I imagine Paul filled them in on the prophesies, Psalms and Torah.

Hebrews is great. I see it as an appeal to the Jews to accept Christ, rather than the Gentiles. The name is kind of a giveaway, too, lol.

That would make me think that someone in the Jerusalem circle wrote it, James and company, etc., since Paul was out on the road appealing to Gentiles.

Look at the persuasive technique the author uses...

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,"

No Gentile in Greece or Italy or Turkey is going to give a hoot about Jewish patriarchs or Jewish prophets. They have their own ancestors. But Jews would have given a lot of stock to Jewish fathers and prophets.

So it's sort of a "This is just a continuation of God's word to our ancestors, so you know it has credibility" type of appeal.

If I recall, Hebrews goes through a lengthy process of painting Jesus as, of all things, a High Priest. Which again would appeal to Jews but probably be largely irrelevant to a convert who had never practiced the Law.

It's sort of ironic that for all the railing Jesus did against the priests, Hebrews now paints him AS a priest:

8:1 "Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being."

High Priest - that's great. And a long way from a humble carpenter, or fisherman. But I can see a bunch of Jews hearing Hebrews being read in an amphitheater and nodding their heads to each other:

"Yeah, yeah, I can buy into that...Jesus is just like a High Priest. Now that's a concept I can understand, and easily accept."

Look how the author even brings the sanctuary of the Temple and tabernacle into the appeal in 8:2. How many Gentiles that Paul converted even knew, or cared, about the sanctuary? But that's the Holy of Holies to Jews. So that is speaking their language right there.

Just a fantastic book.

Fordtunate Son

All-In [29874]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 8843

Joined: 10/31/10

Re: I imagine Paul filled them in on the prophesies, Psalms and Torah.

Mar 28, 2024, 12:24 PM

>Was it incidental that an actual Pharisee became the apostle to the gentiles?

That's a really good question. I'm not sure what drove Paul, exactly, on his mission. But every time I read his story I find some new wrinkles and nuances to it.

For instance, in Galatians he says this:

1:15 “[God] revealed his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles

That makes it sound like Paul chose, but was not commanded, to go to the Gentiles. I suppose anyone, Pharisee or not, could have done that. It would not have taken someone intimate with the Law to teach that one no longer needs the Law, you know?

But in Acts, the third-person narrator describes it this way:

9:15 “Go! This man [Paul] is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles.”

But that's not Paul saying it himself, that's someone else saying what God told them. In any event, Paul didn't seem to mix much, or very well, with the Jerusalem crowd. I think he passed through Jerusalem twice, and they had their brew up at Antioch, but other than that I think he was pretty much an independent operator. But it seems there was clearly huge rift in the early Church, even after Paul and James came to an agreement on the “Faith + 4” compromise. They might have worked it out, but it seems like not all of their followers were happy with their compromise. Here’s the recap:

Paul doesn’t give any details why he went back to Jerusalem the second time, other than this:

20:22 “And now, in obedience to the Holy Spirit I am going to Jerusalem…”

And on his trip back to Jerusalem we get this:

Acts 21:4 “By the power of the Spirit they [his followers in Tyre] told Paul not to go to Jerusalem.”

So God is telling Paul to go, but God is also warning others that there will be trouble. And that turned out to be true; not just from Jews, but early Christians as well. After Paul arrives in Jerusalem:

21:20 “…they said, “Brother Paul, you can see how many thousands of Jews have become believers, and how devoted they all are to the Law. 21 They have been told that you have been teaching all the Jews who live in Gentile countries to abandon the Law of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the Jewish customs.“

So now Paul has a problem…

“22 They are sure to hear that you have arrived. 23 This is what we want you to do. There are four men here who have taken a vow. [to be ultra-religious Jewish Nazirites, presumably, per Numbers 6:1. It required shaving your head during the vow but never again. Samson was a Nazirite]

24 Go along with them and join them in the ceremony of purification and pay their expenses; then they will be able to shave their heads. In this way everyone will know that there is no truth in any of the things that they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in accordance with the Law of Moses. ”

That’s pretty awkward for Paul, because he IS telling them to ignore the Law.

And, it’s a real interesting twist on the story. It’s the Jewish believers in Christ who are angry that Paul was relaxing the standards on the Law. James must have gotten off the hook, even though he was the one who made the final call after Antioch.

25 But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, [not Jews who have become believers] we have sent them a letter telling them we decided that they must not 1) eat any food that has been offered to idols, 2) or any blood, 3) or any animal that has been strangled, 4) and that they must keep themselves from sexual immorality.” [Faith+4]

So that sounds like there were some Jewish-Christians angry enough at Paul’s message that they wanted to kill him. We’ve got three groups here:

1) Jews who don’t believe Jesus was messiah, who still follow the Law – angry at Paul
2) Jews who do believe Jesus was messiah, who still follow the Law – angry at Paul
3) Gentiles, who have the Faith+4 compromise – happy with Paul

Later, in Acts 22:

17 “I went back to Jerusalem, and while I was praying in the Temple,

So here, even though Paul has rebuked the Law himself, he still prays at the Temple rather than at a Christian follower’s house. Maybe Paul hasn’t fully formed his interpretation yet.

“I had a vision, 18 in which I saw the Lord, as he said to me, ‘Hurry and leave Jerusalem quickly, because the people here will not accept your witness about me.’

So God tells Paul to leave Jerusalem now, even though he sent Paul to Jerusalem, back in Acts 20:22

And also in Acts 22:

19 ‘Lord,’ I answered, ‘they know very well that I went to the synagogues and arrested and beat those who believe in you. 20 And when your witness Stephen was put to death, I myself was there, approving of his murder and taking care of the cloaks of his murderers.’ 21 ‘Go,’ the Lord said to me, ‘for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

So now, we have God sending Paul back to the Gentiles. It sounds like for protection, as much as anything else. But in this case it’s clear that it’s God’s decision, not Paul’s choice.

There’s some back and forth in there, I think, and not until the very end is it explicit that Paul was sent by God’s direction. That still leaves the pharisee question up in the air. But, it might have been because Paul believed in resurrection to start with. Here’s Paul in front of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin:

Acts 23:8

“6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them [his accusers] were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”

That’s very clever of Paul. Because he KNOWS that his fellow Pharisees on the court believe in resurrection just like he does. So in effect, he’s saying “You have me on trial for something that you, yourself, believe in.”

That was half-true, because there were other conditions to being the messiah, of course. But Paul gets the desired effect by framing his defense around the resurrection issue, alone.

7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)

Paul would have made a great lawyer, lol. But as to your original question, maybe God thought a prior believer in resurrection would be a better apostle to the Gentiles. No way to know that.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Wonderful words

Re: Wonderful words

Re: Wonderful words

Re: Wonderful words

Re: I imagine Paul filled them in on the prophesies, Psalms and Torah.

That opening to your post is most applicable.

Re: That opening to your post is most applicable.

Christians, today, still try to hold on to Law as a stairway to heaven

Re: Christians, today, still try to hold on to Law as a stairway to heaven

Re: Christians, today, still try to hold on to Law as a stairway to heaven

Re: Christians, today, still try to hold on to Law as a stairway to heaven

TigerBoard POTD