It was very eye opening for me to read all of Mark chapter 13 in the light of our recent study in the book of James. Verses 1-23 could almost have come from Josephus, as they sound like a cross between ominous prophecy of things to come and on-the-scene reporting. It's also interesting to see what the modern "RAPTURE!" preachers do with this text. They rightly discern that from vs 24 onward Jesus is talking about his "second coming" (commonly known as the Parousia), but whether because they don't really know their history or just plain poor exegetical methodology, they attempt to see the previous 23 verses as also having something to do with the "end times."
This is hardly the case. We need to remember that in the narrative the thing that motivates Jesus to speak is the disciples' question in verse 4 "tell us when all these things will happen." In vs 6 when Jesus says that "many will come in my name claiming 'I am he' and will deceive many..." it needs to be understood that Jesus is NOT saying that many will show up on the scene and claim to be JESUS OF NAZARETH--either then in history or at some future point. The claim 'I am he' is "messianic." Jesus is predicting a plethora of "false messiahs." Again, one need only read Josephus or some of the great books on the period to realize that from Jesus time to Bar Kochba (135 Ad) this happened time and time again. The "wars & rumors of wars......and nation rising up against nation" fits very well into the time frame leading up to 70AD. The destruction of the Temple did not happen in a vacuum, nor did it happen overnight. There was actually a prolonged campaign, of nation rising against nation (including at the very least the nations of Judea, Samaria, Syria, and Rome). Verses 9-11 which talk of being flogged in the synagogues for one's witness of Christ have absolutely NO belonging in "end times" thought. This is a [sad] reality that harks from the earliest days of the Church when it was primarily still Jewish a institution, but more and more being rejected by the Jewish leadership and developing rabbinic teaching. The remaining verses, having to do with an "abomination" in the Temple, and the troubled flight from *Judea* at the last minute ONLY make sense if viewed in the buildup to the final conflict between Rome & Jerusalem in 70AD. Attempts to place these verses in an "end times" context make no sense. What could a possible "flight from Judea" mean to a believer living in Thailand or Europe etc. etc.?
In the end, vss 1-23 are Jesus' response to a specific set of circumstances SOON to take place. Mark 13:23b--24 presents a SEGUAY from those events to the end times events.
A pertinent question, then, is what can we learn from the 1st part of the discussion--primarily the verses of the pericope for the 24th Sunday after Pentecost (vss 1-8, to which I've added 9 & 10)?
To my thinking, the topic is....how to hang on when your world collapses.
We in America often have such high opinions of ourselves as a nation--and a quasi christian belief that God owes us our existence cuz we sing "God bless America" at ball games--that we literally cannot begin to imagine a set of circumstances that would entail our DEMISE. The closest we get are the "RAPTURE" preachers who see the end of America as being part/parcel with the end of the world. How egotistical! And yet, how human. No doubt those hearing Jesus' words in Mark 13 would also equate the end of the Temple as the end of the world. Certainly it was the end of THEIR WORLD, and the world as THEY KNEW IT. In some strange way it seems almost..........er.........*soothing*....in a sense....that if MY world has to end, then at least it's the end of EVERYTHING.
But what if it doesn't work out that way?
It didn't in 70AD.
The world surrounding the Temple ended, but everything else just kept plugging along and here we are, 2000 years downstream.
Clearly, the message is one of faith not in the external structures we see around us, but in the God who is in control of human history and who ONE DAY will inaugurate the true end of this age & beginning of the next. Until then, our call is to do the same things Jesus told his disciples to do in Mark 13: don't be mislead, don't be frightened, be prepared, and take our stand for Christ.
Cheers,
TM
About Me...what is an 'evangelical-catholic?'
- Pastor Tim Manwell
- Elk Grove Village, IL, United States
- I was born & raised in rural mid-Michigan (M-go blue!). Life & work have taken me to many different places. God has too, as I've come to learn that faith is a pilgrimage. I very much resonate with the label 'EVANGELICAL-CATHOLIC.' I was raised Baptist, but found myself drawn to the Sacraments & Liturgy of the Church. I appreciate very much the words of the Augsburg Confession: "...nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic." Evangelical-catholic is a term of self-designation used by Christians coming from a broad spectrum of theological perspectives and commitments, ranging from Lutherans, Anglicans, and various Evangelicals yearning for greater catholicity .....to faithful Roman Catholics longing for an evangelical renewal of the Church. Perhaps beneath the apparent denominational differences there lies a common...groaning of the Spirit of God, who is seeking to draw the members of Christ’s mystical body into a communal life that is both fully catholic and fully evangelical. One can always hope and pray!
Listen to Current Sermons (hi speed)
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sun Nov 8th, thoughts going in
Mark 12:38-44
38 As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely."
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on." (TNIV)
As I go in to this week and having studied this reading now for a few days in a row, several things pop out at me. In vs 38 “as he taught…” the Greek word used there is “didache.” To coin a term, this could be translated: “as he catechismed.” Meaning, when the word didache is used, the emphasis is that what follows was a regular, core component part of Jesus’ instruction. Thus, I find it interesting that Jesus apparently stressed the hypocrisy of the teachers of the Law to his disciples as if it were part of his catechism to them. Perhaps this was to counter any [future] inadequacy they may feel regarding their own ability to “teach the Law” in the days ahead following the Lord’s return to Heaven.
Another thing that strikes me about this passage is that it really seems like 2 discreet matters sort of joined together by the Gospel’s author. Other than the presence of the word “widow” in vs 40, part 1 (38-40) doesn’t seem to have much to do directly with part 2 (41-44).
A final problem with the text has to do with the nature of Jesus’ comment regarding the widow’s offering. It’s very interesting to read the commentaries on this. Most of the older ones extol the virtues of the widow for her faith, her willingness to sacrifice etc. In short, they see Jesus words as commending the widow to us as an ultimate example of virtue. Newer commentaries, however, are very quick to point out that Jesus never actually compliments her; he simply points out a truth with no attached value judgment. This causes the newer commentators to speculate that the widow is actually a “victim” in this instance—practically in the same manner as today’s widow who has only her social security check to live on, and yet she sends regular checks to a crooked televangelist.
OBVIOUSLY….it makes a difference as to which way one should go with this text. If the widow is an ultimate example of faith, it gets preached one way; if she’s the victim of a crooked & manipulative religiosity, it gets preached a totally different way.
Cheers,
TM
38 As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely."
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on." (TNIV)
As I go in to this week and having studied this reading now for a few days in a row, several things pop out at me. In vs 38 “as he taught…” the Greek word used there is “didache.” To coin a term, this could be translated: “as he catechismed.” Meaning, when the word didache is used, the emphasis is that what follows was a regular, core component part of Jesus’ instruction. Thus, I find it interesting that Jesus apparently stressed the hypocrisy of the teachers of the Law to his disciples as if it were part of his catechism to them. Perhaps this was to counter any [future] inadequacy they may feel regarding their own ability to “teach the Law” in the days ahead following the Lord’s return to Heaven.
Another thing that strikes me about this passage is that it really seems like 2 discreet matters sort of joined together by the Gospel’s author. Other than the presence of the word “widow” in vs 40, part 1 (38-40) doesn’t seem to have much to do directly with part 2 (41-44).
A final problem with the text has to do with the nature of Jesus’ comment regarding the widow’s offering. It’s very interesting to read the commentaries on this. Most of the older ones extol the virtues of the widow for her faith, her willingness to sacrifice etc. In short, they see Jesus words as commending the widow to us as an ultimate example of virtue. Newer commentaries, however, are very quick to point out that Jesus never actually compliments her; he simply points out a truth with no attached value judgment. This causes the newer commentators to speculate that the widow is actually a “victim” in this instance—practically in the same manner as today’s widow who has only her social security check to live on, and yet she sends regular checks to a crooked televangelist.
OBVIOUSLY….it makes a difference as to which way one should go with this text. If the widow is an ultimate example of faith, it gets preached one way; if she’s the victim of a crooked & manipulative religiosity, it gets preached a totally different way.
Cheers,
TM
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Sun Oct 18th, thoughts going in...
Mark 10:35-45
Jesus has several problems on his hand. The first seems to be that NOBODY seems to be listening. In the narrative, this passage follows immediately after a passion prediction. Vs 33 says: “When we get to Jerusalem,” he told them, “the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. 34 They will mock him, spit on him, beat him with their whips, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again.”
No sooner does he finish saying that, and in the story we read:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”
Did they miss that whole suffer & die part? Or maybe they caught it, but rushed right past it because they thought that "rising again" might be a metaphor for the inauguration of the earthly Messianic kingdom.
Of course there's nothing new/different/strange in their request. The cultural milieu of the day was based on 'patronage.' Patrons--people with power, authority, wealth, influence, assured themselves of loyal followers through the issuance of favors. Likewise, those seeking to raise their status in life showed 'initiative' by seeking such patronage. James & John were using the accepted means of the day for "getting ahead" in life. When vs 41 reports that the other 10 disciples were "indignant," there's at least half a chance that their feelings arise from jealousy that THEY hadn't thought to ask for this themselves!
It causes one to pause and reflect concerning just what their EXPECTATIONS must have been at this juncture. They're on the way to Jerusalem, the seat of power and authority in the Jewish world. Their own numbers are few, but they're following a mighty prophet, a sage, a holy man, a combination of Moses, Elijah, and maybe a little King David all rolled into one. No doubt they expect a battle, even an ostensibly lop-sided battle, but it also seems clear that they expect some sort of Divine assistance--for the outcome they envision is a glorious victory for their side.
Ironically, the Gospels all portray the cross as a "glorious victory" but never in the sense in which the Disciples are thinking before the fact.
Regardless, with the request of James and John Jesus now has another problem on his hands, he has the outbreak of factionalism within his group. It's like having a bunch of kids who all want to be quarterback, and nobody wants to block. Instead of wasting a lot of time telling each of them that they have specific talents etc. etc., he points to HIMSELF. He re-centers their thinking on the sort of leader HE IS. He says that he came not to be served, but to serve, and that this is the definition of leadership in HIS GROUP.
