Chapter Ten:
Christ's Early Teaching and Healings
Some rejected Jesus
|
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE STORY-- GOSPELS #10
NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE STORY-- GOSPELS #9
Chapter Nine:
John Exalts Jesus
Jesus talks to the Samaritan women at the well
|
NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE STORY-- GOSPELS #8
Chapter 8:
Jesus Clears Out the Merchants from the Temple
Nicodemus comes to Jesus - born of the Spirit
The apostle John early records a Passover that Jesus attended in Jerusalem during His ministry. The Temple in Jerusalem did not only consist of the sanctuary of the "holy place" and "most holy place" (the Temple, as the original Tabernacle in the time of Moses, was divided into two sections), but also had different court-yards around it. It was a very elaborate building indeed. You may want to take time to read about it all in a good Bible Dictionary or Encyclopedia. It was in one of those court-yards of the Temple that Jesus found those who were selling oxen, sheep, pigeons, and such animals and birds, as well as money-changers (for people offering money to the Temple priests for the service and upkeep of the Temple, and who came from different parts of the Roman Empire, so needing to exchange Roman money into Jewish money) used by the people to fulfil the sacrifices that were prescribed by the laws of Moses (see the first chapters of the book of Leviticus) under the Old Covenant. The mindset and character of those selling and exchanging money Jesus knew was far from pure and honorable. They were out to line their own pockets, to rob the people, to cheat them, to simply do a business and take advantage of the pure hearts of the people coming to worship God at the Temple and fulfil the laws of God as given to Israel through Moses. This is a good illustration that shows God accepted the enlarged Temple structure, because the people as a whole accepted it in their minds, as being and belonging to God and as an extension of the holy Sanctuary proper. This shows that there is a "spirit" of the law that goes beyond the "letter" of the law, which God honors, sometimes even under the Old Covenant. The original Sanctuary and Temple under Moses and Solomon, only needed to be a tent or building of one structure divided into two parts, a "holy place" and a "most holy place" inside just one fenced area or court-yard. By the time of Christ, the Jews had extended this building to include a number of court-yards. The outer court-yard was where the merchants had set up their market place. To them, and so to God, this was part of the overall Temple of the Lord. Jesus could see that those merchants were making the very House of God into something it was never intended to become - a merchant market place for profit. His anger grew more and more as He saw what was going on. The Bible says, "Be angry, but sin not." There is a time to become righteously angry. Many passages show that God can and does get righteously angry at times. Yet, it is always righteous anger, without any sin. There are times we must get very upset at sin and wrong doing. This was one of those times for Jesus. He made a long whip from string cords that came from boxes and packages that were sent to those merchants or that were used to tie up the animals they were selling. Jesus whirling the whip around His head, much like an American cowboy whirls his lariat over his head when roping a steer, drove the animals out of the Temple, and threw over the tables of the money-exchangers, the coins rolling all over the place. As He was doing all this, He raised His voice and exclaimed to those thieving and wrong minded merchants, "Take these things away! You shall not make my Father's house into a house of merchandise and business trade." The disciples of Jesus, many of them knowing much of what was written in the word of God, remembered the verse where it was written, "Zeal for Your house will consume me" (Ps.69:9). But, most of the Jews and merchants there, were not so perceptive and so spiritually in tune with who the Messiah was or what were the true ways of the Lord. They just looked at Jesus and declared, "Who gave you this authority to do this thing, drive out the merchants from the Temple? What sign will you give us to demonstrate and prove what you have done has the authority of God Himself behind it?" Jesus answered them by saying, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Once more the Jews had no idea what He was really speaking about, and thought He was talking about the physical stone building of the Temple they were all standing within. They, laughing at Jesus said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple, and you say that if it was destroyed you could build it back again in only three days. You must be out of your head, vain and mad, by saying such words." Jesus was not speaking about the physical Temple in Jerusalem, but was speaking about the temple of His body. The Holy Spirit dwelling in Jesus made His body as like a temple of holiness to God the Father. So it is with anyone who has God dwelling within them (see 2 Cor. 6:16-18). Jesus was indeed giving them a sign of His power and authority from God. He was foretelling them that one day though the Jews would kill Him, He would rise from the dead after three days. He was foretelling them of His resurrection to life and glory. His disciples at the time, did not understand fully what Jesus was referring to either. It was only after His resurrection that they remembered those words of His, and clearly understood then what He had told the Jews. All of this of course, after Jesus' resurrection, helped the disciples to believe in no uncertain way, all the Scriptures and all the words that Jesus had spoken during His ministry. Because of the miraculous signs He did in Jerusalem at this Passover celebration, many people were convinced that He was indeed the Messiah. Well, in an outward kind of manner they were convinced. But Jesus didn't trust them. He could see their deep inner heart and He knew what people were really like, who were not truly connected with God through humble repentance (John 2:13-25). No one for sure, needed to tell Him about human nature, what it could do and think on the outside surface, but not be that way in the depth of heart, especially when people would get offended by what He would say and teach, and the way He would live. And that is exactly what happened to many, even some of His disciples, later on. They got offended in Him, upset, bewildered, and confused, by things He said, and they walked away from Him. Though many believed on Him at that Passover, they did not continue to believe on and in Him later on, as we shall see. NICODEMUS COMES TO JESUS IN THE NIGHT There was a man by the name of Nicodemus, one of the leaders in the Jewish Sanhedrin (a court of the Jews that decided certain civil and religious matters, made up of leaders from the Pharisee and Sadducee denominations, and respected Elders among the Jewish people), and of the Pharisee religious party. He came to Jesus secretly, by night, and confessed, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." You will notice, Nicodemus did not say that they, leaders of the Jews and leaders from his religious party, knew and admitted that Jesus was the very Son of God. What he said was that they knew He was a true teacher of the word of the Lord, that God was with Him. Yes, secretly, many of the Jewish leaders admitted this among themselves, but would not openly declare it, for they feared loosing their followers, who would then follow Jesus, who like John the baptist, made it clear to them that He would not become a member of one of their sects. They knew He was very independent, hence a threat and to them, a competition for the support of the people. Nicodemus at this point in his life, would not come openly, in the day time, to admit this to Jesus, no doubt fearing what the other leaders of the Jews would try to do to him, certainly in a spiritual position way, and maybe even in a physical way. So he came at night, but did admit to Jesus that they knew God was with Him. Jesus got right down to the foundation and goal of why mankind was put on this earth, and what it would involve for Nicodemus to attain it. "I assure you, unless you are born again, you can never see the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus was taken a back by what Jesus