Galatians #12

GALATIANS # 12
HISTORY
An overview (11)
9/27/10

John 19:29-30 ( KJV )
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

What is finished?

His life?

Is it a mournful statement of despair that his life is ending?

Or, is this a rueful statement, regretting that he failed to accomplish his goals?

NO! It is a statement of fact, of triumph!

A declaration that the promise first stated in Genesis 3: 15; expanded upon in Gen. 15: 18; 26 3-5, etc. and that the mosaic Law is fulfilled: God’s revelation of Himself is complete!“History of salvation” is now complete; the New Testament then goes on to record what Christ has done and explains what has transpired:

John 5:39 ( KJV )
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

And:

Matthew 5:17-20 ( KJV )

What did Jesus mean by fulfill/break one of these least commandments?

The writers of “Hard sayings of the Bible” explain this astonishingly paradoxical scripture (which is so integral to Paul’s letter to the Galatians) so well that I have copied their entire comment:

Title : Hard Sayings of the Bible
Edition : Fourth
Copyright : One-volume edition © 1996 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch. This one-volume edition comprises five separate volumes from the Hard Sayings series, all reedited for this volume, along with new material created exclusively for this edition: The Hard Sayings of Jesus, © 1983 by F. F. Bruce, and reprinted here with permission of Edward England Books and Hodder & Stoughton, Ltd., England; Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, © 1988 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.; Hard Sayings of Paul, © 1989 by Manfred T. Brauch; More Hard Sayings of the New Testament, © 1991 by Peter H. Davids; More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, © 1992 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 2003, QuickVerse, a division of Findex.com, Inc.

Matthew 5:17 ( KJV )
Eternal Law?

