Through the centuries men have often interpreted the Bible to benefit themselves and their causes, whether personal or national. Preachers had even helped keep the minds of the American black slaves in a slaves’ mentality by telling them this was their calling in Christ (1Corinthians 7:20; Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; 1Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9). Through the centuries men who hated the Jews used the scriptures to justify their hatred by removing certain scriptures out of their context in order to persecute Jews (e.g. Matthew 27:25; Luke 23:28). Others had so spiritualized and allegorized the word of God that it no longer had any legitimate place in world history. The modern backlash for such undo spiritualization, however, which would be to interpret the Bible literally, would fall equally in error (cp. Matthew 5:27-30 and Psalm 33:7). Indeed, how would one then truthfully interpret the idea that Jesus is the Lamb of God?
Obviously, if there is a wrong way to interpret scripture, so there must be an accurate and true manner in which scripture could and should be understood. The good news is that way is very simple. How did the folks who lived in the first century AD understand Jesus? Since no one actually cut off their right arms or gouged out their right eyes (Matthew 5:27-30), they must have understood Jesus to mean something other than what he literally said. They knew, and we need to come to understand how they thought about what was told them.
It would be necessary, first of all, to keep in mind that the Jews were a conquered people,[1] but they looked for God to set them free, just as Moses did in ancient Egypt. Paul preached that they were yet in bondage (Galatians 4:21-26), and could be set free in Christ (cp. John 8:36). The Lord spoke to his people through many prophets, and he spoke about the nations that surrounded his people and both judged them and Israel, when their crimes became too great to be permitted to go unpunished. The people and the judgments were real, not allegories for other things. Nevertheless, the prophets promised relief for the Lord’s people, but the modern interpreter cannot understand the word of God properly, unless he takes these things into account.
I like the outline put forth in The Book of Mark,[2] which reduces the perspective of the first century Jews into four national symbols: Temple, Territory, Torah, Tribe. I claimed in other studies that the Temple was modeled after the Garden of Eden. The Most Holy Place was where Adam met with God, while Eden was the Holy Place, together with its outer courts. The un-holy place is where Cain wandered, far away from his Creator, and this was the position in which the Jews understood the gentiles to be. When Babylon destroyed the Temple at Jerusalem, they destroyed the place where the Jews and the Lord met and conversed together. Without the Temple, there was no real communication with God, and to this we could add the idea that some Jews believed, technically speaking, their exile never ended, which view Paul seemed also to embrace (viz. Galatians 4:21-26). This understanding receives some support in the fact that the Mercy Seat (the Ark of the Covenant), which symbolized the presence of God, was non-existent throughout the Second Temple Period,[3] nor would it ever be built again (Jeremiah 3:16).
The Jewish Territory was like Eden where Adam dwelt, after he was cast out of the presence of God. It was the holiest place on earth, but it wasn’t the Most Holy Place, where he used to meet with the Lord. So, the Jewish state, the Territory of the Jews, was of particular importance. It was holy, but all other nations were common, i.e. unholy.
Torah was God’s Law, but it was more than this. It was the Jews’ national constitution, which contained their covenant or treaty with the Lord. Obedience brought blessing and safety, while disobedience brought cursing and exile.
Tribe, of course, pointed to the Jews, themselves. Their existence represented God’s promise to Abraham was kept. God was faithful, in that the Jews existed as a separate people at all, and they were very jealous over their racial identity. In fact, this very matter was a major contention the Jewish authorities had with the apostles, especially Paul, in that they accepted gentiles into their religious fellowship, which was composed of Jews. Yet, they didn’t demand the gentiles become circumcised. In other words, salvation was not only **of** the Jews (John 4:22), but, to a Jew, salvation also meant **becoming** a Jew! And, in the words of one of my favorite Jews, Tevye (of The Fiddler on the Roof), “there is no other hand” to this question.[4]
On the other hand… (immediately contradicting myself) there were the gentiles who expected the Jews to comply to their worldview. They were the conquerors, and the Jews were the conquered. They were the powerful, and the Jews were the tiny, inconspicuous gnats who simply refused to go away, who simply refused to bend their knees. The line was drawn in the sand, and onto that beach entered Jesus as we will find him in Mark’s Gospel.
________________________________________________
[1] Gentile nations conquered and / or simply ruled the Jewish state by default: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece (Grecian Syria and Grecian Egypt) and Rome.
[2] See The Smart Guide to the Bible series, The Book of Mark by H. Walker Evans and Larry Richards; pages 6 & 7.
[3] See Josephus; Wars of the Jews; 5.5.5 (219).
[4] Tevye always tried to see the other side of a problem, but when his third daughter, Chava, wanted to marry a gentile, there was no other side to the issue, and he expressed this with the words: “there is no other hand!”
Smoodock's Blog 