GALATIANS #16?

GALATIANS # 16
11/15/10
What prompted Paul to write a letter to the Galatian churches?

With the baptism of Cornelius, (Acts 10), the question of whether Christians must adhere to the Mosaic Law had arisen (Acts 11; 1 – 3 (KJV) And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.) ). Now, about 15 years after Christianity had come into being, the issue had exploded into a full scale crisis!

There is no record of anyone other than Paul having given much, if any, thought to how the coming of the Messiah had changed things.The church was in danger of becoming a cult within the Jewish religion, or disintegrating; in either case fading into oblivion: were the Judaizers right and we must first be Jews and then, secondarily, almost as an afterthought, Christians? Or was Paul’s gospel of grace right, declaring the Mosaic Law fulfilled with the “works” of Christ? Or, are there two gospels - one for the Jews and one for the gentiles? One gospel of works plus grace; countered by one of grace only? Did Jesus complete his work (John 19: 30) or was there some things left undone which we humans must complete? These two doctrines are mutually exclusive – it’s either one or the other, it cannot be both!

Paul had been preaching the gospel of grace throughout the gentile Christian community for several years, converting gentiles and Jews alike; although emanating exclusively from him, his teaching was accepted as THE gospel by these folks.

Paul had taught this doctrine on his and Barnabas’s missionary trip that had established the Galatian churches: now he has received word that some “troublemakers” had gone behind his back to these people, telling them that to complete their salvation they must be circumcised; which then implies that one’s salvation requires keeping the entire Mosaic Law. Our salvation is contingent on whether or not we perform these “works”: we humans, by our own efforts are able to save ourselves…in which case, what was the point of Jesus death?

If these “Judaizers” are right, the entire Gospel comes unraveled!

Paul’s angry re-action, declaring that any one preaching “any other gospel” than his was to be cursed (Gal 1: 8 – 9), shows how heated the issue had become. Paul was adamant that our only hope of salvation is the Grace of God; all Christians were freed from the “yoke of the Law” by what was accomplished by Christ’s “Penal Substitution” on the cross. This “work” of Christ was complete, there is/was/will never be, anything further required; there is only one way; there is nothing we humans can, or must, do to be justified; Jesus was/is the only way it can/could be done, He did it all (Jn. 19: 30) !

There is disagreement among modern biblical scholars over how deep this division was: did the leaders of the Jerusalem church support the “Gospel of circumcision” (I’m paraphrasing here)? How high up in the Jerusalem hierarchy did this belief go, all the way to the top? There is quite a bit of evidence that it did, many certainly leaned that way…note the lengthy, heated, discussion on Peter’s return from Cornelius (Acts 11: 1 – 3) and the passionate debate at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15: 6 -7).

Here’s an example of a scholar who believed it was prevalent not only among “false prophets” but possibly included even the “pillars” in Jerusalem:

Luther begins his preface to the epistle thus:
The Galatians had been brought by St. Paul to right Christian belief, from the law to the gospel. But after his departure there came the false prophets, who were disciples of the true apostles, and turned the Galatians back again to believe that they must attain blessedness through the work of the law, and that they were sinning if they did no hold the work of the law, as according to Acts 15 certain highly–placed people in Jerusalem insisted. 7

This is expanded as follows in his commentary on the epistle:
St. Paul goeth about to establish the doctrine of faith, grace, forgiveness of sins, or Christian righteousness, to the end that we may have a perfect knowledge and difference between Christian righteousness and all other kinds of righteousness…. For if the article of justification be lost, then is all true Christian doctrine lost….
Christ [says Paul] hath mercifully called you in grace, that ye should be freemen under Christ, and not bondmen under Moses, whose disciples ye are now become again by the means of your false apostles, who by the law of Moses called you not unto grace, but unto wrath, to the hating of God, to sin and death….
Hereby it may easily be gathered, that these false prophets had condemned the Gospel of Paul among the Galatians, saying: Paul indeed hath begun well, but to have begun well is not enough, for here remain yet many higher matters; like as they say in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts: It is not enough for you to believe in Christ, or to be baptized, but it behoveth also that ye be circumcised; ‘for except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved’. This is as much to say, as that Christ is a good workman, which indeed begun a building, but he hath not finished it; for this must Moses do. 8

….Luther goes on to draw a parallel with the ‘fantastical spirits, Anabaptists and others’ of his day as well as with the ‘Papists’ (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text). 9

And then Calvin puts a “happy face” on it, putting the blame on “false apostles”:

According to John Calvin (1548), Paul
…had faithfully instructed them [the Galatians] in the pure gospel, but false apostles had entered in his absence and corrupted the true seed by false and corrupting dogmas. For they taught that the observance of ceremonies was still necessary. This might seem trivial; but Paul fights for it as a fundamental article of the Christian faith. And rightly so, for it is no light evil to quench the brightness of the gospel, to lay a snare for consciences and remove the distinction between the old and new covenants. He saw that these errors were also related to an ungodly and destructive opinion on the deserving of righteousness….
The false apostles, who had deceived the Galatians to advance their own claims, pretended that they had received a commission from the apostles. Their method of infiltration was to get it believed that they represented the apostles and delivered a message from them. But they took away from Paul the name and authority of apostle…. In attacking Paul they were really attacking the truth of the gospel. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text) 10

Calvin’s position held until the early 19th century when it was analyzed by the founder of the Tubingen school, F. C. Baur who arrived at a dramatically different conclusion:

This understanding of the situation prevailed into the nineteenth century, when it was taken up by the Tübingen school of F. C. Baur and his associates, who integrated it into their account of primitive Church History. ‘What led the Apostle to write this Epistle to the Galatian Churches’, wrote Baur, ‘we learn very clearly from the Epistle itself’. The Galatians’ falling away from the gospel as Paul preached it was due to the influence of strange teachers who… represented to them that, as a first step to the Christian salvation, they must submit to circumcision (v. 2, 11). Here we first meet with those Judaising opponents with whom the Apostle had to maintain so severe a struggle in the churches which he founded, and they appear here quite in the harsh and uncompromising Judaistic character which marks them as opponents of Pauline Christianity…. In one word, they were Jews or Jewish Christians of the genuine old stamp, who could so little understand the more liberal atmosphere of Pauline Christianity that they would have thought the very ground of their existence was cut from under them if Judaism were no longer to have absolute power and importance. 11
In principle, according to Baur, the declared opponents of Pauline Christianity were in agreement with the leaders of the Jerusalem church; indeed, those leaders ‘are themselves the opponents against whom the Apostle contends in refuting these principles’. 12 But their reluctant recognition, at the Jerusalem conference, that Paul and Barnabas had been entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles, tied their hands and compelled them to take the position of non–belligerents. Other members of the Jerusalem church, however, were not so bound, and they were infiltrators or trouble–makers who endeavoured to subvert Paul’s teaching and apostolic authority among his Gentile converts, including the churches of Galatia. (Libronix, bible commentary, Galatians)

And from Robin Griffith Jones:

Glance through the letter to the Galatians and the impression is clear that Paul is resisting opponents who are – and know they are – undermining the very foundation of his good news. He stands for God’s grace and rescue by faith; they stand by contrast for the rigid observance of the Law. The battle lines are clear, and the fighting is fierce. That is clearly what Paul wanted the Galatians to think. Thanks to his letter, they may well have done so; so have almost all subsequent readers.
The new teachers had come from Jerusalem itself or from Antioch. They asserted the rights and leadership of the Galatians’ mother assembly in Antioch. They came almost certainly with the authority of Barnabas himself. Paul then, has been proved right: more and more of the Law is being demanded from more and more assemblies…. (Jones 225)

Even Barnabas? He helped Paul establish these churches; was there when Paul delivered his gospel! (Jones is a “northern Galatianer” – if one takes a “southern” position, it resolves this terrible prospect!)

In any case, the inroads made by this disavowal of Paul’s teaching was eroding Paul’s credibility and seriously undermining the veracity of his teaching - it presented a deadly peril to the Gospel of Grace; was Jesus unable to complete his work? Must we complete it ourselves?

The normal state in any group of people is a left (liberal), a center (moderate), and a right wing (conservative), faction, just as we find in churches today: the Jerusalem Church was typical in this sense with an overall leaning towards the right. The underlying world view of all the Jewish Christians tended to be adherence to the law; the “right” demanding strict compliance, one must first be a Jew, then a Christian; the “left” taking a more moderate stand, with a much more relaxed view of the necessity of keeping the Law. Those in the middle were caught between the two; being pressured by each of these groups. These attitudes, colliding with Peter’s experience with the Roman centurion, was inexorably leading towards creation of two gospels – one for the Jews and one for the gentiles.

Paul identified those conservative Christians who actively pursued and promulgated strict adherence to the Law as “trouble makers” and/or “the circumcision”. Some of these folks forced the issue, going behind Paul and attempting to discredit him and his gospel, precipitating the writing of the letter to the Galatians. Though these circumstances were tragic, their recording here is the “breath of God”, ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ( KJV ) 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.) ;and as such, provide considerable insight to the workings of the early church, as well as declaring that there is only the gospel; no “another gospel” exists.