said, "What do you mean? How can an old man go back into his mother's womb and be born again?" You will notice that Nicodemus clearly understood that Jesus was talking about a "birth" - thinking Jesus was meaning that to enter and see the Kingdom of God, a grown person somehow had to re-enter the womb of his mother and be literally born once more. Jesus was not talking about that kind of physical birth, but it was a birth that He was talking about. He went on to explain with a physical comparison, exactly what you must become like in order to see and be in the Kingdom of God. "The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans give birth to that which is physical but the Spirit gives birth to that which is spirit. Do not get all wide eyed and amazed and try to make what I'm telling you into some theological doctrine of the heart. For being born again is like this: The wind blows and does things, you can see the effect if may have, even hear it at times as it works among physical objects, but you cannot see the wind, it is invisible to the human eye. So then likewise is everyone who is born of the Spirit." The words of Jesus are pretty plain and quite simple. Jesus was telling Nicodemus that to enter the Kingdom of God, you do have to be born in this physical world as a physical flesh and blood person. You have to be conceived and grow in a sack of water in your mother's womb, and after being nourished and growing to a certain physical stage, then the water in the sack brakes and you are born into the world of air breathing flesh and blood creatures. That which is flesh is flesh. Everyone must first be flesh before they can be later born of the Spirit and become like the wind, invisible to the human eye. Jesus said that which is born of the Spirit IS spirit, and He likened this Spirit to the wind - invisible but having evidence that humans can relate to as indeed having effects on the physical world around us. In John 4:24 Jesus said that God IS Spirit. Many passages in the Bible show that God does have form and shape, that He does have a "body." The last chapters of the book of Revelation tell us that one day God's children will actually see His "face." His body is made of Spirit, not physical flesh, blood, and bone. God lives in a different world, a world of a different dimension. He lives in a "spirit" world that is, unless He chooses to reveal it to the human eye, an invisible world to our vision of our physical eyes. We know the Bible teaches there are good spirit creatures called "angels" and there are bad and evil spirit creatures called "demons." A few of the chief angels are mentioned by name in the pages of God's word, such as Gabriel, whom we have seen came to Mary to tell her she had been chosen to bear God's Son. Then the chief fallen and sinful spirit creature is mentioned by name also. We know him as being mainly called Satan, or the Devil. We cannot see these spirit creatures unless they either manifest themselves to us as if looking like humans, or if God works a miracle with our eye sight, enabling us to see them, which was granted to a few in the Old Testament (read 2 Kings 6 to see this truth). The book of Daniel is an interesting book in places. It tells us a little about this basically unseen spirit world that lies all around us. It mentions a few specifics as to what is happening among the "good" spirit creatures and the "bad" spirit creatures that oppose each other. God is composed of Spirit in His invisible glory form. And those who are to be His literal children, born of Him, who will enter the Kingdom of God, will also be spirit, for as the apostle Paul was inspired to write, "...Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God..." (1 Cor.15: 50). A large part of Paul's fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, is devoted to explaining the "change" that is to come, that must come, to those in whom God dwells (His sons and daughters, see 2 Cor.6:16) in order to IN-herit, see and enter the Kingdom of God, at the resurrection when the last trumpet sounds (see Matthew 24: 30-31). Jesus was saying the same thing to Nicodemus but in a shorter, nut-shell way. Of course being born of God, born of THE Spirit, means He must come and beget you first, making you in this life time His child through the indwelling of His nature, or Holy Spirit as the New Testament often calls it. All this means you are converted to His mind and way of thinking and wanting to live by His every word, as Jesus said we should (Mat.4:4). It means you remain His child to the end of your life. It means no matter what the trials, tests, hardships, problems, no matter what difficulties physically, mentally, or emotionally, that life may bring, you endure and remain His child, loving Him and doing His will to the end, until death. Then just as a child in its mother's womb has endured, been nourished, grown, and is finally born, so it will be for the child of God. He/she will one day be born of God, born of THE God Spirit, and enter His Kingdom. Jesus was telling Nicodemus that that was the very purpose as to why mankind was created upon this earth, to be born of the Spirit, to become part of the invisible spirit world. This is far greater than anything that science-fiction movies have ever thought up. But old Nicodemus was befuddled by what Christ was telling him. He just could not comprehend it and exclaimed in bewilderment, "How can these things be at all possible?" "Are you a teacher in Israel " Jesus answered him, "Is it not your job to read the Scriptures of the Lord, and to come to understand what it says, and you know not these things that I speak about? " Jesus was telling him that by reading and understanding and believing the Scriptures, he should have already known what He was expounding. Furthermore, Jesus told him, "But if you don't even believe me when I tell you about earthly things such as the wind and what I represented by it, then how can you possibly believe the things going on in heaven? For I know what heaven is truly like, as only I, the Son of Man, have come from heaven to earth, and will return to heaven again." This last part of Jesus' statement here is very revealing if we will but believe it for what it says. The King James translation of the Bible in 1611 put it this way: "No man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man." Jesus, of all human beings to ever live and walk this earth, is the only one to have been in heaven. The reality that death is a sleep, and that we do not continue to think and act after death, either in a heaven or a hell, is vividly brought out in a later chapter of the Gospel of John, when we see how Jesus raised a man called Lazarus back to life after being dead for four days. Jesus continued to tell Nicodemus, "And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake (Num.21:9) on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole, so that everyone who believes in me can have eternal life in the Kingdom of God." Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus and all who read this, that He, the Son of Man, was the Messiah, the Anointed One from God, the one who would come from God, live a perfect live, never do any wrong, take all sins of mankind upon Himself, die on a cross, thus forgiving the sins of all those who would believe and accept Him as the Saving Messiah. And in so doing they could have eternal life. Jesus added yet more, to show and to amplify, the one main purpose that God the Father had when He decided to create the physical human kind: "For God so loved the world (the people in it) that He gave His only Son, so that all who believe in Him do not have to perish but can have eternal life. God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it, to give people a chance for eternal life. There is no condemning those who trust and have faith in Him. But those who do not have trust in Him are condemning themselves for not believing in the only Son of God. Their condemnation is based on this fact: That light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness of sin and wrong-doing more than the light of righteousness, for their actions were evil. They do not like the light because they desire to sin in the darkness. They stay away from the light because they fear that the light will expose their sins, and then they would have to make a choice to either live in the light or to live in darkness. But, those who want to do what is right