A Lesson From the Sophists by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3525

A Lesson From the Sophists

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The ancient Sophists occupied the period in Greek philosophical history just after the physical philosophers had posited various explanations concerning the substance of the material world (ca. 450 B.C. [Kahn, 2005]). Sophists are often dismissed as charlatans or hypocrites, and to some degree this charge is just. Our purpose here, however, is not to evaluate the Sophists’ project, but rather to learn a lesson from the circumstance in which the Sophists found themselves and from the major question they posed. As the answer to this question highlights the value of special revelation, it is relevant to Christian apologetics.

The earliest Greek philosophers (e.g., Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, etc.), had focused primarily on developing accounts of physical reality, asking “Of what is the world made?” However, social and political unrest demanded that philosophers move beyond the merely physical questions (i.e., questions about substance) in order to address spiritual and ethical issues. The traditional Greek religion, with its accompanying supernatural explanations for the phenomenal world, were being questioned. Likewise, traditional laws were being questioned (see Rogers, 1923, p. 45). As all citizens in Athens had the opportunity to participate directly as legislators, those who wanted to advance in politics desired special training in rhetoric for the purpose of learning to persuade audiences in the legal/political realm. The Sophists occupied themselves as teachers of rhetoric, among other topics. Consider the following summary:

The basis [of the Sophists’] work was apt to be rhetorical, but with the abler Sophists, this was broadened out to cover the field of an all-round and liberal culture. Any knowledge that was available of the workings of the human mind, of literature, history, language, or grammar, of the principles underlying the dialectic of argument, of the nature of virtue and justice, was clearly appropriate to the end in view.... Now all this seems innocent enough.... In reality, however, there were some grounds for...suspicion. On the practical side, merely, there always was a danger lest the Sophistic skill be prostituted to unsocial ends.... Apart, however, from such chances for abuse, which no doubt were often taken advantage of, there was a more fundamental reason for the popular distrust. The habit of unrestricted inquiry and discussion which was crystallized by the Sophistic movement, the free play of the mind over all subjects that interest men, meant the overthrow of much in the existing civilization.... (Rogers, pp. 42-43).

While some of the Sophists had high ideals (e.g., Protagoras [see Plato, 1997, pp. 746-790]), nonetheless the legacy of the Sophists is that of a general ethical relativism.

Greek culture was at a crossroads. At issue was whether the traditions of previous generations of society would be maintained, or the desires of each present individual would be accepted as his own standard. Should the individual or society take prominence? The Sophists, exposing at times the lack of rational support for tradition, essentially offered the solution of “Every man for himself.” In so doing, they posed the following philosophical question: Is man the measure of all things (as modern secular humanists allege; see Colley, 2007), or is there some external, objective standard to guide human action? Some philosophers, such as Socrates, were rightly concerned that any solution whatever be subjected to the test of human reason, and that the solution be applied to all humanity. Yet, even a Platonic solution, such as that presented in the Republic, has aspects that are unsatisfactory to many (especially its communistic aspects [Plato, 1997, pp. 971-1223]).

This quandary is ancient, yet bears a strikingly current application. Our present culture is largely divided concerning the validity of divine authority and religious tradition. At least two lessons present themselves for the Christian apologist. The first, general lesson to be learned from this Greek predicament is that man needs divine guidance in order to flourish (Jeremiah 10:23). Anytime man rejects an objective standard concerning what is good, relativism threatens. “Someone who holds that nothing is simply good, but only good for someone or from a certain point of view, holds a relativist view of goodness,” and has invited revolution, as did the Greeks (Craig, 2005, p. 894). Yet, even a universally accepted standard, if not grounded in objective truth, is not desirable (it could happen to be philosophical pessimism, Nazism, etc.).

It is interesting to note that within a few generations of the Sophists, the greatest theophony Jesus Christ would appear, providing the way to human fulfillment and peace in the fullness of time (see John 10:10; 14:6; Galatians 4:4). The Greek-speaking world would be influenced heavily by Christianity, and many philosophers throughout the centuries would come to appreciate Christian principles, even developing philosophical systems involving biblical teaching (see Rogers, pp. 185ff.).

