David Longworth unravels a web of deceit and distortion. Part 1 of 2.

On 6 December 2017, following President Donald Trump’s official recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Palestinian National Council member Hanan Ashrawi was interviewed by Matthew Amroliwala on BBC News.

Asked for her reaction to the proposed visit of US Vice-President Mike Pence, she angrily rejected his Christian viewpoint by asserting, “We are the original Christians, we are the owners of the land, we are the people who've been here for centuries. How dare they come here and give me biblical treatises and absolutist positions!” [my emphasis].¹

I sat aghast, especially as this ludicrous nonsense went completely unchallenged by the BBC. She holds a doctoral degree from the University of Beirut and is acknowledged as a leading Palestinian legislator and scholar. Yet, in the very same interview, she had previously expressed absolutist claims of her own. She had accused the Israelis of “transforming Jerusalem into a historical forgery” and asserted that “Jerusalem is a Palestinian city”.

Such Palestinian rhetoric is far from unusual and has considerable depth, involving denials or perversions of many well-established facts. One of the problems we Westerners face is that much is said or written in Arabic, inscrutable to the vast majority. Thankfully, organisations like Al-Monitor, Middle East Media Research Institute and Palestinian Media Watch provide translations. Although the rhetoric forms quite a tangled web, we can still tease out some important elements.

Denying Jewish History

As recently as 15 November 2017, Saleh Rafat, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, stated on the national TV programme Palestine This Morning: “There are deep Palestinian roots in Palestine throughout all of history. It is a Zionist invention that this is the land of the Jewish Patriarchs.”²

In an article in The American Spectator on 6 May 2016, Ziva Dahl quoted the Palestinian Authority newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, “Zionism is the invention of robbers who stole Palestine from its inhabitants…whose lies are not supported by any archaeological remnants…Israel has no right to exist…The stories of Jewish prophets are a sick invention”. In that same official PA newspaper, columnist Omar Hilmi Al-Ghoul remarked, “Religious, historical, and even biblical facts deny any connection between the Jews and Jerusalem” or to “historic Palestine.”³

Palestinian rhetoric about the Land has considerable depth, involving denials or perversions of many well-established facts.

Palestinian Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, is no better. On Palestinian Authority TV, on 21 March 2016, he said:

Our narrative says that we have been in this land since Abraham. I am not saying it; the Bible says it. The Bible says in these words that the Palestinians existed before Abraham, so why don’t you understand my right?...This land was never without a people, as we have been planted in its rocks and dust and hills since the beginning of civilisation and writing and the invention of the Canaanite-Palestinian alphabet more than 6000 years ago.⁴

The same speech, translated by The Times of Israel, went on as follows, “At this occasion, I don’t want to discuss history or religion, because there is no one better at falsifying history or religion than them. But if we read the Torah, it says that the Canaanites lived here before Abraham and haven’t left since that time. It hasn’t been interrupted. That’s in the Torah. If they want to fabricate, ‘to distort the words from their [proper] usages,’ as God said, I don’t want to get into religion.”⁵

To illustrate how pervasive is such rhetoric, let me quote an example from the Palestinian conservation movement. On 16 March last year, the Chairman of the Green Life Association, Faisal Zakarneh, launched the Gilboa Lily as the National Flower of Palestine. On the TV programme Palestine This Morning, he said:

This is a flower that grows in the Gilboa Mountains. At this opportunity, let me explain that Gilboa is an ancient Palestinian-Canaanite-Arabic word, and not Hebrew-Israeli. This needs to be clear. In our minds [the name Gilboa] is connected to the Gilboa Prison...but the occupier has always made us used to him using our language and stealing it and its Arabic-Canaanite-Palestinian names.⁶

Gideon’s Spring (Ein Harod), 2015. Author's collection.Actually, the name is Hebrew, meaning ‘swelling spring’. It is found eight times in the Tanach, between 1 Samuel 28:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:8, in six of which it refers to ‘Mount’ (Hebrew, har) Gilboa. The spring to which it refers is likely the most prominent along the mountain foot, Ein Harod (‘trembling spring’), which figures prominently in the account of Gideon’s preparation for battle (Jud 7:1ff) and can still be visited today.

Stealing the Jewish Basis of Christianity

Hanan Ashrawi’s outrageous claim that the ‘original Christians’ were Palestinian is far from unique.

Husam Zomlot was the PLO Representative to the UK from 2003 to 2008; he is now Ambassador-at-large for the Palestinian Authority and Co-Chair of the School of Government at Bir Zeit University, Ramallah. Here’s an extract from what he said in an interview with Judy Woodruff on PBS news (USA) on 6 December 2017:

We are a dignified nation. In fact, we are the nation that has produced all religions. We are celebrating Christmas now. Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus and Christianity. We are such an ancient nation. And surrender is nothing we know. But we know the message of Jesus. We know the message of peace. We celebrate it. We [the Palestinians] are a model in the region of — a model as a society…of diversity and tolerance.⁷ [my emphasis]

On 3 December 2010 Samih Ghanadreh from Nazareth, when interviewed on PA TV about his new book Christianity and its Connection to Islam, had this to say: “The Shahid [martyr] President, Yasser Arafat, used to say, ‘Jesus was the first Palestinian Shahid’. I heard him say that sentence many times.” The TV host responded, “He [Jesus] was Palestinian, no-one denies that”, to which Ghanadreh replied, “He was the first Palestinian Shahid. Arafat attributed this martyrdom to Palestine as well.”⁸

Hanan Ashrawi’s outrageous claim that the ‘original Christians’ were Palestinian is far from unique.

In the Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on 6 May 2013, Adel Abd Al-Rahman, a Fatah official and arts event organiser, commented: "Easter...is not a holiday for Christian Palestinians only, but a holiday for Palestinian nationalism, because Jesus, may he rest in peace, is a Canaanite Palestinian. His resurrection, three days after being crucified and killed by the Jews - as reported in the New Testament - reflects the Palestinian narrative, which struggles against the descendants of modern Zionist Judaism, in its new colonialist form, that conspires with the Western capitalists who claim to belong to Christianity.”⁹

Note how the only mention of Jews is to blame them for the death of a ‘Palestinian’. The same trope was used by Omar Hilmi A-Ghoul, adviser to the former PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyed, in the same paper on 6 September 2016: “…indeed as I have said in a number of relevant articles – Jesus, Issa, son of Maryam, peace be upon him, was the first Palestinian Martyr, who was crucified by the Jews, or they think they crucified him. He was born to a Palestinian mother and grew up in Palestine.”¹⁰

Denying the Jewish Temple

As long ago as 25 August 2000, Mahmoud Abbas used the Nazareth-based newspaper Kul al-Arab to declare,

Anyone who wants to forget the past cannot come and claim that the Temple is situated beneath the Haram. They demand that we forget what happened 50 years ago to the refugees – and I speak as a living, breathing refugee – while at the same time they claim that 2000 years ago they had a Temple. I challenge the assertion that this is so. But even if it is so, we do not accept it, because it is not logical for someone who wants practical peace.”¹¹

One wonders, what kind of logic is his?

This was followed on 17 January 2001 by a pronouncement by Sheikh Ikrima Sabri (Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, October 1994-July 2006) during an interview for the German daily newspaper Die Welt: “There is not the smallest indication of the existence of a Jewish Temple on this place in the past. In the whole city there is not even a single stone indicating Jewish history…The Jews do not even know exactly where their temple stood.” Responding to a challenge by the interviewer, he said, “It is the art of the Jews to deceive the world, but they can’t do it to us. There is not a single stone in the al-Buraq wall relating to Jewish history”¹¹ (‘al-Buraq’ is the Muslim name for the unquestionably Herodian Western Wall).

