Second Temple Judaism and Works Righteousness

Second temple Judaism was not a religion of works righteousness. Judaism was always – and still is – a religion of electing grace and covenant relationship. Such faith is not found only in the Qumran community and documents from the late second temple period. "Election precedes covenant which is lived out by following Torah instruction" is the heart of Exodus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 6-7 – which is, in turn, the heart of the Hebrew scriptures. (This is also the heart of Jesus' and Paul's understanding and practice of Torah faithfulness.)

Paul clearly states in Galatians 2:15-16: "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law." Torah was given in the context of covenant. Covenant was born from gracious election. To be Torah observant never meant living a life of "sinless perfection meriting salvation." Rather it meant to live under the umbrella of God's election and covenant, observing Torah instructions as moral and purity imperatives and availing one's self of the redemptive provisions of the sacrificial system when falling short.

The tendency to fall into legalism is an ever-present temptation in all expressions of ethical monotheism – and I am quite sure that some in second temple Israel succumbed to self-righteousness and exclusion of those who did not live up to their standards. But this is not the essence of biblical faith. Jesus did not find shortcomings in the law of Moses. And in whatever way we understand Paul (unless we want to admit that he is the true founder of the Christian faith), we must start with his fundamental agreement with Jesus' own faith and his proclamation that the "end of the age" was dawning. This proclamation included the defeat of the powers, the restoration of Israel, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God, and the resurrection of the dead – of which Jesus is the first fruits and the certain guarantee that the "kingdom of God" has come. This vision is the fulfillment of the Hebrew faith, not its rejection.

Both Jesus and Paul were Torah observant Jews. Neither argued that Jews were no longer bound by Torah obligations. Jesus charged the Pharisees with hypocrisy, failing to live up to the standards they set for others; he never charged them with heresy. When asked the greatest commandment, he quoted Deuteronomy and Leviticus. To the rich ruler's question, he replied, "Observe the law." The context for interpreting the teaching of Jesus and Paul is Torah observant Judaism at the end of the "old age" and the coming of the "new." It is precisely the end time inclusion of the Gentiles – and their relationship to the traditional Hebrew faith – that raises the controversies that Paul struggles against in his letters.

Jesus, Paul, and Early Rabbinic Schools

The rhetoric and teaching methods of Jesus and Paul are best understood as part of the emerging rabbinic movement that would come to dominate Judaism after the destruction of the second temple. Like the Pharisees – the contemporaries of Jesus and Paul and the predecessors of the post-temple rabbis – both Jesus and Paul engaged in public Torah interpretation and controversy.

Jesus' disagreements with his opponents did not mean he rejected Torah obligations. They meant exactly the opposite. Jesus actively engaged in the interpretive debates about Torah interpretation between the early rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai – sometimes agreeing with one, sometimes the other, and sometimes challenging both with his own fresh application of the Torah to the challenges of the day. Many sayings of Jesus are halakhic statements that amend or modify traditional Torah precepts to conform to contemporary conditions. The collected sayings of Jesus in Matthew's "Sermon on the Mount" are quite simply the "Torah according to Jesus" – comparable to the collected Torah interpretations of other first century rabbis. Jesus ethics and eschatology only make sense inside second temple Judaism.

Paul – a Pharisee probably of the house of Shammai – never rejected his Jewish roots, education, or affiliation after his "conversion" to Christ. Although his Jewish worldview was radically reordered by the resurrection of Jesus and its eschatological implications, Paul remain a student of the Hebrew scriptures. His letters are replete with appeals to authoritative scriptural references. It appears that he remained Torah observant until his death – even though he embraced the prophetic role of "apostle to the Gentiles." Paul's "rabbinic" rhetoric is on display in the lively "debates" with his opponents in his letters.

Unlike Jesus, Paul seldom argued with Jewish scholars about the interpretation of Torah. Rather, his rhetorical flourishes were reserved for those who attacked the basic premise of his mission: the inclusion of Gentiles as "Gentiles" (with no Torah demand) in the end time people of God. Paul's opponents were perhaps Jews who demanded a proselyte conversion to Judaism before Gentile eligibility for inclusion into God's people. More likely, these opponents were Gentile proselytes who had themselves already taken on Torah obligation and felt that their fellow Gentile must follow the same path into God's end time community. Whichever may be the case, Paul wielded the Hebrew scriptures and rabbinic forms of rhetoric as weapons in the wars with those who would deny the validity of his mission to the Gentiles.

The Virginal Conception of Jesus (Matthew 1:18-25)

Most English Versions begin the narrative in Matthew 1:18 by rendering the Greek word genesis as “birth” (KJV, RSV, NEB, TCNT, NASB, Phillips, etc.). While this is an adequate translation, it has the unfortunate aspect that it obscures a careful connection which Matthew seems to have intended, that is, that the term genesis (= origin, generation) is repeated in 1:18 from 1:1. As such, the story of how Mary came to be pregnant is directly connected with the whole genealogical scheme in 1:1-17 and provides a direct answer to the implicit question which Matthew has raised by using the passive construction “out of whom was fathered Jesus” (1:16). In the genealogy proper, Matthew has not told his readers who fathered Jesus, but now he addresses this question specifically. Furthermore, the term “virginal conception” is more descriptive of the present passage than the traditional term “virgin birth” since the passage does not as yet describe a birth but only a conception.

To appreciate the circumstances of Mary’s pregnancy, it is advantageous to know something of marriage customs among Jewry of the first century in Palestine. Marriage was completed in two stages, a betrothal and a home-taking. In the betrothal, which usually occurred when the girl was between twelve and twelve and a half years of age, the father of the girl received from the prospective groom the mohar (= bride price) in the presence of witnesses. This began the transfer of the girl from her father’s power to her husband’s power. Once the betrothal was valid, the girl was called the “wife” of the man, since betrothal was considered to be permanent. Even though she would not yet live with him for a time, she could be widowed, divorced, or executed for adultery. In Judea, the betrothed couple might engage in sexual relations under certain circumstances, but in Galilee, where Mary lived, no such liberties were tolerated; the bride had to be taken to her husband’s home as a virgin. The home-taking, which usually occurred about a year or so after the betrothal, was celebrated with a processional to the new home followed by a wedding feast. At this time, the bride came under the full power of her husband.

According to Matthew, between the betrothal and the home-taking, Mary was found to be pregnant. How the discovery was made or how far along Mary was in the pregnancy is not explained, but Matthew is quite clear that the news deeply disturbed Joseph. Matthew is also careful to inform the reader that the pregnancy was a miraculous conception “through the Holy Spirit,” something that Joseph did not know as yet. Joseph was left to figure out the problem for himself, and he could only conclude the worst. He knew the child was not his, and seemingly the only other options were seduction and rape. Thus, Joseph resolved to divorce Mary privately rather than publicly expose her.