The second, specific lesson to be learned from the Greek situation during the Sophistical age is thatChristianity provides grounds for perfect balance between emphasis upon the individual person and deference to his community. The individual is uniquely responsible for his own obedience and righteous lifestyle (Acts 2:40; 2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 11:6; Jude 21-23). The individual’s own rationality is central, but not for the purpose of originating religious truth. Rather, the individual uses his rationality to examine evidence for the validity of revealed truth, and to apply revelation properly. At the same time, he is divinely situated in the church, a community of believers who bear each others’ burdens (Philippians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 John 4:7), exercise godly discipline (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Peter 5:5), and appeal to a single standard for conduct (2 Samuel 22:31; Romans 10:13-17; Colossians 3:17). Christianity is not designed in such a way that its adherents exercise faith in isolation. No one Christian is more valuable or more important than another (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11).

CONCLUSION

The Bible contains the answers to philosophical questions—even those asked by the ancients. The Sophists indirectly raised the question of the degree to which such a source should be consulted when philosophers develop ethical and metaphysical arguments. To defend the affirmative answer is the task of the Christian apologist, who considers philosophy in light of divine revelation in order to develop the most effective response.

REFERENCES

Colley, Caleb (2007), “Secular Humanism and Evolution,”http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3336.

Craig, Edward (2005), “Relativism,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Kahn, Charles H. (2005), “Sophists,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).

Rogers, Arthur Kenyon (1923), A Student’s History of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan).

Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).

Archaeology and the New Testament by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1420

Archaeology and the New Testament

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Any time a book alleges to report historical events accurately, that book potentially opens itself up to an immense amount of criticism. If such a book claims to be free from all errors in its historical documentation, the criticism frequently becomes even more intense. But such should be the case, for it is the responsibility of present and future generations to know and understand the past, and to insist that history, including certain monumental moments, is recorded and related as accurately as possible.

The New Testament does not necessarily claim to be a systematic representation of first-century history. It is not, per se, merely a history book. It does claim, however, that the historical facts related in the text are accurate, with no margin of error (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Acts 1:1-3). It is safe to say that, due to this extraordinary claim, the New Testament has been scrutinized more intensely than any other text in existence (with the possible exception of its companion volume, the Old Testament). What has been the end result of such scrutiny?

The overwhelming result of this close examination is an enormous cache of amazing archaeological evidence that testifies to the exactitude of the various historical references in the New Testament. As can be said of virtually every article on archaeology and the Bible, the following few pages that document this archaeological evidence only scratch the surface of the available evidence. Nevertheless, an examination of this particular subject makes for a fascinating study in biblical accuracy.

THE PILATE INSCRIPTION

Few who have read the New Testament accounts of the trial of Jesus can forget the name Pontius Pilate. All four gospel accounts make reference to Pilate. His inquisition of Jesus, at the insistence of the Jewish mob, stands as one of the most memorable scenes in the life of Jesus. No less than three times, this Roman official explained to the howling mob that he found no fault with Jesus (John 18:38; 19:4,6). Wanting to placate the Jews, however, Pilate washed his hands in a ceremonial attestation to his own innocence of the blood of Christ, and then delivered the Son of God to be scourged and crucified.

Discovered in 1961, “The Pilate Inscription” offers remarkable archaeological testimony that a man named Pontius Pilate once governed Judea. Credit: Zev Radovan, Jerusalem.

What can be gleaned from secular history concerning Pilate? For approximately two thousand years, the only references to Pilate were found in such writings as Josephus and Tacitus. The written record of his life placed him as the Roman ruler over Judea from A.D. 26-36. The records indicate that Pilate was a very rash, often violent man. The biblical record even mentioned that Pilate had killed certain Galileans while they were presenting sacrifices (Luke 13:1). Besides an occasional reference to Pilate in certain written records, however, there were no inscriptions or stone monuments that documented his life.