(Matthew 5:17-20) Here is surely an uncompromising affirmation of the eternal validity of the law of Moses. Not the smallest part of it is to be abrogated—“not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen.” The “jot” (kjv) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; the “iota” (rsv) is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet. The “tittle” (kjv) or “dot” (rsv) was a very small mark attached to a letter, perhaps to distinguish it from another which resembled it, as in our alphabet G is distinguished from C, or Q from O. What is hard about this uncompromising affirmation? For some readers the hardness lies in the difficulty of recognizing in this speaker the Christ who, according to Paul, “is the end of the law, so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Rom 10:4). Others find no difficulty in supposing that Paul’s conception of Jesus differed radically from the presentation of his character and teaching in the Gospels. The view has indeed been expressed (not so frequently nowadays as at an earlier time) that Paul is pointed to as the man who “breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same.” This implies that the saying does not come from Jesus, but from a group in the early church that did not like Paul. Even where the reference to Paul would not be entertained, it is held by many that these words come from a group in the early church that wished to maintain the full authority of the law for Christians. The saying, according to Rudolf Bultmann, “records the attitude of the conservative Palestinian community in contrast to that of the Hellenists.” There were probably several selections of sayings of Jesus in circulation before the Gospels proper began to be produced, and one of these, which was preferred by stricter Jewish Christians, seems to have been used, along with others, by Matthew. Such a selection of sayings could be drawn up in accordance with the outlook of those who compiled it; sayings which in themselves appeared to support that outlook would be included, while others which appeared to go contrary to it would be omitted. The teaching of Jesus was much more diversified than any partisan selection of his sayings would indicate. By not confining himself to any one selection Matthew gives an all-around picture of the teaching. A saying such as has just been quoted had three successive life-settings: its life-setting in the historical ministry of Jesus, its setting in a restricted selection of Jesus’ sayings, and its setting in the Gospel of Matthew. It is only its setting in the Gospel of Matthew that is immediately accessible to us. (In addition to these three settings, of course, it may have acquired subsequent life-settings in the history of the church and in the course of interpretation. The statement “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” has been used, for example, to present the gospel as the crown of fulfillment of Hinduism, but such a use of it is irrelevant to the intention of Jesus or of the Evangelist.) To the remark that it is only in its setting in the Gospel of Matthew that the saying is immediately accessible to us there is a partial exception. Part of it occurs in a different context in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 16:16-17 Jesus says, “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” The second of these two sentences is parallel to (but not identical with) Matthew 5:18. The selection of sayings which is supposed to have been drawn up in a more legally minded Christian circle, and which Matthew is widely considered to have used as one of his sources, is often labeled M (because it is represented in Matthew’s Gospel only). Another, more comprehensive, selection on which both Matthew and Luke are widely considered to have drawn is commonly labeled Q. It may be, then, that the form of the “jot and tittle” saying found in Matthew 5:18 is the M form, while that found in Luke 16:17 is the Q form. T. W. Manson was one scholar who believed that this was so, and he invited his readers to bear two possibilities in mind. The first possibility was that Luke’s form of the saying is closer to the original wording and that the form in Matthew “is a revision of it to bring it explicitly into line with Rabbinical doctrine.” The other possibility, which follows on from this one, was “that the saying in its original form asserts not the perpetuity of the Law but the unbending conservatism of the scribes,” that it is not intended to be “sound Rabbinical dogma but bitter irony.” Jesus, that is to say, addresses the scribes and says, “The world will come to an end before you give up the tiniest part of your traditional interpretation of the law.” It is plain that Jesus did not accept the rabbinical interpretation of the law. Indeed, he charged the scribes, the acknowledged students and teachers of the law, with “break[ing] the command of God for the sake of your tradition” (so the wording runs in Mt 15:3, in a passage based on Mk 7:9). He said that by their application of the law “they tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders” (Mt 23:4); by contrast, he issued the invitation “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for . . . my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt 11:29-30). But he did not relax the requirements of God’s law as such, nor did he recommend a lower standard of righteousness than the “Pharisees and the teachers of the law” required. On the contrary, he insisted that admittance to the kingdom of heaven called for righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees. This last statement, found in Matthew 5:20, serves as an introduction to the paragraphs which follow, in which Jesus’ account of what obedience to the law involves is given in a succession of hard sayings, at which we shall look one by one. But at the moment we may mention two principles by which he interpreted and applied the law. First, he maintained that the proper way to keep any commandment was to fulfill the purpose for which it was given. He did this with regard to the law of marriage; he did it also with regard to the sabbath law. On the sabbath day, said the fourth commandment, “you shall not do any work.” In the eyes of some custodians of the law, this called for a careful definition of what constituted “work,” so that people might know precisely what might or might not be done on that day. Circumstances could alter cases: an act of healing, for example, was permissible if it was a matter of life and death, but if the treatment could be put off to the following day without any danger or detriment to the patient, that would be better. It was precisely on this issue that Jesus collided repeatedly with the scribes and their associates. His criterion for the keeping of this law was to inquire for what purpose the sabbath was instituted. It was instituted, he held, to provide rest and relief for human beings: they were not made for the sake of the sabbath, but the sabbath was given for their sake. Therefore, any action which promoted their rest, relief and general well-being was permissible on the sabbath. It was not merely permissible on the sabbath: the sabbath was the most appropriate day for its performance, because its performance so signally promoted God’s purpose in instituting the sabbath. Jesus appears to have cured people by preference on the sabbath day, because such an action honored the day. He did not abrogate the fourth commandment; he interpreted it in a different way from the current interpretation. Did his principle of interpretation “surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law”? Perhaps it did. There are some people who find it easier to have a set of rules. When a practical problem arises, they can consult the rules and know what to do. But they have to decide which action best fulfills the purpose of the law. That involves thought, and thought of this kind, with the personal responsibility that accompanies it, is a difficult exercise for them. Second, Jesus maintained that obedience or disobedience to the law began inwardly, in the human heart. It was not sufficient to conform one’s outward actions and words to what the law required; the thought-life must be conformed to it first of all. One of the Old Testament psalmists voiced his feelings thus: “I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart” (Ps 40:8). This Psalm is not quoted by Jesus in the Gospels, but in another place in the New Testament its language is applied to him (Heb 10:7, 9). It does indeed express very well the attitude of Jesus himself and the attitude which he recommended to his hearers. Where the mind and will are set to do the will of God, the speaking and acting will not deviate from it. Besides, where this is so, there will be an emphasis on the inward spiritual aspects of ethics and religion, rather than on outward and material aspects. The idea that a religious obligation could be given precedence over one’s duty to one’s parents was one with which Jesus had no sympathy (see Mk 7:10-13). This idea was approved by some exponents of the law in his day, but in general Jewish teaching has agreed with him here. Again, Jesus set very little store by details of ritual purification or food regulations, because these had no ethical content. Mark goes so far as to say that by his pronouncements on these last matters he “declared all foods ‘clean’” (Mk 7:19). If Matthew does not reproduce these words of Mark, he does reproduce the pronouncements of Jesus which Mark so interprets (Mt 15:17-20). But did the ritual washings and food restrictions not belong to the jots and tittles of the law? Should they not be reckoned, at the lowest estimate, among “the least of these commandments”? Perhaps so, but in Jesus’ eyes “justice, mercy and faithfulness” were of much greater importance (Mt 23:23). And what about the sacrificial ceremonies? They were included in the law, to be sure, but Jesus’ attitude to such things is summed up in his quotation from a great Old Testament prophet: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hos 6:6). It is Matthew, and Matthew alone among the Evangelists, who records Jesus as quoting these words, and he records him as using them twice (Mt 9:13; 12:7). The law is fulfilled ethically rather than ceremonially. Jesus confirmed the insistence of the great prophets that punctiliousness in ceremonial observances is worse than useless where people neglect “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with . . . God” (Mic 6:8). It is human beings, and not inanimate things, that matter. The law for Jesus was the expression of God’s will. The will of God is eternal and unchangeable. Jesus did not come to modify the will of God; he fulfilled it. The standard of obedience to that will which he set, by his example and his teaching alike, is more exacting than the standard set by the written law. He insisted that the will of God should be done from the heart. But, in so insisting, he provided the means by which the doing of God’s will from the heart should not be an unattainable ideal. If Paul may be brought in to interpret the teaching of Jesus here, the apostle who maintained that men and women are justified before God through faith in Jesus and not through keeping the law also maintained that those who have faith in Jesus receive his Spirit so that “the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4). The gospel demands more than the law, but supplies the power to do it. Someone has put it in doggerel but telling lines: To run and work the law commands, Yet gives me neither feet nor hands; But better news the gospel brings: It bids me fly, and gives me wings. See also comment on Romans 10:4. (Kaiser, Bruce and Manfred)