Even though all scripture are “inspired”, Galatians stands out as a very important letter:
By common consent, Galatians is one of the four ‘capital’ epistles of Paul (the others being 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans) and one of the best authenticated. 1 When the claims of the other letters to Pauline authorship is under consideration, the standard assessment is this fourfold group, and pre–eminently Galatians. Denial of the genuineness of Galatians, such as was made in the Dutch school of W. C. van Manen, 2 is recognised as a critical aberration in the history of NT study. From the first gathering together of the Pauline writings into a corpus, early in the second century AD, Galatians had a secure place among them. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text 4)

It is the first written declaration that we are justified by faith:

Paul’s letter to the Galatians is one of the most significant books of the New Testament and of the whole Bible. Sometimes described as “the Magna Carta of Christian Liberty,” it discusses in clear, emotional, and intensely personal language the basic issue of how a man is put right with God. In Paul’s own words, the basic question is: “Does God give you the Spirit and work miracles among you because you do what the Law requires or because you hear the gospel and believe it?” (3.5). And the answer comes in similar language: “A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires” (2.16, emphasis added) (Arichea)

Paul wrote the letter because of the information he received that men, presenting themselves as representatives of the Jerusalem church, were persuading his flock of new believers that Paul’s teaching was wrong and he was not personally authorized or qualified to preach or teach to any one – he had no choice but to respond forcefully!

DISCUSSION

1. What was the proximate “cause” of the writing of the letter to the Galatians?
2. When did the controversy first arise?
3. What was the outcome of the Jerusalem council?
4. Was it unanimously embraced?
5. What was F. C. Baur’s conclusion on 4?
6. Calvin’s?
7. Luther?*
8. Yours? Why?
9. What is the pertinence of “northern” or “southern” Galatia?
10. What did Luther mean by his comment that Galatians is one of the four “capital” letters?
11. Why did Paul start his letter with such vehemence?
12. How is this all relevant to the “body of Christ” today
13. *Extra work: How does all this enter into Luther’s views compared to Eusebius’(“predestination”/ “works”)?
14. Augustine/Pelagius?

Galatians lesson #16

GALATIANS # 16

10/25/10

Chapter 1: 1 - 5

At the time of the writing of Galatians, the church had been in existence for 15 - 18 years. The question which had began simmering when Peter baptized Cornelius (Acts 10), of whether or not a Christian must continue to adhere to the Mosaic Law to be fully Christian (Acts 11:1-3 ( KJV ) And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.) had exploded into a full scale crisis!
The church was in danger of disintegrating and fading into oblivion: were the Judaizers right and we must first be Jews and then, secondarily, almost as an afterthought, Christians? Or was Paul’s gospel of grace right, declaring the Mosaic Law fulfilled with the “works” of Christ? Or, are there two gospels - one for the Jews and one for the gentiles? One gospel of works plus grace; countered by one of grace only? Did Jesus complete his work (John 19: 30) or was there some things left undone which we humans must complete?

Paul had been preaching his gospel of grace for several years, converting gentiles and Jews alike throughout the gentile Christian community; his teaching was accepted as the gospel by these folks. Paul’s angry declaration that any one preaching “any other gospel” than his was to be cursed (Gal 1: 8 – 9), shows how heated the issue had become. Paul was adamant that our only hope of salvation is the Grace of God; all Christians were freed from the “yoke of the Law” by what was accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross. This “work” of Christ was complete, there is/was/will never be, anything further required; there is only one way; there is nothing we humans can or must do to be justified, Jesus did it all!

There is disagreement among modern biblical scholars over how deep this division was: did the leaders of the Jerusalem church support the “Gospel of circumcision” (I’m paraphrasing here)? How high up in the Jerusalem hierarchy did this belief go, all the way to the top? There is quite a bit of evidence that it did, many certainly leaned that way…note the lengthy, heated, discussion on Peter’s return from baptizing Cornelius (Acts 11: 1 – 3) and the passionate debate at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15: 6 -7).

Here’s an example of a scholar who believed it was prevalent only among “false prophets”:

Luther begins his preface to the epistle thus:
The Galatians had been brought by St. Paul to right Christian belief, from the law to the gospel. But after his departure there came the false prophets, who were disciples of the true apostles, and turned the Galatians back again to believe that they must attain blessedness through the work of the law, and that they were sinning if they did no hold the work of the law, as according to Acts 15 certain highly–placed people in Jerusalem insisted. 7

This is expanded as follows in his commentary on the epistle:
St. Paul goeth about to establish the doctrine of faith, grace, forgiveness of sins, or Christian righteousness, to the end that we may have a perfect knowledge and difference between Christian righteousness and all other kinds of righteousness…. For if the article of justification be lost, then is all true Christian doctrine lost….
Christ [says Paul] hath mercifully called you in grace, that ye should be freemen under Christ, and not bondmen under Moses, whose disciples ye are now become again by the means of your false apostles, who by the law of Moses called you not unto grace, but unto wrath, to the hating of God, to sin and death….
Hereby it may easily be gathered, that these false prophets had condemned the Gospel of Paul among the Galatians, saying: Paul indeed hath begun well, but to have begun well is not enough, for here remain yet many higher matters; like as they say in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts: It is not enough for you to believe in Christ, or to be baptized, but it behoveth also that ye be circumcised; ‘for except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved’. This is as much to say, as that Christ is a good workman, which indeed begun a building, but he hath not finished it; for this must Moses do. 8