Application questions for us to consider:
1. Are we still plagued with the problem of "selective hearing" in the church? And isn't there a certain balance that needs to be sought? After all, we want our children to learn to pray and we want them to trust that God hears their prayers, and yet so much of the Christian faith is wrapped up in learning how to cope when God seemingly doesn't answer our prayers, or answers with a resounding "no." So what are we supposed to 'hear?' Are we supposed to hear that God is for us, on our side, protecting us, helping us.....(all of which sounds good & glorious).....or are we supposed to hear that the road of faith leads through valleys of the shadow of death; through cross after cross; through apparent abandonment from God?
2. Does this text distinguish between life in general and life in the Kingdom of God's grace? As a parent I hope my children are successful in life and I would like to encourage them to pray that God would bless their efforts. Jesus clearly defines success in terms of servanthood. Is he speaking only within the context of the Church? Or is there perhaps a melding of ideas here.....that within a distinctively christian ethos the greatest "successes" are those who undertake careers/professions that are helping/service oriented. There is certainly a great tradition for this thinking in the history of the church.
3. How and in what way in vs 45 does Jesus give his life as a "ransom for many?" Bruce Malina brings out: "Why would anyone take one person as a 'ransom' for others? It would happen only if the person being accepted as ransom were of higher honor status than those being set free....for example, in ransom value, a king, although a single person, is worth a whole kingdom of other individuals even millions of persons." That sentiment alone says a lot as to the royal status of Jesus, but a nagging question is just WHO or WHAT is holding the people captive in the first place? To whom/what does Jesus offer his life as ransom? This question has plagued theologians down through the centuries, with answers going something like this:
(a) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Heavenly Father. Specifically, it is the Father's unyielding sense of holiness that is offended by humanity's sin, and this holiness demands satisfaction. Jesus, the perfect/sinless one, is uniquely able to offer himself as ransom.
(b) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Law. This is roughly the same idea as option A, the only difference that it de-personalizes the 'captor.' Instead of it being God, it's God's Law.....the law that demands perfection/holiness, but "all have sinned".....so all are to some degree held captive by the law's demands (death).
(c) Jesus offers his life as a ransom to the Devil. This theory has the benefit of removing God from the equation, (it's easy for God to come off sounding like a wicked tyrant in options a & b), yet at the same time this option also unduly elevates the Devil to near-divine status--as if God, backed into a corner, now has no other choice than to sacrifice his own son to placate the Devil.
In the end, each of these theories has weaknesses and there is no perfect explanation.
As others have suggested, perhaps instead of concentrating on the WHO behind the ransom, we should concentrate on the HOW. In many ways, we could say that Jesus voluntarily becomes the world's greatest/biggest "scapegoat" (2cor 5:21). In this sense, the 'ransom' is that Jesus goes into "captivity" as the ultimate scapegoat, while we go free. He agrees to take the blame. Whose fault is it that there is genocide? Whose fault is it that there is corporate greed? Whose fault is it that there are wars, injustices, hatred, and intolerance? IT'S JESUS' FAULT. No, not really, ......but he's agreed to take the blame for it all.....he wants to be blamed for it all.....and YEP....we punished him for it, when we drove those nails into his hands & feet.
That means 2 things: (1) We're free to stop holding the sins & weaknesses of others against them (just as we hope they stop holding our sins/weaknesses against us). The idea behind the old revival hymn "Jesus paid it all" applies here. He paid it **ALL**. Even though it shatters our sense of justice/blame, that means the greatest sinner in the world is forgiven. In Mark 10:45 language, the greatest sinner in the world has been REPLACED BY/WITH JESUS. (2) When we fall back into our old cycle of blame/grudge-holding, what we're actually doing is trying to un-ransom Jesus with someone else. We're saying that ether Jesus isn't qualified to stand in place of others, or his offer/sacrifice isn't "good enough."
Hmmmmm, think about that one!
cheers,
TM
Jesus has several problems on his hand. The first seems to be that NOBODY seems to be listening. In the narrative, this passage follows immediately after a passion prediction. Vs 33 says: “When we get to Jerusalem,” he told them, “the Son of Man will be betrayed to the leading priests and the teachers of religious law. They will sentence him to die and hand him over to the Romans. 34 They will mock him, spit on him, beat him with their whips, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again.”
No sooner does he finish saying that, and in the story we read:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”
Did they miss that whole suffer & die part? Or maybe they caught it, but rushed right past it because they thought that "rising again" might be a metaphor for the inauguration of the earthly Messianic kingdom.
Of course there's nothing new/different/strange in their request. The cultural milieu of the day was based on 'patronage.' Patrons--people with power, authority, wealth, influence, assured themselves of loyal followers through the issuance of favors. Likewise, those seeking to raise their status in life showed 'initiative' by seeking such patronage. James & John were using the accepted means of the day for "getting ahead" in life. When vs 41 reports that the other 10 disciples were "indignant," there's at least half a chance that their feelings arise from jealousy that THEY hadn't thought to ask for this themselves!
It causes one to pause and reflect concerning just what their EXPECTATIONS must have been at this juncture. They're on the way to Jerusalem, the seat of power and authority in the Jewish world. Their own numbers are few, but they're following a mighty prophet, a sage, a holy man, a combination of Moses, Elijah, and maybe a little King David all rolled into one. No doubt they expect a battle, even an ostensibly lop-sided battle, but it also seems clear that they expect some sort of Divine assistance--for the outcome they envision is a glorious victory for their side.
Ironically, the Gospels all portray the cross as a "glorious victory" but never in the sense in which the Disciples are thinking before the fact.
Regardless, with the request of James and John Jesus now has another problem on his hands, he has the outbreak of factionalism within his group. It's like having a bunch of kids who all want to be quarterback, and nobody wants to block. Instead of wasting a lot of time telling each of them that they have specific talents etc. etc., he points to HIMSELF. He re-centers their thinking on the sort of leader HE IS. He says that he came not to be served, but to serve, and that this is the definition of leadership in HIS GROUP.
Application questions for us to consider:
1. Are we still plagued with the problem of "selective hearing" in the church? And isn't there a certain balance that needs to be sought? After all, we want our children to learn to pray and we want them to trust that God hears their prayers, and yet so much of the Christian faith is wrapped up in learning how to cope when God seemingly doesn't answer our prayers, or answers with a resounding "no." So what are we supposed to 'hear?' Are we supposed to hear that God is for us, on our side, protecting us, helping us.....(all of which sounds good & glorious).....or are we supposed to hear that the road of faith leads through valleys of the shadow of death; through cross after cross; through apparent abandonment from God?
2. Does this text distinguish between life in general and life in the Kingdom of God's grace? As a parent I hope my children are successful in life and I would like to encourage them to pray that God would bless their efforts. Jesus clearly defines success in terms of servanthood. Is he speaking only within the context of the Church? Or is there perhaps a melding of ideas here.....that within a distinctively christian ethos the greatest "successes" are those who undertake careers/professions that are helping/service oriented. There is certainly a great tradition for this thinking in the history of the church.
3. How and in what way in vs 45 does Jesus give his life as a "ransom for many?" Bruce Malina brings out: "Why would anyone take one person as a 'ransom' for others? It would happen only if the person being accepted as ransom were of higher honor status than those being set free....for example, in ransom value, a king, although a single person, is worth a whole kingdom of other individuals even millions of persons." That sentiment alone says a lot as to the royal status of Jesus, but a nagging question is just WHO or WHAT is holding the people captive in the first place? To whom/what does Jesus offer his life as ransom? This question has plagued theologians down through the centuries, with answers going something like this:
(a) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Heavenly Father. Specifically, it is the Father's unyielding sense of holiness that is offended by humanity's sin, and this holiness demands satisfaction. Jesus, the perfect/sinless one, is uniquely able to offer himself as ransom.
(b) Jesus offers his life as ransom to the Law. This is roughly the same idea as option A, the only difference that it de-personalizes the 'captor.' Instead of it being God, it's God's Law.....the law that demands perfection/holiness, but "all have sinned".....so all are to some degree held captive by the law's demands (death).
(c) Jesus offers his life as a ransom to the Devil. This theory has the benefit of removing God from the equation, (it's easy for God to come off sounding like a wicked tyrant in options a & b), yet at the same time this option also unduly elevates the Devil to near-divine status--as if God, backed into a corner, now has no other choice than to sacrifice his own son to placate the Devil.
In the end, each of these theories has weaknesses and there is no perfect explanation.
As others have suggested, perhaps instead of concentrating on the WHO behind the ransom, we should concentrate on the HOW. In many ways, we could say that Jesus voluntarily becomes the world's greatest/biggest "scapegoat" (2cor 5:21). In this sense, the 'ransom' is that Jesus goes into "captivity" as the ultimate scapegoat, while we go free. He agrees to take the blame. Whose fault is it that there is genocide? Whose fault is it that there is corporate greed? Whose fault is it that there are wars, injustices, hatred, and intolerance? IT'S JESUS' FAULT. No, not really, ......but he's agreed to take the blame for it all.....he wants to be blamed for it all.....and YEP....we punished him for it, when we drove those nails into his hands & feet.
That means 2 things: (1) We're free to stop holding the sins & weaknesses of others against them (just as we hope they stop holding our sins/weaknesses against us). The idea behind the old revival hymn "Jesus paid it all" applies here. He paid it **ALL**. Even though it shatters our sense of justice/blame, that means the greatest sinner in the world is forgiven. In Mark 10:45 language, the greatest sinner in the world has been REPLACED BY/WITH JESUS. (2) When we fall back into our old cycle of blame/grudge-holding, what we're actually doing is trying to un-ransom Jesus with someone else. We're saying that ether Jesus isn't qualified to stand in place of others, or his offer/sacrifice isn't "good enough."
Hmmmmm, think about that one!
cheers,
TM
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
James 5:12 & taking of oaths
James 5:12 occurred in last Sunday's reading, but it really didn't factor into my sermon. To refresh your memory, the verse reads:
12 Above all, ...do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.
Perhaps you wondered about the context of this prohibition against swearing an oath. The eminent James scholar Ralph Martin offers these remarks: "The historical 'setting in life' of the verse may be traced to the Jerusalem community under James' patronage as he was looked upon as the leader who sought to achieve a 'modus vivendi' (an agreement between differing opinions) between his brothers of the messianic faith and the Zealot faction. The primary evidence for this theory is the [known] taking of oaths by the revolutionary SICARII."