Aha!

We see the beginning of the explanation of the “mystery” with the introduction of another “bigger than life” individual: Stephen...

Acts 6: 3 – 6

The scripture then records the astonishing things that God works through this man “full of faith and the Holy Ghost

Acts 7:42-60 ( KJV )
Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?
Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
But Solomon built him an house.
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Hath not my hand made all these things?
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Though only these few scriptures (Acts 6; 7; 8; 11 and 22) tell us the little we know of Stephen, this event is the hinge-point; a “line in the sand”; a declaration that the Temple has served its purpose, the Law has been fulfilled, as Paul states so clearly :

1 Corinthians 6:19 ( KJV )
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

2 Corinthians 6:16 ( KJV )
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Etc.


DISCUSSION
1. Explain what Jesus meant when He said “it is finished” (Jn. 19: 30)
2. How do you reconcile Jesus statement (Matthew 5:17-20) concerning the law with Paul’s doctrine of salvation by Grace 9 (Ephesians 2: 8; etc.)?

Galatians #11

GALATIANS # 11
HISTORY
An overview (10)
9/20/10

As we learned in lesson six: Thus the history of salvation (the acts of God) took place in the context of the history of revelation (the oracles of God). (Mc Grath). in this unfolding revelation of Himself, God chose the Jews as the people through whom He would further reveal Himself; their response was no better or worse than any other group of we humans would have been.

The bible is the written record of this and all other of His revelation: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 ( KJV ) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

God is so much more than we are, so “other” that it is impossible for us to know Him on our own; we can only know him to the extent that we comprehend his revelation of himself to us. However, without sincere love of God, even intense study will not acquaint one with Him: study without loving Him with all ones heart, mind, body, and soul, will only cause one to know about God – not know Him.

This is the pit the Jews fell into…the very trap which persists to this day - When so entrapped sinful man (all of us) commences to attempt to force the “square peg” of the knowledge of God, into the “round hole” of our desire to be our own god:
We look at the world through our heart. If our heart is longing for the things of this world, then we see the value of things from that perspective. (Colossians 3:1-2[notes1] ) If our desire is for the comfort of possessions and security of riches, then we interpret what we observe through that filter. That is the vision of fallen man because that is the heart of fallen man, self-reliance. (Wallace)

Considering the milieu in which the Jews found themselves, even though the chosen people of God, it was inevitable their belief would be eroded and contaminated by the onslaught of paganism in which they were immersed. The resistance of the Pharisees to this syncretism fueled their fanatically strict adherence to the letter, the minutia, of the law – while completely missing the meaning of the law, caused them to reject their Messiah:
Mark 7:6-9 ( KJV )
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Though the vast majority rejected Him, Jesus and all the first Christians were Jews. Christianity began as a splinter group of devout Temple worshiping, Hebraic Jews: Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi.

After the 400 year “silent period”, God’s revelation of Himself reaches its climax as it continues with the record of the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Messiah: the New Testament. The New Testament and the Old Testament form a homogeneous unit – not two separate theological treatises: John 5:38-39 ( KJV ) And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Though only the O. T. was written at this time, this statement includes the New Testament, which is the announcement of His arrival, a record of His teachings and an explanation of the “Good News”.

