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 resistance thereto. On the contrary, so long as they held

the place of authority they were to be regarded - in the language of the Mishnah55 - 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.56 In this respect of twofold charge is laid against them: of wa nt of spiritual

earnestness and love,57 and of more externalism, vanity, and self -seeking.58 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.59

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: δεσµευω) 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,60 and this by a

necessity of the system, since they were professedly the authoritative exposition and

the supplement of the written Law.61 And although it was a general rule, that no

ordinance should be enjoined heavier that the congregation could bear,62 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.'63 Again, it was another principle, that were an 'aggravation' or increase of the

burden had once been introduced, i t must continue to be observed.64 Thus the burdens

became intolerable. And the blame rested equally on both the great Rabbinic Schools.

For, although the School of Hillel was supposed in general to make the yoke lighter, and

that of Shammai heavier, yet no t only did they agree on many points,65 but the School of

Hillel was not unfrequently even more strict than that of his rival.66 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.67