Such remained the case until 1961. In that year, Pilate moved from a figure who was known solely from ancient literature, to a figure who was attested to by archaeology. The Roman officials who controlled Judea during Jesus’ time, most likely made their headquarters in the ancient town of Caesarea, as evinced from two references by Josephus to Pilate’s military and political activity in that city (Finegan, 1992, p. 128). Located in Caesarea was a large Roman theater that a group of Italian-sponsored archaeologists began to excavate in 1959. Two years later, in 1961, researchers found a two-foot by three-foot slab of rock that had been used “in the construction of a landing between flights of steps in a tier of seats reserved for guests of honor” (see McRay, 1991, p. 204). The Latin inscription on the stone, however, proved that originally, it was not meant to be used as a building block in the theater. On the stone, the researchers found what was left of an inscription bearing the name of Pontius Pilate. The entire inscription is not legible, but concerning the name of Pilate, Finegan remarked: “The name Pontius Pilate is quite unmistakable, and is of much importance as the first epigraphical documentation concerning Pontius Pilate, who governed Judea A.D. 26-36 according to commonly accepted dates” (p. 139). What the complete inscription once said is not definitely known, but there is general agreement that originally the stone may have come from a temple or shrine dedicated to the Roman emperor Tiberius (Blaiklock, 1984, p. 57). A stronger piece of evidence for the New Testament’s accuracy would be difficult to find. Now known appropriately as “The Pilate Inscription,” this stone slab documents that Pilate was the Roman official governing Judea, and even uses his more complete name of Pontius Pilate, as found in Luke 3:1.

POLITARCHS IN THESSALONICA

When writing about the Christians in Thessalonica who were accused of turning “the world upside down,” Luke noted that some of the brethren had been brought before the “rulers of the city” (Acts 17:5-6). The phrase “rulers of the city” (NKJV, ASV; “city authorities”—NASV) is translated from the Greek word politarchas, and occurs only in Acts 17 verses 6 and 8. For many years, critics of the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration accused Luke of a historical inaccuracy because he used the titlepolitarchas to refer to the city officials of Thessalonica, rather than employing the more common terms, strateegoi (magistrates) or exousiais (authorities). To support their accusations, they pointed out that the term politarch is found nowhere else in Greek literature as an official title. Thus, they reasoned that Luke made a mistake. How could someone refer to such an office if it did not exist? Whoever heard or read of politarchas in the Greek language? No one in modern times. That is, no one in modern times had heard of it until it was found recorded in the various cities of Macedonia—the province in which Thessalonica was located.

In 1960, Carl Schuler published a list of 32 inscriptions bearing the term politarchas. Approximately 19 out of the 32 came from Thessalonica, and at least three of them dated back to the first century (see McRay, 1991, p. 295). On the Via Egnatia (a main thoroughfare through ancient Thessalonica), there once stood a Roman Arch called the Vardar Gate. In 1867, the arch was torn down and used to repair the city walls (p. 295). An inscription on this arch, which is now housed in the British Museum, ranks as one of the most important when dealing with the term politarchas. This particular inscription, dated somewhere between 30 B.C. and A.D. 143, begins with the phrase, “In the time of Politarchas...” (Finegan, 1959, p. 352). Thus, the arch most likely was standing when Luke wrote his historical narrative known as Acts of the Apostles. And the fact that politarchs ruled Thessalonica during the travels of Paul, now stands as indisputable.

SERGIUS PAULUS THE PROCONSUL OF CYPRUS

Throughout the apostle Paul’s missionary journeys, he and his fellow travelers came in contact with numerous prestigious people—including Roman rulers of the area in which the missionaries were preaching. If Luke had been fabricating these travels, he could have made vague references to Roman rulers without giving specific names and titles. But that is not what one finds in the book of Acts. On the contrary, it seems that Luke went out of his way to document specific cities, places, names, and titles. Because of this copious documentation, we have ample instances in which to check his reliability as a historian.