The two expressions deigmatisai (= to publicly expose) and lathra apolysa secretly divorce) are significant in that they suggest that Joseph considered both seduction and rape as possible causes of Mary’s pregnancy. According to the Torah, if the encounter had occurred in a town, the woman was then assumed to have been seduced, since she had not been heard screaming for help. Both parties were to be executed. If it happened in the country, she was given the benefit of the doubt, since she could have been forced. In this case only the male was executed (Dt. 22:23-27). If there was only suspicion of seduction but no proof, the woman was required to submit to a judicial ordeal, an appeal to divine judgment to absolve or condemn her through the drinking of filthy water and the imposition of a curse (Nu. 5:11-31).

Rabbinic sources are not as clear as one might like regarding how the Jews approached the subject at the time of Jesus. Apparently, the judicial ordeal could have been declined and a divorce could have been effected privately before two witnesses. It is possible that some Jews felt that divorce was required in the case of rape while others felt that it was at least allowed though not mandatory. Thus, if Mary had been raped, Joseph could either have married her or divorced her. If she had been unfaithful, she was subject to execution according to Mosaic law, though the severity of this judgment was probably relaxed by the time of Jesus, and divorce was more than likely to have been the judgment rather than execution. Thus, Joseph wrestled with the most acute dilemma. Mary, his betrothed, was pregnant, and he knew not how. Was it her fault, or was it someone else’s? Being a “righteous” man (a Torah-observant Jew), he struggled with the alternatives, finally choosing private divorce in order to spare Mary the worst. He elected not to resort to the judicial ordeal, but chose to shield Mary through a merciful alternative. With nothing being proven against her, she could return to her father’s home and hope for another marriage in the future.

It was in the midst of his acute dilemma but after he had chosen a particular course of action that God intervened to change Joseph’s mind. An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, urging him to complete the home-taking rather than proceed with a private divorce.

The messenger to Joseph, the “angel of the Lord”, is the familiar figure of the Mal’ak Yahweh (= messenger of Yahweh) from the OT, a figure that appeared more than once in connection with either an annunciation or a dilemma of a parent and child (Ge. 16:7-16; 22:11-18; Jg. 13:2-22). It was part of the paradoxical character of the Mal’ak Yahweh that he could speak both for God and as God, and it is worth noting that on several occasions, when one saw the Mal’ak Yahweh it was equivalent to seeing God (cf. Ge. 16:13; 31:13; 32:30; Jg. 13:22). This figure appears two times more in Matthew’s prologue, each time to insure the protection of the child Jesus (2:13, 19).

Dreams figure significantly in Matthew’s narrative, and no less than five dreams are recounted (1:20; 2:12, 13, 19, 22). This is in keeping with the OT pattern that revelatory dreams seem to have appeared in clusters (i.e., patriarchal era, time of Daniel). The OT writers may not have made a clear distinction between dreams and night visions, but in the case of Joseph, at least, it is clear that he was asleep when the first angelic appearance was made (1:24).

When the angel addressed Joseph, he called him the “son of David”, a point that Matthew has already substantiated in the genealogy. As is common in annunciation stories in general, this annunciation follows the stereotypical pattern found elsewhere in the Bible:

1.     The appearance of an angel

2.     The person is saluted by name

3.     The person is urged not to be afraid

4.     A pregnancy is announced and explained

5.     The child is named in advance

6.     The significance of the name is explained

7.     The future accomplishments of the child are indicated

Joseph was counseled not to be afraid of completing the home-taking, the second stage of Jewish marriage. Of course, to complete the marriage meant that he would be called upon to bear Mary’s stigma as well. It meant that while he was willing to protect her from the overt charges of seduction or rape, he could never remove any popular suspicion that seduction or rape had actually occurred nor could he exempt himself from being suspected of marital intercourse prior to the home-taking. That suspicions of illegitimacy were indeed fostered in the Jewish community is hinted at in the NT (Mk. 6:2-3; Jn. 8:41) and explicitly stated in non-biblical traditions. In the pseudipigraphic Gospel of Nicodemas, also called the Acts of Pilate (AD 4th or 5th century or earlier), the accusers of Jesus at his trial are depicted as charging that he was “born of fornication” (Chap. 2). In the pseudipigraphic Coptic Gospel of Thomas (about AD 140), there is an enigmatic saying which may refer to Jesus as the son of a harlot (Logion 105). Celsus, a pagan philosopher who wrote in about AD 178, says that Jewish opinion held Jesus to be the son of Mary and Panthera, a Roman soldier who corrupted Mary, and that the story of the virgin birth was “not believed” (Oriqen Against Celsus, 1.28, 32, 39, 69). Rabbinic literature follows this same line, referring to Jesus as Yeshua ben Pantera (= Jesus son of Pantera) as well as by other derogatory epithets of illegitimacy.

Matthew explains the divine action which resulted in Mary’s pregnancy by the phrase, “...what is conceived in her is through the Holy Spirit.” Virtually all scholars agree that this passage intends to teach the virginal conception of Jesus. Non-evangelical scholars may be reluctant to believe what Matthew asserts, of course. J. A. T. Robinson sums up this position of doubt about the historical reliability of the gospel accounts when he states, “We are not bound to think of the Virgin Birth as a physical event, in order to believe that Jesus’ whole life is ‘of God.’” Such skepticism, however, arises largely from the philosophical and scientific convictions that the world has advanced to such an extent through science and technology that it is no longer possible for anyone seriously to hold to the New Testament view [i.e., supernatural] of the world. Intelligent Christians are not to be bound by such presuppositions. It may be noted that at least one scholar, Jane Schaberg, seeks to prove that Jesus could have been conceived “through the Holy Spirit” while at the same time being born through normal male-female intercourse, but this controversial approach stands against the historic faith of the church. The phrase “born of the virgin Mary” is uniformly included in the historic creeds of the church, and the virginal conception of Jesus points toward his uniqueness as both human and divine. There is mystery here, of course, and if one wishes to know the exact biological processes of the virginal conception, he/she can only be partially satisfied, though it should be pointed out that from even a strictly biological point of view, a virginal conception is not nearly so absurd a notion as was popularly supposed by biologists a century ago.

In the virginal conception of Jesus, Matthew saw a connection with a prophecy given by Isaiah in the 8^th century BC. Matthew goes back to a distinctive section of the Book of Isaiah sometimes called the “Book of Immanuel” (Is. 7:1-l2:6), because of the centrality of the Immanuel figure (7:14; 8:8, 10). Here, we must take a lengthy excursion into the history of Israel to understand what Matthew is doing.

