim (pious ones) (1 Maccabees 2:42-43).

While we know little about these Chassidim, they were probably led by a certain Antigones of Soko. The Mishnah says of him:

Antigones of Soko received [Torah] from Simeon the Righteous. He used to say, “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.”
(m.Avot 1:3)

The name “Chassidim” probably came from their devotion to the teaching of Simon the Righteous, that “CHASSIDIM” is one of the three things upon which the world stands.

The term CHASSEDIM is related to the same root as CHESED meaning “grace, mercy, loving kindness, charity”. You might say this was as “grace” movement.

One of Antigones’ talmidim (disciples, students), a certain Zadok, apostatized and formed the Sadducee sect (I laid this out in detail in my recent article “Paul argues Talmud Before the Sanhedrin).

The main line of Antigones’ talmidim went on to establish the body we know as the Pharisaic Sanhedrin (not to be confused with the political Sanhedrin that contained both Pharisees and Sadducees). In fact two of his talmidim went on to become the first Nasi and Av Beit Din of this Sanhedrin.

In other words Pharisaic Judaism was the succession of the Chassedim and the main line of Judaism. (The word “Pharisee” means “separate” and may well refer to the fact that the Chassidim had separated themselves from Jason’s corrupt apostasy from true Judaism). This was a CHESED (grace) based movement proceeding from the teachings of Simon the Righteous and Antigones of Soko.

Before proceeding let us therefore seek to understand the point of Antigones’ teaching:

“Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.”

Antigones taught that we should observe Torah not as one trying to earn something, but as one who serves a master because he sincerely wants to from inside, out of respect and love for Elohim. He taught that Torah Observance meant nothing unless ones heart was right. Without this inner CHESED, Torah Observance was an empty outer expression, works without faith. This was the foundation of Pharisaic Judaism!

The earliest generations of the Pharisaic movement were known as the Zuggot (pairs). Hillel and Shammai were the last two “pairs” to lead the Pharisee Sanhedrin. The rift between them was so great that Shammai, who was known for his bad temper, forced Hillel to sit and listen to him at the point of his sword, as though he were his student. (b.Shab. 17a) The result was a complete split of Phariseeism into two Houses: The House of Shammai (the stricter school) and the House of Hillel (the less-strict school).

From this point forward the only Pharisee Sanhedrin we know of was led, not by “pairs” but by Hillel’s descendents.

Pharisees at this time polarized into two schools of thought: The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. The two schools held differing view on many halachic issues and argued throughout the first century. Eventually the School of Hillel prevailed in these arguments and serves as the foundation of modern Rabbinic Judaism. There are also many important connections between the School of Hillel and the ancient sect of the Nazarenes.

Within Rabbinic literature we have record of over 350 disputes between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. Generally Shammai gave the stricter interpretation, while Hillels understandings were more relaxed. According to the Zohar (Ra'aya Meheimna 3:245a) The School of Shammai was based on GEVURAH ("severity") while the School of Hillel was based on CHESED ("grace"/"mercy").

A classic example of the conflict can be seen in one of the first passages of the Mishna, which records a conflict between the two houses over how to recite the Shema:

The House of Shammai says: In the evening one should recline in order to recite the shema, and in the morning they should stand. As it is written “when you lie down and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7)
But the House of Hillel says: Everyone may recite the Shema in his own way, as it is written: “And you shall go by the way” (Deuteronomy 7:7)
(m.Berachot 1:3)

Note that the House of Shammai were concerned primarily with the outward expression, with whether one was standing or reclining, while the House of Hillel were less concerned with such outward expression and much more concerned with the way in which one recited the Shema, that they made it their own way, that they meant it and walked in it. Note the difference in emphasis of the two houses.

Hillel was more concerned with the inner man, while Shammai was more concerned with the outer man. Hillel was concerned with the Spirit of the Law, while Shammai was more concerned with the Letter of the Law.

This overriding concept of sincerity is also found in the Mishna in tractate Menachot:

“…all are the same, the one who offers much and the one who offers little, on condition that a man will direct his intention to Heaven.”
(m.Menachot 13:11)

You can imagine that a movement founded on sincerity of heart, would have no tolerance for hypocrisy. The Talmud lists Hypocrites as one of four classes who will not receive the presence of the Shekhinah:

R. Hisda also said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Four classes will not recieve presence of the Shechinah, — the class of scoffers, the class of liars, the class of hypocrites, and the class of slanderers. `The class of scoffers' — as it is written, He withdrew His hand from the scoffers.(Hosea 7:5) `The class of liars' — as it is written, He that telleth lies, shall not tarry in my sight.(Ps. 101:7) `The class of hypocrites' — as it is written, For a hypocrite shall not come before him.(Job 13:15) `The class of slanderers — as it is written, For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee,'(Ps. 5:5) [which means] Thou art righteous, and hence there will not be evil in thy abode.
(b.San. 103a)