One such instance is found in Acts 13. In that chapter, Luke documented Paul’s journey into Seleucia, then Cyprus, and Salamis, then Paphos. In Paphos, Paul and his companions encountered two individuals—a Jew named Bar-Jesus, and his companion Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man who summoned Paul and Barnabas in order to hear the Word of God (Acts 13:4-7). This particular reference to Sergius Paulus provides the student of archaeology with a two-fold test of Luke’s accuracy. First, was the area of Cyprus and Paphos ruled by a proconsul during the time of Paul’s work there? Second, was there ever a Sergius Paulus?

For many years, skeptics of Luke’s accuracy claimed that the area around Cyprus would not have been ruled by a proconsul. Since Cyprus was an imperial province, it would have been put under a “propraetor” not a proconsul (Unger, 1962, pp. 185-186). While it is true that Cyprus at one time had been an imperial province, it is not true that it was such during Paul’s travels there. In fact, “in 22 B.C.Augustus transferred it to the Roman Senate, and it was therefore placed under the administration of proconsuls” (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 269). Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce expanded on this information when he explained that Cyprus was made an imperial province in 27 B.C., but that Augustus gave it to the Senate five years later in exchange for Dalmatia. Once given to the Senate, proconsuls would have ruled Cyprus, just as in the other senatorial provinces (Bruce, 1990, p. 295). As Thomas Eaves remarked:

As we turn to the writers of history for that period, Dia Cassius (Roman History) and Strabo (The Geography of Strabo), we learn that there were two periods of Cyprus’ history: first, it was an imperial province governed by a propraetor, and later in 22 B.C., it was made a senatorial province governed by a proconsul. Therefore, the historians support Luke in his statement that Cyprus was ruled by a proconsul, for it was between 40-50 A.D. when Paul made his first missionary journey. If we accept secular history as being true we must also accept Biblical history, for they are in agreement (1980, p. 234).

In addition to the known fact that Cyprus became a senatorial province, archaeologists have found copper coins from the region that refer to other proconsuls who were not much removed from the time of Paul. One such coin, called appropriately a “copper proconsular coin of Cyprus,” pictures the head of Claudius Caesar, and contains the title of “Arminius Proclus, Proconsul…of the Cyprians” (McClintock and Strong, 1968, 2:627).

Even more impressive than the fact that Luke had the specific title recorded accurately, is the fact that evidence has come to light that the record of Sergius Paulus is equally accurate. It is interesting, in this regard, that there are several inscriptions that possibly could match the proconsul recorded by Luke. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) records three ancient inscriptions that could be possible matches (see Hughes, 1986, 2:728). First, at Soli on the north coast of Cyprus, an inscription was uncovered that mentioned Paulus, who was a proconsul. The authors and editors of the ISBE contend that the earliest this inscription can be dated is A.D. 50, and that it therefore cannot fit the Paulus of Acts 13. Others, however, are convinced that this is the Paulus of Acts’ fame (Unger, 1962, pp. 185-186; see also McGarvey, n.d., 2:7). In addition to this find, another Latin inscription has been discovered that refers to a Lucius Sergius Paulus who was “one of the curators of the Banks of the Tiber during the reign of Claudius.” Eminent archaeologist Sir William Ramsay argued that this man later became the proconsul of Cyprus, and should be connected with Acts 13 (Hughes, 2:728). Finally, a fragmentary Greek inscription hailing from Kythraia in northern Cyprus has been discovered that refers to a Quintus Sergius Paulus as a proconsul during the reign of Claudius (Hughes, 2:728). Regardless of which of these inscriptions actually connects to Acts 13, the evidence provides a plausible match. At least two men named Paulus were proconsuls in Cyprus, and at least two men named Sergius Paulus were officials during Claudius’ reign. Luke’s accuracy is confirmed once again.