The protestant New Testament is made up of 27 books: the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles (letters), and Revelations. The Epistles are arranged by length in descending order, longest first, sorted by author. The book of Acts is the first book after the Gospels followed by the Epistles. It was written by Luke, the author of the gospel of Luke and is, to some extent, a continuation of his Gospel. The genre of Acts is unusual – it contains a lot of history, yet isn’t quite historical; has quite a lot of biographical material, yet isn’t really a biography; contains gospel material, but isn’t a gospel; contains a lot of drama and adventure but isn’t an adventure novel…

There are few Biblical scholars who disagree that Acts was written by Luke, a Greek; Luke’s Gospel and Acts are the only Biblical books written by a non-Jew. He brings himself into the story in Acts 16:10 ( KJV )... And after he had seen the vision, immediately we* endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
*( emphasis added)

Luke then accompanied Paul on his travels up to and including Paul’s final imprisonment in Rome, (Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy 4:11 ( KJV ) …Only Luke is with me..some scholars believe Paul was released at the end of Acts and then made a missionary trip not recorded in Acts, farther west from Rome, returned to Rome was then arrested again and was then executed.) recording the pertinent information concerning the time he spent with Paul. He then also (probably from visiting with Paul and interviewing other disciples) recorded what had went on in the early church and Paul’s prior activities. This record makes Acts a vital resource to any study of Paul’s letters.

There is no record of where Luke came from or any background information about him: name and geography indicates he was a Greek; the sophistication of his writing indicates he was well educated; he was a physician (Colossians 4:14 ( KJV )... Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you...) …but, for such a significant figure, we don’t know much about his personal life: was he married? Children? Where was he from? How did he come to be converted? From what was he converted? When and where did he die? Etc.

Acts was completed while Paul was in prison in Rome about 62 AD (remember, we agreed to go for early dates in this study), addressed to Theophilus: Acts 1:1 ( KJV ) The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach...

The cordial, familiar, salutation used here, is a very significant shift from the salutation in the Gospel:Luke 1:3 ( KJV ) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus...
Where Theophilus is addressed in the formal manner that would be used in addressing a court official; in Acts he is addressed in the manner of a friend – there is a possibility that by the time of Acts Theophilus has became a Christian. In any case, the formal address in the gospel provides a clue to a possible purpose of the letter.

The Roman court structure and proceedings were similar to ours in many ways; for one thing, they had a person who performed much like our prosecutor, but who was also public defender. Before appearing in court the defendant had the opportunity to make their defense in writing – much like a legal “brief” in our system. The appropriate honorific for this person was “most excellent” – this Theophilus could have been the official before whom Paul was to appear and Luke is presenting Paul’s defense. This would explain Luke’s conciliatory tone, his tendency to downplay tension and friction between Christians within the early church (no mention of the conflict between Paul and Peter in Antioch; yet a a detailed account of the Jerusalem council where an accord was reached; etc.) and Jews as much as possible…

In any case, Acts provides the only record of the early church, provides information about Paul not found in his own letters, and corroborates Paul’s letters.

The most significant apparent anomaly between Luke and Paul’s writings is their respective accounts of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem up to and including the trip to participate in the “Jerusalem council” we will delve into this further when we get to that part of Galatians…

DISCUSSION

1. What makes the Bible special?
2. Give one quotation reflecting Jesus attitude towards the Scriptures.
3. Why is it necessary for God to reveal Himself (Karl Barth, “otherness”, etc)?
4. What was the “pit” the Pharisees fell into?
5. What made this nearly inevitable?
6. How did Jesus describe their religiosity?
7. What is the relationship between the Old and New Testament?
8. How many books in the Old Testament (KJV)?
9. How many books in the New Testament?
10. What genre is the book of Acts?
11. What is significant about how Theophilius is address in the Gospel of Luke compared to Acts?
12. How does Acts relate to Galatians?

Galatians #10

GALATIANS # 10
HISTORY
An overview (9)
8/30/10

After the Seleucids took Judea away from the Ptolymies, things took a turn for the worse. The Romans were growing in power and were slowly moving eastward, displacing the Greeks as the Ptolymies power faded; they and the Seleucids, both had ambitions for control of Egypt, stalking them, intending to conquer and subjugate them. For The Seleucids to out maneuver the Romans and accomplish this they had to have the un-divided loyalty and help of Judea – the Jews; the ruler of the Seleucids at that time, Antiochus IV, took extreme measures:

“…Antiochus was determined to remove all traces of orthodox Jewish faith. Israel’s God was identified with Jupiter, and a bearded image of the pagan deity (perhaps in the likeness of Antiochus) was erected on the temple altar, where swine were offered in sacrifice. Jews were forbidden, under penalty of death, to practice circumcision, Sabbath observance, or the celebrations of the Feasts of the Jewish calendar. Copies of the scriptures were ordered destroyed. The laws were enforced with the utmost cruelty. An aged scribe named Eleazer was flogged to death because he would not eat swine’s flesh.” (Various)

The various factions of the Jews had been fighting among themselves for control but triggered by the brutal rule of this regime, the Jews unified under the leadership of Judas “the Maccabee”. He and his followers known as the “Maccabbees”, began a revolt against the Seleucids. After several years of struggle a peace of sorts was established with the Seleucids recognizing the Government of John Hyrcanus, Judah became a nation again, ruled by the Hasmonean dynasty- for a time. (Apparently Hyrcanus had an ancestor named Hashman and from that it is thought that the term “Hasmonean” was derived) (Various)) in 164 B.C. the Jews rededicated the temple; this event is celebrated as Hanukkah.