This was the time of Judah’s political crisis during the reign of Ahaz in about 734 BC. Assyria was emerging as a Mesopotamian superpower, threatening the lands on the Mediterranean seaboard. Ephraim (Israel) had formed an alliance with Aram (Syria) in order to withstand any Assyrian aggression. This Syro-Ephraimite league wanted Judah, the Israelite southern nation, to join their coalition, but Ahaz, the king of Judah, hesitated in indecision. His reluctance incited the leaders of the Syro-Ephraimite league, Rezin of Damascus and Pekah Ben-Remaliah, to invade Judah, an attack which included the threat of deposing Ahaz and replacing him with their own man, Ben-Tabeel, a man who was not even of the Davidic family (2 Ki. 16:5; Is. 7:1-2, 5-6). While Jerusalem was under siege, Isaiah was directed by God to meet Ahaz and assure him that the Syro-Ephraimite threat was an empty one and that Ahaz must trust in God (Is. 7:3-4, 7-9). It was in connection with this message to trust in God’s protection that Isaiah spoke for Yahweh and instructed Ahaz to ask for a sign which would confirm the promised divine security (Is. 7:10-11).

Ahaz, however, refused under the guise of pseudo-humility; he would not “put Yahweh to the test” (Is. 7:12). In actuality, Ahaz was not a serious worshiper of Yahweh (2 Ki. 16:1-4), and his refusal was only evidence of his lack of faith. Yahweh was angered at this impudence and gave a sign anyway, a historical sign that a maiden would give birth to a son and would name him Immanuel (Is. 7:13-14). Isaiah does not clearly identify this maiden, though doubtless Ahaz knew of whom he was speaking. A tremendous amount of discussion has been given to the Hebrew word ‘alma in this passage, rendered either “virgin” (ASV, RSVmg, NIV, NAB, NASB based on the LXX) or “young woman” (RSV, ASVmg, NEB, NASBmg). The word probably refers to a girl of marriageable age. However, the word itself is not as precise in meaning as one might hope or as precise as the English translations might seem to suggest. The conclusion of Youngblood is probably the most honest, that is, “The most that can be said of ‘alma is that in all of its OT occurrences it seems to be used of an unmarried woman, a ‘damsel’ which, in situations such as the one before us, carries with it a strong presumption in favor of virginity.”

The name of the child, Immanuel, means “God with us”, a reflection of the divine promise to protect Ahaz if he would put his faith in Yahweh (Is. 7:4, 7-9). God’s presence would be evident in the fact that before Immanuel had reached adolescence, the lands of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition would be devastated (Is • 7:16). However, God’s presence would be there not only to protect, but also to judge, and while Judah would be protected from Ephraim and Aram, she would soon be invaded by Assyria as a further sign of God’s presence (Is. 7:16-25). Thus, the Immanuel sign to Ahaz was double-edged; it was a sign of protection on the one hand, but a sign of judgment on the other. This double-edged character of the sign is reflected in the two names given to the sign-child. Not only was he to be called Immanuel (= God with us), he was also to be called Maher-shalal-hash-baz (= the spoil hastens, the plunder comes quickly) (Is. 8:1-2).

The predicted sign came to pass when Isaiah’s second son was born, and at the time of the birth, the word of Yahweh came to Isaiah confirming to him that this son was indeed the promised sign (Is. 8:3-4). The promise of protection from Ephraim and Aram was to be kept. Yet the promise of judgment from Assyria would also be kept (Is. 8:5-8). The land of the young Immanuel would suffer an invasion so serious that Jerusalem, the capital, would be surrounded by Assyrian armies, so much so, that the city could be compared to someone standing in water up to the neck. That Isaiah’s son was the sign-child is further emphasized by a direct statement to that effect (Is.8:18).

Now, back to Matthew…  Over 700 years later, Matthew, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, saw a prophetic connection between the prediction of a sign-child given by Isaiah to Ahaz and the birth of Jesus. The birth of Jesus “made full” the word of Yahweh given to Isaiah about the Immanuel child. Matthew seems to be using the term pleroo (= to fulfill) in the sense of recapitulation. Since Jesus was miraculously born “of the Holy Spirit”, he was Immanuel in the fullest sense of the word, not merely God invisibly among us (to protect and judge us), but God visibly among us (to save us from sin)!

This, then, is Matthew’s account of the virgin conception of Jesus. Joseph’s dream was decisive! He immediately completed the home-taking, just as he had been instructed by the angel. However, as Matthew is careful to point out, Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary until after the birth. When the promised child of virginal conception had been born, he named him Jesus.

The Face of God

As the covenant God, Yahweh is one who reveals himself to his people. This capacity of God to reveal himself is fundamental to the possibility of covenant. As Moses says, “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way Yahweh our God is near us...?” (Dt. 4:7).

God takes the initiative to reveal himself early in the patriarchal narratives. He is not known because men and women seek him; he is known because he graciously condescends to them. At the same time, the pure essence of God is not immediately accessible to humans, and the divine self-revelation is always to some degree veiled, for as God explains to Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see my face and live” (Ex. 33:20). Hence, the descriptions of God’s self-revelation are invariably anthropomorphic, which is to say, God is described in human terms, even though he is beyond humanness. Hence, God “walks in the garden” (Ge. 3:8) and “lifts his hand” in oath (Ex. 6:8). Furthermore, he expresses a wide range of human emotions. He “snorts” in anger (Ex. 15:8), for instance. The standard Hebrew expression for anger, ‘aph (= snorting, anger) is derived from the Hebrew word for nose, and the English translation, “My anger will be aroused” (NIV), may quite literally be rendered, “My nose will become hot” (cf. Ex. 22:24; 32:10-11, 22). Similarly, God “regrets” actions (Ge. 6:6a), experiences “jealousy” (Ex. 20:5), feels “heart-pain” (Ge. 6:6b), appreciates “goodness” (Ge. 1:31) and “hates” (Dt. 16:22) and “abhors” detestable things (Lv. 20:23). Such anthropomorphisms should probably be understood as poetic metaphors, particularly in light of the fact that God, in his pure essence, was considered to be invisible and transcendent. They express the fact that God is personal as opposed to impersonal; he is a divine Someone, not merely a divine Something. By speaking of God anthropomorphically, the Torah describes God as coming to humans on their level. At the same time, it must be remembered that such metaphors are limited and carry with them the inherent danger that God might come to be understood as made in the image of humans with their vices and failures—which was pretty much the way the rest of the ancient Near East understood the deities. Anthropomorphisms of God in the Torah are carefully balanced by the affirmations of God’s invisibility, his hiddenness and mystery, and the prohibition of carving any likeness to him.

The primary recurring anthropomorphism in the Old Testament is the panim (= face) of Yahweh. The English translation of panim with respect to the face of Yahweh is usually “presence”, and the reader of the English Bible may not be aware that this is most often the word for the “face of God”. The entire personality of Yahweh, his love as well as his anger, is concentrated in his face. The displeasure of God is expressed when his face is against someone (Ge. 3:8; 4:14, 16; Lv. 10:2; 22:3). The approval of God is expressed when his face is turned toward someone (Ge. 27:7; Nu. 6:25; Dt. 12:7, 18; 14:23, 26; 15:20, etc.).