….Luther goes on to draw a parallel with the ‘fantastical spirits, Anabaptists and others’ of his day as well as with the ‘Papists’ (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text). 9

And then Calvin puts a “happy face” on it, also putting the blame on “false apostles”:

According to John Calvin (1548), Paul
…had faithfully instructed them [the Galatians] in the pure gospel, but false apostles had entered in his absence and corrupted the true seed by false and corrupting dogmas. For they taught that the observance of ceremonies was still necessary. This might seem trivial; but Paul fights for it as a fundamental article of the Christian faith. And rightly so, for it is no light evil to quench the brightness of the gospel, to lay a snare for consciences and remove the distinction between the old and new covenants. He saw that these errors were also related to an ungodly and destructive opinion on the deserving of righteousness….
The false apostles, who had deceived the Galatians to advance their own claims, pretended that they had received a commission from the apostles. Their method of infiltration was to get it believed that they represented the apostles and delivered a message from them. But they took away from Paul the name and authority of apostle…. In attacking Paul they were really attacking the truth of the gospel. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text) 10

Calvin’s position held until the early 19th century when it was analyzed by the founder of the Tubingen school, F. C. Baur who arrived at a dramatically different conclusion:

This understanding of the situation prevailed into the nineteenth century, when it was taken up by the Tübingen school of F. C. Baur and his associates, who integrated it into their account of primitive Church History. ‘What led the Apostle to write this Epistle to the Galatian Churches’, wrote Baur, ‘we learn very clearly from the Epistle itself’. The Galatians’ falling away from the gospel as Paul preached it
was due to the influence of strange teachers who… represented to them that, as a first step to the Christian salvation, they must submit to circumcision (v. 2, 11). Here we first meet with those Judaising opponents with whom the Apostle had to maintain so severe a struggle in the churches which he founded, and they appear here quite in the harsh and uncompromising Judaistic character which marks them as opponents of Pauline Christianity…. In one word, they were Jews or Jewish Christians of the genuine old stamp, who could so little understand the more liberal atmosphere of Pauline Christianity that they would have thought the very ground of their existence was cut from under them if Judaism were no longer to have absolute power and importance. 11
In principle, according to Baur, the declared opponents of Pauline Christianity were in agreement with the leaders of the Jerusalem church; indeed, those leaders ‘are themselves the opponents against whom the Apostle contends in refuting these principles’. 12 But their reluctant recognition, at the Jerusalem conference, that Paul and Barnabas had been entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles, tied their hands and compelled them to take the position of non–belligerents. Other members of the Jerusalem church, however, were not so bound, and they were infiltrators or trouble–makers who endeavoured to subvert Paul’s teaching and apostolic authority among his Gentile converts, including the churches of Galatia. (Libronix, bible commentary, Galatians)

The normal state in any group of people are a left (liberal), a center (moderate), and a right wing (conservative), faction, just as we find in churches today: the Jerusalem Church was typical in this sense, the overall world view tended to be adherence to the law; the “right” demanding strict compliance, one must first be a Jew, then a Christian, tending towards two gospels – one for the Jews and one for the gentiles; the “left” taking a more moderate stand,with a much more relaxed view of the necessity of keeping the Law. Those in the middle were caught between the two; being pressured by each of these groups.

Paul identified those conservative Christians who actively pursued and promulgated strict adherence to the Law as “trouble makers” and/or “the circumcision”. Some of these folks forced the issue, going behind Paul and attempting to discredit him and his gospel, precipitating the writing of the letter to the Galatians. Though these circumstances were tragic, their recording here is the “breath of God”, ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ( KJV ) 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.) ;and as such, provide considerable insight to the workings of the early church, as well as declaring that there is only the gospel; no “another gospel” exists.

Even though all scripture are “inspired”, Galatians stands out as a very important letter:
By common consent, Galatians is one of the four ‘capital’ epistles of Paul (the others being 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans) and one of the best authenticated. 1 When the claims of the other letters to Pauline authorship is under consideration, the standard assessment is this fourfold group, and pre–eminently Galatians. Denial of the genuineness of Galatians, such as was made in the Dutch school of W. C. van Manen, 2 is recognised as a critical aberration in the history of NT study. From the first gathering together of the Pauline writings into a corpus, early in the second century AD, Galatians had a secure place among them. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text 4)

It is the first written declaration that we are justified by faith:
Paul’s letter to the Galatians is one of the most significant books of the New Testament and of the whole Bible. Sometimes described as “the Magna Carta of Christian Liberty,” it discusses in clear, emotional, and intensely personal language the basic issue of how a man is put right with God. In Paul’s own words, the basic question is: “Does God give you the Spirit and work miracles among you because you do what the Law requires or because you hear the gospel and believe it?” (3.5). And the answer comes in similar language: “A person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires” (2.16, emphasis added) (Arichea)

Paul wrote the letter because of the information he received that men, presenting themselves as representatives of the Jerusalem church, were persuading his flock of new believers that his teaching was wrong and he was not personally authorized or qualified to preach or teach to any one – he had no choice but to respond forcefully!