The rivalry between the Sadducee and Pharisee factions resumed upon independence from the Seleucids: first the Sadducees had the favor and support of the rulers and then the Pharisees – back and forth-both were troubled by the fact that neither the Hasmonean monarchy nor its puppet priesthood were descendants of the appropriate families and had come into power by secular means, however, they both were willing to set their scruples aside and jockeyed, and maneuvered, and intrigued, to get and hang onto the power and prestige that went with being in the “inner circle”. This rivalry led to violence and ultimately the threat of all out civil war.

Meanwhile, the Romans were becoming more and more powerful, expanding their empire eastward (by this time they had taken Egypt); as the Seleucids withdrew-and the un-rest in Judea increased, the Romans offered to help the Hasmoneans restore order and retain power. As the Jews became more vulnerable and more of a nuisance, the Romans finally seized control, first as a protector of the peace, then, in 63 B. C, as rulers. The Romans ruled Judah from then until the Muslims pushed them out several hundred years later.With the Romans assuming power, and establishing their “pax Romana” – “the peace of Rome” throughout their empire, things stabilized: History had come to the “fullness of time”:

Galatians 4:1-5 ( KJV )
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

And:

Ephesians 1:3-12 ( KJV )
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

The “great mystery” was about to be explained (Col. 1: 26; Mark 8: 11; etc.)! The stage was set, the conditions were right; the time for the Messiah to step into history had arrived! Jesus was born about the year 5 B. C….

In the physical realm, the Greek’s Hellenization of the eastern rim of the Mediterranean and the Mideast all the way to India had produced a common language making communication possible between all the different people: ultimately, Greek became the common language throughout the Roman Empire. The Roman road system along with the Mediterranean maritime industry, protected by the Roman “Pax Romana”, made un-restricted, relatively safe, travel possible.
Along with the common language, the philosophy of Socrates/Aristotle/Plato had generated a mindset which was compatible with Christianity, exerting considerable influence on Christian thinking to this very day – many Christian concepts are very similar to classic Greek Philosophy. To some extent, this thinking facilitated the acceptance of The Gospel among the “Hellenized” people; it was not such an alien, exotic idea as it would have been otherwise. :

Influence on Christian theologian
Aristotle is referred to as "The Philosopher" by Scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas. See Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3, etc. These thinkers blended Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity, bringing the thought of Ancient Greece into the Middle Ages. It required a repudiation of some Aristotelian principles for the sciences and the arts to free themselves for the discovery of modern scientific laws and empirical methods. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle)

Reflected in the thinking of the stoic philosopher Seneca, part of the inner circle of Nero’s advisers (in the early years):

“…Two of Christianity’s most powerful elements – morality and immortality – were present in Seneca’s Stoicism. So was the sense of deity. “live among men as if God beheld you,” he memorably wrote. “Speak to god as if men were listening”… (Moynahan 29)

Christianity wasn’t completely accepted, it was still resisted to some extent (Acts 17: 22 – 31; etc) but wasn’t completely exotic, alien, bizarre; un-acceptable.

With the Roman subjugation of the Israelites came the rule of the Roman appointed Herod’s and Roman appointed High Priests. The Romans allowed the Jews complete religious autonomy but no civil rule, this stabilized society but serious unrest was bubbling just below the surface.

From the time of Micah’s writings the Jews were desperately seeking a proper ruler from the line of David hoping he would be a priest king who would free them and restore the kingdom: a “Messiah,” so long as the Kingdom was not restored, though living in the Promised Land, they were still not “free” from the Babylonian captivity…

At the time of Christ and on until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D., the Sadducees had settled into their role as the ruling priesthood (subject to Herod and the Romans): the Pharisees were very prominent and widely accepted as being most “religious”, strong adherents of the Law of Moses. Jesus had more interaction with Pharisees than any of the other Jewish sects; a part of this interaction was a harsh criticism:

Matthew 23:13-33 ( KJV )

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Who were these “Pharisees”?