In a special sense, the panim represents the presence of God without reservation. At Sinai, Yahweh instructed Moses to depart with the people for Canaan, but he said that he himself would not accompany them because of their stubbornness (Ex. 33:1-6). Moses, however, pleaded with God so that God promised to send his panim, that is, his “face”, with the Israelites (Ex. 33:12-17). Later, Moses could say that God brought the entire company out of Egypt by his panim (Dt. 4:37; cf. Is. 63:9). Because God was so powerfully present in the Tent of Meeting, the sacred bread, which was to be displayed at all times, was quite literally the “bread of the face”, or more familiarly, the “bread of the presence” (Ex. 25:30; 39:36). Similarly, the table upon which the sacred bread was placed was called the “table of the face” (Nu.4:7).

In a Christian sense, this “face of God” reaches its climax in the face of Jesus:

For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.  (2 Co. 4:6)

While on the mountain of God Moses was prevented from seeing God’s face, and indeed, the invisibility of God is upheld by the writers in the New Testament as they speak of God living in “unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Ti. 6:16). Still, the promise for the future is that in the end believers shall see him “face to face” (1 Co. 13:12). “They shall look upon his face,” John says (Rv. 22:4). Roman Catholics and the Orthodox call this theosis, though the broader term is the “beatific vision”. However one describes it, this ancient anthropomorphism of God—the face of God—takes on special meaning, for as Fanny Crosby’s old hymn puts it:

                                                And I shall see him, face to face,

                                              And tell the story saved by grace;

                                                And I shall see him, face to face,

                                              And tell the story saved by grace.

ABBA

          Almost everyone these days knows that the Aramaic term Abba, by which Jesus addressed God in prayer (Mk. 14:36), means “Father”, though according to the German Aramaic scholar Joachim Jeremias, the word is more akin to a child’s term for Father, roughly equivalent to our endearing term “Papa” or “Daddy”. Indeed, it is almost certain that Jesus’ own use of this term to address God underlies its extended use in the New Testament Greco-Roman churches as an address to God, even though their language was Greek and not Aramaic (cf. Ro. 8:5; Ga. 4:6). Such an address for God was not typical within the Jewish community, but if this was the way Jesus prayed, then it became the way Christians prayed.

A brief word, therefore, should be said about Jesus' insistence that prayer be offered to the Father in his name (Jn. 16:23-28). On the night of his betrayal, when Jesus spoke to his disciples about his departure from the world and his return to the Father, he instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. So far, they had heard Jesus’ teachings about prayer in the form of what we call “the Lord’s prayer”, in several parables on prayer, in the Sermon on the Mount, and so forth, but there had been nothing in any of those teachings suggesting that they should come to the Father “in the name of the Son”. Now, however, they were to ask in just this way. In that day, you will ask in my name, that is, in the soon-to-come day when Jesus would no longer be physically accessible, since he was leaving the world and going back to the Father. What Jesus seemed to be saying was that their requests to the Father “in his name” could now be made directly, since by his return to the Father, Jesus had made such intimate access possible (Jn. 16:26-27; cf. He. 4:14-16; 10:19-22).  Because of their love and loyalty to Jesus, the Father was only too ready to hear their requests!  Now, the incarnational mission was almost complete.  Jesus had come from the Father into the world, and now he was returning from the world back to the Father where he was before (16:28; cf. 6:62).

Because of this language, Christians sometimes ask who should be addressed in prayer, whether the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or whether equal time should be given to all. This was apparently a problem that the primitive Christian community did not address. In the first place, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three separated Beings but one God, as say all the ancient creeds. Each interpenetrates the other so that prayer to one is sufficient (cf. 1 Jn. 2:23; 2 Jn. 9).  However, one should not forget that the common form of praying in the New Testament demonstrates a priority, that is, prayer is invariably to the Father rather than to the Son or the Holy Spirit. Prayer may be “in the name of the Son”, and it may be “by the Spirit”, but it is “to the Father”. Indeed, prayer in general in the New Testament is never addressed directly to the Son or the Holy Spirit. Rather, Jesus taught his followers to pray to the Father (Mt. 6:9; Jn. 4:23), and further, that they do so in the name of the Son (Jn. 16:23-24). It is significant that the nature of Christ's mediatorship is not so much that he goes to the Father instead of us (as though he goes where we cannot go), but because of his resurrection life and ascension he goes to the Father with us. He has made the way open to us. To be sure, on occasion Jesus was addressed directly in visionary experiences (cf. Ac. 7:59; 9:13-17), but while this is true, one must concede that these occasions are not the ordinary form of prayer, and they must be regarded as the exception and not the norm. The standard form is for prayer to be directly addressed to the Father in the name of the Son (Ro. 8:15; 15:6; 2 Co. 11:31; Gal. 4:6; Ep. 1:17; 2:18; 3:14; 5:20; Col. 1:3, 12; 3:17; 1 Th. 3:11; Ja. 3:9).

A Question for Good Friday: Did Jesus Speak Aramaic or Hebrew from the Cross?

As is generally well-known to the careful reader of the New Testament, Jesus’ cry of dereliction from the cross, recorded in both Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, reads slightly differently. The spelling of “my God” is “Eli” in Matthew (which represents Hebrew) and “Eloi” in Mark (which represents Aramaic). Both sayings are transliterated, which is to say, they are presented in our English versions following the phonetic articulation of the saying in the ancient languages, and indeed, what one sees in English follows the actual Greek text itself, where the saying, though it is not Greek, is transliterated into Greek letters phonetically but with these different spellings respectively. The question, then, is this: did Jesus speak these words in Hebrew (as in Matthew) or in Aramaic (as in Mark)?

It has usually been suggested that Mark is the more accurate, since he has several other sayings of Jesus in his gospel that are Aramaic transliterations into Greek letters (e.g., Mk. 5:41, 7:34). In fact, this feature of Mark’s Gospel becomes part of the case for asserting that Jesus was probably a native Aramaic speaker. The earliest tradition from Papias (early 2^nd century) is that Mark’s gospel preserves the memories of Jesus from Simon Peter, and as such, is the one most likely to preserve Jesus’ verbatim words. We see this also in Jesus’ familial address to God as Abba (Mk. 14:36), where Jesus uses the Aramaic word for Father, a tradition that eventually carried over even into the early Greek-speaking congregations of St. Paul (cf. Ro. 8:15; Ga. 4:6). In any case, it is common for commentators to suggest that Mark preserves the actual words of Jesus in Aramaic, while Matthew provides the voice of Jesus, but has recast the words into Hebrew. Here, I’ll offer an alternative suggestion that goes against this scholarly flow.