The Talmud however does recognize a problem with hypocrisy among the ranks of the Pharisees:

King Jannai said to his wife', `Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees but the hypocrites who are the Pharisees; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri but they expect a reward like Phineas.'
(b.Sotah 22b)

It is this problem that Yeshua addresses when he criticizes hypocrisy among the Pharisees. Sincerity of heart is supposed to be the defining characteristic of the foundations of Pharisaic Judaism, Pharisaic Judaism stripped of its core principle became hollow. I believe this is what Yeshua meant when he said:

"You are the salt of the earth, and if the salt has lost its savor, how will it be salted? It is afterwards good for nothing, but to be cast aside, and trampled by men."
(Matthew 5:13)

Note in Matthew Yeshua says:

"…they [hypocrites] delight to stand in the assemblies and at the corners of the streets to pray, that men may see them."
(Matthew 6:5)

Some wrongly imagine that this is a blanket attack on a Pharisaic practice. In reality a similar condemnation appears in the Talmud “‘One who says the Tefillah so that it can be heard is of the small of faith’.” (b.Ber 24b)

Yeshua continues his attack on hypocrites saying:

"And when you pray, multiply not your words like the Goyim do…"
(Matthew 6:7-8)

Like verse 5 many mistakenly take this verse as a reference to Jewish liturgy. In fact the Pharisaic Mishna itself contains a similar instruction for behavior when praying:

Rabbi Simeon says: "Be meticulous in the recitation of the shema and the Prayer. And when you pray, don’t treat your praying as a matter of routine. But let it be a [plea for] mercy and supplication before the Omnipresent, blessed be He…"
(m.Avot 2:13)

Yeshua continues his criticism of “hypocrites” saying:

"…they begrime and disfigure their faces that they may appear in the sight of men to fast… when you fast anoint your head and wash your face…"
(Matthew 6:16-18)

Here Yeshua is not condemning a Pharisaic practice but an Essene practice as Josephus writes of the first century Essenes:

They think oil is defilement; and if one of them is anointed without his own approbation, it is wiped off his body; for they think to be sweaty is a good thing…
(Josephus; Wars; 2:8:3)

Yeshua continues his criticism of hypocrites saying:

"lay up for yourselves stores in heaven, where caterpillar and moth waste not, and where thieves do not steal, for just where your store is, there your heart will be also."
(Matthew 6:19-21)

A similar teaching appears in the Talmud with very similar wording:

Our Rabbis taught: It is related of King Monobaz that he dissipated all his own hoards and the hoards of his fathers in years of scarcity. His brothers and his father's household came in a deputation to him and said to him, ‘Your father saved money and added to the treasures of his fathers, and you are squandering them.’ He replied: ‘My fathers stored up below and I am storing above, as it says, Truth springeth out of the earth and righteousness looketh down from heaven. My fathers stored in a place which can be tampered with, but I have stored in a place which cannot be tampered with, as it says, Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of his throne. My fathers stored something which produces no fruits, but I have stored something which does produce fruits, as it is written, Say ye of the righteous [zaddik] that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat of the fruit of their doings. My fathers gathered treasures of money, but I have gathered treasures of souls, as it is written, The fruit of the righteous [zaddik] is a tree of life, and he that is wise winneth souls. My fathers gathered for others and I have gathered for myself, as it says, And for thee it shall be righteousness [zedakah]. My fathers gathered for this world, but I have gathered for the future world, as it says, Thy righteousness [zedakah] shall go before thee, and the glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward.’
(b.Baba Batra 11a)

When Yeshua criticized Pharisees for hypocrisy he was challenging Pharisees to return to the Chassidic roots of Pharisaic Judaism. He was encouraging Pharisees to return to their foundational teachings, the Tanak and the teachings of Simon the Righteous and Atigones of Soko.

Yeshua was teaching CHESED, he was teaching Chassidism and he was teaching the values of Antigones of Soko. He was teaching us that we should not keep Torah as one wishing to earn something, but as one who has a sincere heart and inner desire to serve YHWH out of sincere love and respect for our Father.

In fact the ironic thing is that by this measure it is Christedom which is hypocritical. Talk to a Christian about Torah Observance and invariably they will respond that they do not have to keep Torah to be saved, and therefore they do not need to keep Torah. They are as ones only concerned with doing what they get paid for, and not as one serving YHWH simply out of love and respect for Him.

When Yeshua was criticizing hypocrisy among Pharisees, he was calling for a return to authentic Pharisaic Judaism, which is why Paul was able to say confidently “I am a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6)

There is an interesting parallel in the teachings of a later movement that also took on the name Chassidic and whose founder the Baal Shem Tov (c. 1750) taught that Judaism must be centered not simply around doing the Torah, but around feeling the Torah.