The Pharisee ("separatist") party emerged largely out of the group of scribes and sages who harked back to Ezra and the Great Assembly. The meaning of the name is unclear; it may refer to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. It is difficult to state at what time the Pharisees, as a party, arose. Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus ("Ant." xiii. 5, § 9). One of the factors that distinguished the Pharisees from other groups prior to the destruction of the Temple was their belief that all Jews had to observe the purity laws (which applied to the Temple service) outside the Temple. The major difference, however, was the continued adherence of the Pharisees to the laws and traditions of the Jewish people in the face of assimilation. As Josephus noted, the Pharisees were considered the most expert and accurate expositors of Jewish law. (wiki/ Pharisees)

Early on, as the new temple was completed and put in service, there were concerns among some Jews that having been built by the permission and support of a foreign power, its legitimacy was very likely tainted – not positively – but possibly – along with the accelerating “Hellenization” of their culture, this on-going, nagging worry continued to undermine the credibility of the entire priesthood and temple worship. As time went along and the priestly class (Sadducees) became more and more aristocratic rulers, this concern deepened and the division became more profound. The elements and seriousness of concern was not unanimous, leading to the formation of several distinct sects of Jewish believers.

The Pharisees obsessive fixation on the Law was a logical outgrowth of their experience - which could be said to go clear back to Mt. Sinai:

Exodus 19:5-6 ( KJV )
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Are there two ways to salvation? Works (“keep my covenant”), for the Israelites / Grace for the Gentile Christians? Or even three: a mix of works/grace for the Hebraic temple worshiping Jews?

From “Hard Sayings of the Bible”:

Leviticus 1:1 ( KJV )
The One Who Obeys My Laws Will Live?
(Leviticus) This saying’s importance is assured by its appearance in such later contexts as Ezekiel 20:11, Luke 10:28, Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12. But it is also a hard saying. The text appears to offer an alternate method of gaining eternal life, even if only theoretically. Is it true, in either the Old Testament or the New, that a person could have eternal life by perfectly keeping the law of God? In other words, can we read this saying as “Do this and you will have [eternal] life”? Unfortunately, all too many teachers of the Scriptures have uncritically assumed that the words live in them meant that “eternal life was to be had by observing the laws of God.” Accordingly, if a person were to keep these commandments perfectly, the very keeping would be eternal life. But this claim misses a major amount of contrary evidence, foremost that the benefits of God’s promise-plan to the Old Testament believers were not conditioned on anything, much less on obedience. Such a position would reverse the unconditional word of blessing God gave to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. But what about the “if you obey me fully” statements of Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 26:3-13 and Deuteronomy 11:13-15 and 28:1? Do not these texts flatly declare that without obedience salvation is impossible? The if is admittedly conditional, but conditional to what? It was conditional only to enjoyment of the full benefits of a relationship begun by faith and given freely by God. Israel must obey God’s voice and heed his covenant and commandments, not “in order to” establish their new life in God, but “so that” (Deut 5:33) they might experience completely this new life begun in faith. The very context of this verse speaks against a works salvation. First, Leviticus 18 begins and ends with the theological assumption that the hearers have the Lord as their God. Thus, this instruction deals with sanctification rather than justification. Second, “those things” which they were not to do were the customs and ordinances; in short, the pagan idolatries of the Egyptians and Canaanites. This is a whole world apart from the question of salvation. Third, never in the Old or New Testaments has pleasing God constituted the external performance of acts; these acts carried with them the evidence of a prior attitude of the heart. For instance, circumcision of the flesh without the circumcision of the heart was wasted effort. In fact, our Lord coupled the act and the heart when the people pledged, “All that the Lord says, we will do.” Imperiously, some call such a pledge rash, judging the people foolish for falling for an offer they would never be able to live up to. But our Lord did not see it that way. Rather, he said in so many words, “Oh that there were such a heart in them that they would always fear me and keep my commandments.” Our Lord connects their doing with the heart. He never reproved them by saying, “Oh, what deluded people! Given your previous track record, how on earth do you ever expect to enter my heaven by keeping any of my laws?” There is not a word about this. Therefore, this verse cannot be said to teach a hypothetical offer of salvation by works. Some may argue that the words live by them, quoted in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12, surely means in those contexts that salvation was “by means of” works (an instrumental use of the preposition). I respond that this expression should be translated live “in the sphere of them” (a locative use of the preposition). Moses, therefore, was not describing the means of attaining salvation but only the horizon within which an earthly, godly life should be lived. See also comment on Genesis 26:3-5; comment on Micah 6:6-8; comment on Philippians 2:12-13; comment on James 2:24.… (Kaiser, Bruce and Manfred)

Tracing their origin clear back to the writings of Malachi (last week, lesson #9), they were very concerned with all that had, and was, going on within their society. They had the record of all that had happened to those that had gone before them; they were now personally experiencing the same “temptations” and “chastisements”. They were very familiar with the consequences of disobeying the Law – it was inevitable that many of them would become fanatical adherents of the law, lose sight of the fact that obedience to the Law was not the point: Faith in God, and the consequent obedience to Him, shown by compliance with all the rules.