come to the light gladly, so all people can see that they are doing the will of God " (John 3:1-21). Nicodemus, a religious leader of the Jews, came to Jesus by night, secretly, and to be unseen. He admitted to Jesus that he and others like him, knew He was from God, that God was with Him, but stopped short of saying He was the Son of God, and the saving Messiah to come. Jesus, got right down to business, hit the nail on the head, pulled no punches, and not only told Nicodemus that He was the Son of God, sent to save and give eternal life to those who would believe on Him, but told him that the main purpose of God, because He had so much love, was to save people to eternal life, not to condemn them to death. Jesus said it was the purpose of God to have people born of Him, born of the Spirit, and so be like Himself, to live in a dimension that was mighty and powerful like the wind was at times, and also invisible to the human eye, as also was the wind. Jesus told Nicodemus that to be born of the Spirit, would mean you were willing to come to the light of truth and righteousness, to be willing to have your wrongs and sins clearly revealed to you by the light, and to walk in the ways of the Lord God. Such people would then acknowledge that He Jesus, the Christ, was the very Son of God, and would gladly come to the light, so the light could lead and guide them into doing the will of God. Jesus was teaching Nicodemus the purpose for human existence, and the true and only way to salvation or eternal life. This was also a kind but corrective rebuke to Nicodemus as he had at this point in his life not yet come to acknowledge that Jesus was the very Son of God, and so was still not yet in the mindset of loving all the light. It is a lesson everyone of us need to take to our heart and mind. To walk in the light as He (God) is light. Then one day we can be born of the Spirit, and see the Kingdom of God. .................................. Written February 2001 |
NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE STORY-- GOSPELS #7
Chapter Seven:
Jesus' Three Temptations from Satan
Many of the servants and prophets of God before the time Jesus was to enter His teaching ministry, had fasted (going without food, and often without water also) for a certain number of days, in order to really draw close to God, and put their mind on the task that lay before them. Moses and the prophet Elijah were two that it is said and written of them, that they fasted for 40 days. Moses did it twice, so it is written in the book of Exodus. Jesus was certainly no less than those two great men. He was in fact greater than them. So it should be no surprise for us that Matthew and Luke both mention, "And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit for forty days in the wilderness, tempted by the Devil. And He ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, He was very hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). Jesus needed to prepare Himself for the job ahead of Him. He needed to draw very close to the Father, and Satan the Devil knew he had one last big chance to do battle with Jesus and to try and defeat Him before He even got started. At the end of the forty days Jesus was very hungry indeed. Oh, the Devil may have tried tempting Him all along during all those forty days, as His body began to weaken. Mark implies that was the case, as he records that angels came to serve Him, probably giving Him protection from evil Demons trying to hurt Him in some way. But at the end of those forty days, when Jesus was really physically weak and so very hungry, Satan himself, personally, came to Jesus to tempt Him to do wrong, to sin, and to sign up for his team against the God in heaven. The Devil with sarcasm in his voice, said to Jesus, "Now IF you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread." Actually, the Devil knew very well that Jesus was the Son of God, so it was with a sarcastic voice he said those words, trying to needle Jesus into getting upset at his seeming doubt that He really was God's Son. Satan hoped Jesus would slip up and angrily abuse His power and authority, and do exactly as the Devil wanted Him to do - make bread to eat, from stones. If He had, it would have all been from the wrong motive under this seductive temptation from the Devil. Jesus did not fall for this trick from Satan. He knew His Bible, and replied to the Devil by quoting it. He said, "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Jesus left the desert and went to Jerusalem and ascended up to the top of the pinnacle of the Temple. As He looked out over the land before Him, Satan came along once more and said to Him, "IF you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, 'He will give His angels charge over you' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, less you strike your foot against a stone.'" Not only was the Devil still being sarcastic and acting by trying to put doubt into the mind of Jesus by saying, "If you be the Son of God" but he was now even quoting Scripture to tempt Jesus to abuse and play with His power and also the Father's will that there should be no harm or death to His Son before the time appointed. Jesus knew that no Scripture stood as an island unto itself, but must always be understood in the light of all other Scriptures written through the inspiration of God. So, Jesus, knowing all the other Scriptures, was able to answer the Devil by saying, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.' " It is very true that God can protect us from harm such as falling from a high place, or if in a car accident, but because we know that God can send angels to protect us from physical harm, does not mean we deliberately jump from a ten story building, or stand in front of an on coming train, to say to God that we want Him to prove He will protect us. Jesus came down from the pinnacle of the Temple and went to the top of one of the high mountains around Jerusalem. He could see far off into the distance. His mind knew many kingdoms of different nations and empires were out there in the world, including the great Roman Empire, that ruled much of the main hub of the central world at that time. "Ah, see all these mighty kingdoms," said the Devil to Jesus, "Do you see in your mind all the glory they have. Well, if you will come on my side, worship me, and do my will, I will give you control of all the world. You can in this physical life be the greatest world ruler this earth has ever seen." Now, at this temptation, Jesus got righteously angry with Satan. "Get out of here, be gone, Satan," was Jesus' reply to him. "For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.' " (Mat.4: 3-11). With those final words from Jesus, the Devil left Him. For the time being he left Him, for Luke recorded in his Gospel account that Satan departed from Him, until an opportune time came once more (Luke 4:13). We are not told in any of the Gospels that the Devil ever had another opportunity like that, to tempt Jesus to sin, as when He fasted for forty days. SOME OF THE RECORDINGS OF THE APOSTLE JOHN There are sections of the Gospel of John that are very hard, if not impossible, to put into chronological order in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. There is no specific indication as to when exactly they may have taken place during His ministry and years of teaching and preaching, leading up to His death. Some, who have tried to compile a "harmony" of the Gospels, trying to put it all in chronological order, have placed these sections of John at the very beginning and very early on in the public ministry of Jesus. We also will do the same. Some from their very nature of events are indeed at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, but some others are not so clear that they were at the beginning. JESUS' FIRST DISCIPLES It was the next day after John the baptist had baptized Jesus in the river Jordan. The sun had risen over the desert hills of Judea, the air was clean, the birds were singing their merry songs. John was getting ready to once more proclaim the salvation and the Kingdom of God to the people coming out to hear him speak the words of God. He was reflecting on the preceding day, how he had known somewhat of this one called Jesus, that through the years he had borne witness to how perfect and sinless this man was. He had known there was something special about Him, but yet, not having any direct revelation