DISCUSSION

1. What was the proximate “cause” of the writing of the letter to the Galatians?
2. When did the controversy first arise?
3. What was the outcome of the Jerusalem council?
4. Was it unanimously embraced?
5. What was F. C. Baur’s conclusion on 4?
6. Calvin’s?
7. Luther?
8. Yours, and why?
9. What did Luther mean by his comment that Galatians is one of the four “capital” letters?
10. Why did Paul start his letter with such vehemence?
11. How is this all relevant to the “body of Christ” today


BIBLIOGRAPHY
AS OF 10/25/2010
Arichea, Daniel C. , Nida, Eugene Albert. A Handbook on Paul's letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: United Bible Societies, 1993.
Bruce, F. F. PAUL Apostle of The Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids Michigan: william B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 2000. 44.
—. Paul: apostle of the heart set free. Grand rapids Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
—. the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman Publishing Co., 1982.
Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke's commentary on the old Testament. Parsons Technology, inc., 1999.
Kaiser, Bruce and Manfred. Hard sayings of the bible. Quickverse, 1996.
Libronix. "bible commentary, Galatians." Bruce, F. F. the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text. Grand Rapids: THE PATERNOSTER PRESS, 1982. 23 - 24.
Libronix Digital Library System. "The New American Commentary." Blomberg, Craig. Matthew, book 22. Nashville Tenessee: Broadman and Holmes, n.d. book 22.
Libronix. "History of the Christian Church." Schaff, Phillip. History of The Christian Church. Saginaw Michigan: Historical Exegetical ' Lectronic Publishing (HE'LP), 1994 (reprint). Chapter V, section 30.
Mc Grath, Alister. "The Christian theology Reader." Packer, J. I. God Has Spoken. London: InterVarsity Press, 1979. 80 - 2.
Moynahan, Brian. The Faith. Doubleday, 2003.
"The Tyndale Biblical Theoloy Lecture." Packer, J. I. What Did the Cross Achieve? Cambridge: Tyndale, 1973. 21 -22.
QuickVerse. "STEP files." Kaiser, Walter c., et al. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Edward England Books and Hodder & Stoughton, ltd England, 2003. Genesis 26: 3-5.
Robinson, Thomas. the bible Timeline. New York: Metro books, 2000. year 333.
timeline of Apostle Paul Life and Missionary Journeys. unknown. 12 October 2010 .
Various. "Kiing James study Bible." Between the Testaments. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1988. 1383 -1384.
Verse, Quick. "Antiquities of The Jews." Josephus. Antiquities of The Jews. Parsons Tech, n.d. Book 13, chapter 5, sect. 9.
verse, quick. "who's who inChristian history." numerous. Paul, the Apostle (Saul of Tarsus). Tyndale House Publishers, 1992.
Wallace, Paul. daily devotional blog. 07 September 2010. 11 september 2010 .
wiki/ Pharisees. 17 July 2010 .
Wikipedia. august 2010 .
wikipedia. pharisees. 31 July 2010 .

Galatians # 15

GALATIANS # 15
10/18/10

As we discussed in lesson #1, with this Bible study, I have followed along with the school of thought that Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council; just after Paul’s first missionary journey (second mission was after Jerusalem council). The first mission was to the southern Galatians; thus the letter was written to the southern Galatians – about 48 A. D, shortly after James wrote his letter to “the twelve tribes”. Based on this chronology, Galatians was the first of Paul’s letters.

One of the “southern” scholars, F. F. Bruce:
The question of the North or South Galatian destination of our epistle is not one in which it is proper to take up partisan attitudes or indulge in dogmatic assertions; and it ill becomes champions of either view to disparage the rival view or those who maintain it. The fact that so many competent scholars can be cited in support of either position suggests that the evidence for neither is absolutely conclusive. But the weight of the evidence, it seems to me, favours the South Galatian view. If the Epistle to the Galatians was indeed addressed to the churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, then we have important historical, geographical, literary and epigraphic data which will provide material for its better understanding. (Bruce, the epistle to the Galatians, a commentary on the greek text)

Galatia was located in the central part of what we know as Turkey. At the time Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians, it was composed of two distinct areas; northern Galatia (ethnic, settled by Gauls) and southern Galatia (political sub-division established by Rome).

Southern? Northern? Does it matter?