Western Wall, incomplete verse from Isaiah 66:14, attributed to the 5th Century AD. See Photo Credits.Temple denial is not restricted to political and religious figures. Here’s the opinion of a lecturer in urban planning at Bir Zeit University, a member of the Scientific Committee for the 2008 Urban Planning Conference at An-Najah University in Nablus, as expressed on PA TV on 23 June 2009 in regard to the Muslim Dome of the Rock:

There is a view that where it stands was the Holy of Holies of the fictitious Temple – and by the way, that is merely an illusion. There is no remnant of it. It's a myth. A story of no value, like the Arabian Nights, and other legends…60 years of digging, and they've found nothing at all. Not a water jug, not a coin, not any earthen vessel, no bronze weapons, no piece of metal, absolutely nothing of this myth, because it's a myth and a lie. This digging has not left a single metre [unturned], but it has achieved absolutely nothing.¹²

These archaeological allegations will be addressed in the next section, but it important to note that, contrary to several Palestinian allegations, Israel’s Antiquities Authority allows no excavation under the Temple Mount itself. However, illegal Muslim alterations within the Mount have removed large quantities of sub-surface material, destroying portions of the archaeological layers. Ironically, this has further undermined their rhetoric, as will be seen in Part 2 (next week).

Temple denial is not restricted to political and religious figures – even academics join in.

Tisha Ba’Av is an annual day of Jewish mourning, fasting and prayer, principally for the fall of the First and Second Temples. Reporting events in 2011, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida stated on 9 August:

Since Monday morning, groups of extremist Jews have been roaming the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque [the Temple Mount] one after the other, under heavy police protection, on the occasion of the so-called "destruction of the Temple"...This Sunday, the occupation's police handed the shop owners in the Market of the Cotton Merchants...which leads to the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, an order forcing them to close their shops on Monday afternoon, in order to facilitate the arrival of the settlers to the Market, for the sake of holding special Talmudic rituals on the occasion of the destruction of the alleged Temple.¹³

Such rhetoric has had a serious impact. James Davila, Professor of Jewish Studies and Principal of St Mary's College, University of St Andrews, has drawn attention to the increasing practice among Western journalists of writing as though the existence of the ancient Jewish temples on the Temple Mount were a disputable question, with two legitimate "competing narratives". According to Professor Davila, "reporters need to get it straight that there is no debate among specialists in specialist literature about the existence of the Iron Age II Judean Temple and the Second and Herodian Temples in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount platform. Again, narratives to the contrary are propaganda, not scholarship."¹⁴

Tragically, the propaganda has had another result. In April 2016, a resolution on Jerusalem drafted on behalf of the Palestinians by seven Muslim countries was adopted by the Executive Council of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The resolution essentially erased the Temple Mount's Jewish history, referring to it only as "al-Aksa Mosque/al-Haram al Sharif and its surroundings" and to the Western Wall as the "al-Buraq Plaza". This was not only an undeserved victory for the Palestinians but also for Islam.

Perhaps the greatest oddity is that Temple denial runs counter to Islamic history. In 1924, the Supreme Moslem Council published an English-language tourist guide to the Temple Mount entitled ‘A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif’, which stated (p4): “The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings”¹⁵ [my emphasis]. It even adds the reference to 2 Samuel 24:5.

The guide was reprinted several times, but withdrawn from sale in 1954. A professional-quality replica is presently advertised on CCNow.com for £6.05 + P&P!

Denials of Biblical Archaeology

Here are two examples of Palestinian attempts to deny the archaeological record, published in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, the Palestinian Authority’s national newspaper, in Ramallah. On 5 October 2015, according to the writer, Yahya Rabah, a member of the Fatah Leadership Committee in Gaza:

Netanyahu turned to the old fraud, the fraud of the Jewish myths and the historical lies, that are refuted by the book of the first Jews, the Bible, and that have been refuted by hundreds of archaeological missions over hundreds of years, that did not find remains of the myths according to which Palestine is the land of the Jews and their homeland…”¹⁶

The propaganda is misleading Western journalists and influencing global politics.

Then on 16 September, in the London-based edition of the same paper, Jihad Al-Khazen wrote, “In college I was a student of history. I focused on the modern history of the Middle East, but the material also included the study of ancient history, on the assumption that it serves as a ‘background’ for the present. I ask the students of religion to accept what I say: there are no Jewish archaeological remnants in our lands. There are no archaeological remains of kingdoms or prophets…”.¹⁷

This latter writer is no mere lightweight. According to the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (2017), he is a Lebanese columnist based in London, a board member of the Arab Thought Foundation and also a Member of the Board of Advisors of the World Bank, Middle East and North Africa. He has a BA degree in Political Science and a Masters in Arabic Literature from the American University of Beirut: he should know better!

Much more recently (5 October 2017), speaking of excavations in Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, Governor of the Jerusalem District, Adnan Al-Hussein, said, "Most of the antiquities that have been found in these excavations are antiquities from the Islamic culture in its different periods - along with Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad antiquities - and Israel's claims regarding the finding of Jewish antiquities are a clear falsification of the city’s history."¹⁸

Such claims are so easy to refute that one wonders why and how they should even be contemplated, let alone expressed publicly. Next week we will turn to the archaeological record and ask why the Palestinian narrative departs so totally from reality.

References

1 Usher, B. Trumplomacy: Key takeaways from Jerusalem policy shift. BBC News, 7 December 2017.

2 Marcus, I and Zilberdik, NJ. PA: Jews have no history in "Palestine". PMW Bulletin, 14 December 2017.

3 Dahl, Z. In Their Own Words: An Invented Palestinian Nation. The American Spectator, 6 May 2016.

4 PA and Fatah personalities: Mahmoud Abbas. Palestinian Media Watch.

5 Ahren, R and Lieber, D. Israel’s leaders atypically quiet after Abbas asserts their state is invalid. Times of Israel, 15 December 2017. The phrase “to distort the words from their [proper] usages” is an expression directly quoted from the Qur’an, widely interpreted to refer to the Jews.

6 Rewriting history: Palestinian history fabricated. Palestinian Media Watch.

7 How Israelis and Palestinians see Trump’s Jerusalem move. PBS News, 6 December 2017.

8 Arafat said Jesus was a Palestinian. Palestinian author and TV host agree. Youtube/Palestinian Media Watch, 23 December 2010.

9 Rewriting history: Jesus misrepresented as “Muslim Palestinian”. Palestinian Media Watch.

10 Ibid.

11 MEMRI translation. Hollander, R. Updated: The Battle Over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. CAMERA, 24 July 2017.

12 Rewriting history: Jewish history rewritten. Palestinian Media Watch.

13 Marcus, I and Zilberdik, NJ. The PA denies Jewish history in Jerusalem: The Jewish Temple is "the alleged Temple". PMW Bulletin, 11 August 2011.

14 Davila, JR. Temple Mount Watch: The BBC is taking Jewish-Temple denial in Palestinian circles rather more seriously than it deserves. Paleojudaica.com, 2 June 2009.

15 Supreme Muslim Council, 1924. A Brief Guide to Al Haram Al Sharif Jerusalem. Jerusalem.

16 PA depicts a world without Israel. Palestinian Media Watch.

17 Ibid.

18 Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 5 October 2017. See note 2.

[All Scripture quotes NKJV]

Our final study on the non-writing prophets in Scripture.

In 2 Kings 22, and in its parallel in 2 Chronicles 34, we read the account of how the ‘book of the Law’, or the ‘book of the Covenant’, was found in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Josiah the Reformer

The boy king Josiah, son of the reprobate Amon who had been assassinated by his own officials, came to a living faith in God when he was only 16.

By the time he was 20 he set out to reform the religious life of Judah, breaking down the high places where the Lord was worshipped illicitly, and destroying the pagan shrines that had proliferated under his predecessors.

At the age of 26, in the 18th year of his reign, he began to tackle the repair and purification of the Temple in Jerusalem. We should not underestimate the difficulty of this task. The Temple, now nearly 400 years old, was as much a heritage site as St Paul’s Cathedral or York Minster, and its sacrilegious additions were considered memorials to the history of the nation. The kings of Judah had been defenders of faiths, rather than defenders of the Covenant of God, since Solomon’s time.

To reverse all this required considerable courage from the King and his supporters, and no doubt he was regarded as much a bigot as any king would be today, were he to try to purify the Church of England. As 2 Kings tells, the holy city contained numerous shrines, some requiring human sacrifice. Even the Temple entrance contained horses and chariots (statues?) dedicated to the Sun, and there were two pagan altars in the very courts of Yahweh’s Temple. Traditionalists must have been appalled at their destruction.