from God during those years, he was not sure if this Jesus was the Messiah Christ to come. Then the Lord God had spoken to him and told him that the one whom he would baptize and the one whom he would see the Spirit of God descending like a dove and remaining upon Him, that someone would be the very Son of God, the very promised Messiah. Oh, John surely knew now who the Anointed One was. And as he was standing and talking to and teaching a few of his disciples, who should walk by but Jesus once again. John noticed Jesus the Christ and said to those within ear distance of him, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" Two of John's disciples heard what he had said, and immediately started to follow Jesus. John had taught them that one greater than he was to come, who would be the promised Messiah. The two disciples knew this was the man for John had now clearly pointed Him out to them. Jesus knew two men were following Him. He turned and said to them, "What do you seek?" They answering said, "Rabbi (which means Teacher), where are you staying?" To which Jesus replied, "Well, why don't you come with me and see." They needed no more invitation than that, and so went with Jesus and stayed with Him, as it was about 4 p.m. by the time they arrived where He was lodging for the evening and the night. One of the two men was called Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, and this Peter is well known by those who have read the four Gospels, being an outspoken and forceful man, who became one of the inner twelve disciples chosen by the Lord Jesus, a little later in His ministry. Andrew was very excited at finding this Christ (which word meant Messiah to them). So excited was he that he just had to run off and find his brother Simon Peter, and not only tell him the good news of their find, but to bring Peter back with him to meet Jesus. When Jesus sees Simon He knows his basic human character and personality, and says to him, "So you are Simon the son of Jona. You we shall call Cephas (in English we say Peter, and which means, a stone or boulder)." I'm sure they had lots to talk about with each other that evening. The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He wanted to find a man called Philip and He did find him. And Jesus told him to follow along and be one of His disciples. Philip happened to also be from the same town as Andrew and Peter, the town of Bethsaida (which word means, house or place of fishing), and is situated on the north-east coast of the sea of Galilee. You may want to look it up on a map which some Bibles contain. Well, Philip ran off to find a friend called Nathaniel, and said to him in an exited joyous voice, "Oh friend, we have found the man whom Moses and the prophets have written about, He is called Jesus, comes from the town of Nazareth, and is the son of the man called Joseph." Nathaniel, with a slight grin, more like a smirk on his face, answered by saying, "Oh, tell me another one. Can anything good possibly come out of a pip-squeak town like Nazareth?" "Well, you come and see for yourself then, if you think you have the answers to this whole expectation we are looking for," Philip answered back to him. Nathaniel was up to that challenge, and so off he went with Philip to see for himself this man called Jesus the Christ. Jesus sees him coming from a little way down the road. He looks intensely at him as he got closer and closer. When within ear shot, Jesus raised His voice and said to Nathaniel, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, and one in whom there is no deceit, an honest man." "How do you know about me," Nathaniel asked Jesus. "Oh, I could see you under the fig tree, before Philip came to you," replied Jesus, just astounding Nathaniel even more, for he was very sure that neither of them had ever met or seen each other before this moment. With wonder and joy in his voice, Nathaniel exclaimed, "Teacher, you are the Son of God - the King of Israel!" At this faithful statement, Jesus said, "Do you believe all this, believe that I am the Son of God, because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? This is really nothing as to the things you will see. For you will see heaven open and the angels of God going up and down upon the Son of Man." Jesus was pleasantly surprised that Nathaniel could so quickly come to recognize that He was the Messiah, the Son of the Most High, and related to him the greater wonders he would yet see one day. He would see the angels serving the Son of Man. That is all that is ever said about what Nathaniel would one day see. When it took place, if it was for Nathaniel's life time in the flesh, and not when he shall be in the Kingdom of God, we are not told (John 1:35-51). JESUS ATTENDS A WEDDING AND PERFORMS A MIRACLE A few days later (according to the continued reading in the Gospel by the apostle John), there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee. Jesus, His mother and His disciples were all invited. And they all went. A Jewish marriage back in those days could be a very large, festive occasion, often celebrated for a number of days, even up to a week in length. Good wine for all the guests was the common drink, as people came and went, offering their congratulations and best wishes for the bridegroom and his bride. So many people came to this wedding that all the wine was used up, or as we would say today, "they ran out of wine." Jesus' mother, knowing of course that He was from God, and had special powers, came quietly to Him and said, "They have no wine." The way she looked at Him and the way she said those words, Jesus knew instantly what His mother was requesting Him to do. Miraculously make more wine. Jesus Himself was not intending to do a public miracle, or make some kind of a big show, at this wedding. He answered His mother by saying, "O woman, this does not concern you and me. My time has not yet come." Meaning He did not yet want to go public with His miracle working power. But, His mother (as mothers often have an inner sense for things) knew He would supply the needed wine. And so she told the servants to do whatever Jesus instructed them to do. There were six stone water-pots in the area, used for the Jewish ceremonial purposes, and held about twenty to thirty gallons each. Jesus told the servants, "Fill those jars with water." And when they had been filled to the brim, He told them to dip some out and take it to the master of the wedding feast. And the servants did exactly as Jesus told them to do. When the master of the wedding feast tasted the water (which had been made into wine), not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over saying to him, "Usually a host serves the best wine first, then when everyone is full and has enjoyed the best wine, he brings out the less expensive wines. But you have kept the best until now!" Jesus not only did an instant water into wine miracle, but "aged" it, as it is called in the wine making trade. The very best wine must age for a long period of time. Some wines that have been bottled for a hundred or so years, are classified as the best, and are expensive to buy. This, John says, was Jesus' first open display of His miraculous power. The servants knew who did this miracle and would have soon whispered it to others, until everyone there would have known it was Jesus who had turned water into the best of wine. With this miracle, the knowledge that He was the Messiah, the Son of God, was deeper imbedded into the minds of Jesus' disciples. After the wedding the apostle John tells us that Jesus went to Capernaum for a few days, with His mother, His brothers, and His disciples. It is more than just interesting, that John puts Jesus' "brothers" and His "disciples" into two distinct and separate groups. We have evidence from the other Gospel writers also, that Joseph and Mary had biological children, as most married couples hope for when they marry. Jesus had brothers, well they would have been what we term as "half brothers" - all having the same mother (Mary) but not the same father. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, as we have seen, God was His father (John 2: 1-12). ............................... Written January 2001 |
NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE STORY-- GOSPELS #6
Chapter Six:
John Begins His Ministry
|
Monday, January 19, 2026
PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT-- SURPRISES INDEED!!!