“If” ones motivation for keeping the law is a hope for “payment” or fear of the consequences, then one’s religiosity is mistaken – even false …the trap that most of the Jews had fallen into…(there are numerous examples of the same failure in its various guises, within "Christendom" to this very day)

The motivation for (keeping His Commandments: John 14:15 ( KJV ) If ye love me, keep my commandments. ) must come from one’s love of God and the desire to please Him…remember our discussion of James statement “Faith without works is dead”…the works is a result of, not the cause of, true faith/salvation.

DISCUSSION

1. How did the Greeks impact the spreading of the Gospel?
2. How did the Romans?
3. Who was Antiochus IV?
4. What is “Hanukkah”?
5. Who were the Maccabbees?
6. What was some of the main differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees ?
7. What was Jesus’ overall opinion of the Pharisees?
8. How did Greek philosophy influence Christianity?
9. Is there one way of salvation for the Jews and another for Gentles (“if” Ex 19: 5-6) ?
10. What had to be done in history to arrive at “the fulness of time”

Homework:

(1)go to: www.itunes.rts.edu
(2) click launch
(3) scroll down right hand column to RTS virtual courses
(4)open New Testament
(5)open Pauline Epistles
(6)listen to lecture 1 and 2 (Acts)

Galatians lesson #9

GALATIANS # 9
HISTORY
An overview (8)
8/16/10

The period beginning with the completion of the O. T., (the book of Malachi, about 425 – 433 B. C.), and ending with the birth of Jesus was “silent”. During this 400+ yrs., there were no recorded canonical prophetic messages, or other revelations from other means; nothing that was preserved and made a part of the canon. There are books from this time, which were adopted by other than Judaic scholars and reformed Christians; these folks give these “apocryphal” books the same stature as all other Scripture –(The story of the Maccabees is told in 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees, which are part of the Septuagint, and in 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees, which are not. 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees are part of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments, but not the Hebrew Bible, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) (Wikipedia)
Although these apocryphal books are included in the Septuagint, none are included in Hebrew or Protestant Christian canon.

Though “silent” as to further inspired prophecies or writings, there was a lot going on historically; the politico-military/socio-economic turmoil in the region was at a fever pitch, intimately affecting the Israelites. Through all this, God continued to preserve His chosen people; despite their frequent failures, He remained faithful to His promises.
The division of Israel, and subsequent inept leadership, resulted in a weakened country; they were no longer a buffer or restraint to the territorial ambitions of their neighbors. The Assyrians were the first to make their move, conquering and annexing much territory in the region, including Israel/Samaria:
(see map #1)

Then the Babylonians:
(see map #2)

Then the Persians:
(see map #3)

As Isaiah had foretold, (Isaiah 40: 1 – 5; 44: 28; 45: 6), Cyrus (the ruler of Persia) allowed the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and begin re-building the Temple. The Israelites were allowed to return, to re-build the temple and resume temple worship, but not re-establish the monarchy. Without a structured government, the priests, by default, became the most powerful group and the country became a Theocracy, with the priesthood as the ruling class. From this ruling class of priests came the sect that would later be known as the Sadducees. (wiki/ Pharisees)

In 333 B. C. the Greek army under the leadership of Alexander The Great defeated the Persians and took over what had been their kingdom.

(See map #4)

As the Greeks advanced, they made examples of any city that resisted: they utterly destroyed them…legend has it that in 332 B. C., the high priest of Jerusalem, went outside the city gate, met Alexander and invited him to enter the city. Legend continues, saying that Alexander acknowledged the One God of the Israelites and left the Jewish culture intact, though subject to Greek rule (Robinson).

Alexander was very proud of his Greek heritage and not only conquered, but decreed that forces be set in motion to implant Greek philosophy, arts, culture, language - Greece’s entire civilization as he advanced eastward, occupying country after country. As a result of these efforts, Greek became the second language throughout the entire “civilized world”; Greek philosophy became an integral part of all intellectual thought: the entire region was “Hellenized” to some extant – some areas more so than others. The universal spreading of the Greek language was a world changing event – throughout the entire “known world”, any place you went someone could speak Greek. The removal of the language barriers facilitated communication and the conveyance of new ideas between the various ethnic groups.

