To realise the state of religious society at the time of our Lord, the fact that the

Pharisees were a regular "order," and that there were many such "fraternities," in great

measure the outcome of the original Pharisees, must always be kept in view. For the New

Testament simply transports us among contemporary scenes and actors, taking the then

existent state of things, so to speak, for granted. But the fact referred to explains many

seemingly strange circumstances, and casts fresh light upon all. Thus, if, to choose an

illustration, we should wonder how so early as the morning after the long discussion in

the Sanhedrim, which must have occupied a considerable part of the day, "more than

forty men" should have been found "banded together" under an anathema, neither to

eat nor to drink "till they had killed Paul" (Acts 23:12,21); and, still more, how such "a

conspiracy," or rather "conjuration," which, in the nature of it, would be kept a profound

secret, should have become known to "Paul's sister's son" (v 16), the circumstances of

the case furnish a sufficient explanation. The Pharisees were avowedly a "Chabura"--

that is, a fraternity or "guild"--and they, or some of their kindred fraternities, would

furnish the ready material for such a "band," to whom this additional "vow" would be

nothing new nor strange, and, murderous though it sounded, only seem a farther

carrying out of the principles of their "order." Again, since the wife and all the children

of a "chaber," or member, were ipso facto members of the "Chabura," and Paul's father

had been a "Pharisee" (v 6), Paul's sister also would by virtue of her birth belong to the

fraternity, even irrespective of the probability that, in accordance with the principles of

the party, she would have married into a Pharisaical family. Nor need we wonder that the

rage of the whole "order" against Paul should have gone to an extreme, for which

ordinary Jewish zeal would scarcely account. The day before, the excitement of

discussion in the Sanhedrim had engrossed their attention, and in a measure diverted it

from Paul. The apologetic remark then made (v 9), "If a spirit or an angel hath spoken to

him, let us not fight against God," coming immediately after the notice (v 8) that the

Sadducees said, there was "neither angel nor spirit," may indicate, that the Pharisees

were quite as anxious for dogmatic victory over their opponents as to throw the shield

of the "fraternity" over one of its professed members. But with the night other and

cooler thoughts came. It might be well enough to defend one of their order against the

Sadducees, but it was intolerable to have such a member in the fraternity. A grosser

outrage on every principle and vow--nay, on the very reason of being of the whole

"Chabura"--could scarcely be conceived than the conduct of St. Paul and the views

which he avowed. Even regarding him as a simple Israelite, the multitude which

thro nged the Temple had, on the day before, been only restrained by the heathens from

executing the summary vengeance of "death by the rebel's beating." How much truer

was it as the deliberate conviction of the party, and not merely the cry of an excited

populace, "Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live!"

But while we thus understand the conduct of the Pharisees, we need be under no

apprehension as to the consequences to those "more than forty men" of their rash vow.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Avod. Sar. 40 a) here furnishes the following curious illustration,

which almost reads like a commentary: "If a man makes a vow to abstain from food, Woe

to him if he eateth, and, Woe to him if he does not eat! If he eateth, he sinneth against

his vow; if he does not eat, he sins against his life. What then must he do? Let him go

before 'the sages,' and they will absolve him from his vow." In connection with the

whole of this matter it is, to say the least, a very curious coincidence that, at the very

time when the party so acted against St. Paul, or immediately afterwards, three new

enactments should have been passed by Simeon, the son of Gamaliel (Paul's teacher),

which would exactly meet the case of St. Paul. The first of these ordained, that in future

the children of a "Chaber" should not be necessarily such, but themselves require

special and individual reception into the "order"; the second, that the previous conduct

of the candidate should be considered before admitting him into the fraternity; while the