While I have no doubt that Jesus spoke Aramaic, there are two points in this scene of the cross that make me think that perhaps on this occasion it is Mark who has recast Jesus’ saying into Aramaic and Matthew who records the actual words of Jesus in Hebrew. The first concerns the confusion on the part of the listeners that Jesus' words "my God" may have been the name Elijah. The Hebrew “Eli”, meaning “my God”, is virtually identical with the short form of the name Elijah, the one easily mistaken for the other. However, this is NOT the case between the Aramaic “Eloi”, where the long “o” sound in the possessive form is easily distinguished from the name Elijah. The second point concerns Jesus’ familiarity with the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1, which is the ancient prayer from which his words were drawn. If Jesus were in the habit of "praying" phrases from the Psalms, which on this occasion is clear enough, it seems to me more likely that he would have done so from the Hebrew text of the Psalm rather than from an Aramaic translation or a Targum. While Targums were used in the synagogue service readings, they were not read in isolation. Rather, they were read alongside the Hebrew text, usually alternating sections at a time, first Hebrew, then Aramaic, for the benefit of those who might have had trouble understanding Hebrew. Hence, Jesus, who was a regular synagogue attender from his youth (Lk. 4:16), would certainly have been familiar with the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1, even if he was a native speaker of Aramaic. In my opinion, it seems more likely that he would have used phrases in his prayers from the original Hebrew text rather than a translated one.

Why, then, would Mark have recast Jesus’ use of these Hebrew words into Aramaic? That is a question about which one can only speculate, but one possible answer is that inasmuch as Aramaic was perceived to be a mystical language, particularly by Greek-speakers, Mark may have opted for the drama of recasting Jesus’ prayer into a language with overtones of mystery. Alternatively, perhaps Mark may have changed the saying from Hebrew to Aramaic purely for stylistic purposes to match the other Aramaic sayings in his gospel. What seems abundantly clear, however, is that Jesus said these words in either Hebrew or Aramaic, but hardly in both. My suggestion is that he did so from the ancient Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1, using the actual Hebrew words of this ancient prayer of a man abandoned by God. And, of course, the more important theological point is that in doing so, he identified himself in his condescension with the lowest despair any human could ever experience—the sense that God had forsaken him.

What's In a Number (A Christmas Posting)

When one compares the genealogies of Matthew 1:1-17 with those of 1 Chronicles 1:34; 2:1-15; 3:1, 5, 10-24, it becomes apparent that they are not identical. Matthew divides his genealogy into three symmetrical groups of fourteen generations each, something not expressly found in the Old Testament. The first set of fourteen generations are identical between Matthew and the Old Testament. The second set, on the other hand, apparently has been abridged by Matthew in order to achieve the number fourteen. In the final group, it is not entirely clear how Matthew arrives at the number fourteen, though he obviously intends this to be the case (cf. 1:17). It may be that David is counted twice or that Jeconiah (the Old Testament King Jehoiachin) is counted twice. Alternatively, if one is to avoid repeating a name, it may be that Mary is counted in the third group. Nonetheless, Matthew clearly thinks the number fourteen is important, since he summarizes the genealogy by saying:

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. (Mt. 1:17, NIV)

So what is the point behind the number fourteen which Matthew so carefully employs to structure the pedigree of Jesus? The reasoning is not immediately apparent to the modern reader, and indeed, mostly it is simply ignored. One possible solution, and I think the best one, is that the number fourteen was derived by gematria, a Hebrew symbolic way of expressing an idea through the numerical value of alphabetical letters. This derives from the fact that in this early period, what we know as Arabic numbers were not yet in use, and letters of the alphabet were used to represent numbers. (We still are accustomed to seeing this in Latin figures, where I = 1, V = 5, X = 10, L = 50, and so forth.) In Hebrew, the letters of the alphabet also represented numbers: aleph= 1; beth = 2; gimel = 3; daleth = 4; hey = 5; waw = 6, and so forth. What this means is that Hebrew words (and Hebrew names) could have numerical values, depending upon the combination of letters in the word. What probably is most important for Matthew is that the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew name “David” (daleth/waw/daleth = 4 + 6 + 4) is fourteen, and if this hypothesis is correct, then the Matthew’s genealogy gives a triple emphasis that Jesus was from the family of David.

The historical demarcations of the three sets is also suggestive. To Abraham was given the covenant that provided his descendants with a special place in the purposes of God (Ge. 12:1-3). Fourteen generations later, to David, also, was given a profound covenant that his throne would be established forever (2 Sa. 7:16). In the days of Babylonian Exile, yet another fourteen generations had passed, but now both the promises to Abraham and David were jeopardized because the nation had lost its land and its Davidic king with the surrender of Jehoiachin to Nebuchadnezzar II. Jehoiachin’s short reign and exile was a critical juncture, since from a theological viewpoint, he was the last legitimate king of David’s line in Judah before the exile. Through Jeremiah, Yahweh had announced that the ruling dynasty of David in Jerusalem, symbolized in Jehoiachin as God’s signet ring, would surely come to an abrupt end (Jer. 22:24-27). However, Jehoiachin’s grandson, Zerubbabel, revives this royal line, and Haggai predicted that Zerubbabel would now become the replacement of the signet ring lost in the exile of Jehoiachin (Hag. 2:23).

 Zerubabbel, then, would carry forward the royal line of David’s family, the Branch of Jesse (cf. Isa. 11:1ff.; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Zec. 3:8). He would be the primary leader from David’s family, surviving the exile and leading the work in rebuilding of the 2^nd temple (Zec. 4:8-9) to which the Messiah would come (Hag. 2:6-9; Mal. 3:1). The way in which Matthew structured his genealogy suggests that this latter period of jeopardy for David’s royal line was now over in the birth of Jesus, the climax of three symmetrical series of fourteen generations each. God had acted to fulfill his promises to Abraham and David!

Above all, of course, are the highly suggestive titles “son of Abraham” and “son of David” (Matt. 1:1). The significance of the first is obvious, for it places Jesus squarely within the nation to whom the promises were originally made. The significance of the second is in the title “son of David”, which had become a virtual synonym for the Messiah by the time of Jesus, based on Yahweh’s promise to David that his throne would be established forever (2 Sa. 7:16). Indeed, probably the briefest summary of the gospel in the whole New Testament comes from St. Paul, when he says, “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel…” (2 Ti. 2:8, NIV). Modern Christians probably don’t pay much attention to the genealogy in Matthew, since it is a long list of names, many unfamiliar. For the Jewish community to whom Matthew’s Gospel was almost certainly composed, however, this genealogy was critical! It established the first fundamental requirement for the Messiah, and it says that Jesus fulfilled it!

The Endtime Ingathering of the Gentiles

The inclusion of the Gentiles into the "people of God" at the end of time was not an afterthought or a response to Jewish particularism. Rather the ingathering of the nations had always been a common theme in the Hebrew prophetic understanding of God's future.

Even the election of  Abraham (Genesis 12:2-3) included the Gentile nations. God promised

To bless Abraham.

To make him a great nation.