Get ready for some surprises
PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
From The Book by E. Earle Ellis
All Emphasis is by Keith Hunt
|
FROM CHAPTER 0NE.........PAUL AND HIS BIBLE The writings of the apostle Paul reveal a person immersed in the content and teaching of the OT. H.A.A. Kennedy, after a study of Paul's religious terminology, found that practically every leading conception in this field of Paul's thought had its roots definitely laid in OT soil (H.A.A. Kennnedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, London, 1913, pp. 154-60). Whether he is giving a dogmatic proof (e.g. Rom.3:10-18), an analogy (e.g. Rom.2:24), or an illustration (e.g. Rom.10:6-8), or merely using language with which to clothe his own thoughts (e.g. Rom.12:20; 1 Cor.15:32; 2 Cor.10:17; 13:1), the OT appears frequently throughout the Pauline epistles......... The Pauline use of the OT appears in THREE DISTINCT forms: QUOTATIONS PROPER, INTENTIONAL AND CASUAL ALLUSION, and DIALECTIC AND THEOLOGICAL THEMES. The task of defining "quotation" in the Pauline literature is rather difficult, and the decision in the end is somewhat arbitrary. The apostle probably did not have OUR CONCEPT of quotation marks; he certainly did not give it the sanctity which characterises our literary usage. Some references which are introduced with an explicit citation formula echo only the TENOR OF THE PASSAGE (e.g. 1 Cor.14:31); others, not given even the dignity of an introductory conjunction, follow the OT text verbatim ac literatim (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:32). The gradation from quotation to illusion is so imperceptible that it is almost impossible to draw any certain line......... THE NATURE OF THE QUOTATIONS GENERAL ANALYSIS Paul quotes the OT NINETY-THREE TIMES (About one-third of all New Testament quotations are cited by Paul)........ Although the quotations are drawn from SIXTEEN OT books, THREE-FOURTHS of them are from the PENTATEUCH (thirsty-three), ISAIAH (twenty-five), and the PSALMS (nineteen). The citations appear both SINGLY and in COMBINATION........ FIFTY-ONE of Paul's citations are in ABSOLUTE or VIRTUAL agreement with the LXX, TWENTY-TWO of these are at VARIANCE with the Hebrew. In FOUR passages Paul follows the Hebrew AGAINST the LXX; THIRTY-EIGHT times he DIVERGES from BOTH. Combined quotations show a much greater variation than the others....... The PRIORITY of the LXX in Pauline quotations has long been recognised.......Swete affirms that more than HALF of the Pauline QUOTATIONS were taken from the LXX without MATERIAL CHANGE and that, by any test, the LXX "is the principal source from which the writers of the New Testament derived their Old Testament quotations........Affinities with the LXX are not only evident in Paul's quotations but EXTEND to his GENERAL STYLE and VOCABULARY as well........"The careful student of the Gospels and St. Paul," concludes Swete, "is met at every turn by words and phrases which cannot be fully understood without reference to their earlier use in the Greek Old Testament. The quotations show considerable distribution among the LXX TEXT-FORMS, none of them being followed CONSISTENTLY. Sometimes they agree with LXX-B, more often with LXX-A and LXX-F........In general, LXX-A appears to be more in accord with Paul's quotations than the other manuscripts....... As noted above, there are a considerable number of variations from the LXX in Paul's quotations. To account for them several hypotheses lie at hand: a direct use of the Hebrew or its employment to correct the LXX, citations from an Aramaic Targum or translation, the use of the Greek translations, or free quotations from memory. Paul often gives the impression of quoting from memory, yet the memory which was the storehouse of more than one language, and one trained in Jewish methods of bringing together passages from different books of the OT. From a psychological viewpoint it might be expected that one who knew the Scriptures in several languages would be less ties to any text-form......... One of Paul's quotations shows remarkable resemblance to Greek texts OTHER than the LXX.......It is probable that Paul was acquainted with other Greek texts; however, the evidence is not sufficient to draw any final conclusions......Nevertheless, Aramaic texts of some type probably lie behind some of the citations.......The variant in Eph.4:8 may also reflect a Targum, but its immediate source is more probably an interpretive rendering known to Paul and perhaps used in the early Church....... As the above observations indicate, the text behind Paul's quotations is a most DIFFICULT PROBLEM. While the Alexandrian version probably had the character of an official translation for the diaspora in certain areas and plays an important part in Paul's usage, it CANNOT be regarded as the apostle's SOLE textual source. His fluency in Aramaic and Greek might, on first observations, favour an ad hoc rendering. However, affinities with other Greek texts and the familiar manner in which the quotations are often introduced SUGGEST that Paul made use of variant translations or renderings known to his readers. Whether these were independent texts or merely revisions within the LXX family cannot be determined with certainty, but the EVIDENCE DOES NOT point to any great number of independent textual traditions or to a great abundance of Greek Targums. Some of Paul's variants show the influence of the Hebrew; other can to traced to NO TEXT AT ALL - they are Paul's OWN RENDERING in which he interprets and applies as he quotes. The nature of the problem and the incomplete state of the textual ecidence preclude any final adjudication of the matter; the words of Stanley still remain relevant for several Pauline passages: "(There is) not sufficient evidence to say whether this (variation) arises from a reminiscence of the Hebrew text....., or from an Aramaic Targum, or from the use of an earlier form of the LXX text." The inconclusive character of results obtainable from textual criteria leads one to consider a solution, or at least a partial solution, on other grounds. There is always a temptation to relieve oneself of textual difficulties by taking recourse in "free paraphrase" or "interpretive rendering." Nevertheless, several factors, both in the textual analysis and in the overall Pauline hermeneutics, INDICATE that the answer to many of these problems MAY LIE in THIS direction. PAUL'S ATTITUDE TO SCRIPTURE General Considerations Paul's use of the OT cannot be understood apart from his attitude towards it. To him the Scriptures are holy and prophetic (Rom.1:2; 4:3); they constitute the very oracles of God (Rom.3:1-2), and they "were written......for our learning" (Rom.15:4). All his important doctrines are buttressed by an appeal to his Bible; to place the origin of Scripture in God, Paul's phrase "God-breathed" (2 Tim.3:16) could hardly be improved upon. In his view of the OT the apostle is in agreement not only with Christ and the other NT writers but also with the whole of Judaism and the early Church. Although the OT is sometimes referred to by Paul as "the law" (e.g. 1 Cor.14:21 with Isa.28:11-12), "the writings" (Col.2:14; cf 2 Tim.3:15), or "the law and the prophets" (e.g. Rom.3:21), "the scriptures" is the prevailing usage. These designations probably stemmed from the three divisions of the Jewish canon (Cf. Luke 24:44)............ The essential difference between Paul and the Jews in their employment of Scripture was an INTERPRETIVE one......In Paul's eyes the Jews stood ON the Scriptures; though they extolled it, they ERRED because they did not KNOW it (Cf. Matt.22:29)......... In First and Second Corinthians Paul teaches expressly that a correct understanding of Scripture is impossible without the Holy Spirit (Cf. 1 Cor.2; 2 Cor.3:14)......The place of the Spirit does not lesson the authority of the OT for Paul; nor is there any antithesis between the Scripture and the Spirit........ The Relation....To Other Authorities Besides the Scriptures there are several other authorities to which Paul appeals to support his assertions. There are the law of nature, the conscience of the individual, his own revelation from Christ or the Holy Spirit, and the teaching of Christ as received through oral or written apostolic tradition. Although the natural order is the source of many analogies, it is evoked only a few times as an AUTHORITY (Analogies of law - Rom. 7:1-3; Gal. 3:15; 4:1ff, occupations - Rom.9:21; 1 Cor.3:7,24ff, and natural phenomena - Rom.11:16-24; 1 Cor.12:14, are common. The Ot is used in this manner as well, e.g. 2 Cor.4:6,13, as is the example of Christ, e.g. 2 Cor.8:8-9. They serve only as illustrations, however, and not as an appeal to authority; their propriety depends upon the authority of the user or their appeal to the logic of the hearer); in Rom.1:18ff (cf. Rom.2:14ff) God's power and Deity are declared to be taught by nature; distinction between the sexes in manner of appearance and dress is also in the very nature of things (1 Cor.11:14). The authority of the individual conscience plays an important part for Paul: Regarding the eating of food offered to idols, one's own conscience is to be obeyed, and the conscience of others are not to be offended (1 Cor.8:7ff; 10:25ff; cf. Rom.14:23. Also Rom.2:15; 13:5 may be viewed as referring to a sort of universal conscience); by disobeying the voice of conscience the faith of some has been made shipwreck (1 Tim.1:19). Writing to the Galatians, the apostle grounds the very nature of his Gospel in a personal revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12, 16ff; 2:5, but contrast Rom.1:2; cf. 1 Thes.4:15. The instances in Rom. 14:14, cf. 1 Cor.7:40, seem to be more in the nature of a "witness of the Spirit" than specific revelation; cf. Col.3:16); it is only after citing this authority and the witness of their own experience that the evidence of the OT is brought to bear (Gal.3:1-5, 6ff). The condemnation of the Corinthians for their desecrations of the Lord's Supper is founded upon Christ's own words as to the nature of that service (1 Cor.11:23ff); Paul's command against divorce is similarly based upon the known teaching of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10 with Matt.7:31; cf. 1 Cor.9:14 with Matt.10:10; Gal.6:2 with John 13:34). These appeals to other authorities are not inconsistent with the apostles appeal to scriptural authority (There are authorities inconsistent with Scripture which Paul condemns: any authority contrary to his Gospel - Gal.1:8f - and the wisdom of this world - 1 Cor.1-3; cf. Rom.1:22; Col.2:23. The touchstone for judgment is not to go "beyond that which is written" - 1 Cor.4:6)......... This appeal to different authorities is at times found in close combination though there seems to be no consistent pattern of association. For example, in 1 Cor.9:7-14 Paul proceeds from the analogy of nature to the witness of the OT; immediately he returns to another analogy, the practice of the temple, and clinches the whole argument citing the command of Christ directly bearing on the subject. 1 Cor.15:3-11 is even more noteworthy: Christ's resurrection is grounded in the OT, the apostolic tradition, and Paul's personal revelation........ Paul's OWN authority plays a MUCH LARGER role in his epistles than is usually assigned to it. A few times it is of a very much qualified nature (Cf. 1 Cor.7:12, 25, 40), but for the MOST PART it is ASSERTED with no indication of being anything LESS thanb ABSOLUTE. He does not often state its basis, but it appears to arise from his firm conviction of guidance from the Holy Spirit and from his authority as an apostle. Paul concludes his discussion of GLOSSOLALIA with the words: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord" (1 Cor.14:37. The verse may refer to a teaching of Christ; but the words imply primarily the guidance of the Spirit....). With reticence but firmness he warns the Corinthians in his second letter of the AUTHORITY he has from the Lord (2 Cor.10:8; 13:10). Instructions concerning the Christian's relation to the State are enjoined WITHOUT CITING an authority (Rom.13:1-7 but cf. Matt.22:21), as are his COMMANDS regarding spiritual gifts (1 Cor.12-14). MANY OTHER themes are developed at least in part WITHOUT reference to ANY RULE apart from his OWN. It is true that sometimes OT texts (e.g. Rom.2:13; cf. Rom. 10:5; Gal.3:12 with Lev.18:5), and his former instructions (Former instructions from Scripture or the apostolic traditions appear implied..... 1 Cor.6:3, 9, 15, 16; only the last instance is followed by an OT citation, cf. 1 Cor.3:16; 2 Cor.6:16. It may, however, only refer to their Christian commonsense), underline the words, but they do not account for all of his paragenetic and doctrinal teachings. It is impossible, of course, to know just how much knowledge of the OT and the apostolic traditions Paul assumes on the part of his readers; but his OWN apostolic jurisdiction is UNMISTAKABLE in a number of passages....... But the OT was not one of those things which Paul counted loss for the sake of Christ; indeed, it could be understood ONLY in the LIGHT of CHRIST. There are many explanations for Paul's infrequent use of the OT in the shorter letters.....The use of an authority other than the Jewish Scriptures may well have been more suitable for many questions which arose, especially in a young Gentile assembly. But it DOES NOT FOLLOW that thereby the OT was set aside or subordinated, any more than a citation from Isaiah implies a lower view of Jeremiah........ For Paul, Jesus was ABOVE ALL the CHRIST; to divorce the Messiah from the "book-religion" of the OT was hardly a task for a Jew - even one converted through personal revelation. The Extent.....Paul's Canon ........There are a few quotations in the Pauline epistles which do not appear on first observation to be derived from the OT. The passages most often questioned in this regard are 1 Cor. 2:9.....Eph. 4:8.....Eph. 5:14.....1 Cor. 15:45b.....1 Tim. 5:18b......... 1 Cor. 2:9 has been attributed to: 1. An apocryphal writing; 2. an apocryphal phraseology of the OT texts; 3. a Jewish anthology of OT passages; 4. and a free paraphrase of the OT by Paul. Eph. 4:8 is generally taken to be a Pauline use of a common Jewish interpretation of the OT passage..... Eph. 5:14, older commentators have generally assigned it to an exegetical paraphrase or summary of Isa.60:1, 19ff (cf.Isa.9:2; 26:19; 52:1).......Recent writers have suggested a verbum Christi or, more often, an early Christian hymn giving a messianic paraphrase of several OT passages....... The quotations in 1 Cor. 15:45 and 1 Tim. 5:18, both cited as Scripture, suggest another answer to the whole problem (Cf. also 2 Tim.2:11-13, 19; 2 Cor.6:2; 1 Tim.3:16). The latter clause in each of these passages seems logically and grammatically within the quotation (e.g. the argument in 1 Cor.15 partly rests on that portion of the "quotation"), yet neither is from the OT. 1 Tim. 5:18b is a saying of Jesus (Matt.10:10; Luke 10:17; cf. Acts 20:35); the former passage (1 Cor. 15:45b) is of undetermined origin........ Christ was regarded as the Word of God by Paul, and 2 Peter 3:16 appears to equate the Pauline writings WITH SCRIPTURE; furthermore, the exercise of the gift of prophecy was no less from the Holy Spirit than the oracles of the OT prophets (Cf. Acts 2:17ff; 19:6; 21:4, 9ff; 1 Cor.14. These Spirit-inspired utterances evidently included hymns as well; cf. 1 Cor.14:15). If these observations are correct, and if Eph.5:14 does not find its ultimate source in the OT, the most probable alternative source is a saying either of Jesus or of a Christian prophet....... So I end quotations from chapter one. Chapter two is titled "PAUL AND JUDAISM" and contains a large amount of instructive wealth for those wanting a full study on that part of Paul as it pertains to his background in Judaism. For our purposes in this article the following few passages will be enough for the average reader. Quote: .......... Without doubt the apostles understanding of the OT was completely REVOLUTIONIZED after his conversion; nevertheless his Jewish heritage remained of fundamental IMPORTANCE for his understanding and use of the Bible. His reverence for and study of the Scriptures LONG PRECEDED his knowledge of Christ.......Having recognized the place of Judaism in Paul's thought, a note of CAUTION should be added. From that day on the Damascus road, the home of Paul's heart and of his mind NEVER AGAIN lay in Judaism.......The commonly used fragmentary quotation, with the continuance of given portion sometimes implied (e.g. 1 Cor.2:9.....), the insertion of hortatory, ethical sections, and other procedures more distinctively Jewish, were probably acquired by Paul in his training as the rabbinate. It is most natural, and not in the least derogatory, to find these methods in his epistles. As Prat well states, "the interests of truth did not require him to unlearn all that he had been taught." .......In Rom.9-11 and Gal.3 Paul employs the ancient MIDRASHIC form of commentary; but his incisive manner and compact, integrated treatment is quite at odds with the rabbinic system. Often to support an opinion the rabbis quote the Law, Prophets and Hagiographa in succession and Paul also adopts this custom on occasion (Cf. Rom.11:8- 10; 15:9-12......The custom is evident in Christ as well; cf. Luke 24:44; Mark 12:3-8; Luke 16:16,29). It is not HABITUAL with the apostle, however, and probably represents only an incidental reminiscence. Hillel's principles of a fortiori and analogy are implicit in MANY Pauline passages (e.g. Rom.4-5. Paul's exposition in 1 Cor.7 is an example of NT Halacha; the allegory in Gal.4 is Haggada)....... .....certain other Pauline practices may be compared with Jewish usage; his INTRODUCTORY FORMULAS (IF), his COMBINED QUOTATIONS, and his use of ALLEGORY......... Warfield's words are apropos: "There is probably not a single mode of alluding to or citing Scripture in all the NT which does not find its exact parallel among the Rabbis. The New Testament so far evinces itself a THOROUGHLY JEWISH book" (Warfield, op. cit., pp. 118f) Combined Quotations .........The apostle never introduces his haraz in the explicit rabbinical manner, i.e. The Law says....., the Prophets say......, the Writings say..... However, the rationale behind the Jewish usage, "not as though the words of the Law need confirmation, but to show how the Scriptures emphasises the lesson by iteration," IS EVIDENTLY operative also in Paul's mind....... Examples of the haraz, so frequent in Rom.9-11, 15, are NUMEROUS in the TALMUD.......In the haraz, then, Paul follows the PRACTICE of the rabbis, but for the SOURCE of his frequently used MERGED quotations one must look elsewhere. Allegory .......the method is employed by the apostle in connexion with a DIVINELY DESIGNED type (e.g. 1 Cor.10:4: "The Rock was Christ") or with the ILLUSTRATIVE use of an OT passage (Cf. Gal.4:25: "this Hagar is Mt.Sinai"......) .......The whole of Paul's TYPOLOGICAL exegesis has more in common, as a method, with the Alexandrian school than with the rabbis....... .......In conclusion. Paul's treatment of the OT often finds much in common with the methods of his day as reflected in Jewish literature; his IF and haraz are especially to be noted in this regard. In other respects Pauline methods find FEW parallels in contemporary Jewish writings. The use of MERGED quotations is LITTLE found in the rabbis. In contrast to PHILO, Paul's use of ALLEGORY is VERY MINOR and its character altogether DIFFERENT from that of Alexandrian writers; and his TYPOLOGICAL view of OT history is a RARE, if not unknown, element in contemporary Jewish exegesis. In all things but allegorical interpretation, Paul's Jewish methodology reflects a Palestinian milieu, and even in that the Alexandrian contact does not appear to be close or direct. The apostle is NOT averse to using methods from his Jewish training as they suit his purpose; ON THE OTHER HAND, some of his methods seem to arise from a Christian hermeneutic and from the practice of the apostolic community and CANNOT be explained by his Jewish background....... Messianic Consciousness .......In the rabbis it was a standing principle to refer to the predictions of the prophets as to the "days of the Messiah," and this principle is almost always in evidence in Paul's interpretations.......Almost a century ago Westcott examined the question and found that of NINETY-FOUR passages quoted messianically in the NT only FORTY- FOUR were interpreted in the same manner in Jewish writings; there are FEW revisions of that estimate to be made today.......the main sources for Paul's messianic interpretations of the OT are the principles and emphases received from the apostolic tradition and his own exegesis of the OT as a Christian, One would find it hard to root this element of his thought immediately in Judaism........ The Beggarly Elements When Paul warned Timothy and Titus to beware of Jewish FABLES and commandments of MEN (1 Tim.1:4; Titus 1:14; 3:9), NO DOUBT HE HAD IN MIND MANY OF THE THINGS exemplified in the rabbinic literature. Although some of their exegesis is praiseworthy.....nevertheless its essential character is indeed "weak and beggarly." Prat has well summarised it: "In the slough of Apocryphal and rabbinical writings a few particles of gold can sometimes be met with, but with how much dross they are combined." To realize the GREAT GULF which separates Paul's use of the OT from that of the rabbis, one need only observe a FEW examples from talmudic literature: 1. "The dust of the first man was gathered from all over the earth because Ps.139:16 says God saw the unformed substance, and Zech. $:10 says the eyes of the Lord run to and fro through the whole earth" (Sanh. 38b; SBT, p.241). 2. "Why did Obadiah hide fifty prophets in the cave" (1 Kings 18:4)? "Because the cave would only hold fifty" (Sanh. 39b; SBT, p.253). 3. "The first man had two faces because Ps.139:5 says, 'Thou hast formed me behind and before' " (Ber.61a; SBT, p.381). 4. "The first man reached from earth to heaven because it says (Deut.4:32), 'since the day God created man upon the earth and from one end of the heaven' " (Sanh. 38b; SBT, p.243). 