CONCERNING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION

Throughout centuries of history, crucifixion has been one of the most painful and shameful ways to die. Because of the ignominy attached to this means of death, many rulers crucified those who rebelled against them. Historically, multiplied thousands have been killed by this form of corporal punishment. In a brief summary of several of the most notable examples of mass crucifixion, John McRay commented that Alexander Jannaeus crucified 800 Jews in Jerusalem, the Romans crucified 6,000 slaves during the revolt led by Spartacus, and Josephus saw “many” Jews crucified in Tekoe at the end of the first revolt (1991, p. 389). Yet, in spite of all the literary documentation concerning crucifixion, little, if any, physical archaeological evidence had been produced from the Bible Lands concerning the practice. As with many of the people, places, and events recorded in the Bible, the lack of this physical evidence was not due to a fabrication by the biblical author, but was due, instead, to a lack of archaeological information.

In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first indisputable remains of a crucifixion victim. The victim’s skeleton had been placed in an ossuary that “was typical of those used by Jews in the Holy Land between the end of the second century B.C. and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” (McRay, 1991, p. 204). From an analysis of the skeletal remains of the victim, osteologists and other medical professionals from the Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem were able to determine that the victim was a male between the approximate ages of 24 and 28 who was about 5 feet 6 inches tall. Based on the inscription of the ossuary, his name seems to have been “Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol,” although the last word of the description is still disputed (p. 204). The most significant piece of the victim’s skeleton is his right heel bone. A large spike- like nail had been hammered through the right heel. Between the head of the nail and the heel bone, several fragments of olive wood were found lodged. Randall Price, in his book, The Stones Cry Out, suggested that the nail apparently hit a knot in the olive stake upon which this man was crucified, causing the nail and heel to be removed together, due to the difficulty of removing the nail by itself (1997, p. 309). [A full-color photograph of the feet portion of the skeleton (showing the nail) can be seen in an article, “Search for the Sacred” by Jerry Adler and Anne Underwood in the August 30, 2004 issue of Newsweek magazine (144[9]:38).]

This rare find of a spiked nail through a human heelbone is the first archaeological evidence that the heels of crucified victims were nailed to a wooden cross, as described in the Bible. Credit: Zev Radovan, Jerusalem.

As to the significance of this find, Price has provided an excellent summary. In years gone by, certain scholars believed that the story of Jesus’ crucifixion had several flaws, to say the least. First, it was believed that nails were not used to secure victims to the actual cross, but that ropes were used instead for this purpose. Finding a heel bone with a several-inch-long spike intact, along with the fragments of olive wood, is indicative of the fact that the feet of crucifixion victims were attached to the cross using nails. Second, it had been suggested that victims of crucifixion were not given a decent burial. Certain scholars even believed that the account of Jesus’ burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was contrived, since crucifixion victims like Jesus were thrown into common graves alongside other condemned prisoners. The burial of the crucified victim found by Tzaferis proves that, at least on certain occasions, crucifixion victims were given a proper Jewish burial (1997, pp. 308-311; cf. Adler and Underwood, 2004, 144[9]:39).

COUNTING QUIRINIUS

The precision with which Luke reported historical details has been documented over and over again throughout the centuries by archaeologists and biblical scholars. In every instance, wherever sufficient archaeological evidence has surfaced, Luke has been vindicated as an accurate and meticulously precise writer. Skeptics and critics have been unable to verify even one anachronism or discrepancy with which to try to discredit the biblical writers’ claims of being governed by an overriding divine influence.

However, observe the above-stated criterion that serves as the key to a fair and proper assessment of Luke’s accuracy: wherever sufficient archaeological evidence has surfaced. Skeptics often level charges against Luke and the other biblical writers on the basis of arguments from silence. They fail to distinguish between a genuine contradiction on the one hand, and insufficient evidence from which to draw a firm conclusion on the other. A charge of contradiction or inaccuracy within the Bible is illegitimate, and therefore unsustained, in those areas where evidence of historical corroboration is either absent or scant.

In light of these principles, consider the following words of Luke:

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria (Luke 2:1-2).

Some scholars have charged Luke with committing an error, on the basis of the fact that history records that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Governor of Syria beginning in A.D. 6—several yearsafter the birth of Christ. It is true that thus far no historical record has surfaced to verify either the governorship or the census of Quirinius as represented by Luke at the time of Jesus’ birth prior to the death of Herod in 4 B.C. As distinguished biblical archaeologist G. Ernest Wright of Harvard Divinity School conceded: “This chronological problem has not been solved” (1960, p. 158).

