Disciple in the O.T.
The term disciple does not exist in the O.T. Only in one occasion is there a connection in the O.T. with the disciple of the later usage. It is found in 1 Chronicles 25:8. Here the Hebrew word is “Scholar” used along with a teacher. In later Jewish tradition “scholar” was used for “disciple.”
This is no accident, for the master/disciple relation in the O.T. did not exist. It was not to the master that the student (learner) was drawn, but to the Word of God itself. Nor did the teacher desire disciples of himself. The O.T. Principle of Tradition did not exist in the form of succession in which the disciple would attain to some office of teacher/master with his own cause. The teachings were not built upon and passed on, but each student and each teacher approached the Word directly without influence from a system handed down tradition. The Prophets did not mimic each other or confine their revelation message based on what others accomplished. Their messages were based on the direct Word of God, revelation, and not on enhancements of the predecessors. The O.T. prophets had no disciples. Men like Elijah, Elisha, and Jeremiah had servants who to some extent could be deemed as assistants.
As a demonstration of the lack of tradition we look at the role of Moses. Nowhere in the O.T. is Moses venerated as hero, redeemer, or as the founder of a religion. What was accomplished (the exodus and the giving of the “Mosaic” law, covenant) through him by God is what counts. The Prophets look back to the time of Moses, not to Moses himself.
The Principle of Tradition is foreign to the O.T. There is no formal relation to the men such as Moses and the individual Prophets as masters.
The reason as to why God did not choose to establish the Master-Disciple relation and the Principle of Tradition is marvelous and wonderful. The O.T. is a book of revelation. It is God’s testimony and not that of men. What the Prophet spoke was not words of man, but of God and directly from God. God called, God commissioned, and God revealed His word to His Prophets. They were stewards who passed on what they had received from God and not man. If the message they had called for decision and commitment, it was to God and not to the Prophet. The Prophet’s own personality and personal word were not cast in with God’s word. There is no religious duty given in the O.T. to venerate men (this would lead to the Traditional system). Because God is continuous and dynamic in His dealings with men there is no Principle of Tradition with God ever.
If a sense of discipleship existed at all in the O.T. it was that of persons with an attachment, commitment, and loyalty to Jehovah exclusively.
The Rabbinic Usage of Disciple.
The “Cause” Disciple.
The usage of disciple in the rabbinical writings is exclusively for the one who gives himself (as a learner) to Scripture and to the religious tradition of Judaism.
The Rabbi in later Judaism is the religious authority to those who are bound by tradition. Only the Rabbi, based upon his authority and “expertise” in the Law, can give the disciple a certainty of what is right.
The word disciple only applies to men. However, women did eventually come to enjoy the same status as men in the work of teaching and learning of the Torah, but still they could not be regarded as disciples. With the status of being a disciple comes a great honor as he shares in the glory of the Torah in his diligent study. The disciple is a pupil and being such must have a teacher. He cannot be considered a disciple if he studies on his own apart from the fellowship associated with a teacher and in subjection to his authority.
The predominant position of the rabbi in the work of teaching means that schools come into existence. The circle of students around a teacher becomes a fellowship under his influence, and this is controlled both outwardly and inwardly by his message and conduct. The two great schools of Hillel and Shammai are well known. As members of a particular “school” the disciple eventually becomes a representative of the established traditions of that school. He also in his turn as an eventual teacher will propagate the teachings and may add some of his own (material) to the traditions. This makes him a bearer and champion of tradition. Very often famous Rabbis are quoted as to what is being advocated. This is done extensively in the Mishnah. The great teachers are regarded with high respect.
This Principle of Tradition has been shown to be alien in the O.T. The Rabbinic position is that the Torah (the revelation of God’s will) is reverenced as Divine. However, this view is affected by the emphasis placed on those who teach it and their views are extolled with the same supremacy. Thus, in the O.T. we do not find the Principle of Tradition such as is found in Rabbinism. There is an unbroken chain of Rabbinic tradition only back to the Maccabean period. Another feature, which attracts attention, is their lionizing of Moses, which distinguishes Judaism from the O.T.
Linguistically the use of Hebrew “disciple” (student, learner, scholar) corresponds closely to the use of Greek “disciple” to denote only intellectual fellowship and not that of personal fellowship. The disciple was not required to love his master or fellow disciples; actually he didn’t even need to have a friendship with them.
Rabbis did not make the initial selection of their disciples. They come together because of the common cause for which they are striving. The nature of the things being learned/taught determines the desire to have disciples, not for the sake of the pupils. Though the disciple is closely bound with and to his master he still has his independence and a certain personal dignity. He is not regarded as a servant.
The Herodians of the N.T. is the classic example of disciples of a cause. There was no venerated leader. Their cause was for the good of Israel by compromise.
The Disciple of a Person is quite different from that of being a Disciple of a Cause. The relation between the disciple and master now takes on another new character.
