continuing with....WHY
SOME JEWS LOOKED FOR CHRIST …
.
. . About The Scribes?
The
scribes were the writers, copyists, 'book-men' and consequently the
interpreters of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, as their
professional occupation gave them unusual familiarity with these
books. Among the forerunners of the scribes were also to be reckoned
'wise' teachers of Israel who produced and handed on a body of oral
teaching and eventually the compendium of Wisdom in Literature..
After the Exile, the scribe tended to take the place of the priest as teacher of the Law. In the Gospels the scribes are sometimes referred to as 'lawyers', i.e. Experts in the sacred Mosaic Law which was in theory the sole legislation, civil and religious, governing the Jewish people. They were usually associated with the Pharisees. Many of the scribes became members of the Sanhedrin, the highest legal administration body in the Jewish theocratic state. Among them were Gamaliel in Acts 5, Nicodemus in John 3 and 7. They sat 'on Moses' seat' (Mt 23:2) as official interpreters of the Law. They had the power of 'binding and loosing,' i.e. Of issuing authoritative judgments or decisions upon the legality or illegality of actions..
After the Exile, the scribe tended to take the place of the priest as teacher of the Law. In the Gospels the scribes are sometimes referred to as 'lawyers', i.e. Experts in the sacred Mosaic Law which was in theory the sole legislation, civil and religious, governing the Jewish people. They were usually associated with the Pharisees. Many of the scribes became members of the Sanhedrin, the highest legal administration body in the Jewish theocratic state. Among them were Gamaliel in Acts 5, Nicodemus in John 3 and 7. They sat 'on Moses' seat' (Mt 23:2) as official interpreters of the Law. They had the power of 'binding and loosing,' i.e. Of issuing authoritative judgments or decisions upon the legality or illegality of actions..
Their
services, both educational and judicial, were rendered freely and
without compensation. Unless he possessed independent means the
scribe had to earn a livelihood in other ways and then teach as an
avocation. It has been suggested that the rule grew out of the danger
of bribery, cited in Ex 23;8 and Deut 16:19 {where 'judges' were
ordered not to accept fees or gifts}.
Why
did Paul Persecute and Kill the Jewish Christians?
In the book of Acts, Saul is introduced rather dramatically. After Stephen delivers a Prophetic speech in Acts 7, he is seized by an angry crowd, taken outside the city and stoned. This is not a legal action, it is a lynching! Saul “approved” of this execution (Acts 8:1). Whether Saul was a “legal representative” of the Sanhedrin is unclear he did obtain letters, but the verb can be used for legal approval (1 Maccabees's 1:57). Saul is described as “ravaging the church” (λυμαίνω, Acts 8:3, Mat.11:12), a word which is used of violent actions in war (Josephus, JW 4.534). What was it about Stephen’s speech that pushed Saul to such a violent response?
In the book of Acts, Saul is introduced rather dramatically. After Stephen delivers a Prophetic speech in Acts 7, he is seized by an angry crowd, taken outside the city and stoned. This is not a legal action, it is a lynching! Saul “approved” of this execution (Acts 8:1). Whether Saul was a “legal representative” of the Sanhedrin is unclear he did obtain letters, but the verb can be used for legal approval (1 Maccabees's 1:57). Saul is described as “ravaging the church” (λυμαίνω, Acts 8:3, Mat.11:12), a word which is used of violent actions in war (Josephus, JW 4.534). What was it about Stephen’s speech that pushed Saul to such a violent response?
It
is important to observe that Stephen was speaking to Diaspora Jews
living in Jerusalem, in the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Acts 6:8-10).
He is not in the Temple speaking Aramaic to the crowds worshiping
there. Stephen himself is a Hellenistic Jew attempting to prove that
Jesus is the Messiah in a Hellenistic place of worship. While we
cannot know this for certain, it is not unlikely that Saul was
worshiping in this Greek-speaking Synagogue because he was from
Tarsus (Cilicia is specifically mentioned in Acts 6:9). Stephen’s
powerful argument that Israel rejected the Messiah and the Holy
Spirit of the New Covenant (Acts 7:51-53) pushed the crowd to attack
Stephen, Saul may have been the ranking Jewish leader (an elder) who
participated.