We need look no further than our Bibles and Acts chapter 23 to see something along these lines at play:
12 The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. 13 More than forty men were involved in this plot. 14 They went to the chief priests and elders and said, "We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. 15 Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here." 16 But when the son of Paul's sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul.
In this context, it's not simply the arbitrary taking of an oath that James is coming down on, it is rather the idea of taking an oath to function/act as the hand of God's judgment upon others.
cheers,
TM
12 Above all, ...do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.
Perhaps you wondered about the context of this prohibition against swearing an oath. The eminent James scholar Ralph Martin offers these remarks: "The historical 'setting in life' of the verse may be traced to the Jerusalem community under James' patronage as he was looked upon as the leader who sought to achieve a 'modus vivendi' (an agreement between differing opinions) between his brothers of the messianic faith and the Zealot faction. The primary evidence for this theory is the [known] taking of oaths by the revolutionary SICARII."
We need look no further than our Bibles and Acts chapter 23 to see something along these lines at play:
12 The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. 13 More than forty men were involved in this plot. 14 They went to the chief priests and elders and said, "We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. 15 Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here." 16 But when the son of Paul's sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul.
In this context, it's not simply the arbitrary taking of an oath that James is coming down on, it is rather the idea of taking an oath to function/act as the hand of God's judgment upon others.
cheers,
TM
Saturday, September 19, 2009
more timeline stuff...UPDATE
NEWSFLASH...
The timeline is DONE!
It's a bit involved, but you can now read right up to the 'bitter end' regarding the first Jewish War.
ALSO...I have now completed "part 2" of my musings on James, Luther and canonicty. Check it out by scrolling down...
cheers,
TM
-------------------------
TIMELINE OF RELEVANT PEOPLE & EVENTS:
63BC..........Rome intervenes in the Jewish civil war, essentially annexing the territory for itself.
40BC..........The Roman Senate confers the title "King of the Jews" on Herod the Great. Herod is a ruthless/despotic client king, who's considered, at best, a "half Jew." He spends much time consolidating power, disposing of would-be political enemies, and trying to ingratiate himself in the eyes of the populace via impressive building works.
37BC..........Beginning with Herod the Great & extending through the many years of direct Roman procuratorship, the high priesthood ceased being an office held for life and became a political appointment--conferred upon a limited number of aristocratic priestly families, all of which had a political and economic vested interest in the continued rule of Rome and/or the Herodian dynasty. Apocalyptic sects such as the Essenes saw this as further proof of wholesale corruption of the Temple and worship life of the people. Many such sects advocated withdrawal from society, boycotting of the Temple services, and awaiting God's immanent judgment/intervention. Some scholars wonder if the later prophet known as John the Baptist (6BC -- 30AD) may have been affiliated with such groups.
35BC..........Herod the Great builds the Antonia Fortress immediately adjacent to the Temple. This was no accident, as it was considered that the Temple would be a likely focal point of civil unrest among the populace. 600 Roman soldiers were quartered there. As an additional precaution, the vestments of the high priest--worn only on Yom Kippur--were kept there.
19BC..........Herod the Great undertakes the massive improving/beautifying the Temple. There were 10,000 skilled laborers and according to Josephus (Ant. 15.11.2) the laity could not enter certain parts of the building, therefore 1000 Levites were specially trained as builders and masons, and carried out their work so efficiently and carefully that at no time was there any interruption in the sacrifices and other services. The work was started by leveling larger portions of the Temple Mount, so that the new building might be erected on a broader base. It was also made much taller, so that the white stone gleamed in the bright Palestinian sun and could be seen from miles away. It was, to be sure, a wonder to behold (Lk 21:5). It wasn't completely finished until 63AD, and was sadly almost entirely destroyed a mere seven years later. All that remains is the western wall, known today as the Wailing Wall.
4BC............Death of Herod the Great. His vast territory was divided between his surviving sons. In the same year, young Jewish dissidents smashed the golden eagle over the main entrance of the Temple of Jerusalem after the Pharisee teachers claimed it was an idolatrous Roman symbol.
4BC............(approx) Jesus of Nazareth is born. [for an explanation of how Jesus could be born "BC...before Christ" see:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/birth.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
6AD...........Rome creates the 'province' of Judea by deposing Herod's son Archelaus, and subjecting the territory to DIRECT Roman rule....including the institution of a Roman census and taxation.
6AD...........(according to Josephus) the "fourth philosophy" is born. This is a Jewish sect led by Judas the Galilean and a Pharisee named Saddok. This party espouses the general beliefs of Pharisaism, coupled with an intense hatred for being subjected to Roman taxation & rule. Although the leaders are executed and the group is scattered, some scholars see the seeds of later zealotry in this group.
18AD.........Caiaphas appointed as high priest by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus. Caiaphas was the son inlaw of Ananus (note: spellings of this name vary). Caiaphas served until 36AD.
26AD.........(approx) Pontius Pilate appointed as Prefect of Judea (till approx 36 AD). Pilate is either unaware of, or antagonistic to Jewish sensibilities, as he attempts to display the pagan Roman military symbols/ensigns in Jerusalem. The Jews protested and laid their necks bare to the sword before Pilate relented. Pilate also raided the Temple's treasury, at least once, to pay for building projects in Jerusalem. Faced with a protesting mob, he had his soldiers (in disguise) mingle with the crowd and club them into submission at a prearranged signal.
33AD.........(approx) Jesus of Nazareth is crucified for the crime of insurrection ("King of the Jews"). After the resurrection, Jesus appears several times, including a special appearance to his brother James (1Cor 15:7).
33AD.........(approx) Stephen is stoned; a young Pharisee named Saul (later, St. Paul) oversees the execution.
34AD.........(approx) Saul/Paul is converted on the road to Damascus.
37AD.........Emperor Tiberius dies. Caligula becomes emperor.
37AD.........The Jewish historian Josephus is born.
40AD.........Jews destroy a votive altar to the emperor in Jamnia. Caligula responds by ordering the governor of Syria, Petronius, to have his statue erected in the Temple of Jerusalem. Jews threaten to strike, and to offer themselves in mass suicide in order to prevent this. Petronius stalls, and Caligula is murdered in the meantime.
44AD.........Death of Herod Agrippa, King of Judea & Samaria (Acts 12:23). Judea reverts to direct Roman control under the procurator Fadus Cuspius.
48AD.........through 52AD. Serious clashes between Jews & Romans under the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus. First, a Roman soldier on duty in the Temple during the feast of Passover made an obscene gesture, provoking a riot among the thousands of pilgrims gathered there. When Cumanus rushed in reinforcements, the crowd panicked and many were trampled to death. A year or two later, when bandits attacked one of the emperor's caravans a few miles from Jerusalem, Cumanus sent troops into the region to make summary arrests of village leaders. This time a soldier provoked anger by tearing up a copy of the Torah and burning it. As news of the outrage spread, thousand descended on the city of Caesarea and demanded the procurator have the offender executed. Next, a Galilean pilgrim was murdered in Samaria on his way to Jerusalem. When Cumanus did nothing, the veteran bandit Eleazar ben Dinai led an angry mob out to exact vengeance. Thereafter, communal violence between Jews & Samaritans spread across central Palestine. Again, troops were sent in; many Jews were killed, imprisoned, and/or executed via crucifixion.
49AD.........(possibly) The whole church meets in council at Jerusalem. James the brother of Jesus presides. (Acts 15). The Emperor Claudius expels the Jews from Rome (for rioting) at about this same time.
50AD..........(circa 50s) "Sicarii" ....literally, 'dagger-men' begin engaging in political assassinations in Jerusalem. Josephus reports: "Mixing with the crowds, especially during festivals, they would conceal small daggers beneath their garments and stealthily stab their opponents. Then when the victim fell, the murderers simply melted into the crowd, undetected. Sicarii primarily targeted upper class Jews seen as 'collaborators' with Rome (Priestly aristocracy, Herodian families, ruling elite, etc)." According to Josephus, political assassinations occurred DAILY during this time. There is a direct line of descent between the Scarii & the Fourth Philosophy, as sons & grandsons of Judas the Galilean were leaders of the Sicarii--including the grandson & Messianic pretender, Menahem. In addition to assassinations, the Sicarii also engaged in kidnapping/ransom.
54AD.........Emperor Claudius is poisoned. Nero becomes emperor.
57AD.........Through 59AD. An interesting glimpse at Judean unrest & politics under Roman procuratorship can be seen in Acts chapters 23-25. Paul is arrested in the Temple courts, but due to his Roman citizenship, he's kept from Jewish hands. Chapter 23 appears to detail a plot from none other than Sicarii. Paul appears before Felix toward the end of his procuratorship, and then Porcius Festus.
59AD.........and onward, there was strife between the different strata of Temple clergy--priests being in contention with the aristocratic high-priesthood. This inter-Temple strife paralleled the economic strife going on throughout Judea. The high-priestly aristocracy retaliated by acts of violence against the lower priests, and by confiscating their tithes--thereby depriving them of their only income and starving them into submission. Commentators infer that James would have had very open/public sympathies for the poor and lower-class priests, perhaps leading to his eventual arrest and martyrdom at the hands of the high priest.
61AD.........through 64AD. While the aristocratic/priestly elite Sadducees were generally considered corrupt collaborators with Rome and the client-king Herodian dynasty, all was not peace & love amongst this group in these years. King Herod Agrippa II handled Sadducean dissent by exercising his prerogative to fire/hire high priests at will. Six high priests succeeded one another during this tumultuous time. Factionalism was rampant: bribes were traded for the top post, and at one point rival supporters of three candidates battled each other in the streets.
62AD.........James the brother of Jesus & leader of the Jerusalem church is martyred. Accounts of his death vary, but evidently in the 3 or 4 month interval between the death of the procurator Porcius Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus, the High Priest Ananus II took advantage of the lack of direct Roman administration. An illegally called Sanhedrin was convened, and James and others deemed as trouble-makers by the high priestly class were dealt with. The exact 'charges' against James are unclear, but judging from the popular response to his death, it would appear that the charges against him were not based on religious or Torah infractions. Delegations were sent to Herod Agrippa II and to Albinus. Ananus II was deposed as High Priest.