No doubt Josiah was regarded as much a bigot as any king would be today, were he to try to purify the Church of England.

Re-discovering the Book of the Law

Then came the incident, so beautifully told, when the King sent his secretary to liaise with Hilkiah, the high priest on the rebuilding work. At the end of their business, the priest, a little diffidently, said, “I have found the book of the Law in the temple of the LORD.”

Most scholars agree, probably rightly, that what he found was essentially the Book of Deuteronomy, though the liberal stream built their whole structure of Old Testament criticism on the assumption that Hilkiah or his allies actually wrote the book. However, Deuteronomy is constructed like a typical political treaty, or covenant, document of a much earlier age. Like such secular treaties, a copy was ordered to be kept “as a testimony at the heart of the nation, that is beside the ark of the covenant” (Deut 31:26). Perhaps Hilkiah found it there, or perhaps abandoned in some storeroom of the Temple.

Shaphan, the secretary, was as reticent as the priest. He mentioned the book to Josiah almost as an afterthought to his report, though it is clear he realised its importance. Josiah’s response, however, was anything but laid back. Hearing Shaphan read the curses attached to the covenant, he tore his robes. He realised how angry God must be against the nation that had reneged on their treaty with the Lord, the consuming fire, the jealous God (Deut 4:24).

Huldah the Prophetess

The King sent a delegation, including the high priest and his most important officials, to consult the Lord through Huldah. She too instantly recognised the book of the Law as the word of the Lord. Her response is an oracle prophesying disaster to Judah, according to the warnings in the book, noting Josiah’s own humility and weeping, and promising that he himself would be buried in peace before this destruction. It is a short oracle and we hear no more of the prophetess. But there are important lessons here.

This incident raises important questions about the function of prophecy, and its relationship to Scripture. The book of the Law was the written word of God to Israel, as the Bible is to us. When it was re-discovered, the leaders of the nation, especially the King, recognised it as such. Its message was clear, as we can see by looking at Deuteronomy itself.

Josiah realised how angry God must be against the nation and responded in a spiritual way, by repentance.

God's laws and standards were explicitly set out in writing, as were the curses attached to them for disobedience. Josiah, with a heart set ’to seek the God of his father David' (1 Chron 34:3), understood its implications immediately, and he responded in a spiritual way by repentance. Why then did he feel it necessary to consult a prophet as well?

It was not for greater knowledge, for Huldah’s words added very little to the plain words of Scripture except some personal words of comfort to the King. It was not for practical application either, for she gave none — and Josiah’s further reforms appear to have been his own response to the words of the Law. The answer must surely be that the prophet was the one authorised by God to confirm the truth of God's words to the people of that generation.

The prophet’s anointing seems not so much to bring understanding of God's ways, as certainty about their application, and communication of that certainty to the people. The prophet may tell us what we have already seen in God’s word (and never anything that we haven’t), but in a way that truly confirms to us that it is God who has spoken in that word.

This has much to teach us about not only the prophet of today, but the preacher as well. Indeed, faithful ministry of the word of God is prophetic by its nature. The preacher should not be looking for something new to say, but to make what, in one sense, is clearly stated in Scripture speak with the voice of God to his hearers. This is why it is the word proclaimed, and not simply the word read, that is the central ministry of the Church of Christ.

Huldah’s oracle is a good demonstration that it is the word proclaimed, and not simply powerful proclamation, that makes for a prophetic ministry.

The prophet’s anointing seems not so much to bring understanding of God's ways, as certainty about their application, and communication of that certainty to the people.

Huldah the Woman

No examination of Huldah, especially in our times, can ignore the fact that she was female! It is unwise to speculate on how she received her prophetic gift. She was a woman of social standing - a royal official’s daughter-in-law. But status is not a necessary qualification for prophecy. We know that Old Testament prophets received their call direct from God, but we know precious little about how that call came to be recognised ‘officially’.

Nevertheless, it is remarkable that in such an epoch-making matter as the re-discovery of the Bible, the King should seek the counsel of a woman. It is all the more remarkable when one considers that both Zephaniah and the great Jeremiah were prophesying at this time.

My explanation is perhaps over-simple: Huldah was consulted because she was close by and other prophets were not. Clifford Hill says that Huldah was an older woman, much respected for her prophetic ministry, whereas at that time Jeremiah was a very young man, who had not long been in ministry. But she must have been equally respected, for it would not have been impossible to send for one of the others.

No particular comment is made about her gender in the text, and to the inspired writer it was clearly a matter of indifference: what mattered was her mantle of prophecy.

Huldah’s oracle is a good demonstration that it is the word proclaimed, and not simply powerful proclamation, that makes for a prophetic ministry.

From this passage in isolation, then, it would be easy to see support for the contemporary supposition that gender in ministry is not an issue, since “in Christ there is no longer male nor female” (Gal 3:28). The only problem is, this example is before Christ, whereas the ‘difficult’ biblical teaching on male authority is after Christ.

I will not attempt to cast much light on these questions here, not least because the story of Huldah is not actually about these issues. But one or two points may be worth noting for further study:

• It was the King who consulted the prophetess, and not she who sought him out, and she remained subject to him, as indeed to Shallum her husband.
  
• The words she spoke bore only God's authority, and none of her own.
  
• Her ministry to Josiah did not involve teaching him, for as we have seen, he had already understood the implications of God's Law for himself. Hers was a confirmatory word.

The implications of these points for the Church today are for others to consider, but one thing should not be controversial: the role of women in prophetic ministry is in this story given clear scriptural sanction. Only let us never forget, whether we are male or female, that our ministries are far, far less important than the message we bring, and its effects on the hearts of people.

This study was first published in Prophecy Today, Vol 15(6), 1999.

David Bivin considers Jesus’s background in the first of a two-part study.

It is rather surprising to discover how many Christians are not aware that Jesus is Jewish. In Israel, for example, there are entire communities of people – Christian, non-Jewish people - who do not believe that Jesus is Jewish.

A friend of mine was attending an Ulpan (a Hebrew language school) in Jerusalem. At one point in a conversation with a young Christian woman from Bethlehem who was also learning Hebrew, my friend said: “Well, you know Jesus was Jewish after all,” to which the woman replied, “He wasn't Jewish.” So my friend countered, “Well, go and ask your priest and see what he says.” She did not ask her priest, but went home and asked her parents. Her father said “Yes, she's right. He was Jewish.” But her mother said “No, he wasn't Jewish,” so it turned out to be a tie!

We might be very surprised to learn how many Christians have never really grasped the fact that Jesus was Jewish, not only in Israel but in Europe, Britain and in the United States. Christians still have difficulty in believing that Jesus was Jewish. So perhaps we have to say a few words about Jesus's Jewishness, even if it means stating the obvious.

It is rather surprising to discover how many Christians are not aware that Jesus is Jewish.  

Jesus’s Family

It is not hard to find evidence in the New Testament for Jesus's Jewishness. For example, his genealogy is clearly Jewish. In the gospels of Matthew and Luke, his lineage is traced back to the patriarchs in typical Jewish fashion.

Jesus's family was also completely Jewish. Joseph, the name of his earthly, supposed father, was the second most common name of the period for Jewish men, and his mother's name, Mary, was the most popular name for Jewish women.

Inscriptions dating from the 1^st Century indicate that the name Yeshua, Jesus, was itself the fifth most common Jewish man's name after Simeon, Joseph, Judah and John.

All of his known relatives were Jewish, namely Elizabeth (a relative of Mary's), her husband Zechariah the priest, and their son John the Baptist, as well, of course, as Jesus' own brothers, James, Joseph, Simeon and Judah (Matt 13:55).

Torah-Observant Parents

The gospels document the fact that Jesus and his family were observant Jews. Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and, as is still the Jewish custom for male children, at his circumcision ceremony he was formally given his name (Luke 2:21).

His parents also performed two other Jewish ceremonies in Jerusalem during that time. The first of them was the pidyon ha-ben (the redemption of the first born), specified in Numbers 18:15-16 - which Joseph symbolically performed on Jesus' thirty-first day, by giving five silver coins to a priest.

The name Yeshua, Jesus, was the fifth most common Jewish man's name of its day.

