Magisterium under the Old Law

[Latinitas]

Hi CAF community,

Here’s a question I’ve been thinking about lately, and I can’t really come to a satisfactory answer.

We all know that Jesus Christ established the Church with the authority to teach the true faith to all nations. This teaching authority rests with the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. If the Pope solemnly and definitively declares a doctrine to be revealed by God, we know that God protects Him from erring in this regard. The same is true of an ecumenical council. In other words, the deposit of faith is infallibly guarded by the authentic pastors of the Church.

Now, was there any comparable authority under the Old Law? If so, who held it? In one way, I’m tempted to say no, there was no authority of this kind, since it is the Holy Spirit that will lead the apostles (and thus their successors) “into all truth” (Jn. 16:13), and the Holy Spirit would not come to Pentecost.

On, the other hand, since there was supernatural revelation given to Moses and the prophets, it seems dubious to suggest that God left no authority to infallibly interpret it. We know that there were doctrinal and moral disputes before the coming of our Lord, so it seems that there should have been some authority to decide such questions.

Now, I’ve thought, perhaps such authority was not given in continuity, but was held by the Prophets, since, of course, Prophets could be tested (cf. Deut. 18:22). But, on the other hand, the prophets received new revelation as well, and so if that revelation was disputed, it would have to be interpreted by later prophets, which seems to demand a near constant stream of prophets, whereas we know Israel went for some time without them. Not to mention, we don’t know that every Prophet worked miracles. Some like Haggai, Malachi, Ezra etc. don’t seem to work any miracles (at least none that I can think of in Scripture).

Now perhaps we say it was just the consensus of the Chosen People. But of course, we know that there were vigorous debates between, e.g. the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Hence this solution too seems unsatisfactory.

Also, I may add that as a Catholic it seems repugnant that God would reveal important truth, and then leave the nation on its own to intepret it. That seems too Protestant, if I may say.

As far as I can see, there’s no definitive answer of the Church on this, but does anyone have any thoughts, or know of any books that deal with this question?

Thanks,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[patrick457]

I’d answer later when I have more time, but I’d approach the question from another angle. I’d just point out the following:

• Traditionally, the priesthood were regarded as the custodians and interpreters of the Law. However, by the time of Jesus lay teachers and legal experts (Pharisees) were also regarded as authoritative. Josephus in fact goes so far as to claim that the common people regarded the Pharisees as the most accurate interpreters of the Torah and that even Sadducean priests (there were priests who were Pharisees, but others were Sadducees while most were probably unaffiliated to any party) followed Pharisaic rulings in public due to this public perception.
• Judaism was diverse during the Second Temple period, to the point that a few scholars would claim that there were in fact ‘Judaisms’.

 

[ahs]

Yes, there was some authority which was a shadow of the authority to come. As Paul tells us, the old law was exactly that (Hb 10:1; cff. Hb 8:5; Col 2:17).

Jesus more than hints at this in Mt 23:1-3: “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…”

 

[Latinitas]

Yes, there was some authority which was a shadow of the authority to come. As Paul tells us, the old law was exactly that (Hb 10:1; cff. Hb 8:5; Col 2:17).

Jesus more than hints at this in Mt 23:1-3: “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…”

I fogot about this verse. That should be have been a no-brainer. Having said that, the question must be asked, could the scribes/Pharisees infallibly decide on questions of faith? I mean law and practice is one thing, truths of faith another. Of course, they are related, and it seems that they should also have been obeyed. But this raises the question, how were they constituted. Moses certainly did not grant the lay teachers to be infallible. The question is a little more nunanced, in that I’m asking who was the Divinely appointed guardian of the true faith?

Thanks, though for your (name removed by moderator)ut,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Latinitas]

I’d answer later when I have more time, but I’d approach the question from another angle. I’d just point out the following:

• Traditionally, the priesthood were regarded as the custodians and interpreters of the Law. However, by the time of Jesus lay teachers and legal experts (Pharisees) were also regarded as authoritative. Josephus in fact goes so far as to claim that the common people regarded the Pharisees as the most accurate interpreters of the Torah and that even Sadducean priests (there were priests who were Pharisees, but others were Sadducees while most were probably unaffiliated to any party) followed Pharisaic rulings in public due to this public perception.
• Judaism was diverse during the Second Temple period, to the point that a few scholars would claim that there were in fact ‘Judaisms’.

This true, and I knew this, the question is, if I were an average layman before the coming of the Lord, how would I know which of the competing claims is true? Who was the actually divinely appointed guardian of the deposit of faith?

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[patrick457]

This true, and I knew this, the question is, if I were an average layman before the coming of the Lord, how would I know which of the competing claims is true? Who was the actually divinely appointed guardian of the deposit of faith?

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

A few days ago I was about to post a rather lengthy reply to you, but I accidentally closed the tab. Oh well.

IMHO here’s the thing. In those days, the question was not so much about doctrine - what things to believe in. All Israelites/Jews worshiped Yhwh as their national God; I don’t think there was no one who did not. Sure, in the OT period there were people who worshiped other gods alongside Yhwh or syncretically identified Him with some other foreign god, but it was a given that you at least worshiped the god of your nation. By the Second Temple period, monotheism had become universal among the Jews.