64AD.........Beginning of persecution of Christians in Rome under Emperor Nero.
EVENTS LEADING DIRECTLY TO OPEN CONFLICT WITH ROME...SUMMER OF DISCONTENT
Who's Who:
Gessius Florus: (Florus for short) the Roman procurator of Judea from 64 until 66. Born in Clazomenae, Florus was appointed to replace Lucceius Albinus as procurator by the Emperor Nero due to his wife's friendship with Nero's wife Poppaea. He was noted for his public greed and injustice to the Jewish population, and is credited by Josephus as being the primary cause of the Great Jewish Revolt. Upon taking office in Caesarea, Florus began a practice of favoring the local Greek population of the city over the Jewish population. Gentiles in the ethnically mixed port city of Caesarea 'sacrificed' a rooster in front of a Jewish synagogue, sparking a riot. Florus suppressed the disorder with blatant bias against the Jews.
May 66AD: Florus further angered the Jewish population of his province by having seventeen talents removed from the treasury of the Temple in Jerusalem, claiming the money was for the Emperor (to cover a shortfall in tax revenue). In response to this action, the city fell into unrest and some of the Jewish population began to openly mock Florus by passing a basket around to collect money as if Florus was poor. Florus reacted to the unrest by sending soldiers into Jerusalem the next day to raid the city and arrest a number of the city leaders. The arrested individuals were whipped and crucified despite many of them being from the Jewish ruling class, and were even Roman citizens. This event is known as the "Upper Market Massacre." From this point onward, the bulk of the citizenry were no longer interested in heeding the Jewish ruling class's appeals for calm. The Romans are confronted in the streets by tens of thousands of angry Jews. Florus retreated from Jerusalem taking all but a single cohort of 500 soldiers behind--precariously holed up in the Antonia Fortress.
Cestius Gallus:Roman Governor/Legate of Syria. Gallus was a product of the patronage system. He belonged to the top senatorial class, the millionaire aristocrats who held almost all the most senior posts--men who believed themselves to be 'born to rule.' From within this class, he had risen to the highest summits--the consulship, Rome's supreme magistracy, and the much sought after and highly prestigious governorship of Syria. Gallus was Florus' immediate superior, and should trouble break out in Palestine it would be Gallus who would have to ride in to save the day.
King Herod Agrippa II:Great grandson of Herod the Great, and last of the Herodian dynasty in Palestine. Agrippa was the most powerful Jewish ruler in the region. While his territories amounted to only a fraction of that of previous Herodian client-kings, and did not include the area of Judea & the city of Jerusalem, he was nonetheless a dominant figure in local politics. Most importantly, he held the right (granted by Rome) to supervise the Temple and choose the High Priest.
June 66AD:Agrippa meets with a large delegation of Jews in Jerusalem in an attempt to restore order. He tries to convince them that their quarrel is with Florus personally, not Rome--and that anything short of total allegiance to Rome would be suicidal. Observers from Syria are also present and will report back to Gallus as to the state of affairs in Judea/Jerusalem. At first Agrippa appeared to prevail. He had agreement from the crowds that they would rebuild the parts of the city that had been damaged in the fighting and that they would pay the revenue that Florus had tried to collect. But then the king overreached himself. He told the crowd that Florus should be obeyed until his replacement arrived. The angry crowd turned on Agrippa, and his entourage fled the city.
Eleazar ben Ananias:(note: "ben" means son of___). Agrippa's flight split the Jewish ruling class irrevocably. A minority sided openly with the revolution and attempted to place themselves at the head of it. This group was led by Eleazar ben Ananias, a man of high-priestly family who held the post of Temple Captain in charge of administration and security.
Aug 66AD: Eleazar ben Ananias persuades the Temple priests to refuse gifts and sacrifices from foreigners, which meant abolishing the long-held practice of making daily sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor (and for the good of the Empire). This amounted to the clearest signal yet of open rebellion against Rome. Ironically, the pro-Herodian/Roman majority of the Jewish ruling class was led by the former high priest Ananias, none other than Eleazar's father. [imagine family Thanksgiving dinners at their house!] They immediately tried to get the sacrifices for the emperor restored, but when their advice was rejected at a mass meeting held at the Temple, they began preparing a counter-revolutionary coup. One delegation was sent to Caesarea to confer with the despised Florus, another was sent to Transjordan to obtain armed support from Agrippa. For 7 days in Aug 66AD Herodian troops and aristocratic militia held the 'upper city,' while the revolutionaries held the 'lower city' & Temple.....(which by this time had been converted to a fortress of sorts).
Aug 14, 66AD: The revolutionaries within the city (which by this time include the Sicarri) are joined by 'Zealots' from the countryside, to the extent that now the Herodian troops and aristocratic militia are vastly outnumbered. The upper city is over-run. The houses of the High Priest Ananias and Herod Agrippa are burned to the ground, along with the 'public records building' which stored records of contracts and debt. Those counter-revolutionaries that didn't flee the city were now holed up in the Royal Palace with the cohort of 500 Roman soldiers.
Menahem: Son (or grandson, history is unclear) of none other than Judas the Galilean. Menahem arrived in Jerusalem with a group of battle-hardened Zealots fresh from overwhelming the garrison at Masada and making off with Roman weapons. He arrived just in time to take command of the siege of the Royal Palace. Sep 6, 66AD the Herodians holed up within the Royal Palace seek terms with the Revolutionaries. King Agrippa's troops and any other Jewish defenders were permitted to surrender and leave, but no terms were offered to the Romans. Around this time Ananias was caught hiding in an aqueduct. He was brought forth and summarily executed. With his death, the counter-revolution was crushed. Menahem seemed to have everything, charisma, family pedigree, and military prowess. Perhaps these are the reasons Eleazar distrusted him. Regardless, Eleazar was not into power-sharing, and so had Menahem apprehended and killed. With that, what was left of Menahem's zealots retreated to Masada where they waited out the rest of the war. In the meantime, Eleazar promised the 500 Roman soldiers safe passage if they would surrender. They did, but as soon as they were in the open Eleazar reneged on his promise and had all but one slaughtered.
Oct-Nov 66: Cestius Gallus marches from Syria with a professional army 30,000 strong made up of Roman soldiers and auxiliary troops provided by area client kings. At first this looks like the beginnings of the restoration of Roman authority, as Gallus marches right up to the outer walls of Jerusalem. He then, however, suddenly retreats. Josephus felt that if Gallus had pressed the attack, the "war" could've been over in short order. Gallus, however, must've felt that his troops were too exposed--both from the rear, what with bandits hiding out in the hill country, and from the oncoming winter. Regardless of the reasons, Gallus withdrew his troops and retreated. This was catastrophic, as it exposed this professional army to the hit & run raids of guerilla warfare. The retreat turned into a rout, and in a running engagement which became known as the Battle of Beth-Horon, Gallus' force was severely mauled. In the process he lost supplies, weapons, siege equipment, and nearly 6,000 men.
Winter 66/67AD: With the defeat of Cestius Gallus, many who had been sitting on the fence regarding the revolt are won over in Jerusalem. Preparations for all-out war with Rome are begun. Eleazar ben Ananias is dispatched as a military governor in the south, Josephus is given charge of the north (Galilee), and a new High Priest is chosen--Ananus ben Ananus (aka Ananus II)--with full leadership powers given to him. This is the same Ananus II who HAD been high priest in the early 60s and had had James the brother of Jesus killed. Historians think that of all of the ruling elite, Ananus II was perhaps the most anti-Roman, hence his rise to power at this point. Meanwhile, the Roman general Vespasian is given command of the Judean campaign. Vespasian was a battle-hardened general who immediately set about strengthening the northern position--sending his son Titus to fetch further reinforcements and bring them to him. During the battles fought in Galilee it soon became obvious that the rag-tag rebels were going to be no match against the full might of Rome, as the rebels suffered defeat after defeat--and indeed, some villages openly welcomed the Roman legions as restorers of peace and order. It was during this period and the battle of Jotapata that Josephus is captured. The details of his capture are VERY mysterious. Most historians believe that to some degree or other he betrayed the 'cause.' Regardless, as he is brought forth to Vespasian, he "prophesies" that Vespasian will become Emperor. This not only saves his skin, but as time goes on and thanks to his full support & collaboration with Rome against the Jews, Josephus is adopted into Vespasian's family (given the family name of Flavius), and allowed to chronicle the details of the Jewish War. By the end of 67 AD the whole of northern Palestine was once again under Roman rule.
John of Gischala: The fiasco of the first year of war was disastrous for the leaders of the rebellion in Jerusalem. The fanatical nationalists blamed (probably for good reason) the current leadership, and accused them of having a lack of drive to conduct the war. A bloody civil war broke out in Jerusalem in the winter of 67/68 AD. The head of this current band of Zealots was John of Gischala. Through murder and treachery, John of Gischala was able to overthrow what was left of the old aristocratic governing party, including the High Priest Ananus II. A new High Priest was chosen by lot--a "man of the people"--Phannias from Aphthia. From here on out, there is nearly non-stop bloodshed and treachery in Jerusalem, as one faction of Zealotry vies for power against another. Josephus reports in his annals that no atrocity was committed by Rome against the Jews that hadn't already been committed against them in some far worse way by fellow Jews. During this time Vespasian's generals counseled that an attack against Jerusalem should be launched, but Vespasian felt that by letting Jews fight Jews first would, in the long run, result in an easier victory for Rome.
June 68 AD: Then everything changed. News of the death of Emperor Nero reached Vespasian. After the death of Nero in 68, Rome saw a succession of short-lived emperors and a year of civil wars. Galba was murdered by Otho, who was defeated by Vitellius. Otho's supporters, looking for another candidate to support, settled on Vespasian. Suddenly the Roman general had bigger fish to fry...and the revolt in Judea could wait. After several important moves to consolidate power and secure allegiances, Vespasian was declared Emperor by the Roman Senate in December of 69 AD. Dealing with the Jewish revolt was now the job of Vespasian's son Titus.