The second took place on the forty-first day after Jesus's birth, when Mary performed the ceremony for her purification by bringing two offerings to the temple (Lev 12:8). The offering by Mary of two birds rather than a lamb would indicate that they were not a wealthy family (Luke 2:24).

Jesus’s parents, we are told, went up to Jerusalem every year to observe the Feast of Passover (Luke 2:41). This devotion is exemplary and unusual, because most people living outside Jerusalem (as they did) made a pilgrimage to the Temple only a few times in their lives, and some only once. Making such a pilgrimage was a major expense for people who had to pay for the cost of the journey, for the stay in Jerusalem, and for the sacrifices offered in the Temple during the festival.

Although the biblical commandment of Deuteronomy 16:16 states, “Three times a year all your men must appear before the Lord your God at the place he will choose; at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles”, it was not interpreted literally by the rabbis of Jesus's time. Pilgrimage was encouraged by them but not made mandatory.

The fact that Jesus's parents went all the way to Jerusalem every year shows how obedient they were to the Torah of Moses. The evidence in the gospels indicates that Jesus was no less observant than his parents and that he went up regularly to Jerusalem for the Feasts (John 7:10, 12:12). It was while he was in Jerusalem for Passover that he was arrested.

Jesus's parents went all the way to Jerusalem every year, showing their obedience to the Torah of Moses.

Jesus the Rabbi

How did Jesus appear to the people of his time? How differently did they see him from the many other teachers (rabbis) who went around Judea and Galilee with their bands of disciples?
By the time Jesus began his public ministry he had received not only the thorough religious training typical of the average Jewish man of his day, but had probably spent years studying with one of the outstanding rabbis in the Galilee.

We cannot at this point detail that preparation, of which we know a great deal from rabbinic sources, but we know that Jesus, who did not begin his ministry until a rather mature age, appeared on the scene as a respected teacher or rabbi.

To understand the significance of the title 'rabbi', as applied to Jesus, one must first grasp the significance of a rabbi of the 1^st Century and how he functioned in that society.

The term ‘rabbi’ is derived from the Hebrew word rav which in biblical Hebrew means 'great.' Originally it was not used as a title or as a form of address. By Jesus's time, however, it was used to refer to the master of a slave or the master of a disciple, thus 'rabbi' literally meant 'my master' and was a term of respect.

It was not a formal title, but was used to address a teacher and Jesus was recognised as such by his contemporaries, as many passages in the New Testament illustrate: “Jesus answered him, ‘Simon, I have something to tell you.’ ‘Tell me, rabbi,’ he said” (Luke 7:40). And, “A lawyer asked him a question to test him: ‘Rabbi, which Is the greatest commandment in the Torah?’” (Matt 22:35-36). Also, “A rich man asked him, ‘Rabbi, what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life?’" (Luke 16:16).

We should note the diversity of those who addressed Jesus as 'rabbi': a Torah expert, a rich man, and a Pharisee. Other scriptures illustrate that the Sadducees and ordinary people were part of a broad cross-section of people in Jesus's day who saw him as a rabbi.

Many scriptures illustrate that a broad cross-section of people in Jesus's day saw him as a rabbi.

Teaching Style

From the gospel accounts, Jesus clearly appears as a typical 1^st Century rabbi. He travelled around from place to place in an itinerant ministry, depending for food and shelter upon the hospitality of the people.

He did much of his teaching outdoors, but he also taught in homes and in village synagogues. He even taught in the Temple in Jerusalem, and was accompanied by a band of disciples who followed him around as he travelled.

Perhaps the most convincing proof that Jesus was a practising rabbi was his style of teaching. He used the same methods of instruction that characterised the rabbis of his day, such as the use of parables to convey teaching. The sort of parables that Jesus used were extremely common among the rabbis of 1^st Century Israel and over 4,000 of them have survived in rabbinic literature.

It is significant, perhaps, that among the thousands of parables to be found in rabbinic literature, not one is written in Aramaic; all are in Hebrew. Even when, a few hundred years later (500 to 600 AD), the main texts are written in Aramaic, the parable is always given in Hebrew.

Jesus’s Observation of the Law

There can be no doubt that Jesus observed the written law of Moses in its entirety. The New Testament clearly states that, having been born under the law, he committed no sin (Heb 4:15). Jesus was never charged with breaking any part of the written law, although his disciples were occasionally accused of disobeying aspects of the oral law.

Only one such accusation was brought against Jesus, and this was, of course, that he broke the Sabbath by healing the sick. In fact, Sabbath healings were permitted under official rabbinic ruling, so the only way we can understand this protest is to see it as the response of a narrow-minded ruler of a local synagogue.

There can be no doubt that Jesus observed the written law of Moses in its entirety.

Perhaps at this point we need to understand that in Jesus' day the Pharisees (with whom Jesus had more in common in belief and teaching than the Sadducees) believed in two 'versions' of the law.

First, they believed in the written law (the Torah, the five books of Moses), but they also believed in a second law (called the oral law), which they said had also been given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai and handed down through the generations by word of mouth. So perhaps a more pertinent question to ask is to what extent Jesus observed the practices of the oral law.

On Baptism

There may seem, at first glance, to be a shortage of hard evidence in the New Testament concerning Jesus' religious observance. But one must remember that the New Testament was written by Jews, for Jews. The normal Jewish religious practices were so well-known to the writers and to the readers that it would have been considered superfluous, perhaps ridiculous, to explain in detail how particular commandments were carried out.

That is why, for example, we have such a dearth of information in the scriptures about the practice of Jewish baptism. This was not conducted as we Christians do it today, but as the Jews still do it.

The earliest representation of Christian baptism in the catacombs in Rome shows John the Baptist standing fully clothed on the bank extending an arm to Jesus, who is undressed, coming up out of the water. John is helping him up the bank. So the one who was baptised or 'immersed' was not dipped under the water by some officiating minister, but rather walked down into the water alone, gave his testimony and dipped himself, just as it is still done today in every Jewish mikveh (ritual immersion bath).

The person officiating was there only to give his or her stamp of kashrut (official approval), to make certain that the hair of ladies, for instance, was completely immersed.

On Using God’s Name

Another example of Jesus's obedience to Scripture is his adherence to the rabbinic prohibition against using the unutterable name of God. The original understanding of the third commandment, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God” (Ex 20:7), was probably that one should be careful not to break one's vows when one has sworn in God's name. However, the rabbis eventually came to interpret this commandment to include using the Lord's name frivolously or lightly. To avoid the risk of employing the divine name irreverently, the rabbis ruled that one should not utter it at all.

Jesus seemingly adhered to the rabbinic prohibition against using the unutterable name of God.

The divine name, written as the yod hay vav hay (YHVH) and called the ‘tetragrammaton’, could be pronounced only in the Temple, in the daily priestly blessing, and in the confession of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. When reading or reciting Scripture, one was not to pronounce the unutterable name but rather had to substitute with Adonai (Lord). In time, this substitute name of Adonai itself came to have such a sacred aura that it was used only in Scripture reading and prayer.

When it was necessary to refer to God in everyday speech, one sought other substitutes or euphemisms such as ha-Makom (the Place); ha-Kadosh (the Holy); ha-Gavohah (the High); ha-Lashon (the Tongue); ha-Gevurah (the Power); Shamayim (Heaven); ha-Shem (the Name). Even the less distinctive Elohim (God), which could refer to the God of Israel or to false gods, was avoided in conversation.

So serious was the prohibition against pronouncing the tetragrammaton that the rabbis included among those that have no share in the world to come, “He who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.” The avoidance of the tetragrammaton began quite early, although there was no hesitation in pronouncing the sacred name in the Old Testament period. In the time of David, everyone went around saying YHVH (however they pronounced it), but already by the 3^rd Century BC, Adonai was being substituted for the yod hay vav hay (YHVH).

Jesus frequently used euphemisms for God, and his audiences would have been shocked if he had not. The most common word for God used by Jesus was 'Heaven'. This occurs, for example, in the phrase 'Kingdom of Heaven', the term Jesus used to describe his community of disciples, or his movement.

Jesus frequently used euphemisms for God, and his audiences would have been shocked if he had not.