To make his name great.

To give him innumerable descendants (like the sands of the sea).

To bless those that blessed Abraham and to curse those that cursed him.

To bless all nations through Abraham and his offspring.

Abraham and, in turn, his descendants Israel were the elect of God, chosen to receive the oracles of God and then to become a priesthood to all nations. The one true God was not the God of Israel alone, but the God of all. Israel was selected for a specific purpose: to act as God's agent in the world, bringing his law and glory to all nations.

This was also the message of Jesus and Paul. They both looked for the impending restoration of Israel and the ingathering of the nations. It was not accidental that Jesus stated emphatically that the end could not come until the gospel had been proclaimed in all nations. It is not accidental that Jesus' final and great commission was to "make disciples" in all of the world. It is not accidental that Peter appealed to the Hebrew prophet Joel in his Pentecostal sermon to explain that the great endtime outpouring of the Spirit on all peoples had already begun.

The inclusion of the Gentiles in the "people of God" is a Bible-wide message. Neither Jesus nor Paul were innovators here. Rather they shared the confidence of the Hebrew prophets that God's "age to come" would include the Gentiles. With the Hebrew prophets, they looked for the near--perhaps even present--(1) unveiling of God's identity and glory to all peoples, (2) eschatological pilgrimage of the nations to the mountain of God, (3) great messianic feast of table fellowship, and (4) bearing of gifts to Zion by the endtime Gentile pilgrims.

-----------------------------------

Listen to the expectations of the Hebrew prophets and hear them echo in Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God and Paul's mission to the Gentile nations.

Unveiling of God's Identity and Glory to All Peoples

Joel 2: 28-29

And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

Isaiah 45:20-23

 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, you who have escaped from the nations. They have no knowledge, who carry the wood of their carved image, and pray to a god that cannot save. Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath.

Isaiah 49:3 and 6

‘You are My servant, O Israel, In whom I will be glorified.’ . . . It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.

Zechariah 2:10-11

Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the Lord. “Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you.

Eschatological Pilgrimage of the Nations to the Mountain of God

Isaiah 2:2-4 (Micah 4:1-3)

Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. Many people shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.He shall judge between the nations, and rebuke many people; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Isaiah 55:5

Surely you shall call a nation you do not know, and nations who do not know you shall run to you, because of the Lord your God, and the Holy One of Israel; for He has glorified you.

Isaiah 56:6-7

Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant—even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.

Jeremiah 3:17

At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts.

Zechariah 8:20-23

Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘Peoples shall yet come, inhabitants of many cities;  The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, “Let us continue to go and pray before the Lord, and seek the Lord of hosts. I myself will go also.” Yes, many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.’ “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.

Great Messianic Feast of Table Fellowship

Isaiah 25:6-8

And in this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees.  And He will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations.  He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of His people. He will take away from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken.

Zechariah 14:6

And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 

Matthew 8:11-12

And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 19:7-9

Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” 

Bearing of Gifts by Gentile Pilgrims to Zion

Isaiah 60:11 (See entire chapter about gifts from Gentiles)

Therefore your gates [Jerusalem] shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day or night, that men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles, and their kings in procession.

Isaiah 66:18-21

For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. . . And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the Lord, “as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the Lord.

Matthew 2:1-2, 9-11

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” . . . And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Romans 15:25-27

But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things.

I Corinthians 16:1-4

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. But if it is fitting that I go also, they will go with me.

John 3, New Birth, and the Rabbis

Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5 NKJV)

When I was a teenager, I remember my pastor, O. C. Crabtree, teaching about the "new birth" passage in John 3 and emphasizing the confusion experienced by the Jewish leader Nicodemus about this powerful metaphor. Nicodemus asked "Must a man reenter his mother's womb?" Jesus chided Nicodemus' response:

"Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" (John 3:10 NKJV)

Seeing a teachable moment, the Rev. Crabtree asked his listeners, "Why should Nicodemus have been expected to understand what it means to be born again?"

I immediately - and I think unexpectedly - answered that Jesus borrowed the language of renewing by water and Spirit from the prophecies of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 36 and 37, the prophet utilizes the language of cleansing water and resurrecting spirit to describe the restoration of the exiled Israel.

That was a pretty good answer - except that it missed the first and guiding metaphor of John 3 - birth, or more specifically, rebirth.

Historically, most exegesis of the "new birth" passage centers on biblical images of bodily resurrection - thus my reference to Ezekiel 37 (The Valley of the Dry Bones). This is the most obvious biblical parallel, but resurrection is not exactly the same thing as rebirth. While there is certainly no suggestion of reincarnation found in the Hebrew Bible, the image of rebirth seems - at least to me - to be a richer concept than just reanimation of the physical body.

A closer parallel comes from the Jewish rabbis of the second century C.E. Rabbi Yose - no doubt Yose ben Halafta, the student of the great Rabbi Akiva and the teacher of Rabbi Judah the Prince, the compiler of the Mishnah (circa 200 C.E.) - offers this insight regarding converts to Judaism.

A proselyte who has converted [to Judaism] is like a child born (i.e., a newly born child).

Quite simply, the Jewish convert is "born again."

The rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud taught that the proselyte performed or submitted to three distinct acts of conversion: offering sacrifice, circumcision, and immersion in water (a washing ceremony for ritual purity).

Rabbi Yose seems to imply that such conversion brought a brand new start to the life of the convert. That is, the legal status of the convert completely changed. The convert is no longer accountable for past transgressions, neither is he any longer bound by former family obligations. Normal familial ties were severed - the convert was no longer considered the offspring of his biological parents, but now a child of Abraham and Sarah - thus a child of promise, a full participant in covenant blessing and obligation.

This proclamation was so bold - so revolutionary and potentially socially disruptive - that later rabbis were forced to add "restrictions" on this complete realignment of social relationships. Specifically, the rabbis restricted marriage to "former" family members even though these social ties had been severed.

The "born again" imagery of Rabbi Yose seems to parallel Jesus' teaching about the coming kingdom of God and the severing of family ties.

Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You." But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?" And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother." (Mark 3:31-35 NKJV)

So Jesus answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time-houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions-and in the age to come, eternal life." (Mark 10:29-30 NKJV)

Then He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."  Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:59-60 NKJV)

-----------------------------------

While the parallel between the "newly born child" imagery of Rabbi Yose and the sayings of Jesus in John 3:3 regarding "new birth" is interesting and perhaps even informative, I must offer one caveat.

In seeking parallels between New Testament writings and rabbinic Judaism, there is always the prospect of anachronism. The New Testament was written between 30 and 100 C.E., whereas the first written records of the rabbinic teaching is the Mishnah around 200 C.E. and the final collection occurred with the assembly of the Babylonian Talmud around 600 C.E.