This void in extant information (which would permit definitive archaeological confirmation) notwithstanding, sufficient evidence does exist to postulate a plausible explanation for Luke’s allusions, thereby rendering the charge of discrepancy ineffectual. Being the meticulous historian that he was, Luke demonstrated his awareness of a separate provincial census during Quirinius’ governorship beginning in A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). In view of this familiarity, he surely would not have confused this census with one taken ten or more years earlier. Hence Luke observed that a priorcensus was, indeed, taken at the command of Caesar Augustus sometime prior to 4 B.C. He flagged this earlier census by using the expression prote egeneto (“first took place”)—which assumes a later one (cf. Nicoll, n. d., 1:471). To question the authenticity of this claim, simply because no explicit reference has yet been found, is unwarranted and prejudicial. No one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius around A.D. 6/7, despite the fact that the sole authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice. Sir William Ramsay, world-renowned and widely acclaimed authority on such matters, stated over one hundred years ago:

[W]hen we consider how purely accidental is the evidence for the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no argument against the trustworthiness of Luke’s statement (1897, p. 386).

In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to, and during, the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census/enrollment during that time frame, and that his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term legatus—the normal title for a Roman governor. Rather, he used the participial form of hegemon that was used for a propraetor (senatorial governor), procurator (like Pontius Pilate), or quaestor (imperial commissioner) [see McGarvey and Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]. After providing a thorough summary of the historical and archaeological data pertaining to this question, Finegan concluded: “Thus the situation presupposed in Luke 2:3 seems entirely plausible” (1959, 2:261). Indeed it does.

GALLIO, PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA

Acts chapter 18 opens with a description of Paul’s ministry in the city of Corinth. It was there that he came into contact with Aquila and his faithful wife Priscilla, both of whom had been expelled from Rome at the command of Claudius, and who, as a result, had come to live in Corinth. Because they were tentmakers, like Paul, the apostle stayed with them and worked as a “vocational minister,” making tents and preaching the Gospel. As was usually the case with Paul’s preaching, many of the Jews were offended, and opposed his work. Because of this opposition, Paul told the Jews that from then on he would go to the Gentiles. That said, Paul went to the house of a man named Justus who lived next door to the synagogue. Soon after his proclamation to go to the Gentiles, Paul had a vision in which the Lord instructed him to speak boldly, because no one in the city would attack him. Encouraged by the vision, Paul continued in Corinth for a year and six months, teaching the Word of God among the people.

After Paul’s eighteen-month-long stay in Corinth, the opposition to his preaching finally erupted into violent, political action. Acts 18:12-17 explains.

When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, “This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you. But if it is a question of words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of such matters.” And he drove them from the judgment seat. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. But Gallio took no notice of these things.

From this brief pericope of scripture, we learn several things about Gallio and his personality. Of paramount importance to our discussion is the fact that Luke recorded that Gallio was the “proconsul of Achaia.” Here again Luke, in recording specific information about the political rulers of his day, provided his readers with a checkable point of reference. Was Gallio ever really the proconsul of Achaia?

Marianne Bonz, the former managing editor of the Harvard Theological Review, shed some light on a now-famous inscription concerning Gallio. She recounted how, in 1905, a doctoral student in Paris was sifting through a collection of inscriptions that had been collected from the Greek city of Delphi. In these various inscriptions, he found four different fragments that, when put together, formed a large portion of a letter from the Emperor Claudius. The letter from the emperor was written to none other than Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (Bonz, 1998, p. 8).

McRay, in giving the Greek portions of this now-famous inscription, and supplying missing letters in the gaps of the text to make it legible, translated it as follows:

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, of tribunician authority for the twelfth time, imperator twenty-sixth time.… Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia (1991, pp. 226- 227).