Well:
• Is the trip described in Acts 15 the same as Galatians 2:1 -10? If not, then when was it? If so then when was the famine relief trip? (was Luke’s writings reliable?)
• If it was after the Jerusalem council, why doesn’t Paul refer to the letter written by James as he battles the Judaizers?
• If it was written after the Jerusalem council, then it would appear that Peter’s “Fear” that caused him to cease eating with the gentiles overwhelmed his belief shown by his position at the council!
• If after, then Peter was REALLY at fault when he left the table of the gentiles. if he done this after his astonishing works in Joppa and his subsequent vision and experience with Cornelius, (Acts 10) and then full support of Paul: Acts 15:7-11 ( KJV ) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
• How could Peter then do such a radical about face and suddenly demonstrate “another gospel”, provoking Paul’s sharp rebuke? (Gal. 2: 11 21 (some Catholic scholars are so disturbed by this dressing down by Paul that they claim this was some other Peter, not the Apostle))
• Etc.
To me, a “southern” position seems to best clear up these and other similar anomalies.
With that support for the early writing of Galatians, let us proceed.

The church came in to existence at Pentecost in 30 A. D., as time went by the Jerusalem church continued to be the “Mother Church”, recognized as the source and protector of the Gospel – however, the Hebraic leaders continued to be mired in the covenant of the law. As we have discussed, it was staggeringly difficult for the Jews, particularly so for the Hebraic Jews, to break loose from the “yoke of the law”:the opportunity was explicitly given through Peter (Acts 10 – 11) the Mosaic Covenant was “finished” (John 19: 30), transitioning into the covenant of Grace; the covenant now included Jews and gentiles alike with Christ’s death. The Jerusalem church fumbled the ball, they failed to embrace the “great commission”:
Mark 16:15-16 ( KJV ) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. ,

Christ’s sacrifice, the willing taking of sin upon himself, had rent the curtain from top to bottom; all the “Elect”could now approach God (John 3: 16). Rather than accepting this astonishing revelation of the “Good News” and embracing the answer to the “mystery” in its fullness, they were hesitant and did not pursue it at all – they (The Jerusalem church) continued to be transfixed by their subjection to “The Law”

Meanwhile, as the Jerusalem church was bogged down, the predominantly gentile church in Antioch was vigorously thriving, expanding, rapidly moving into the gentile community; it was quickly replacing Jerusalem as the center of “Christianity”:
Acts 11:19-26 ( KJV )
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Barnabas was aware of Paul’s preaching in Tarsus and recruited him to help stabilize the Antioch church, thus drawing Paul more closely into the Church proper – up until this time Paul was completely a “lone ranger” with minimal contact with the Jerusalem church. (Gal.:1: 21 – 24)
Unlike the Jerusalem church, the Antioch church, had actively embraced the gentile “seekers.” Now, led by Barnabas and Paul they were aggressively evangelizing the gentile community; this resulted in the Antioch church rapidly increasing in numbers, mostly Gentile believers.

In 44 A. D., this primarily gentile congregation, at the prompting of prophets, who were Greek, sent Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13: 4- 52). The Antioch church had taken the lead as the most vigorous of the two major church centers (Antioch and Jerusalem) and had the distinction to be called “Christians” at about this time.(Acts 11: 26) the first such use of the description, though used as a pejorative, the believers accepted the title proudly.

Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after completing their first mission trip. They stayed and preached a “long time” (Acts 14: 28). We are presuming that it was during this time that Paul received the alarming news that some trouble makers were stirring up serious trouble, undoing everything he had done, discrediting his credentials, his message of “Grace” was being declared wrong! This condemning the Gospel of Grace denied what was accomplished on the cross, plunged them back into the servitude of the law; thereby denying everything Christ is and had done: Paul re-acts passionately, writing his letter to these Galatian churches.

DISCUSSION

1. What happened to cause Paul to go to Antioch
2. Where was Galatia located?
3. What was the difference between North and south Galatia?
4. To whom was Paul’s first mission trip?
5. Was Galatians written before or after the Jerusalem council?
6. How does all this affect the letter to the Galatians?
7. Who converted the first gentiles?
8. Where was the term “Christians” first used?
9. Why did the church in Antioch become so influential in development of the church?
10. What was so significant about the conversion of Cornelius?
11. Why did Paul re-act so passionately against Peter leaving the gentile table fellowship?
12. What is the “great commission”?

Galatians #14

GALATIANS # 14

HISTORY

An overview (13)

10/11/10

“The Way”, which was in its birth at the time of Stephen’s execution, was in deadly peril from the onslaught led by the Pharisee, Saul. (Acts 8: 1 - 4; 9: 1); then we see a sudden, shocking, change in this Saul (9:28 -31)!

Why the persecution? Why the change? Who was this Saul?