To those in the Temple who questioned his authority, Jesus asked: “John's baptism - was it from heaven, or from men?” (Luke 20:4). In other words, was John's baptism of God or of men? In the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus had the prodigal say to his father, “I have sinned against heaven” (Luke 15:21). As for making oaths, Jesus commanded his disciples not to swear at all, not even using substitutes for God's name such as Shamayim (Heaven).

One other euphemism for God's name used by Jesus was ha-Gevurah (the Power). When interrogated by the High Priest, Jesus was asked for an admission that he was the Messiah. His answer was a classic example of rabbinic sophistication: “From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” (Luke 22:69). This proclamation hints at two different Messianic passages, Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

To be continued in Part II, next week.

Understanding ritual purity baffled the sages of Israel. One of the most influential Jewish scholars, Maimonides, describes the whole subject as "bristling with difficulties, far from human understanding and one which even the Great Sages [of the Mishnah] found hard to comprehend."¹

Maimonides concluded that the purpose of these regulations was to impose limitations and conditions upon Israel's approach to God, to deepen their sense of awe and reverence for the majesty of their divine Father and King, which is why the laws apply only to relations with the sanctuary and the objects connected with it.²

However, Christians tend to perceive ritual purity as relating to sin, but this is not the case. The Lord mentions four categories of state in Leviticus: "distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean" (Lev 10:10). This instruction is given after unauthorised fire is offered by Aaron's sons, "So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord" (Lev 10:2). To distinguish between the holy and common, the clean and unclean was therefore of life or death importance for the Israelites. No one could approach the Lord casually or unprepared because he dwelled physically in the Tabernacle and the Temple:

'Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover.' (Lev 16:1-2)

It is important to understand that the distinction between the four categories of holy, common, pure and impure (or clean and unclean) is not between good and evil. Ritual purity is also not about hygiene or disease control – it had beneficial effects in these areas but that is not the central purpose. Rather, it is to do with the separation of the holy from the everyday.³

Holy vs Common, Clean vs Unclean

For example, in many churches when communion is served a special silver goblet is used, but after the service coffee is served in ordinary cups. It shows that in communion we are doing something different from every day eating and drinking. It doesn't mean that the cup itself is special, just that we are making a distinction. The biblical idea of holiness is not simply avoiding illicit things but hallowing the licit.

Ritual purity is not about hygiene or about distinguishing good from evil - it's about separating the holy from the everyday.

Holiness is not the same as purity or cleanness. An object which is not holy is not necessarily clean. An object which is clean is not necessarily holy. Joshua Tilton explains, "Holiness describes an object's use, whereas purity describes that object's readiness for its intended use" [emphasis added]. Suppose you lived in 1^st Century Jerusalem and you had a sack of grain set aside for a tithe. If a mouse crawled into the sack of grain and died, the grain is still holy because it is your tithe, which you have set aside for the Lord, but it is now unclean because it has a dead creature in it. So the difference between holy and common and clean and unclean is not about good versus evil, rather it is about the appropriateness of an object for its intended use.⁴

In the Nature of Creation, Not the Creator

Holiness originates from God and he created his creation to be clean – nothing he made is intrinsically unclean. However, the eternal and immortal and the finite and mortal have to find a way to approach each other. Joseph Frankovic illuminates this point, "...in designing a house, one does not put the bathroom inside the dining room. The activities of the bathroom do not complement those of the dining room. Neither bathroom nor dining room activities are, however, sinful - just incompatible."⁵

God's holy Temple would be profaned or contaminated by distinctly mortal sources of ritual impurity – sex, disease and death (for example, genital discharges, menstruation, childbirth, skin disease, contact with dead bodies). This is not for moral, ethical or simply hygiene reasons, but because God is not subject to disease, decay and death and he does not reproduce. Decay, death and reproduction are characteristics of the creation not the Creator, who is eternally alive, immutable and self-sufficient, radically different from us. We are mortal with the potential for immortality, changeable and dependent. Therefore, we need to set aside aspects of our mortal nature to approach his immortal presence. We must be in a state of holiness in order to move from our sphere into God's sphere.⁶

We might say that holiness requires purity because holiness is divine, of a different order, not because impurity is bad. Impurity from sin is, of course, bad, but that is different from ritual purity. For example, giving birth is not sinful, but it gives rise to ritual impurity.

Holiness requires purity, but it is not the same as purity.

Now the biblical writers (especially Ezekiel) did sometimes employed the terms 'clean' and 'unclean' as metaphors for good and evil, e.g. Ezekiel says God will "...cast clean water on you and you will be clean" (Ezek. 36:25).⁷

For believers in Jesus, this is the sense in which we usually apply these terms because we are not required to regard certain physical states or foods as clean or unclean. However, we are to have a keen sense of what is sinful and morally corrupt, what will pollute and defile our minds, bodies and spirits.

God's Holy Presence

Holiness radiates from the divine presence. Therefore, those things which are closest to God's presence are holier than things which are further off. The sages of Israel⁸ said that there were ten degrees of holiness, starting with the Land of Israel which is holier than any other land, then the cities in it - Jerusalem is the holiest city, the Temple the holiest place in the City, and going through the courts of the Temple from the outer to the inner the holiness increases, until you reach the Sanctuary which is more holy than the outer courts, for none may enter there with unwashed hands and feet. Finally, the Holy of Holies where the ark was kept is more holy, "for none may enter therein save only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement."

Holiness can be transferred to common objects, which unlike unclean objects do not contaminate what is holy, but can instead be made holy by contact with holy objects, as Exodus 29:37 states, "The altar shall be most holy. Everything that touches the altar will become holy." However, the approach must be made from the holy towards the common: if a 'common' person, not a priest who was consecrated holy, intruded unauthorised into the holy places of the Temple they risked being struck down. It is also worth noting that sacred or holy objects were in two categories, sacred and most sacred. For example, some parts of an offering were considered most sacred: "The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the food offerings presented to the Lord" (Lev 2:3). There were also degrees of uncleanness, the most basic level dissipated by the evening. Contact with a corpse required a period of seven days' separation.

Jacob Milgrom describes both the most sacred and impurity as having airborne properties in rabbinic thought and those closest to the sacred, the priests, had to be more vigilant than ordinary people. Priests could attend the burial of only their close relatives, and the High Priest could not even attend the burial of his parents: "He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother" (Lev 21:11).⁹

Holiness radiates from the divine presence. Those things which are closest to God's presence are holier than things which are further off.

Sin impurity was a potent source of contamination and would drive away the divine presence if it were not atoned for. Under the Mosaic Covenant, there was no purification for deliberate, unrepented sin. Even the Day of Atonement could not purify the Temple from wilful, unrepented rebellion. The shekinah (dwelling) presence of the Lord would no longer inhabit the Temple.¹⁰ The people of Israel's conduct had the capacity to defile not only the Temple but also the land of Israel. The land itself was not intrinsically holy: to call it the 'Holy Land' is a misnomer. It was simply God's land where Israel could live in either holiness or profanity. If it was the latter, the end result would be exile.

Restoration and Cleansing in Messiah Jesus

Only the Messiah could restore Israel to holiness. People became clean through touching him; he did not become unclean. Jesus was like the altar in the Temple: his presence was the place where heaven touched earth. The altar was where sin was atoned for and Jesus forgave sins, so he was an atonement carrier – he had the power to forgive and cleanse – when lepers touched him they became clean, ritually clean.

Jesus was 'most holy', like the altar in the Temple and like the Holy of Holies where the ark was kept. Uniquely, unlike any other person, he could not be contaminated but he decontaminated others.

The woman who touched the 'hem' of Jesus' garment (Matt 9) knew she was touching the most holy part of his physical presence, since it was the edge of his prayer shawl, whose knots and windings represented the very word of God, so she was trembling in fear when discovered, because when common objects were unintentionally brought into contact with the holy, or brought into the divine presence without proper sanction, it could be dangerous. Unauthorised approaches could lead to disaster. At Mount Sinai, Moses was warned not to let the people come near in case the Lord broke out against them. Even on the Day of Atonement the High Priest had a rope tied round his ankle as he entered the Holy of Holies in case he was unclean in some way and was struck down and had to be pulled out.

