The Great Controversy --
Sadducees Vs. Pharisees!
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 -- or the
Feast of Shavuot,
or Weeks -- be observed? Sunday, as the Sadducees taught?
Or Sivan 6, fifty days after Passover, as the
Pharisees taught?
Here is historical and Biblical evidence that
must be considered
in answering this crucial question.
William F.
Dankenbring
Could the Greek concept of world civilization, Hellenism,
be combined or married to the Jewish notion of a universal God? After Alexander the Great conquered the world
and spread the teachings of Hellenism throughout the
Writes Paul Johnson, “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 monotheists but
polytheists, and in
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).
This
movement into 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
a gymnasium at the foot of the
that the
and neglecting the sacrifices,
they would hurry to take part in the unlawful exercises [in the nude]
on the training-ground’”
(p.102).
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. The
Says 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” (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 them-
selves,’ 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).
At
the end of the civil war, Alexander returned to Jerusalem, victorious over his
enemies, and as he feasted with his concubines, he ordered 800 of his enemies
to be crucified, and while they yet lived, had their children’s and wives’
throats cut before their very eyes. He
himself died in 76 B.C. after a bout of hard drinking leading to what Josephus
called a “distemper.”
Alexander’s widow, Salome, saw that his policies were
leading to disaster, and sought to change matters and restore national
unity. She brought the Pharisees into
the Sanhedrin and made their Oral Law acceptable in royal justice. She died in 67 B.C.
Her 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 Rome in
63 B.C. and Judaea became a Roman client-state.
His son became Herod the Great, who ruled from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C., when
he died. Herod was a paranoid
megalomaniac:
“His
first act on assuming power in Jerusalem in 37 B.C. was to execute forty-six
leading
members of the Sanhedrin who, in
his own case and others, had sought to uphold the Mosaic
law in secular matters. Henceforth, it became a religious court
only. He did not even attempt
to become high priest himself
and divorced it from the crown by turning it into an official post,
appointing and dismissing
high-priests as acts of his prerogative, and picking them mainly from
the Egyptian and Babylonian
diaspora” (p.111).
During
his reign, Herod was exceptionally generous to the Temple, which he began
rebuilding and restoring. He built huge
supporting walls, filled in the gaps with rubble, doubled the area of the
Temple Mount, extending it toward the south, and erected porticos around the
vast forecourt. The platform was 35
acres in size and a mile in circumference, and more than twice the height of
the present Temple Mount as seen today.
Some of the building blocks were 110 feet long, 25 feet high, 15 feet wide. On top of the platform were the cloisters
with hundreds of Corinthian pillars, 27 feet high and so huge that three men
extending their arms could hardly reach around them.
Nevertheless, Herod down-graded the importance of the
high priest, who was usually a hated Sadducee.
In so doing, “Herod automatically raised in importance his deputy, the segan,
a Pharisee, who got control over all the regular Temple functions and
ensured that even the Sadducee high-priests performed the liturgy in a
Pharisaical manner. Since Herod was on
reasonable terms with the Pharisees, he avoided conflict between the Temple and
his government, as a rule” (p.118).
Who Controlled the Temple
Functions?
Let’s notice 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
Temple functions during the time of king Herod, from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C.!
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 Judaea during the time of Christ, and says that they controlled
the worship services. He tells us that Pentecost, or the Feast of
Weeks, therefore, was celebrated on Sivan 6, 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 it was the Passover Annual Sabbath.
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. But even if this was 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!
Alfred Edersheim, in
his book The Temple:
“The expression ‘the morrow
after the Sabbath,’ has sometimes been misunderstood 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).
Nevertheless,
some 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 seen, this is pure hogwash. There is no evidence that the Sadducees ever
influenced more than a few of the rich, and that the Pharisees controlled the
Temple services, during the time of Herod and till the destruction of the
Temple in 70 A.D.
As additional New Testament proof that the Pharisees were
correct, and the Sadducees were “out in left field” by themselves, and
repudiated by Christ and the apostle Paul, take note of the following facts:
1. 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.” These Sadducees
were so far off base that they even denied the resurrection! (Matt.22:23).
2. 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 sins and hypocrisy and attitudes.
3. 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 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). He 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).
4. 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! He 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, furthermore, they never criticized either Him 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 (Matt.23:1-2 again)!
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., derived from a paper
delivered by Rabbi M. Schwab in Paris in 1897.
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 Sad-
ducees as soldiers and diplomatists;
the Pharisees as teachers of the Law, judges, and function-
aries 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 Temple, to the courts 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 Judah ben Tabbai,
then in Egypt. The latter, on his return home, undertook,
with the help of Simon, the REORG-
ANIZATION 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).
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, 18, 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 tamper-
ing 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 independent 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 INDIFFER-
ENT 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 renown 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