We now approach the apostle of the Gentiles who decided the victory of Christianity as a universal religion, who labored more, both in word and deed, than all his colleagues, and who stands out, in lonely grandeur, the most remarkable and influential character in history. His youth as well as his closing years are involved in obscurity, save that he began a persecutor and ended a martyr, but the midday of his life is better known than that of any other apostle, and is replete with burning thoughts and noble deeds that can never die, and gather strength with the progress of the gospel from age to age and country to country. (Libronix)

Saul was not a madman, a maniacal mass murder, who delighted in sadistically torturing and murdering people, he was just the opposite; he was a devout Israelite, deeply committed to his religious tradition, searching for the Messiah, and then suddenly finding Him (or maybe better stated being “found” by Him!), completely transformed by Christ:

Philippians 3:4-14 ( KJV )
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Paul was very well educated in the Hebrew culture, traditions, and religion, fluent in the “Hebrew tongue”:

Acts 21:39-40 ( KJV )
But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

And also in Greek, demonstrated here with his citing both epicurean and stoic philosophical points:

Acts 17:22-29 ( KJV )
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Which also shows his knowledge of Greek philosophy; Titus 1:12 shows his knowledge of Cretian poetry:

The New American Commentary:
17:17 Paul evidently stuck to his usual pattern of missionary preaching. On the Sabbath he reasoned with the Jews, evidently following the same method of scriptural proof that Christ was Messiah as he used at Thessalonica (v. 17). But during the week, on a daily basis, he bore his witness in the agora, the famous marketplace and hub of Athenian life. There he got his most pronounced response, especially from some of the philosophers. The Epicureans and Stoics were among the leading schools of the day, 66 and they serve as representatives of the confusion caused by Paul’s preaching.
17:18 Epicurians were thoroughgoing materialists, believing that everything came from atoms or particles of matter. There was no life beyond this; all that was human returned to matter at death. Though the Epicureans did not deny the existence of gods, they saw them as totally indifferent to humanity. They did not believe in providence of any sort; and if one truly learned from the gods, that person would try to live the same sort of detached and tranquil life as they, as free from pain and passion and superstitious fears as they.
The Stoics had a more lively view of the gods than the Epicureans, believing very much in the divine providence. They were pantheists, believing that the ultimate divine principle was to be found in all of nature, including human beings. This spark of divinity, which they referred to as the logos, was the cohesive rational principle that bound the entire cosmic order together. Humans thus realized their fullest potential when they lived by reason. By reason, i.e., the divine principle within them which linked them with the gods and nature, they could discover ultimate truth for themselves. The Stoics generally had a rather high ethic and put great stock on self-sufficiency. Since they viewed all humans as bound together by common possession of the divine logos, they also had a strong sense of universal brotherhood. The mention of these schools is not incidental. Paul would take up some of their thought in his Areopagus speech, particularly that of the Stoics, and thoroughly redirect it in line with the Creator God of the Old Testament.
It was not particularly complimentary when the philosophers dubbed Paul a “babbler.” They used a colorful word (spermologos), “seed-speaker,” which evoked images of a bird pecking indiscriminately at seeds in a barnyard. It referred to a dilettante, someone who picked up scraps of ideas here and there and passed them off as profundity with no depth of understanding whatever.67 They could not understand Paul’s concept of resurrection at all. Epicureans did not believe in any existence after death, and Stoics believed that only the soul, the divine spark, survived death.68 So what was this idea of a bodily resurrection (anastasis)? “He must be speaking of a new goddess named resurrection (“Anastasia”) along with this new god Jesus he keeps talking about” (author’s paraphrase).69 How ironical that they were making Paul into a polytheist like themselves. Before the Areopagus he would eliminate such thinking with his clear monotheistic exposition of God the Creator. (Libronix Digital Library System)

This group of learned philosophers was very erudite, educated and articulate, a very formidable, intimidating bunch - Paul’s discourse as an equal, demonstrates his wide ranging education, proving his fluency in classical Greek as well as the common Greek shown in his day to day discourse,

A bit more Pauline information:

Title : Who's Who in Christian History
Edition : First
Copyright : Copyright © 1992 by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PAUL, THE APOSTLE (SAUL OF TARSUS) (c. 10–67) Prominent leader of the first-century church; apostle to the Gentiles; author of thirteen New Testament Epistles