And while certain portions of the above inscription are not entirely clear, the name of Gallio and his office in Achaia are clearly legible. Not only did Luke accurately record the name of Gallio, but he likewise recorded his political office with equal precision.

The importance of the Gallio inscription goes even deeper than verification of Luke’s accuracy. This particular find shows how archaeology can give us a better understanding of the biblical text, especially in areas of chronology. Most scholars familiar with the travels and epistles of the apostle Paul will readily admit that attaching specific dates to his activities remains an exceedingly difficult task. The Gallio inscription, however, has added a piece to this chronological puzzle. Jack Finegan, in his detailed work on biblical chronology, dated the inscription to the year A.D. 52, Gallio’s proconsulship in early A.D. 51, and Paul’s arrival in Corinth in the winter of A.D. 49/50. Finegan stated concerning his conclusion: “This determination of the time when Paul arrived in Corinth thus provides an important anchor point for the entire chronology of Paul” (1998, pp. 391- 393).

A WORD ABOUT OSSUARIES

The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land provides an excellent brief description of ossuaries in general. The writers explain that an ossuary is a box about 2.5 feet long, usually made out of clay or cut out of chalk or limestone, used primarily to bury human bones after the soft tissue and flesh have decomposed. Ossuaries, in fact,

are typical of the burial practices in Jerusalem and its vicinity during the Early Roman period, i.e., between c. 40 B.C. and A.D. 135. Ossuaries found in the Herodian cemetery in Jericho are dated by Hachlili to a more restricted time period of between A.D. 10-68 (“Ossuary,” 2001, p. 377).

Ossuary panels often had decorations on them, and many had inscriptions or painted markings and letters, indicating whose bones were inside.

Of interest is the fact that many of the ossuaries discovered to date contain the same names that we find in various biblical accounts. And, while we cannot be sure that the bones contained in the ossuaries are the bones of the exact personalities mentioned in the Bible, the matching nomenclature does show that the biblical writers at least employed names that coincided accurately with the names used in general during the time that the New Testament books were written.

Coming down the direct descent on the Mount of Olives is the site known as Dominus flevit, “the name embodying the tradition that this is the place where ‘the Lord wept’ over Jerusalem” (Finegan, 1992, p. 171). In 1953, excavations began in this area, and a large cemetery was discovered, consisting of at least five hundred known burial places. Among these many burial sites, over 120 ossuaries were discovered, more than 40 of which contained inscriptions and writing. Among the labeled ossuaries, the names of Martha and Miriam appear on a single ossuary. Other names that appear on the ossuaries are Joseph, Judas, Solome, Sapphira, Simeon, Yeshua (Jesus), Zechariah, Eleazar, Jairus, and John (Finegan, 1992, pp. 366-371). Free and Vos, in their brief critique of Rudolph Bultmann’s “form criticism,” used ossuary evidence to expose a few of the flaws in Bultmann’s ideas. They wrote:

[S]ome scholars formerly held that personal names used in the gospels, particularly in John, were fictitious and had been selected because of their meaning and not because they referred to historical persons. Such speculations are not supported by the ossuary inscriptions, which preserve many of the biblical names (1992, p. 256).

The ornate nature of this ancient Jewish ossuary with the name “Caiphas” inscribed on it leads many biblical archaeologists to connect this burial box to the Caiaphas of the Bible. Credit: Zev Radovan, Jerusalem.

Along these same lines, Price discussed several ossuaries that were found accidentally in 1990, when workers were building a water park in Jerusalem’s Peace Forest. Among the twelve limestone ossuaries discovered, one

was exquisitely ornate and decorated with incised rosette. Obviously it had belonged to a wealthy or high-ranking patron who could afford such a box. On this box was an inscription. It read in two places Qafa and Yehosef bar Qayafa (“Caiphas,” “Joseph, son of Caiphas”) [1997, p. 305].