Clearly, the collective rabbinic writings refer to Jewish teachers before 70 C.E. (the destruction of the Jewish Temple). Specifically, we know of Hillel and Shammai (and the "houses" of their followers) as well as Gamaliel who is also referenced in New Testament writings. But Jacob Neusner, the great scholar of rabbinic Judaism, reminds us that we cannot know the exact form or language of the teachings of these early rabbis. All records of these rabbis came from later writings which expand, elucidate, and comment on their teachings. Neither the Mishnah nor Talmud attempts to recover the "historic rabbis" in their pre-70 C.E. context nor in the exact language of their teachings.

So New Testament parallels with rabbinic teaching can be suggestive and informing - but one should never solely interpret any New Testament passage by later passages from the Mishnah or Talmud.

Who Moved the Stone?

Good religion is never convenient.  It calls upon its adherents to sacrifice what is easy so that they may listen to a call that is more real. So it was with the Jews’ religion.  Of all the observances that were observed with meticulous care throughout the year, none was more frequent than the weekly Sabbath.  Shabbath was sacred.  The Torah said so.  The prophets said so.  The rabbis said so.

            By the first century, Judaism had developed to the point where all kinds of regulations attended Sabbath observance, but over them all was the basic directive of the Ten Commandments:  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but on the seventh day you shall not do any work. Almost anything could be construed as work, and that rule certainly included caring for the dead.  So, it was a long Saturday for the women who had stood near the cross of Jesus late Friday afternoon. Sabbath began at sundown on Friday evening, and after Joseph had secured permission from the authorities to bury Jesus’ corpse, there was barely enough time to complete the simplest of details. The traditional anointing that the women had wanted to perform had to be postponed.  By the time darkness had fallen, they had left the garden tomb, pausing only to watch as the huge rolling stone was fixed over the entrance.  Later, of course, it was sealed with a heavy Roman seal and placed under guard.

            It must have seemed strange to the soldiers at the tomb. They had been called many times to guard prisoners, but this may have been the first time they had ever been called to guard a dead man. Meanwhile, at home the women prepared spices and perfumes. Their intentions were clear. When the Sabbath ended, they would go back and complete what they had been forced to postpone on Friday evening.

So, it was a long Saturday.  They determined to return to the tomb in the gray of Sunday morning before full daylight. The Sabbath ended at sundown on Saturday, but there was little they could do in the dark. In the half-light of early Sunday morning, they would be able to do what they could not have done on Friday night. One thought, above all others, occupied their minds.  It was the huge rolling stone that blocked the entrance. Whether or not the women even knew about the guards at the tomb, we don’t know, since the guards were more-or-less an afterthought. But they knew about the huge rolling stone. They had watched as it had been rolled into place. Could the three of them move it? They weren’t sure. The sun was just breaking over the Mt. of Olives as they entered the garden. They asked each other as they went, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” When they arrived, they discovered to their amazement that the stone was already rolled away. Upon entering the tomb, they discovered to their further amazement that the body of Jesus was not there. While there, they were confronted by a young man who said, “Don’t be alarmed.  You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified.  He’s not here!  See the place where they laid him.” Trembling, bewildered and afraid, the women fled from the garden and ran to tell the others.

The problem of the rolling stone is one of those small intersections between faith and history that is often overlooked but that give the account the ring of truth.  All four gospels speak of this great stone. Stones large enough to cover the entrance to a tomb would weigh several hundred pounds. The problem of moving one of them is obvious. Yet, the stone had been moved! Who had done this?

Skeptics, as we all know, have had a field day with the resurrection narratives.  All sorts of suggestions have been offered as alternatives to the biblical account. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea secretly removed the body to another place.  But why would he?  The tomb had been sealed and protected by a Roman guard. In any case, the garden tomb had been selected by Joseph in the first place.  Why would he want to change the burial site? Maybe the authorities moved the body, some suggest.  But again, the question looms. Why should they? Pilate had no reason to do so, since, after all, he ordered the guards to protect the tomb. In any case, Roman prefects were not known to be fearful of dead men! And as for the Jewish authorities, the last thing they would want to do would be to move the corpse. This crucified man was the one who said he would rise again, and the worst possible course of action would be to remove their very proof that he was still dead! Then, there is the “passover plot” theory that crops up every few years or so.  Here, Jesus did not really die.  His disciples drugged him, or he drugged himself, and later he would revive in the cool atmosphere of the tomb and stage a resurrection. The really surprising thing is that anyone with a knowledge of Roman crucifixion would ever buy such a thin argument. Romans were not known for bungling their crucifixions. The executioners were consummate professionals in the most grisly sort of way! Then there is the suggestion that in the darkness the women went to the wrong tomb.  This version sounds suspiciously like a subtle form of the chauvinism that Jesus rejected—the three women were so stupid they couldn’t be trusted to find the same place twice in a familiar city.

So, who moved the stone?  No one had even the slightest reason to move it!  Not Pilate, not Caiaphas, not the disciples, nor anyone else. It is Matthew, of course, who tells us that an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, and going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.  He is the young man that the women mistook for the gardener. Regardless, even for someone who doesn’t believe in angels, the remarkable fact that the stone was rolled away is a single feature of the story that is never debated. Sometime between the hour that Joseph and the women left on late Friday evening and sunrise on Sunday morning, this great blocking stone had been moved!

I do not think it has been sufficiently realized how this simple circumstance—this one indisputable fact, unimportant as it may seem at first sight—contributes to the veracity of the story. The sealing of the stone had been a Roman action, prompted by the high priest but ordered by Pilate on Saturday. The women knew nothing of it, since it had occurred after the burial and on the Sabbath itself, when the women and the other disciples were sequestered in their homes. Had they known of the guard, they might never had gone to the garden tomb on Sunday at all. But they didn’t know—and their only concern was about the great rolling stone and how they might move it! But before they arrived, that stone had been moved! The Roman guards were no longer there. They had fled into the streets of Jerusalem early on Sunday morning to report to the high priests that something was amiss at the tomb of the Nazarene! Indeed, it was this feature of the story that years ago drove the English reporter, Frank Morison, to reexamine the gospels’ Easter story in such meticulous detail. And Morison, who began with the assumption that the accounts rested on very insecure foundations, found that in the end he had landed on an unexpected shore—a firm and unshakeable conviction that Jesus had truly risen from the dead.

Now, I don’t for a moment expect that faith in the resurrection of Jesus rests only on a single issue, the issue of who moved the stone.  Nor do I suppose that those who do not already accept Jesus’ resurrection necessarily will be persuaded to do so in view of this small point. At the same time, this is one small window of credibility in the witness of three women who came to the garden tomb early on Sunday morning. While their witness may not have carried much weight in the patriarchal culture of their own times, it has carried considerable weight in the judgment of Christians ever since! And it is surely in keeping with Jesus’ revolutionary evaluation of women that he would choose them to be the first witnesses of the gospel. And so, I say as Christians have expressed it since the very beginning: Christ is risen! He is risen, indeed!