FAMILY AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND
Paul was born a Jew in a family of Pharisees (Acts 23:6) of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5) in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3), a center of commerce and learning that embraced the Hellenistic spirit and Roman politics. It was a city of which he could be proud (Acts 21:39). His parents named him Saul after the first king of Israel, who was also a Benjaminite (1 Sam. 11:15; Acts 13:21), but Acts 13:9 notes that he “was also called Paul” (niv).He uses the Roman name Paul throughout his letters. From religious parents Paul received knowledge of the Law and Prophets and the Hebrew and Aramaic languages (Acts 21:40; 22:2-3; 23:6; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5, 6). Tarsus, however, was not a Jewish city. Rather it had a Greek character where the Greek language was spoken and Greek literature was cultivated. This accounts for Paul’s familiarity with Greek (Acts 21:37), the language of the streets and shops of Tarsus. Jews were brought to Tarsus, the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia, in 171 b.c. to promote business in the region. At that time Paul’s ancestors were probably given Roman citizenship. Paul inherited from his father both Tarsisian and Roman citizenship, which would prove to be of great value to Paul in his later life as he traveled with the gospel through the Roman Empire (Acts 16:37; 22:25-29; 23:27). Paul may have had several brothers and sisters, but Acts 23:16 mentions only one sister whose son performed a lifesaving act for his uncle. Like all Jewish sons Paul called his father “Abba,” an Aramaic word Paul later wove into the fabric of the Christian faith as an affectionate and intimate title for God the Father (Rom 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Paul was a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). He may have learned this trade from his father, or he may have selected it as a means of self-support as was the custom of those in rabbinical training. Tarsus was well known for the goat’s hair cloth called cilicium. It was the weaving of this cloth and the fashioning of it into tents, sails, awnings, and cloaks that gave Paul his economic independence during his apostolic ministry (Acts 18:3; 20:34; 28:30; 2 Cor 11:9; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8).

EDUCATION
Although born in Tarsus, Paul testified to the Jews in Jerusalem that he had been “brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3). It is not clear when Paul was first brought to Jerusalem, but it is likely that sometime between the ages of thirteen and twenty he began his formal rabbinical studies. His teacher, Gamaliel, was the grandson of Hillel, who began the Pharisaic school whose teachings run through the Talmudical writings to this day. This is the same Gamaliel whose wisdom persuaded the Sanhedrin to spare the lives of Peter and the apostles (Acts 5:33-40). No doubt it was while studying under Gamaliel in Hillel’s school that Paul began to advance in Judaism beyond many Jews of his own age and became extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers (Gal. 1:14). Perhaps then also Paul began to experience the struggles with the law he would later describe in Romans chapter 7. While Paul was studying the Jewish law in Jerusalem, Jesus was working as a carpenter in Nazareth. Then Jesus gathered the disciples who would one day be Paul’s fellow workers in the gospel, fulfilled his ministry, and accomplished redemption on the cross of Calvary (a.d. 30). Christ’s resurrection gave birth to the church, which was baptized in the Holy Spirit at the feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem. THE PERSECUTOR Shortly after these world-changing events, the members of certain synagogues in Jerusalem, including the Cilician synagogue, that of Paul’s native land (Acts 6:9), could not withstand the wisdom and spirit (Acts 6:10) of a member of the church in Jerusalem named Stephen (Acts 6:5, 8). They accused him of blasphemy before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:11-15) and after his eloquent defense (Acts 7:1-53) dragged him out of the city, where he was stoned to death, thereby becoming the first Christian martyr. The record does not fully reveal the role Paul played in these proceedings, but we know that he was present and prominent because the witnesses against Stephen, who were required to throw the first stones in the execution, “laid their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul” (Acts 7:58, niv). At Stephen’s trial, Paul heard Stephen’s historical method of defense, and he later used it himself at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41). He witnessed the man with the face of an angel (Acts 6:15), full of the Holy Spirit, looking above and proclaiming “the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). Later Paul would write to the Colossians to “seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1). Stephen’s death initiated the events that would culminate in Paul’s conversion and commission as the apostle to the Gentiles. But at the time, “Saul was consenting unto his death” (Acts 8:1). Paul became a leader of the oppressors of the church. He breathed threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord (Acts 9:1) and “persecuted the church of God, and wasted it” (Gal. 1:13), “binding and delivering into prisons both men and women” (Acts 22:4), “and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities” (Acts 26:10-11).

Saul or Paul341 was of strictly Jewish parentage, but was born, a few years after Christ,342 in the renowned Grecian commercial and literary city of Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia, and inherited the rights of a Roman citizen. He received a learned Jewish education at Jerusalem in the school of the Pharisean Rabbi, Gamaliel, a grandson of Hillel, not remaining an entire stranger to Greek literature, as his style, his dialectic method, his allusions to heathen religion and philosophy, and his occasional quotations from heathen poets show. Thus, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews,"343 yet at the same time a native Hellenist, and a Roman citizen, be combined in himself, so to speak, the three great nationalities of the ancient world, and was endowed with all the natural qualifications for a universal apostleship. He could argue with the Pharisees as a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, and as a disciple of the renowned Gamaliel, surnamed "the Glory of the Law." He could address the Greeks in their own beautiful tongue and with the convincing force of their logic. Clothed with the dignity and majesty of the Roman people, he could travel safely over the whole empire with the proud watchword: Civis Romanus sum.

DISCUSSION

1. Who is “Saul”?
2. When was he born?
3. What was the extent of his education?
4. What was his original religious inclination?
5. How did he change?
6. Where was Saul from?
7. What is significant about this?
8. How did Paul become a Roman citizen?
9. Why was this significant?
10. Give an example of Paul demonstrating his knowledge of Greek art and philosophy.

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)