Passover, 70 AD, the Siege of Jerusalem: Meanwhile the Jews had become embroiled in yet more civil conflict of their own, splitting the resistance in the city among two factions; the Sicarii led by Simon Bar Giora, and the Zealots led by John of Gischala. Titus seized the opportunity to begin the assault on Jerusalem. He surrounded the city, with three legions on the western side and one on the Mount of Olives to the east. He put pressure on the food and water supplies of the inhabitants by allowing pilgrims to enter the city to celebrate Passover, and then refusing them exit. Jewish raids continuously harassed the Roman army, one of which nearly resulted in Titus being captured. After attempts by Josephus to negotiate a surrender had failed, the Romans resumed hostilities and quickly breached the first and second walls of the city. To intimidate the resistance, Titus ordered deserters from the Jewish side to be crucified around the city wall. By this time the Jews had been thoroughly exhausted by famine, and when the weak third wall was breached bitter street fighting ensued. The Romans finally captured the Antonia Fortress and began a frontal assault on the gates of the Temple (which by this time had been converted to something of a 'divine fortress.') According to Josephus, Titus had ordered that the Temple itself should not be destroyed, (scholars today doubt Josephus' word) but while the fighting around the gates continued a soldier hurled a torch inside one of the windows, which quickly set the entire building ablaze. The later Christian chronicler Sulpicius Severus, possibly drawing on a lost portion of Tacitus' Histories, claims that Titus favoured destruction of the Temple. Whatever the case, the Temple was completely demolished, after which Titus's soldiers proclaimed him imperator in honor of the victory. Jerusalem was sacked and much of the population killed or dispersed. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish. 97,000 were captured and enslaved, including Simon Bar Giora and John of Gischala. Many fled to areas around the Mediterranean. Titus reportedly refused to accept a wreath of victory, as he claimed there is "no merit in vanquishing people forsaken by their own God.
Masada: As mentioned earlier, following the treacherous murder of Mennahem, his band of Zealots retreated to the mountain stronghold of Masada, taking no further part in the war until the end. There they were led by yet another descendant of Judas the Galillean, Eleazar ben Yair. (I know, you need a scorecard to keep all of the 'Eleazar's' in order). The siege of Masada was extremely difficult, since the rock on which the city was built was so high and precipitous on every side. The Romans, using slave labor, constructed a ramp (still visible to this day) leading up along side the mountain, so as to enable use of their siege machines. As to how the Jews on Masada met their end, we can only speculate. Josephus tells us that Eleazar, upon seeing that further resistance was fruitless once Rome breached the outer walls, instituted an elaborate mass-suicide plan...so that when the Romans broke through, all they saw were dead bodies. Archaeologists, however, tend to disbelieve this. There seems to be just as much evidence for the idea tht when Rome broke through, they slaughtered everyone and burned every building. Regardless, by 73 AD, the war was over.
Post-script: Ironically, in spite of the crushing defeat suffered at the hand of the Romans, roughly 60 years later the Jews would fight a second war against Rome, the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136). Simon bar Kokhba, the commander of the revolt, was acclaimed as a Messiah, a heroic figure who could restore Israel. The revolt established a Jewish state over parts of Judea for over two years, but a Roman army of 12 legions with auxiliaries finally crushed it. The Romans then barred Jews from Jerusalem.
The timeline is DONE!
It's a bit involved, but you can now read right up to the 'bitter end' regarding the first Jewish War.
ALSO...I have now completed "part 2" of my musings on James, Luther and canonicty. Check it out by scrolling down...
cheers,
TM
-------------------------
TIMELINE OF RELEVANT PEOPLE & EVENTS:
63BC..........Rome intervenes in the Jewish civil war, essentially annexing the territory for itself.
40BC..........The Roman Senate confers the title "King of the Jews" on Herod the Great. Herod is a ruthless/despotic client king, who's considered, at best, a "half Jew." He spends much time consolidating power, disposing of would-be political enemies, and trying to ingratiate himself in the eyes of the populace via impressive building works.
37BC..........Beginning with Herod the Great & extending through the many years of direct Roman procuratorship, the high priesthood ceased being an office held for life and became a political appointment--conferred upon a limited number of aristocratic priestly families, all of which had a political and economic vested interest in the continued rule of Rome and/or the Herodian dynasty. Apocalyptic sects such as the Essenes saw this as further proof of wholesale corruption of the Temple and worship life of the people. Many such sects advocated withdrawal from society, boycotting of the Temple services, and awaiting God's immanent judgment/intervention. Some scholars wonder if the later prophet known as John the Baptist (6BC -- 30AD) may have been affiliated with such groups.
35BC..........Herod the Great builds the Antonia Fortress immediately adjacent to the Temple. This was no accident, as it was considered that the Temple would be a likely focal point of civil unrest among the populace. 600 Roman soldiers were quartered there. As an additional precaution, the vestments of the high priest--worn only on Yom Kippur--were kept there.
19BC..........Herod the Great undertakes the massive improving/beautifying the Temple. There were 10,000 skilled laborers and according to Josephus (Ant. 15.11.2) the laity could not enter certain parts of the building, therefore 1000 Levites were specially trained as builders and masons, and carried out their work so efficiently and carefully that at no time was there any interruption in the sacrifices and other services. The work was started by leveling larger portions of the Temple Mount, so that the new building might be erected on a broader base. It was also made much taller, so that the white stone gleamed in the bright Palestinian sun and could be seen from miles away. It was, to be sure, a wonder to behold (Lk 21:5). It wasn't completely finished until 63AD, and was sadly almost entirely destroyed a mere seven years later. All that remains is the western wall, known today as the Wailing Wall.
4BC............Death of Herod the Great. His vast territory was divided between his surviving sons. In the same year, young Jewish dissidents smashed the golden eagle over the main entrance of the Temple of Jerusalem after the Pharisee teachers claimed it was an idolatrous Roman symbol.
4BC............(approx) Jesus of Nazareth is born. [for an explanation of how Jesus could be born "BC...before Christ" see:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/birth.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
6AD...........Rome creates the 'province' of Judea by deposing Herod's son Archelaus, and subjecting the territory to DIRECT Roman rule....including the institution of a Roman census and taxation.
6AD...........(according to Josephus) the "fourth philosophy" is born. This is a Jewish sect led by Judas the Galilean and a Pharisee named Saddok. This party espouses the general beliefs of Pharisaism, coupled with an intense hatred for being subjected to Roman taxation & rule. Although the leaders are executed and the group is scattered, some scholars see the seeds of later zealotry in this group.
18AD.........Caiaphas appointed as high priest by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus. Caiaphas was the son inlaw of Ananus (note: spellings of this name vary). Caiaphas served until 36AD.
26AD.........(approx) Pontius Pilate appointed as Prefect of Judea (till approx 36 AD). Pilate is either unaware of, or antagonistic to Jewish sensibilities, as he attempts to display the pagan Roman military symbols/ensigns in Jerusalem. The Jews protested and laid their necks bare to the sword before Pilate relented. Pilate also raided the Temple's treasury, at least once, to pay for building projects in Jerusalem. Faced with a protesting mob, he had his soldiers (in disguise) mingle with the crowd and club them into submission at a prearranged signal.
33AD.........(approx) Jesus of Nazareth is crucified for the crime of insurrection ("King of the Jews"). After the resurrection, Jesus appears several times, including a special appearance to his brother James (1Cor 15:7).
33AD.........(approx) Stephen is stoned; a young Pharisee named Saul (later, St. Paul) oversees the execution.
34AD.........(approx) Saul/Paul is converted on the road to Damascus.
37AD.........Emperor Tiberius dies. Caligula becomes emperor.
37AD.........The Jewish historian Josephus is born.
40AD.........Jews destroy a votive altar to the emperor in Jamnia. Caligula responds by ordering the governor of Syria, Petronius, to have his statue erected in the Temple of Jerusalem. Jews threaten to strike, and to offer themselves in mass suicide in order to prevent this. Petronius stalls, and Caligula is murdered in the meantime.
44AD.........Death of Herod Agrippa, King of Judea & Samaria (Acts 12:23). Judea reverts to direct Roman control under the procurator Fadus Cuspius.
48AD.........through 52AD. Serious clashes between Jews & Romans under the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus. First, a Roman soldier on duty in the Temple during the feast of Passover made an obscene gesture, provoking a riot among the thousands of pilgrims gathered there. When Cumanus rushed in reinforcements, the crowd panicked and many were trampled to death. A year or two later, when bandits attacked one of the emperor's caravans a few miles from Jerusalem, Cumanus sent troops into the region to make summary arrests of village leaders. This time a soldier provoked anger by tearing up a copy of the Torah and burning it. As news of the outrage spread, thousand descended on the city of Caesarea and demanded the procurator have the offender executed. Next, a Galilean pilgrim was murdered in Samaria on his way to Jerusalem. When Cumanus did nothing, the veteran bandit Eleazar ben Dinai led an angry mob out to exact vengeance. Thereafter, communal violence between Jews & Samaritans spread across central Palestine. Again, troops were sent in; many Jews were killed, imprisoned, and/or executed via crucifixion.
49AD.........(possibly) The whole church meets in council at Jerusalem. James the brother of Jesus presides. (Acts 15). The Emperor Claudius expels the Jews from Rome (for rioting) at about this same time.
50AD..........(circa 50s) "Sicarii" ....literally, 'dagger-men' begin engaging in political assassinations in Jerusalem. Josephus reports: "Mixing with the crowds, especially during festivals, they would conceal small daggers beneath their garments and stealthily stab their opponents. Then when the victim fell, the murderers simply melted into the crowd, undetected. Sicarii primarily targeted upper class Jews seen as 'collaborators' with Rome (Priestly aristocracy, Herodian families, ruling elite, etc)." According to Josephus, political assassinations occurred DAILY during this time. There is a direct line of descent between the Scarii & the Fourth Philosophy, as sons & grandsons of Judas the Galilean were leaders of the Sicarii--including the grandson & Messianic pretender, Menahem. In addition to assassinations, the Sicarii also engaged in kidnapping/ransom.
54AD.........Emperor Claudius is poisoned. Nero becomes emperor.
57AD.........Through 59AD. An interesting glimpse at Judean unrest & politics under Roman procuratorship can be seen in Acts chapters 23-25. Paul is arrested in the Temple courts, but due to his Roman citizenship, he's kept from Jewish hands. Chapter 23 appears to detail a plot from none other than Sicarii. Paul appears before Felix toward the end of his procuratorship, and then Porcius Festus.