Immediately upon Alexander’s death, the Greek empire began un-raveling, fragmenting; his generals split the empire up among themselves with Ptolemy taking Egypt and Judea:

The Hellenistic period of Jewish history began when Alexander the Great conquered Persia in 332 BCE. The rift between the priests and the sages developed at this time, when Jews faced new political and cultural struggles. After Alexander's death in 323 BCE, Judea was ruled by the Egyptian-Hellenic Ptolemies until 198 BCE, when the Syrian-Hellenic Seleucid Empire, under Antiochus III, seized control. Then, in 167 BCE, Antiochus IV invaded Judea, entered the Temple, and stripped it of money and ceremonial objects. He imposed a program of forced hellenization, requiring Jews to abandon their own laws and customs, and precipitating the Maccabean Revolt. Jerusalem was liberated in 165 BCE and the Temple was restored. In 141 BCE an assembly of priests and others affirmed Simon Maccabeus as high priest and leader, in effect establishing the Hasmonean dynasty. (wikipedia)

The sect specifically identified as “Pharisees” came into existence during this period. The earliest known, extra-Biblical, mention of the Pharisees as such, is by the historian Josephus:

Antiquites of the Jews
Copyrights and Permissions
Copyrights The Works of Josephus Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc., PO Box 100, Hiawatha, Iowa. All rights reserved.
Book 13 Containing the Interval of Eighty-Two Years From the Death of Judas Maccabeus to the Death of Queen Alexandra
Chapter 1 How Jonathan Took the Government After His Brother Judas; and How He, Together with His Brother Simon, Waged War Against Bacchides
BOOK 13
CHAPTER 5
How Trypho, After He Had Beaten Demetrius, Delivered the Kingdom to Antiochus, the Son of Alexander, and Gained Jonathan for His Assistant; and Concerning the Actions and Embassies of Jonathan: (Verse)
9. At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essens. Now for the Pharisees,Ant-13-11 they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essens affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War. (Verse)

As F. F. Bruce points out:

“….Josephus does not trace the spiritual ancestry of the Pharisees, but it is very probable that they arose within the ranks of the h sidim or “Godly people”, who are referred to in the books of Maccabees as “Hasideans” (1 Maccabees 2: 42; 7: 14; 2Maccabees 14: 6). The origin of these Hasideans is probably to be sought among the Godly people in Judea, who, some decades after the return from exile, banded together in order to encourage one another in the study and practice of the sacred law in the midst of what they saw as moral and religious declension…” (Bruce)

These people, the likely forerunners of the Pharisees, were very possibly from the devout group described in the book of Malachi:

Malachi 3:16-18 ( KJV )
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

The Pharisees were a natural outgrowth of all that had gone on, the Israelites entire existence as a people had been an ongoing saga of the pendulum swinging from the joy of God’s deliverance (Exodus 14: 31) to the despair of the consequences of their un-faithfulness, here so poignantly proclaimed by the “weeping prophet”:

Nehemiah 1:1-9 ( KJV )
The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace, That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.
And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire. And it came to pass, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned certain days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of heaven,
And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
Let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, which we have sinned against thee: both I and my father’s house have sinned.
We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandedst thy servant Moses.
Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations:
But if ye turn unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them; though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my name there.

The Greek general Ptolemy I seized control of Jerusalem in 320 B.C; it was during this period, with the encouragement of Ptolemy II, that the Septuagint was written:

Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC.[6][7] According to the record in the Talmud, 'King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did'[8]
Further books were translated over the next two centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised.[9] The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative. According to one assessment "the Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities".[10]
As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection (out of which the Nevi'im were selected) changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[11] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were not translated, but composed in Greek.
The authority of the larger group of "writings", out of which the ketuvim were selected, had not yet been determined, although some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as Enoch or Jubilees or other writings that are now part of the Pseudepigrapha. It is not known what principles were used to determine the contents of the Septuagint beyond the "Law and the Prophets", a phrase used several times in the New Testament. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) (Wikipedia)

The Ptolemies retained control until 199 B.C. when Antiochus III , at the culmination of a series of battles, wrested control from the Ptolemies. Under the Ptolemies, the Jews were treated well with considerable freedom












DISCUSSION
1. Where is the earliest reference to Christ? (we discussed this in earlier lessons)
2. Where, in the O. T., is the last reference to Christ?
3. What is the purpose of the Old Testament?
4. What happened after Solomon died?
5. When was Cyrus first mentioned?
6. Why was he significant?
7. What became of the Israelites who didn’t return to Jerusalem?
8. What was the most significant consequence of Alexander’s conquest?
9. What is the earliest likely identification of the Pharisees?
10. What is the earliest historical reference to the Pharisees?
11. What was their most distinguishing characteristic?
12. What are some events that seemed to verify their beliefs?

Galatians #9 map #4 Greek empire

Galatians #9 Map #3 Persian Empire

Galatians #9 map #2 Babylonian empire