Jesus was 'most holy', like the altar in the Temple and like the Holy of Holies where the ark was kept. He could not be contaminated - instead he decontaminated others.

All the more miraculous that a way has been opened for us to enjoy unfettered access to God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ and his indwelling Spirit. We "have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: "If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death." The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, "I am trembling with fear." But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem...to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel" (Heb 12:18-24).

Let us not take this privilege for granted. We may be, thankfully, confident of full acceptance by the Lord through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, but let us not forget that he is radically, awesomely holy. So "let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our 'God is a consuming fire'" (Heb 12:28-29).

References

1 Maimonides, Introduction to Seder Todoroth. Quoted in Slotki, IW. The Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Book I, Folios 2a-23a. Moore, Soncino, p491.

2 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Book 10, The Book of Cleanness.

3 Tilton, J. A Goy's Guide to Ritual Purity, Jerusalem Perspective. 30 April 2014. I am indebted to Joshua Tilton for a number of insights into ritual purity.

4 Ibid. The example here is extracted from Tilton's expanded example: "a sack of grain could be common, if it was harvested by an Israelite, and clean, if the harvester was in a state of ritual purity. But if a mouse climbed into the sack of grain and died, the grain would be common and unclean. On the other hand, if the harvester happened to set aside this particular sack of grain as tithe, then the grain would be holy and clean. And finally, if a mouse crawled into the sack of grain set aside for tithe and died, the grain would be holy and unclean."

5 Frankovic, J, in Wilson, MR. Jewish Laws of Purity in Jesus' Day. Torah Class.

6 Tilton, ibid (note 3).

7 "Cleanse me from my iniquity and purify me from my sin" (Ps 51:4)

8 Mishnah (m. Kelim 1:6-9).

9 Milgrom, J, 2004. Leviticus, A Book of Ritual and Ethics, A Continental Commentary. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, p143, 154.

10 Tilton, ibid (note 3).

Clifford Denton offers some reflections on Good Friday.

This weekend we will celebrate the most important event of all history, an event only to be equalled by the Lord Jesus' return to bring the Kingdom of God fully in. It is more important than the created universe (Luke 21:33). As deep as was the Flood to drown a sinful world, deeper still is the love of God who sent his own Son into the world to redeem from sin all who would believe.

The sky darkened, the earth shook, the curtain in the Temple was torn from top to bottom and many saintly people rose from their graves as Jesus defeated the power of sin and death on that eventful day (Matt 27:45-56).

What Abraham Looked Forward to!

2,000 years before, Jesus' sacrifice had been foreshadowed when God said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you" (Gen 22:2).

God had already, in the most dramatic way of cutting a covenant (Genesis 15), made a promise that depended only on his own faithfulness, that Abraham's offspring would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and dwell in the land promised to them by God. Isaac was the son of promise through whom this line would come in the physical sense, yet God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son on a mountain in the Moriah range.

Just at the point of Abraham's making the sacrifice, an angel intervened and Isaac was spared. A ram was sacrificed instead (Gen 22:13). Under Abraham's knife was not just Isaac but all who would descend from his physical line. The ram was the substitute. The ram died and all the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were able to live. The principle of substitution began.

Abraham looked forward in faith to see how God would fulfil his covenant responsibility, spending his life living in tents but waiting "for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:8-10).

When God provided a ram for sacrifice instead of Abraham's son Isaac, the principle of substitution began.

The Passover Sacrifice

The covenant pathway was never easy for Abraham's descendants, as Joseph found when he was taken captive to Egypt, followed by the entire family of Israel (Gen 37-50). 430 years later, when the nation of Israel had grown whilst in captivity, Moses was chosen to lead Israel out of Egypt.

On the night chosen by God, henceforward to be celebrated annually as Passover, one of the prescribed Feasts of Israel, God judged the sins of Egypt but preserved the Israelites who through faith, family by family, each sacrificed a lamb and painted their door-posts with its blood (Ex 12).

This principle of faith was to be engraved into the consciousness of all Israelites. They were soon to be taught what was right and wrong in God's eyes through the Covenant at Sinai, to know the path of forgiveness through the sacrifices of the Tabernacle and Temple ministries, though still to have no permanent remedy for sin (Heb 9:1-10).

A Temple on Mount Moriah

The City of Jerusalem was founded by King David when, about 1,000 years after Abraham, Israel had settled in their Land (2 Sam 5:6-10). Since then, Jerusalem has been the chief city in the world for God to centre his purposes. David longed for a Temple so that the ministry of the Tabernacle from the wilderness years could have a permanent centre.

He purchased the land on the same mountain range where Abraham had taken his son Isaac. This was the place where the angel of death was commanded by God not to destroy Jerusalem on account of David's sin in taking an unlawful census (2 Sam 24:16-17). David's son Solomon built the Temple on the threshing floor of Ornan (Araunah) on Mount Moriah (2 Chron 3:1). The worship and sacrifice centre of Israel was completed.

1,000 years after Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac on Mount Moriah, King David purchased land in the same area for the building of God's Temple.

It was destroyed at the Babylonian captivity in 536 BC, rebuilt by Zerubbabel on return from captivity, 70 years later, and modified by Herod into a more ornate structure. Central to the life and hopes of Israel for all these long years was the covenant with Abraham, the Feasts (including Passover) and the substitutional sacrifice for sin through the blood of the lamb.

Jesus the Messiah

Though there was an expectation for a coming Messiah to Israel, it was beyond human intellect to put all the prophecies together to see clearly how God would fulfil his promise to Abraham. A king from the line of David was eagerly awaited, with most Jews expecting a saviour to come in glory and raise an army against the occupying Romans of Jesus' day. Without the revelation such as Peter had at Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:13), they did not understand that Isaiah pointed clearly to a suffering Saviour (Isa 53), accurately fulfilled by Jesus on the Cross.

He entered this world as God's only Son, echoing the experience of Abraham and Isaac so long ago. He grew up in the Jewish tradition, totally representing the nation, and ministered for three and a half years in fulfilment of all the scriptures pointing to Messiah. Then, riding on a donkey as a man of peace, with a clear climax to his ministry soon to occur, he descended the Mount of Olives and crossed the Kidron Valley to the City of Jerusalem.

With great expectation palm branches paved the way for the coming King of the Jews – as some recognised him to be. Yet only he knew how the rest of the scriptures would be fulfilled. He was, with the crown of thorns, the ram in the thicket that replaced Isaac, the saviour of Israel through substitutionary sacrifice. He came to be the Passover lamb that for all those years had pointed to him.

With the crown of thorns, Jesus was the ram in the thicket that replaced Isaac, the substitutionary sacrifice, the Passover lamb.

Perfect Sacrifice

He shared the traditional evening Passover meal with his disciples ensuring that they would remember that this was now to be shared as a memorial to him. The next day at the time of the Temple Sacrifice - one sacrifice for all the people - he willingly died on the Cross to release all who would accept his sacrifice for their sin – one Lamb for the entire family of faith.

The night before, in all Jewish homes there had been a service of remembrance of the first Passover and the atoning blood of the lamb. All history right up to that night prepared the way for the intercessory prayer from the Cross of the dying Saviour – "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34) and his victorious cry of "it is finished" (John 19:30) that still echoes to us across the centuries. No-one knows the exact spot where it took place but this too was on the range of hills named Moriah.

Today

All over the world the Jews still celebrate Passover in the traditional way, ending the seder with "next year in Jerusalem". There is an ongoing desire for God to complete the promises made to Abraham. Those with eyes opened by the Spirit of God see how all the prophecies and the types and shadows of Israel's history were fulfilled in Jesus. It was far more than a release from the captivity of the Egyptians, the Babylonians or the Romans that he came to accomplish – it was freedom from the chains of sin that ensnare us all.

Those with eyes opened by the Spirit of God see how all the types and shadows of Israel's history are fulfilled in Jesus.

The Gospel went to the Gentile world and the Christian Church increased in numbers, fulfilling the promise to Abraham that his seed would be as countless as the stars in the sky and sand on the seashore. Grafted into believing Israel we too celebrate Passover whenever we take communion. It is unfortunate that Christians renamed Passover as Easter and moved the date slightly so that Easter always falls on a Sunday. Nevertheless, on Good Friday, as it is called, Christians around the world will be celebrating the Lord's death on the Cross once more.