59AD.........and onward, there was strife between the different strata of Temple clergy--priests being in contention with the aristocratic high-priesthood. This inter-Temple strife paralleled the economic strife going on throughout Judea. The high-priestly aristocracy retaliated by acts of violence against the lower priests, and by confiscating their tithes--thereby depriving them of their only income and starving them into submission. Commentators infer that James would have had very open/public sympathies for the poor and lower-class priests, perhaps leading to his eventual arrest and martyrdom at the hands of the high priest.
61AD.........through 64AD. While the aristocratic/priestly elite Sadducees were generally considered corrupt collaborators with Rome and the client-king Herodian dynasty, all was not peace & love amongst this group in these years. King Herod Agrippa II handled Sadducean dissent by exercising his prerogative to fire/hire high priests at will. Six high priests succeeded one another during this tumultuous time. Factionalism was rampant: bribes were traded for the top post, and at one point rival supporters of three candidates battled each other in the streets.
62AD.........James the brother of Jesus & leader of the Jerusalem church is martyred. Accounts of his death vary, but evidently in the 3 or 4 month interval between the death of the procurator Porcius Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus, the High Priest Ananus II took advantage of the lack of direct Roman administration. An illegally called Sanhedrin was convened, and James and others deemed as trouble-makers by the high priestly class were dealt with. The exact 'charges' against James are unclear, but judging from the popular response to his death, it would appear that the charges against him were not based on religious or Torah infractions. Delegations were sent to Herod Agrippa II and to Albinus. Ananus II was deposed as High Priest.
64AD.........Beginning of persecution of Christians in Rome under Emperor Nero.
EVENTS LEADING DIRECTLY TO OPEN CONFLICT WITH ROME...SUMMER OF DISCONTENT
Who's Who:
Gessius Florus: (Florus for short) the Roman procurator of Judea from 64 until 66. Born in Clazomenae, Florus was appointed to replace Lucceius Albinus as procurator by the Emperor Nero due to his wife's friendship with Nero's wife Poppaea. He was noted for his public greed and injustice to the Jewish population, and is credited by Josephus as being the primary cause of the Great Jewish Revolt. Upon taking office in Caesarea, Florus began a practice of favoring the local Greek population of the city over the Jewish population. Gentiles in the ethnically mixed port city of Caesarea 'sacrificed' a rooster in front of a Jewish synagogue, sparking a riot. Florus suppressed the disorder with blatant bias against the Jews.
May 66AD: Florus further angered the Jewish population of his province by having seventeen talents removed from the treasury of the Temple in Jerusalem, claiming the money was for the Emperor (to cover a shortfall in tax revenue). In response to this action, the city fell into unrest and some of the Jewish population began to openly mock Florus by passing a basket around to collect money as if Florus was poor. Florus reacted to the unrest by sending soldiers into Jerusalem the next day to raid the city and arrest a number of the city leaders. The arrested individuals were whipped and crucified despite many of them being from the Jewish ruling class, and were even Roman citizens. This event is known as the "Upper Market Massacre." From this point onward, the bulk of the citizenry were no longer interested in heeding the Jewish ruling class's appeals for calm. The Romans are confronted in the streets by tens of thousands of angry Jews. Florus retreated from Jerusalem taking all but a single cohort of 500 soldiers behind--precariously holed up in the Antonia Fortress.
Cestius Gallus:Roman Governor/Legate of Syria. Gallus was a product of the patronage system. He belonged to the top senatorial class, the millionaire aristocrats who held almost all the most senior posts--men who believed themselves to be 'born to rule.' From within this class, he had risen to the highest summits--the consulship, Rome's supreme magistracy, and the much sought after and highly prestigious governorship of Syria. Gallus was Florus' immediate superior, and should trouble break out in Palestine it would be Gallus who would have to ride in to save the day.
King Herod Agrippa II:Great grandson of Herod the Great, and last of the Herodian dynasty in Palestine. Agrippa was the most powerful Jewish ruler in the region. While his territories amounted to only a fraction of that of previous Herodian client-kings, and did not include the area of Judea & the city of Jerusalem, he was nonetheless a dominant figure in local politics. Most importantly, he held the right (granted by Rome) to supervise the Temple and choose the High Priest.
June 66AD:Agrippa meets with a large delegation of Jews in Jerusalem in an attempt to restore order. He tries to convince them that their quarrel is with Florus personally, not Rome--and that anything short of total allegiance to Rome would be suicidal. Observers from Syria are also present and will report back to Gallus as to the state of affairs in Judea/Jerusalem. At first Agrippa appeared to prevail. He had agreement from the crowds that they would rebuild the parts of the city that had been damaged in the fighting and that they would pay the revenue that Florus had tried to collect. But then the king overreached himself. He told the crowd that Florus should be obeyed until his replacement arrived. The angry crowd turned on Agrippa, and his entourage fled the city.
Eleazar ben Ananias:(note: "ben" means son of___). Agrippa's flight split the Jewish ruling class irrevocably. A minority sided openly with the revolution and attempted to place themselves at the head of it. This group was led by Eleazar ben Ananias, a man of high-priestly family who held the post of Temple Captain in charge of administration and security.
Aug 66AD: Eleazar ben Ananias persuades the Temple priests to refuse gifts and sacrifices from foreigners, which meant abolishing the long-held practice of making daily sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor (and for the good of the Empire). This amounted to the clearest signal yet of open rebellion against Rome. Ironically, the pro-Herodian/Roman majority of the Jewish ruling class was led by the former high priest Ananias, none other than Eleazar's father. [imagine family Thanksgiving dinners at their house!] They immediately tried to get the sacrifices for the emperor restored, but when their advice was rejected at a mass meeting held at the Temple, they began preparing a counter-revolutionary coup. One delegation was sent to Caesarea to confer with the despised Florus, another was sent to Transjordan to obtain armed support from Agrippa. For 7 days in Aug 66AD Herodian troops and aristocratic militia held the 'upper city,' while the revolutionaries held the 'lower city' & Temple.....(which by this time had been converted to a fortress of sorts).
Aug 14, 66AD: The revolutionaries within the city (which by this time include the Sicarri) are joined by 'Zealots' from the countryside, to the extent that now the Herodian troops and aristocratic militia are vastly outnumbered. The upper city is over-run. The houses of the High Priest Ananias and Herod Agrippa are burned to the ground, along with the 'public records building' which stored records of contracts and debt. Those counter-revolutionaries that didn't flee the city were now holed up in the Royal Palace with the cohort of 500 Roman soldiers.
Menahem: Son (or grandson, history is unclear) of none other than Judas the Galilean. Menahem arrived in Jerusalem with a group of battle-hardened Zealots fresh from overwhelming the garrison at Masada and making off with Roman weapons. He arrived just in time to take command of the siege of the Royal Palace. Sep 6, 66AD the Herodians holed up within the Royal Palace seek terms with the Revolutionaries. King Agrippa's troops and any other Jewish defenders were permitted to surrender and leave, but no terms were offered to the Romans. Around this time Ananias was caught hiding in an aqueduct. He was brought forth and summarily executed. With his death, the counter-revolution was crushed. Menahem seemed to have everything, charisma, family pedigree, and military prowess. Perhaps these are the reasons Eleazar distrusted him. Regardless, Eleazar was not into power-sharing, and so had Menahem apprehended and killed. With that, what was left of Menahem's zealots retreated to Masada where they waited out the rest of the war. In the meantime, Eleazar promised the 500 Roman soldiers safe passage if they would surrender. They did, but as soon as they were in the open Eleazar reneged on his promise and had all but one slaughtered.
Oct-Nov 66: Cestius Gallus marches from Syria with a professional army 30,000 strong made up of Roman soldiers and auxiliary troops provided by area client kings. At first this looks like the beginnings of the restoration of Roman authority, as Gallus marches right up to the outer walls of Jerusalem. He then, however, suddenly retreats. Josephus felt that if Gallus had pressed the attack, the "war" could've been over in short order. Gallus, however, must've felt that his troops were too exposed--both from the rear, what with bandits hiding out in the hill country, and from the oncoming winter. Regardless of the reasons, Gallus withdrew his troops and retreated. This was catastrophic, as it exposed this professional army to the hit & run raids of guerilla warfare. The retreat turned into a rout, and in a running engagement which became known as the Battle of Beth-Horon, Gallus' force was severely mauled. In the process he lost supplies, weapons, siege equipment, and nearly 6,000 men.
Winter 66/67AD: With the defeat of Cestius Gallus, many who had been sitting on the fence regarding the revolt are won over in Jerusalem. Preparations for all-out war with Rome are begun. Eleazar ben Ananias is dispatched as a military governor in the south, Josephus is given charge of the north (Galilee), and a new High Priest is chosen--Ananus ben Ananus (aka Ananus II)--with full leadership powers given to him. This is the same Ananus II who HAD been high priest in the early 60s and had had James the brother of Jesus killed. Historians think that of all of the ruling elite, Ananus II was perhaps the most anti-Roman, hence his rise to power at this point. Meanwhile, the Roman general Vespasian is given command of the Judean campaign. Vespasian was a battle-hardened general who immediately set about strengthening the northern position--sending his son Titus to fetch further reinforcements and bring them to him. During the battles fought in Galilee it soon became obvious that the rag-tag rebels were going to be no match against the full might of Rome, as the rebels suffered defeat after defeat--and indeed, some villages openly welcomed the Roman legions as restorers of peace and order. It was during this period and the battle of Jotapata that Josephus is captured. The details of his capture are VERY mysterious. Most historians believe that to some degree or other he betrayed the 'cause.' Regardless, as he is brought forth to Vespasian, he "prophesies" that Vespasian will become Emperor. This not only saves his skin, but as time goes on and thanks to his full support & collaboration with Rome against the Jews, Josephus is adopted into Vespasian's family (given the family name of Flavius), and allowed to chronicle the details of the Jewish War. By the end of 67 AD the whole of northern Palestine was once again under Roman rule.