Some explain this violent reaction by taking later issues and importing them into Acts 7. For example, some have argued the Jewish Christians were admitting Gentiles without circumcision. This seems unlikely, since there is no reference at all to Gentile mission by the Jerusalem Church until Acts 10. 'God-fearers' were accepted into the synagogue without circumcision, so it is unlikely this would be a problem for Saul, if it had occurred.
Some explain this violent reaction by taking later issues and importing them into Acts 7. For example, some have argued the Jewish Christians were admitting Gentiles without circumcision. This seems unlikely, since there is no reference at all to Gentile mission by the Jerusalem Church until Acts 10. 'God-fearers' were accepted into the synagogue without circumcision, so it is unlikely this would be a problem for Saul, if it had occurred.
Similarly,
some argue Gentile believers were breaking food laws. This is
unlikely for the same reasons as the first, there is no evidence of
Gentile converts in the pre-Pauline period. This is an issue in
Galatians, but that is perhaps 15 years after the stoning of Stephen
and concerned Jews and Gentiles eating together.
A more likely motivation is the possible political / RELIGIOUS /social problems caused by the preaching of a crucified Messiah / Savior. How would this play before the Gentiles, especially the Romans? Could this be an accusation against Rome, and a possible rally-point for anti-Roman activity? The problem here once again is the lack of evidence for preaching anything to Gentile / Roman audiences. The early apostolic mission was confined to the Temple Area and the city of Jerusalem in general.
A more likely motivation is the possible political / RELIGIOUS /social problems caused by the preaching of a crucified Messiah / Savior. How would this play before the Gentiles, especially the Romans? Could this be an accusation against Rome, and a possible rally-point for anti-Roman activity? The problem here once again is the lack of evidence for preaching anything to Gentile / Roman audiences. The early apostolic mission was confined to the Temple Area and the city of Jerusalem in general.
It
is probably best to see Saul opposing the Apostolic teaching as
heretical (Pharisee Teaching). That Jesus was the Messiah was absurd,
since he was crucified, “hung on a tree,” and therefore a curse,
not salvation. Saul’s motivation is to correct (exterminate if
necessary) this false teaching within Judaism, using the synagogue
punishment system itself. He likely sees himself as a reformer,
working for the high priest, with the goal of dealing sharply with
the followers of a condemned Rabbi.
Again see the Text itself: Acts 9:1-2.. Paul for the zeal of the Jewish law, “I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15 :9) … “as to zeal, persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” (Phil. 3:6) Here he is yet simply in blind unbelief, even as a “righteousness” Jew under the LAW (Pharisaical Law). So here simply yet profoundly Saul was in “unbelief”, “blind” to the “Christian” God, and His Christ! At this point. This is really the essence of what Saul does say, until he sees Christ! (in Acts 9:3-5) And the hands of Ananias lay upon him..(Acts 9:10-19).
“They even killed the ones who predicted the coming of the Righteous One — the Messiah whom you betrayed and murdered. You deliberately disobeyed God’s law, even though you received it from the hands of angels.” The Jewish leaders were infuriated by Stephen’s accusation, and they shook their fists at him in rage.” (Acts 7:52-54 NLT). (this is quoted from an article published on the open website by Lawrence Sloma of St. Paul, Minnesota,
Again see the Text itself: Acts 9:1-2.. Paul for the zeal of the Jewish law, “I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15 :9) … “as to zeal, persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” (Phil. 3:6) Here he is yet simply in blind unbelief, even as a “righteousness” Jew under the LAW (Pharisaical Law). So here simply yet profoundly Saul was in “unbelief”, “blind” to the “Christian” God, and His Christ! At this point. This is really the essence of what Saul does say, until he sees Christ! (in Acts 9:3-5) And the hands of Ananias lay upon him..(Acts 9:10-19).
“They even killed the ones who predicted the coming of the Righteous One — the Messiah whom you betrayed and murdered. You deliberately disobeyed God’s law, even though you received it from the hands of angels.” The Jewish leaders were infuriated by Stephen’s accusation, and they shook their fists at him in rage.” (Acts 7:52-54 NLT). (this is quoted from an article published on the open website by Lawrence Sloma of St. Paul, Minnesota,
USA, thank you Lawrence)
No comments:
Post a Comment