“Could the scribes/Pharisees infallibly decide on questions of faith? I mean law and practice is one thing, truths of faith another.”

You might say the truths of faith wasn’t really in dispute at that point because the Jews were a single nation. Yhwh is the national God, He is the one God, Israel is His chosen people with whom He made a covenant. All Jews accepted that and took that for granted, because that’s the cornerstone of Jewish culture.

(And I’d say this is actually key: it’s better to think of Yahwism/Judaism not so much as a ‘religion’ in our modern, Western sense - importantly not in the Christian sense - but more like the ‘way of life’ or the ‘culture’ or the ‘customs’ of the Jewish people. As Josephus says: “Piety governs all our actions and occupations and speech; none of these things did our lawgiver leave unexamined or indeterminate.”)

What people actually disagreed with back then is how to go on living one’s everyday life as a Jew. In other words, praxis rather than doctrine. Yes, the Torah governs aspects of everyday life, and serious Jews would want to obey the Torah as best as possible, but it is not very clear on a number of issues (what exactly constitutes “work”? Did someone who buy land that was outside of the traditional area of Jewish settlement as described in the Hebrew Bible owe dues to the Temple? Is the eruv a valid loophole for the ban against carrying things out of the house on a Sabbath?); it needs interpreting and some adapting for ‘new’ situations.

The difference between the old Law and the new one is that under the old Law, you might say the ‘truths of faith’ were not really in question, first and foremost because only one ethnic group is involved. There was no Jew who seriously argued that Yhwh is not God or that the Torah was not of divine origin. The truths of faith is key to Jewish identity and consciousness. It was only in questions of practice that different Jews had different, varying opinions.

However, under the New Covenant, you have people from different languages and cultures, who do not necessarily share the tenets Jews as a people can take for granted. Of course, now you’ve gotta have a central authority and the need to spell clearly the truths of faith.

 

[Hatikvah]

Binding and loosing, which is the authority of the Church, existed at least. This is a Jewish encyclopedia’s article on binding and loosing:

[Binding and loosing is a] Rabbinical term for “forbidding and permitting.” The expression “asar” (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use…

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus, “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person.

So the authority of binding and loosing that the holy apostles had did exist before they were appointed, but it was invested in a different authority (or so that authority claimed).

 

[Latinitas]

A few days ago I was about to post a rather lengthy reply to you, but I accidentally closed the tab. Oh well.

IMHO here’s the thing. In those days, the question was not so much about doctrine - what things to believe in. All Israelites/Jews worshiped Yhwh as their national God; I don’t think there was no one who did not. Sure, in the OT period there were people who worshiped other gods alongside Yhwh or syncretically identified Him with some other foreign god, but it was a given that you at least worshiped the god of your nation. By the Second Temple period, monotheism had become universal among the Jews.

What do you mean it wasn’t about doctrine? I concede that the Jews worshipped (or were supposed to worship) only the one true God. I would be a little careful about saying that God was the national God, since even in the time of David, God was understood as being the universal and true God, as evidenced by a number of the psalms. Modern liberal theology likes to think of the Jews has first having Yahweh as the national god, then becoming ethically monotheistic, then finally fully monotheistic. The Church rejects this. Even, if, at the time of the Second Temple, monotheism was universal among the Jews, there were still many doctrinal questions at the time, e.g. the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels etc.

I’m wondering about those questions.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[patrick457]

Even, if, at the time of the Second Temple, monotheism was universal among the Jews, there were still many doctrinal questions at the time, e.g. the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels etc.

I’m wondering about those questions.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

I don’t think those were really in serious question. Most Jews accepted the existence of angels and the resurrection of the dead at that point. The only ones we know of that did not seem to accept them were the Sadducees, and as Josephus shows they were a very small, rather untrusted minority within Judaism/the Jewish people - even in Palestinian Jewry. (“The Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them…”) In fact, I believe that the fact that it had to be mentioned that they did not believe in resurrection or in a developed angelology speaks to me that they were against the general consensus in this regard. (Or, we might say in Catholic terms, the sensus fidelium?)

In the past, many scholars thought that the supposed Sadducean rejection of both might have been due to Greco-Roman influence, although it’s also likely that they rejected them out of a sort of fundamentalist, kind of sola Scriptura-esque mindset on their part: much of the Hebrew Bible (especially the older books) never mention anything about resurrection, and is very vague on the question of angels. (Some later writers claimed that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah as authoritative, but it’s also possible that unlike other Jews, they merely did not permit deductions from the other writings such as the prophets as answers to questions about legal rulings or some such.)

It is telling IMHO that it is only with the Sadducees that Jesus got embroiled in a debate centered on an explicitly doctrinal question (the resurrection of the dead). Most of His debates with the Pharisees center more on legal and ethical issues (e.g., Is it legal to do this or that on a Sabbath? Is it okay to associate with ‘sinners’ or not? Can one in good conscience pay taxes to Rome?). The only thing Jesus really condemned about the Pharisees was the behavior of some of them, for failing to practice what they preached. He never mentioned anything against any doctrine that they might have held - in fact, as you know, before He condemns them, He first acknowledges their authority: ““The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.” It was the Sadducees that got a rather stern “You are wrong” from Jesus.