John of Gischala: The fiasco of the first year of war was disastrous for the leaders of the rebellion in Jerusalem. The fanatical nationalists blamed (probably for good reason) the current leadership, and accused them of having a lack of drive to conduct the war. A bloody civil war broke out in Jerusalem in the winter of 67/68 AD. The head of this current band of Zealots was John of Gischala. Through murder and treachery, John of Gischala was able to overthrow what was left of the old aristocratic governing party, including the High Priest Ananus II. A new High Priest was chosen by lot--a "man of the people"--Phannias from Aphthia. From here on out, there is nearly non-stop bloodshed and treachery in Jerusalem, as one faction of Zealotry vies for power against another. Josephus reports in his annals that no atrocity was committed by Rome against the Jews that hadn't already been committed against them in some far worse way by fellow Jews. During this time Vespasian's generals counseled that an attack against Jerusalem should be launched, but Vespasian felt that by letting Jews fight Jews first would, in the long run, result in an easier victory for Rome.
June 68 AD: Then everything changed. News of the death of Emperor Nero reached Vespasian. After the death of Nero in 68, Rome saw a succession of short-lived emperors and a year of civil wars. Galba was murdered by Otho, who was defeated by Vitellius. Otho's supporters, looking for another candidate to support, settled on Vespasian. Suddenly the Roman general had bigger fish to fry...and the revolt in Judea could wait. After several important moves to consolidate power and secure allegiances, Vespasian was declared Emperor by the Roman Senate in December of 69 AD. Dealing with the Jewish revolt was now the job of Vespasian's son Titus.
Passover, 70 AD, the Siege of Jerusalem: Meanwhile the Jews had become embroiled in yet more civil conflict of their own, splitting the resistance in the city among two factions; the Sicarii led by Simon Bar Giora, and the Zealots led by John of Gischala. Titus seized the opportunity to begin the assault on Jerusalem. He surrounded the city, with three legions on the western side and one on the Mount of Olives to the east. He put pressure on the food and water supplies of the inhabitants by allowing pilgrims to enter the city to celebrate Passover, and then refusing them exit. Jewish raids continuously harassed the Roman army, one of which nearly resulted in Titus being captured. After attempts by Josephus to negotiate a surrender had failed, the Romans resumed hostilities and quickly breached the first and second walls of the city. To intimidate the resistance, Titus ordered deserters from the Jewish side to be crucified around the city wall. By this time the Jews had been thoroughly exhausted by famine, and when the weak third wall was breached bitter street fighting ensued. The Romans finally captured the Antonia Fortress and began a frontal assault on the gates of the Temple (which by this time had been converted to something of a 'divine fortress.') According to Josephus, Titus had ordered that the Temple itself should not be destroyed, (scholars today doubt Josephus' word) but while the fighting around the gates continued a soldier hurled a torch inside one of the windows, which quickly set the entire building ablaze. The later Christian chronicler Sulpicius Severus, possibly drawing on a lost portion of Tacitus' Histories, claims that Titus favoured destruction of the Temple. Whatever the case, the Temple was completely demolished, after which Titus's soldiers proclaimed him imperator in honor of the victory. Jerusalem was sacked and much of the population killed or dispersed. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish. 97,000 were captured and enslaved, including Simon Bar Giora and John of Gischala. Many fled to areas around the Mediterranean. Titus reportedly refused to accept a wreath of victory, as he claimed there is "no merit in vanquishing people forsaken by their own God.
Masada: As mentioned earlier, following the treacherous murder of Mennahem, his band of Zealots retreated to the mountain stronghold of Masada, taking no further part in the war until the end. There they were led by yet another descendant of Judas the Galillean, Eleazar ben Yair. (I know, you need a scorecard to keep all of the 'Eleazar's' in order). The siege of Masada was extremely difficult, since the rock on which the city was built was so high and precipitous on every side. The Romans, using slave labor, constructed a ramp (still visible to this day) leading up along side the mountain, so as to enable use of their siege machines. As to how the Jews on Masada met their end, we can only speculate. Josephus tells us that Eleazar, upon seeing that further resistance was fruitless once Rome breached the outer walls, instituted an elaborate mass-suicide plan...so that when the Romans broke through, all they saw were dead bodies. Archaeologists, however, tend to disbelieve this. There seems to be just as much evidence for the idea tht when Rome broke through, they slaughtered everyone and burned every building. Regardless, by 73 AD, the war was over.
Post-script: Ironically, in spite of the crushing defeat suffered at the hand of the Romans, roughly 60 years later the Jews would fight a second war against Rome, the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136). Simon bar Kokhba, the commander of the revolt, was acclaimed as a Messiah, a heroic figure who could restore Israel. The revolt established a Jewish state over parts of Judea for over two years, but a Roman army of 12 legions with auxiliaries finally crushed it. The Romans then barred Jews from Jerusalem.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
James, Luther, Canonicity, and historical musings...
James, Luther, Canonicity, and historical musings…
Part 1:
This isn’t meant to be a ‘scholarly’ article, so I’ll try to keep the footnotes & technical jargon to a minimum. However, several people have asked just what was Luther’s hang-up with James? In a nutshell (and in my personal opinion) it boils down to a few main things, but first let’s get a Luther quote. Barclay in his excellent “Daily Study Bible” series is as good of a place as any for this:
“In his printing of his German New Testament Luther had a contents page with the books set out and numbered. But at the end of the list there is a little group, separate from the others, and with no numbers assigned to them. That group comprised of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. These were books which Luther definitely held to be ‘secondary.’ …It is in the concluding paragraph of his Preface to the New Testament that there stands Luther’s famous verdict on James: ‘In sum: the gospel and the first epistle of St. John, St. Paul’s epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians; and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books which show Christ to you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any other teaching. In comparison with these the epistle of James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.’”
In addition to this, and given Luther’s fixation on the Apostle Paul, James 2:23-24 had to be particularly difficult for him to swallow:
“23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This SEEMS to directly conflict with what St. Paul writes in Romans 4:2-4: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
So, these are the issues. My response is as follows:
---First, we must remember that Luther was a man of his time/era, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he was not infallible. Luther, his writings and his opinions do not constitute doctrinal positions that MUST be believed by Lutherans or any other Christian group. He's not our "Pope-of-the-past." He was capable of error, and like most great men, when he erred, he usually really screwed up. (his position on the Jews & Anabaptists comes to mind).
---Second, it is very evident that even though Paul and James are using the same word (justify, or dikaioutai in the Greek), these men are NOT using the word in the same way. In a nutshell, when Paul uses the word (especially in Romans) he’s talking about what GOD SEES. God looks at a sinner and sees RIGHTEOUSNESS on account of the sinner’s faith in the Savior. Even the Patriarch Abraham had this faith. James isn’t talking about what God sees, but rather what ALL SEE. The righteousness that comes via faith that God sees gets seen by ALL when this faith shows itself in good works. Luther’s problem is that he couldn’t fathom the same word being used in two different ways. So then, justification is accomplished by grace through faith, but it is shown or made evident through our actions. Paul and James are not in disagreement.
Closely related to this discussion is the meaning of the word “works.” Paul says in Romans 3:28:
“For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from WORKS of the Law.”
Yet, James says in chapter 2:
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? …So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
This is yet another example of the same word being used in different ways by Paul and James. James seems clearly to have everyday ordinary “good deeds” in mind when he speaks of works. When the sinner is justified, this shows itself in a CHANGED LIFE…a life lived now out of love (for God first, and then neighbor). When Paul speaks of “works of the Law,” however, he is speaking particularly of those things prescribed by Torah that make a person JEWISH (circumcision, keeping of the Sabbath, dietary rules)….at least in the context of Romans 3. Interestingly enough, Paul expresses agreement WITH JAMES in Ephesians chapter 2. After declaring in vss 8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith, not works, so no one can boast, Paul says in vs 10: "He, that is God, has created us in Christ Jesus to live LIVES FILLED WITH GOOD WORKS.” (GW translation).
In the end, Paul did not know of a saving faith that didn’t produce good works, nor did James know of a way to be declared righteous in the SIGHT OF GOD apart from faith. Luther, as the Great Reformer and advocate of justification by faith alone, had a ‘hammer’ and wanted to see everything as a nail. When he got to James it just didn’t work. It wasn’t James’ fault. Thankfully Lutheran Bible scholars since his time have more tools in their toolbox than just hammers.
More later...
Cheers,
TM
James, Luther, Canonicity, and historical musings…
Part 2:
In part one of this little article I addressed the major ‘issues’ Luther had with the Epistle of James. Now I’d like to take a broader look at the issue(s) surrounding James and canonicity. Again, using Barclay’s excellent little volume: “The Daily Study Bible,” we read:
In the Latin-speaking part of the Church it is not until the middle of the fourth century that James emerges in the writings of the Fathers at all. The first list of New Testament books ever to be compiled is the Muratorian Canon, which dates to about 170 AD, and James is absent from it.... One would have thought that the Syrian Church would have been the first to accept James, if it was really written in Palestine, and if it was really the work of James, the brother of our Lord; but in the Syrian Church there is the same oscillation. [there appears to be no mention of James in the Syrian Peshitto prior to 412 AD]...Although James emerged sooner in the Greek-speaking church than it did in the Latin and Syrian church, it was nonetheless late in making its definite appearance. The first writer to quote it by name is Origen...but the decisive turning point in the Greek Church came in 367 AD, with the issue of the famous Easter Letter by Athanasius listing the books he considered to be canonical....So, then, in the early Church no one really questioned the value of James; but in every branch of the Church it was late in emerging.
I’ve vastly abbreviated Barclay, but I think you get the point. The Early Church [led by the Fathers] was slow in accepting the canonicity of James.
If we accept that the *core* of the Epistle of James was taken from actual material written by James the Brother of Jesus and Bishop of the Jerusalem church--with perhaps later editing and additions made by a second generation editor (see Ralph Martin’s excellent commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series)--then I have a theory as to what happened along the way that made for slow acceptance of the Epistle of James.
FIRST: We must remember that James was martyred in the early 60s just prior to the near-complete destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. Tell-tale signs within the letter indicate that it was written by James not long before his death. This bodes well with what we know about other church writings. When leaders/authors sensed their time running short, they committed their teachings to writing for the sake of coming generations.