5. "Whoever places his bed north and south will have male children because Ps. 17:14 says, 'Whose belly thou fillest with treasure, who have sons in plenty' " Treasure, also means north (Ber. 5b; SBT, p.22). Although there are exceptions, and the above examples are graphic, they are by no means UNTYPICAL or EXTREME and can be adduced AD INFINITUM ET AD NAUSEAM from almost any section of the Talmud. The ruling principle of rabbinic exposition of Scripture is well expressed in Sanh. 34a (SBT, p.214): "A verse is capable of as many interpretations as splinters of rock crushed by a hammer, for Jer.23:29 says, 'Like a hammer that breaketh a rock in pieces.....' " Their SPLINTERING, purposeless, speculative musings....have not the REMOTEST kinship with Paul's theology or hermeneutical principles........ The rabbis worshipped the LETTER and sought to justify their TRADITIONS by arbitrary exegesis; Paul's usage, on the other hand, is NOT arbitrary or AGAINST the LITERAL sense if the typological usage be granted. Toy sums up the rabbinic exegesis in the principle "that EVERY SENTENCE and EVERY WORD of the Scripture was credited with ANY MEANING that it could possibly be MADE TO BEAR......" Concerning Paul's relation to Jewish thought Kennedy has given a better evaluation than most: "........His writings reveal every here and there affinities with his native environment. But the remarkable FACT REMAINS that these affinities are largely SUPERFICIAL, that they disclose themselves at the CIRCUMFERENCE rather than at the CENTER of his thought" (H.A.A.Kennedy, St.Paul's Conception of the Last Things, London, 1904, pp. 43ff). Paul's Use of Non-Canonical Literature General The question of Paul's knowledge and use of Jewish Apocrypha has been debated since.....1795, and it continues to be a matter of dispute. His knowledge of Palestinian writings in general circulation may be presumed; as for the literature of the diaspora the problem becomes more complex......What writings were in general circulation? Which ones would be seen and used by a student of the rabbinate? To what extent does the extant literature represent the really "important" literature of Paul's day, and for his party? Paul's ONLY non-canonical citations are from GREEK literature........ Paul's relation to Philo is best explained.......as mutual dependence upon a common tradition........Philo arrives at a position regarding the law which approximates to that of St. Paul.....Each in his own manner has come to realize the accomplishments of Jeremiah's epoch-making utterances: "I will put in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" (Jer.31:33). Philo also resembles Paul in making salvation totally dependent upon the word of God........serves to strengthen the hypothesis of a common tradition underlying certain Philonic concepts which appear in CLEARER LIGHT in the NT, but there is NO GROUNDS for assuming a DIRECT connection. Jowett's essay on "St.Paul and Philo" sums up the relation of Christianity to Alexandrian Judaism: "(Alenxandrianism) was MYSTICAL and dialectical, NOT MORAL and SPIRITUAL......it was a literature not of LIFE......It spoke of a Holy Ghost; of a Word; of a divine man; of a first and second Adam; of the faith of Abraham; of bread which came down from heaven; but knew NOTHING of the God who had made of one blood all nations of the earth; of the VICTORY over SIN and DEATH; of the CROSS of Christ. It was a picture, a shadow, a surface, a cloud above, catching the rising light ere He appeared. It was the reflection of a former world, not the BIRTH of a NEW ONE. It lifted up the veil of the temple, to see in a glass only dreams of its own creation" (p.454). Conclusion The importance of Paul's Jewish heritage cannot be ignored if his writings are to be fully understood........The significant conclusion, however, is the great CHASM separating the writings of Paul from the rabbis. The apostle's OT exegesis was not just an adoption of current traditions but reveals a VITALITY and UNDERSTANDING totally FOREIGN to rabbinical literature. If Paul used Jewish interpretations, he CULLED and MOULDED them to a Christological understanding of the OT; if he was a "child of his times," they were for Paul the times of the MESSIAH, His CROSS and RESURRECTION, and His REVELATION of the TRUE meaning of Scripture. Paul was a disciple of Christ NOT of Gamaliel...... The Pauline use of the OT cannot really be understood in terms of his Jewish contemporaries. This is ESPECIALLY true where principles of INTERPRETATION are involved. The affinities which occur are in PERIPHERAL areas and never reach the HEART of his thought. After his conversion the OT became a NEW book for Paul; all that went before now stood only as a prelude - a prelude set QUITE APART from all that was to follow. Although echoes of the prelude remain, the REAL MEANING which the OT has for him lies at a DIFFERENT source. And to find it one MUST GO to Christ and to the apostles. The end of quotes from chapter two. Chapter three covers in some depth Paul and the Apostolic Church. The author spends some interesting time with the NT parallels between Paul and the teachings of Christ. And in a second section some parallels of Paul with other NT writers. The FOURTH and last chapter of the book is titled "PAUL'S EXEGESIS." The author lists the various topics Paul expounded upon, which include: The fall of mankind into sin and its effects. The Universality of sin. The Coming of Christ and the Gospel. Justification by Faith. Forgiveness of sin. Faith and Works. Divine Election. Calling of the Gentiles. The Gifts of the Spirit. Christian Conduct. The Resurrection of Christ and the Saints. The Return of Christ. The Final Overthrow of Death. Covered in this chapter is the very important Pauline subject of the Jew and the Gentile, and the NT Israel of God, and how Paul ties it all in with the OT. Then there is the often used "Typology" of Paul. And Earle Ellis shows that Paul chiefly used THREE OT period with his use of typology, they are: the Creation, the Age of the Patriarchs, and the Exodus. This fourth chapter also expounds on Paul's exegesis with regards the NEW Covenant. Mt. Ellis gives a reasonably lengthy discourse on what may be some of the answers to the quotations by Paul that vary from the LXX and the MT texts. Towards the close of this chapter the author has some interesting and very true comments about Paul in how he understood the "historial" aspects of the OT. Quote: ......The apostle does not ignore the historical significance of the text......Paul would probably begin by saying, "The OT Scripture has a wider meaning than its IMMEDIATE historical application (Cf. Rom.15>4; 1 Cor.10:11); even OT history is God-moulded history whose significance does NOT LIE MERELY in the event but in the MEANING of the event FOR ITS LATER FULFILMENT.......If Paul's presuppositions as to the nature of the OT and of its history are accepted, little fault can be found with his handling of the individual texts........ In conclusion, the significance of the OT for Paul's theology can hardly be OVERESTIMATED......Rather, his knowledge of Christ opened to him a NEW WAY in which he found the true meaning of the Scriptures....... End of quote. The APPENDIX of the book is very useful as a reference to the OT as used by Paul. There is a list of quotations as pertaining to the agreement or not with the LXX and Hebrew. All the ALLUSIONS and PARALLELS used by Paul as listed. There is a list of all the COMBINED quotations that Paul used. And there is a list of Paul's PARALLEL quotations. The book "PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT" by Earle Ellis, published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, is well worth having in your personal library, especially if you are an elder or leader in the Church of God. .......................... Written February 1998 by Keith Hunt |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)