Remember the history of it all as you pass around the bread and the wine reading Paul's injunction:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same manner he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. (1 Cor 11:23-26)

Clifford Denton discusses the first Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire and the resulting fall of Jerusalem and the razing of the Temple in 70 AD.

In the last study, we considered how the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD contributed to the early separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots. This week we continue to look briefly at the background history that preceded and followed this fall, bringing into focus what have come to be called the First and Second Jewish Revolts. We do this both to focus on this important aspect of Israel's history, and also to establish a sense of the context into which Jesus and his followers came.

Background: the Road to Separation

In the last few studies we have been assessing the reasons for the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots, focusing especially on the early years. We have been seeking to establish a balanced understanding, noting that it was not so simple as an exclusion from the Synagogue associated with a curse against Christians. There was initially a more gradual assessment of the new movement within Judaism.

Nevertheless there was also a distinct theological difference caused by the proclamation that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Misunderstandings, as well as theological differences, led to the early Christian Church being kept at arm's length. Elements of separatism from within the Christian Church also began to develop.

Misunderstandings, as well as theological differences, led to the early Church being kept at arm's length by the Jews.

The background to this was Israel's national oppression by Greece and then Rome, and the reactions against this by various Jewish leaders and factions who sought to bring about deliverance by physical force (these attempts then magnified themselves later, when Israel was in the Diaspora and the Christian Church had found new roots within the Gentile world).

In particular, the First and Second Jewish Revolts against Rome help us to understand the response of the nation of Israel to the colonial domination of foreign powers. Despite Israel as a whole rejecting Jesus as Messiah, these revolts continued to express the Jewish Messianic hope. They expected that the Messiah would bring physical deliverance for the nation. This mindset contrasted greatly with the message of Jesus and the apparent 'otherworldliness' of his movement, and further contributed to the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots.

The Messianic hope of the Jews, especially in the face of Roman colonial domination, contrasted Jesus' otherworldly message and forced Christians and Jews further apart.

The First Jewish RevoltHalf Shekel from the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (see Photo Credits)

The First Jewish Revolt was from 66-74 AD. This was the revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. One of the main historical sources for this event is the historian Josephus who was an eye witness and participant (see quotes from Josephus included in last week's study). Modern historians warn us that there may be some bias in Josephus's description of the revolt because of his own need to protect his status in the eyes of Rome. Nevertheless, we have detailed accounts of the years when Israel rose up against Rome and of the catastrophes that followed.

Among the reasons for the revolt was hatred toward the corruption and bad government of various Roman procurators, as well as a general resentment towards the occupying forces. Add to this the social, economic, national and religious restraints that Rome put on this covenant nation and here was a fermenting situation ready for eruption at any time.

The First Jewish Revolt, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, was born of resentment towards the occupying power.

Discontent eventually led to a dispute between Greeks and Jews in Caesarea when some of the Greek population chose to build too close to a Synagogue. This was in the year 61 AD, and Nero ruled in favour of the Greeks, but discontent continued and flared up into street fighting in 66 AD. Coincident with this, the procurator Florus ordered that seventeen talents be taken from the Temple treasury, causing an aggressive response from some of the Jews and resulting in his ordering Roman soldiers to punish the population. The resistance grew, however, causing Florus to make a temporary retreat to Caesarea.

The remaining cohort of troops in Jerusalem failed to enforce law and order and this also became the spark for groups of revolutionaries including the Sicari and Zealots to begin more open fighting with the Romans. Fervour that had been pent up for years erupted, and soon the majority of the population of Judaea and Galilee joined these revolutionary groups. By the year 67, the Idumeaeans and Samaritans had also joined the growing revolt.

Roman Intervention

Agrippa II came from Alexandria to Jerusalem to try to quell the revolt but failed to get the support of Florus for mediation. In the early days of the revolt, the High Priest and leaders of the parties of the Sadducees and Pharisees were concerned to maintain peace and the Temple rituals, so were keen to bring a peaceful end to the uprising. However, the Zealots conquered a number of fortresses including Masada. They occupied the Temple and put an end to the daily sacrifice to the Emperor of Rome.

Agrippa summoned three thousand troops but failed to eliminate the Zealots. This led to an escalation of the conflict with Rome. The Zealots set fire to the palaces of Agrippa, Berenice and the High Priest. This was by way of a statement against the disparity between the wealthy in Jerusalem and the poverty of other members of the nation. The Antonia Fortress was captured and then the whole city was liberated from the Romans. This was accompanied by bloodshed in other parts of the land.

The conflict escalated and even the intervention of 3,000 Roman troops failed.

Cestius Valus, the Roman Governor of Syria, brought an expedition to Jerusalem in the autumn of 66 but was caused to retreat and suffered major defeat near Beth-Horon, where most of his army was massacred. This resulted in a growing support for the revolt, including from the priests in Jerusalem who needed to preserve their popularity.

The Arrival of Vespasian

The Romans re-grouped in Galilee. Meanwhile, Nero sent orders from Greece to his general, Vespasian. He arrived in 67 and took the city of Sephoris, then advancing with three legions into Galilee, putting many of the Jews to flight. The prominent fortress of Jotapata was taken, followed by Tarichaea, Gamla (see left) and Mount Tabor. At the end of 67, and after great bloodshed, Galilee was under the control of the Romans.

The loss of Galilee was dispiriting to the occupants of Jerusalem. Some would have negotiated with the Romans at this point. There was inner conflict among the Jewish factions and the Zealots eventually took full control of the city. In 69 AD, however, further disputes arose and three factions emerged in Jerusalem. The Roman troops marched on Jerusalem, by which time the three factions had divided the city into three fortresses.

When the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem in 70 AD, inner conflict had led to the city being divided into three fortresses.

The death of Nero in 68 called Vespasian back to Rome in the summer of 69, where he was proclaimed Emperor. Titus, his son, took command of the Roman troops in the land of Israel (as an important aside, within the time-frame of this conflict: it is likely that Johanan Ben Zakkai fled from Jerusalem and was given permission by Vespasian to settle in Jabneh, which later became a school for the study of Torah and the centre for the development of Rabbinic Judaism). Nevertheless the siege of Jerusalem was begun early in the year 70 by Titus and the horrific consequences of the fall of this great city and of the Temple followed, as we outlined in the last section.

One can read Josephus and come to the conclusion that divided factions among the Jews contributed to an almost self-destruction at the end of this conflict. The glory had indeed departed from the Temple.

For Reflection and Comment

Read Matthew 24:2 and Deuteronomy 28. Does this help us understand the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Read Luke 19:41-44 and refer to the Book of Lamentations. What should a Christian's attitude be to the fall of Jerusalem?

Next time: The Jewish Revolts (Part 2)

Clifford Denton examines the historical conquest of Israel by Rome and its creation of the Israeli diaspora.

Every Bible student needs a grasp of history and to set this alongside the purposes of God as revealed in Scripture. What was happening on the world stage when Jesus was alive, and in the first years of the Church's existence?

Roman Occupation

This is the background to the Roman domination of Israel preceding the biblical account of Jesus and the Apostles.

In the years before Rome, the Greek Empire dominated Israel. There was resistance from the Maccabees, a group of Jewish rebels, during this time. The years that followed saw the rise of the Hasmoneans as a priest-king dynasty in Israel, but which did not restore Israel as a truly Torah-based society.

Rome grew as the new world power and it was in the year 63 BC that the legions under Pompey entered Israel. Jagersma's account of Pompey's arrival (History of Israel to Bar Kochba, SCM Press 1985, p98) reads:

Bust of General Pompey[While] the Roman general Pompey was busy with his successful campaign in Asia (66-62 BC); one of his generals, Scaurus, had captured Damascus for him in 65 BC. Soon after that he turned his attention to Judaea. At about that time delegations came from both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus [two rival Hasmonean princes] to ask for his help. Both offered him gifts. On this occasion the Romans opted for Aristobulus.

In 63 BC Pompey himself arrived in Damascus. There not only delegations from Aristobulus and Hyrcanus but also representatives of the people of Judaea came to him. These last asked Pompey to abolish the Hasmonaean dynasty because they wanted to be ruled by priests.