SECOND: From 66 AD onward, Jerusalem and its surrounding environs are embroiled in civil unrest. Several revolutionary factions vie for power even before the first “shot” is fired with Rome. But at some point the “writing” would clearly be seen on the wall--Jerusalem and its revolutionary factions were on a collision course with Rome. An old tradition (from the time of Eusebius the early church historian) states that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem/Judea fled to Pella, an area across the Jordan, taking NO PART in the war. (note: This fits well with the advice of Jesus that we read in Mark 13:14 “When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong-let the reader understand-then let those who are in Judea FLEE to the mountains...”). Eusebius, however, is writing nearly 200 years after the fact, and furthermore, has no proof for his claims. Many modern scholars doubt the ‘flight to Pella’ theory. It is just as possible that Jewish/Christian men of fighting age took part in the struggle against Rome.
THIRD: So, what if it went down this way....the Jewish/Christians of the area stayed to fight for what they saw a Jewish nationalistic cause, sending away only their women, children, old and infirm. Sacred texts may or may not have been sent off with them. Whoever stayed behind to fight was of course obliterated. Following the war it would be a generation AT LEAST before someone within what used to be the “Jerusalem Church” would be of sufficient age and stature to not only find and edit the writings of James, but also begin circulating them again. (Jews were banned from the Jerusalem ruins following the war). In short, due to the war with Rome the church at Jerusalem went from being The Mother Church to being non-existent. Their voice among the other Christians of the Empire was SILENCED, nearly forever. In the ensuing generations, the Church became a largely Gentile institution. Any sacred writings supposedly emanating from the old Jerusalem Church would quite naturally be slow in being recognized and accepted. (note: by the time the Church Father Cyril of Jerusalem is on the scene, mid 300s, even the Jerusalem Church is a Gentile institution).
In short, the way I see it, the Epistle of James languished on the slow track to canonicity and universal acceptance primarily because there was no prevalent Jewish-Christian voice speaking on its behalf in the largely Gentile Church from the late first century onwards. Indeed, from the time of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100AD), already the very idea that one could be a practicing Torah-observant Jew **AND** a Christian, was in great doubt. James the brother of Jesus, and indeed the Lord himself, would perhaps have seemed like ‘odd ducks’ to the newer Gentile-only version of the Christian Church.
cheers,
TM
Part 1:
This isn’t meant to be a ‘scholarly’ article, so I’ll try to keep the footnotes & technical jargon to a minimum. However, several people have asked just what was Luther’s hang-up with James? In a nutshell (and in my personal opinion) it boils down to a few main things, but first let’s get a Luther quote. Barclay in his excellent “Daily Study Bible” series is as good of a place as any for this:
“In his printing of his German New Testament Luther had a contents page with the books set out and numbered. But at the end of the list there is a little group, separate from the others, and with no numbers assigned to them. That group comprised of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. These were books which Luther definitely held to be ‘secondary.’ …It is in the concluding paragraph of his Preface to the New Testament that there stands Luther’s famous verdict on James: ‘In sum: the gospel and the first epistle of St. John, St. Paul’s epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians; and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books which show Christ to you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any other teaching. In comparison with these the epistle of James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.’”
In addition to this, and given Luther’s fixation on the Apostle Paul, James 2:23-24 had to be particularly difficult for him to swallow:
“23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This SEEMS to directly conflict with what St. Paul writes in Romans 4:2-4: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
So, these are the issues. My response is as follows:
---First, we must remember that Luther was a man of his time/era, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, he was not infallible. Luther, his writings and his opinions do not constitute doctrinal positions that MUST be believed by Lutherans or any other Christian group. He's not our "Pope-of-the-past." He was capable of error, and like most great men, when he erred, he usually really screwed up. (his position on the Jews & Anabaptists comes to mind).
---Second, it is very evident that even though Paul and James are using the same word (justify, or dikaioutai in the Greek), these men are NOT using the word in the same way. In a nutshell, when Paul uses the word (especially in Romans) he’s talking about what GOD SEES. God looks at a sinner and sees RIGHTEOUSNESS on account of the sinner’s faith in the Savior. Even the Patriarch Abraham had this faith. James isn’t talking about what God sees, but rather what ALL SEE. The righteousness that comes via faith that God sees gets seen by ALL when this faith shows itself in good works. Luther’s problem is that he couldn’t fathom the same word being used in two different ways. So then, justification is accomplished by grace through faith, but it is shown or made evident through our actions. Paul and James are not in disagreement.
Closely related to this discussion is the meaning of the word “works.” Paul says in Romans 3:28:
“For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from WORKS of the Law.”
Yet, James says in chapter 2:
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? …So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
This is yet another example of the same word being used in different ways by Paul and James. James seems clearly to have everyday ordinary “good deeds” in mind when he speaks of works. When the sinner is justified, this shows itself in a CHANGED LIFE…a life lived now out of love (for God first, and then neighbor). When Paul speaks of “works of the Law,” however, he is speaking particularly of those things prescribed by Torah that make a person JEWISH (circumcision, keeping of the Sabbath, dietary rules)….at least in the context of Romans 3. Interestingly enough, Paul expresses agreement WITH JAMES in Ephesians chapter 2. After declaring in vss 8-9 that we are saved by grace through faith, not works, so no one can boast, Paul says in vs 10: "He, that is God, has created us in Christ Jesus to live LIVES FILLED WITH GOOD WORKS.” (GW translation).
In the end, Paul did not know of a saving faith that didn’t produce good works, nor did James know of a way to be declared righteous in the SIGHT OF GOD apart from faith. Luther, as the Great Reformer and advocate of justification by faith alone, had a ‘hammer’ and wanted to see everything as a nail. When he got to James it just didn’t work. It wasn’t James’ fault. Thankfully Lutheran Bible scholars since his time have more tools in their toolbox than just hammers.
More later...
Cheers,
TM
James, Luther, Canonicity, and historical musings…
Part 2:
In part one of this little article I addressed the major ‘issues’ Luther had with the Epistle of James. Now I’d like to take a broader look at the issue(s) surrounding James and canonicity. Again, using Barclay’s excellent little volume: “The Daily Study Bible,” we read:
In the Latin-speaking part of the Church it is not until the middle of the fourth century that James emerges in the writings of the Fathers at all. The first list of New Testament books ever to be compiled is the Muratorian Canon, which dates to about 170 AD, and James is absent from it.... One would have thought that the Syrian Church would have been the first to accept James, if it was really written in Palestine, and if it was really the work of James, the brother of our Lord; but in the Syrian Church there is the same oscillation. [there appears to be no mention of James in the Syrian Peshitto prior to 412 AD]...Although James emerged sooner in the Greek-speaking church than it did in the Latin and Syrian church, it was nonetheless late in making its definite appearance. The first writer to quote it by name is Origen...but the decisive turning point in the Greek Church came in 367 AD, with the issue of the famous Easter Letter by Athanasius listing the books he considered to be canonical....So, then, in the early Church no one really questioned the value of James; but in every branch of the Church it was late in emerging.
I’ve vastly abbreviated Barclay, but I think you get the point. The Early Church [led by the Fathers] was slow in accepting the canonicity of James.
If we accept that the *core* of the Epistle of James was taken from actual material written by James the Brother of Jesus and Bishop of the Jerusalem church--with perhaps later editing and additions made by a second generation editor (see Ralph Martin’s excellent commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series)--then I have a theory as to what happened along the way that made for slow acceptance of the Epistle of James.
FIRST: We must remember that James was martyred in the early 60s just prior to the near-complete destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. Tell-tale signs within the letter indicate that it was written by James not long before his death. This bodes well with what we know about other church writings. When leaders/authors sensed their time running short, they committed their teachings to writing for the sake of coming generations.
SECOND: From 66 AD onward, Jerusalem and its surrounding environs are embroiled in civil unrest. Several revolutionary factions vie for power even before the first “shot” is fired with Rome. But at some point the “writing” would clearly be seen on the wall--Jerusalem and its revolutionary factions were on a collision course with Rome. An old tradition (from the time of Eusebius the early church historian) states that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem/Judea fled to Pella, an area across the Jordan, taking NO PART in the war. (note: This fits well with the advice of Jesus that we read in Mark 13:14 “When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong-let the reader understand-then let those who are in Judea FLEE to the mountains...”). Eusebius, however, is writing nearly 200 years after the fact, and furthermore, has no proof for his claims. Many modern scholars doubt the ‘flight to Pella’ theory. It is just as possible that Jewish/Christian men of fighting age took part in the struggle against Rome.
THIRD: So, what if it went down this way....the Jewish/Christians of the area stayed to fight for what they saw a Jewish nationalistic cause, sending away only their women, children, old and infirm. Sacred texts may or may not have been sent off with them. Whoever stayed behind to fight was of course obliterated. Following the war it would be a generation AT LEAST before someone within what used to be the “Jerusalem Church” would be of sufficient age and stature to not only find and edit the writings of James, but also begin circulating them again. (Jews were banned from the Jerusalem ruins following the war). In short, due to the war with Rome the church at Jerusalem went from being The Mother Church to being non-existent. Their voice among the other Christians of the Empire was SILENCED, nearly forever. In the ensuing generations, the Church became a largely Gentile institution. Any sacred writings supposedly emanating from the old Jerusalem Church would quite naturally be slow in being recognized and accepted. (note: by the time the Church Father Cyril of Jerusalem is on the scene, mid 300s, even the Jerusalem Church is a Gentile institution).
In short, the way I see it, the Epistle of James languished on the slow track to canonicity and universal acceptance primarily because there was no prevalent Jewish-Christian voice speaking on its behalf in the largely Gentile Church from the late first century onwards. Indeed, from the time of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100AD), already the very idea that one could be a practicing Torah-observant Jew **AND** a Christian, was in great doubt. James the brother of Jesus, and indeed the Lord himself, would perhaps have seemed like ‘odd ducks’ to the newer Gentile-only version of the Christian Church.
cheers,
TM
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The siege of Jerusalem
If you scroll all the way to the bottom, well.....*almost* all of the way....you'll see a bunch of nifty pics I've organized as a slideshow. Some of these are works of art depicting the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD (the stronghold of Massada fell 3 years later), and some are modern pics of the Temple mount area.
cheers,
TM
cheers,
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