The Languages of Jesus and Paul

Earlier this week, a good friend, Rabbi Loren Jacobs of the Christian-Jewish synagogue Shema Israel, asked me about the language(s) of Jesus. He noted that in the various English versions of the New Testament, some used the word “Aramaic” and some the word “Hebrew”. A case in point is the difference between the NASB and the NIV, the former using the word “Hebrew” and the latter the word “Aramaic”. Rabbi Jacobs was under the impression that Hebrew rather than Aramaic was the lingua franca of 1^st century Jews, and indeed, in the texts of the New Testament, the word that is always used is (hebrais = Hebrew). He specifically asked about John 19:17 where the word Golgotha is said to be in Hebrew (NASB) or Aramaic (NIV). Highly reputable linguistic sources (such as BADG) indicate that this word should be understood as Aramaic. So what was it, Hebrew or Aramaic?  

The answer to this question about Jesus’ spoken language is somewhat vexing, though we may be getting a better handle on it now than a few decades ago. First, there is plenty of evidence that biblical Hebrew was not "dead" if for no other reason than that the Hebrew Scriptures were still retained and in use in their original tongue. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew, and these texts from the Judean desert included not only Scripture, but also sectarian documents of the community. It would be one thing for the Qumran community to have Scriptures in Hebrew, but where their own sectarian documents, such as, the Manual of Discipline, etc., are in Hebrew, obviously it suggests that Hebrew is not "dead". There also is plenty of evidence that both Aramaic and Greek were widely used, even in Jewish communities, the former in Syria Palestina (the Roman name for Syria, Galilee and Judea), where the Jewish community produced Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures (more-or-less along the lines of paraphrases) and the latter among the Diaspora (which presumably used the Greek Septuagint and perhaps Hebrew scrolls as well). That Aramaic was a common vernacular is attested by these Targums (why else translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic except that it was widely used). Much earlier, when Ezra came back from Babylon several centuries before and publicly read the Torah, many of the newly arrived returnees no longer could easily understand the Hebrew Scriptures, since Aramaic was the lingua franca of the larger Mesopotamia world, a language they had now adopted. They needed assistance with either translation or interpretation or both (Neh. 8:7-8). As is well-known, portions of Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah are also in Aramaic.

When one then addresses the spoken language of Jesus, it is entirely possible that Jesus was conversant in all three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (Latin is much less likely). However, the direct quotations of Jesus' words outside Greek, mostly in Mark's Gospel, appear to be in Aramaic, which is why many scholars have concluded that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic. Whether Jesus' vernacular was Hebrew or Aramaic (or both) is not entirely clear, as is the question of whether or not he ever taught in Greek, or the wider question of whether the current vernacular of the Jewish community was Hebrew or Aramaic (with Greek as a second language for business purposes). The answer to the one question bears upon the answer to the other. If the wider language of the Jewish community was Aramaic, then it seems most reasonable that Jesus would have addressed them in that language. If the wider language of the Jewish community was Hebrew, then Jesus would have addressed them in Hebrew. Most scholars have concluded that Aramaic was the conversational language of the Galilean and Judean Jewish community, and therefore, that Jesus’ primarily language was Aramaic. He may have used Hebrew on occasion, but most likely those who would understand Hebrew were not the common people to whom he regularly taught, but the rabbis, scribes and priests.

Related to this issue is the fact that there is a difference between language and script. In America, for instance, our language is English but our script is Latin. We can use the term "English" to refer to both, even though they are not the same thing. (The script of most European languages is also Latin, the language differences notwithstanding, which is to say that whether one is working in English, French or German, the working alphabet is the same.) The same thing was true of Hebrew and Aramaic. Both languages used the same script, even though the two languages were distinct (albeit there were quite a number of common words between them). Hence, when the New Testament uses the word Hebrais ("Hebrew"), which it certainly does in describing various circumstances, it still is possible that this is a loose usage that could be applied to Aramaic, since Aramaic used the same 22 alphabetic letters as did Hebrew. That Jesus used Aramaic at least sometimes seem clear enough from Mark's Gospel. Also, certain Aramaic words retained their usage in the later non-Jewish church, even among Greek-speakers, since almost certainly they were the original words of Jesus (words like "Abba" and "Maranatha".) Could Jesus also have spoken Hebrew? Certainly. However, if one is to conclude that Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the lingua franca of the Jewish community in Galilee, I think the burden of proof is on them, for one must also then explain why the Jews even translated their Scriptures into Aramaic in the Targums and why what snippets of original language we have from Jesus are in Aramaic. It also is possible that Jesus spoke Greek. Certainly he was reared in the proximity of a Greek-speaking city, since Sepphoris was only 4 miles from Nazareth, and Joseph, being a laborer (either mason or carpenter), would in all likelihood have found some work there. When Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth, the passage he read was Isaiah 61:1-2, and at least as quoted in Luke’s Gospel, it seems not to have been an Aramaic Targum. Actually, the citation seems to be from the Greek Septuagint, probably because Luke’s non-Jewish audience would have been more familiar with this version. Still, it is unlikely that the synagogue in Nazareth used a Septuagint and much more likely that Jesus was reading from a Hebrew text.

When it comes to Paul, he seems fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. He quotes both from the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint in his letters, though he uses the Septuagint more frequently, possibly because, as with Luke, his audience was largely Greek-speaking. Having spent a significant amount of time in Jerusalem studying under Gamaliel, I would suppose that Paul was fluent in Aramaic as well, though his speech at his arrest in the temple is described as being in "Hebrew" in Acts 21:40. What is not clear is whether Luke is using the term "Hebrew" in the sense of script or in the sense of language. Most modern English versions opt for Aramaic as the language Paul used on this occasion.

One more facet of this issue concerns the terms Helleniston and Hebraious in Acts 6:1. The distinction here seems primarily to be one of culture and language, but both within the Jewish community. Most scholars argue that while the one term applies to Diaspora Jews living in Jerusalem who had adopted a Hellenistic culture and probably spoke Greek, and the other refers to Jews native to Palestine who did not use Greek as their lingua franca. How strong a case can be made of "Hebrew" over "Aramaic" in this instance is unclear, since the primary linguistic distinction may be between scripts (Greek uses an entirely different script than either Hebrew or Aramaic, while Hebrew and Aramaic use the same script).

Now, to Rabbi Jacob’s specific question about John 19:17: was it "Hebrew" or "Aramaic"? There is no doubt that the Greek text of this verse uses the word "Hebrew"; however, what is not clear is whether this is a description of script or language. In John 19:20, just a couple verses later, the inscription over the cross was written in three distinct lines, and it specifies Hebrew, Greek and Latin, which are three different languages, to be sure, but three different scripts as well. In John 19:20, I'm inclined to think that the three designations of Hebrew, Greek and Latin refer to scripts, but this is certainly not an opinion I'd die for.