At the time of this meeting Pompey did not make any decision...Arisobulus was least happy with the delay. He...established himself in the fortress of Alexandrium to make his position secure. This action aroused the wrath of Pompey, who immediately invaded Judaea. Aristobulus quickly surrendered, but most of his supporters refused.

Pompey then went back to Jerusalem and besieged the city. Hyrcanus and his followers opened the gates to the Romans, who were then able to occupy the city and the royal palace. However, a group of the supporters of Aristobulus, who had already been taken prisoner, occupied the temple. Only after a siege of three months did the temple fall into the hands of the Romans. To the dismay of the pious, on this occasion Pompey entered the Holy of Holies.

Pompey led Aristobulus and numerous Judaean prisoners through Rome in triumphal procession by which he celebrated his return. When they were later freed, the latter formed the beginning of a great Jewish community there.

The weak Hyrcanus II was eventually made the High Priest, and political rule was given to his powerful advisor, Antipater. Antipater's sons Phaesel and Herod (later Herod the Great) were given the task of governing Jerusalem and Galilee respectively, and the Romans gathered tax from Judaea. In 43 AD, Herod showed his allegiance to Rome by opposing an insurrection in Galilee and then opposing and undermining the Sanhedrin.

The Fall of the Temple

Jesus had made it clear that the Temple would fall:

...the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down. (Luke 21:6)

This prophecy came to pass in 70 AD, during the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 AD. This was the first of three major revolts by Judean Jews against the Roman Empire, brought on by religious and political tensions. It will be discussed in more detail next week). Josephus gives a graphic account of the Temple's fall:

And now two of the legions had completed their banks on the eighth day of Lous. Whereupon Titus gave orders that the battering-rams should be brought and set over against the western edifice of the inner temple; for before these were brought, the firmest of all the other engines had battered the wall for six days together without ceasing, without making any impression upon it; but the vast largeness and strong connexion of the stones was superior to that engine, and to the other battering rams also...

...and now the soldiers had already put fire to the gates, and the silver that was over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it spread itself all on the sudden, and caught hold of the cloisters. Upon the Jews seeing this fire all about them, their spirits sunk, together with their bodies, and they were under such astonishment that not one of them made any haste either to defend himself or to quench the fire, but they stood mute spectators of it only...

While the holy house was on fire, everything was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity ; but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests, were all slain in the same manner..." (Quoted from The Wars of the Jews)

Model of the Second Temple, destroyed in 70 AD.Temple Mount today.Jagersma summarises this sad event in Israel's history too (p144):

In early 70 Titus began the siege of Jerusalem...Titus had in all four legions and auxiliaries for this siege. The beginning of the siege fell some weeks before Passover.

The Romans began by attacking the northernmost wall. In military terms this side was always the most vulnerable part of the city to defend...three weeks later the Romans had the whole of the inner city in their hands. Meanwhile a pressing lack of food in the city made itself felt. That of course was disastrous to the morale of the defenders.

The focal point of the dispute now shifted to the temple mount with the citadel of Antonia and the upper city. When the defenders succeeded in destroying the entrenchments which the Romans threw up against the wall Titus had a stone wall put round the whole city. This was done in three days. Shortly after that the Romans were able to capture the citadel of Antonia in a night attack; it was then completely destroyed.

A great blow to the morale of the besieged was the day when the offering of the daily morning and evening sacrifice had to be stopped. From that day on the temple was only a fortress. At the cost of very severe losses Titus succeeded in gradually getting it into his hands. According to Josephus, Titus wanted to spare the temple. This does not sound very plausible, since such an action would go against the usual military practices of his time. Be this as it may, the temple went up in flames. This event is still recalled in the synagogue on 9 Av (about August). [emphases added]

After the fall of the Temple the upper city of Jerusalem was taken, the whole battle lasting five months and wreaking terrible destruction, evidence of which can still be found today. 700 young Jews were paraded in Rome. Others were put to work in mines in Egypt or sold as slaves. The triumphal march of Titus in Rome is depicted on the Arch of Titus in the city and can be seen today. He took with him the Menorah and the Table of Shewbread from the temple.

Some Jewish families fled to the fortress at Masada near the southern shores of the Dead Sea, where they were surrounded by the Roman army who gradually ascended the mountain. In the year 73 or 74 the families took a suicide pact as their capture and humiliation became certain. So ended the devastation of Israel. The Temple, and hence Israel's religious and national centre, was lost, sacrifices ceased and a new Jewish Diaspora began.Stone outline of Roman encampment, viewable from Masada.The location of the Masada fortress.

Impact on Early Christianity

The fall of the City of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 70 AD coincided with the early days of the community of disciples in Jerusalem and the spread of the Gospel to the Gentile world. The Council of Jerusalem had taken place 20 years earlier. Paul's three missionary journeys had already taken place and both he and Peter had suffered martyrdom in Rome.

The majority of the New Testament Scriptures had been written. The Christian Church was a visible body within the world of Judaism. Theological issues had arisen and the separation from the Synagogue had begun.

The destruction of the Temple contributed to this separation. In the final chapter of his book A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways between Synagogue and Church (Paulist Press, 1995), Vincent Martin writes:

The reaction to the catastrophe of 70 C.E. among Jews and Christians proved to be diametrically opposite. The Jews rejected the NEW and the Christians rejected the OLD. The Jews affirmed that salvation for Israel could be found only by upholding in its pure form the Sinaitic Covenant; the Christians proclaimed that salvation for Israel, and the Gentiles, could be found only in the eternal covenant established through the risen Jesus.

Judaism...was unique, clearly distinct from all other religious systems. Totally God-centered, it had a deeply humanistic quality emphasizing ethical and social values. It was a "classical" religion, moderate, measurable, seeking harmony with nature, bursting with love of life and joy – when not punished by the Lord.

Suddenly, the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth with its more radical aspects, the proclamation by the Twelve that the same Jesus was truly risen inaugurated the heavenly Jerusalem, and the reaching out of Saul of Tarsus toward the Gentiles, all seemed to destroy the delicate equilibrium God had built through centuries of patience and inspiration. Not only did these novelties not correspond to the actual messianic expectations of the common people, but they were changing the focus of traditional Jewish life from covenantal justice toward gratuitous love, from concern with this world toward concern with the world to come, and from nationalism toward universalism. Such new perspectives were not essentially anti-Jewish, or completely foreign to Judaism, but they were stretching Temple Judaism to its limits and even beyond its limits.

Martin goes on to distinguish out various reactions to Jesus and the early Church from within the Jewish community, and shows how the political situation at the time framed these different responses:

To understand the reaction of the Jewish people to this new teaching, we must carefully separate the reaction of the Sadducean party in control of the Temple, and indirectly of the nation, from the general reaction of the people. The colonial situation, the fear of the Romans, and the will to maintain a grip on political power, led to an unavoidable conflict at first between the religious establishment and Jesus of Nazareth, and later his Galilean disciples. As the Sadducees lost all power after the burning of the Temple, the general reaction of the Pharisees and the common people remained the most significant response. Originally it was not negative. It was rather a feeling of uncertainty concerning the imminent coming of a hoped for messianic event mixed with a deep uneasiness at experiencing cherished traditions stretched beyond acceptable limits.

It is principally Pauline evangelism which started to transform an attitude of respect, curiosity and distance into a negative reaction. The sense of self-identity and the struggle for national survival in difficult political circumstances brought forth a great fear that the dissolution of Torah Judaism into an a-temporal and universal Judaism would strike down the dividing wall carefully constructed by Ezra and would finally destroy the integrity of the nation. The leaders of the Diaspora dreaded that Paul would attract many Jews to this strange and easier kind of Judaism; they were deeply offended at the manipulation of Jewish sanctities by uncircumcised Gentiles. This time it was not a matter of systematic doubt or suspended judgment but of a religious injury that needed an antagonistic answer. (ibid, p178-179, emphases added)

For Study and Prayer:

What should a Christian's attitude be to the dispersion of the Jews over nearly 2,000 years - and to the restoration of Israel today?

Next time: The Jewish Revolts

In our series on the Jewish High Holy Days, Helen Belton examines Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.