Price connected this Caiphas to the one recorded in the Bible, using two lines of reasoning. First, the Caiaphas in the biblical record was an influential, prominent high priest who would have possessed the means to obtain such an ornate burial box. Second, while the New Testament text gives only the name Caiaphas, Josephus “gives his full name as ‘Joseph who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood’ ” (1987, p. 305). Of further interest is the fact that the ossuary contained the bones of six different people, one of whom was a man around the age of 60. Are these the bones of the Caiaphas recorded in the New Testament? No one can be sure. It is the case, however, that many ossuary finds, at the very least, verify that the New Testament writers used names that were extant during the period in which they wrote.

A note of caution is needed regarding attempts to prove a direct connection between ossuary finds and biblical characters. The most famous such attempt thus far comes from the “James” ossuary that captured the world’s attention in late 2002. The inscription on that particular bone box reads: “James, the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” Was this the ossuary that contained the bones of Jesus Christ’s physical brother? In 2002, the answer remained to be seen. In a brief article I authored on this matter in December 2002, I wrote: “At present, we cannot be dogmatic about the ossuarial evidence” (Butt, 2002). Currently, the inscription still finds itself embroiled in debate. After analyzing the inscription, a committee appointed by the Israeli Antiquities Authority declared it to be unauthentic. According to Eric Myers, a Judaic-studies scholar at Duke University, “the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that it’s a fake” (as quoted in Adler and Underwood, 2004, 144[9]:38). However, Hershel Shanks, the distinguished editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, insists that the inscription remains antiquated and may possibly be linked to the Jesus and James of the Bible (Shanks, 2004; cf. Adler and Underwood, p. 38).

Whether or not the inscription is actually authentic remains to be seen. Yet, even if the inscription does prove to date to approximately the first century, that still would not prove that the ossuary contained the bones of Jesus’ physical brother. It would prove that names like Joseph, James, and Jesus were used during that time in that region of the world, which would, at the very least, verify that the biblical writers related information that fit with the events occurring at the time they produced their writings. As Andrew Overman, head of classics at Macalester College, stated: “Even if the [James] Ossuary is genuine, it provides no new information” (as quoted in Adler and Underwood, p. 39). When looking to archaeology, we must remember not to ask it to prove too much. The discipline does have limitations. Yet, in spite of those limitations, it remains a valuable tool that can be used to shed light on the biblical text. As Adler and Underwood remarked, the value of archaeology is “in providing a historical and intellectual context, and the occasional flash of illumination on crucial details” (p. 39).

GENTILES AND THE TEMPLE

Near the end of the book of Acts, the apostle Paul was making every effort to arrive in the city of Jerusalem in time to celebrate an upcoming Jewish feast. Upon reaching Jerusalem, he met with James and several of the Jewish leaders, and reported “those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (Acts 21:19). Upon hearing Paul’s report, the Jewish leaders of the church advised Paul to take certain men into the temple in order to purify himself along with the men. While in the temple, certain Jews from Asia saw Paul, and stirred up the crowd against him, saying,

Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place (Acts 21:28).

In the next verse, the text relates the fact that the men had seen Trophimus the Ephesian with Paul in the city, and they “supposed” that Paul had brought him into the temple (although the record does not indicate that anyone actually saw this happen).

In response to the accusation that Paul had defiled the temple by bringing in a Gentile, the text states that “all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut” (Acts 21:30). The next verse of Acts states explicitly what this violent mob planned to do with Paul: “Now as they were seeking to kill him, news came to the commander of the garrison that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.” Under what law or pretense was the Jewish mob working when it intended to kill Paul?

The stone inscription forbidding Gentiles from entering the sanctified area of the temple in Jerusalem. Credit: Zev Radovan, Jerusalem.

A plausible answer to this query comes to us from archaeology. In his description of the temple in Jerusalem, Josephus explained that a certain inscription separated the part of the temple that Gentiles could enter, from the portions of the temple that theycould not enter. This inscription, says Josephus, “forbade any foreigner to go in, under pain of death” (Antiquities, 15:11:5). A find published in 1871 by C.S. Clermont- Ganneau brings the picture into clearer focus. About 50 meters from the actual temple site, a fragment of stone with seven lines of Greek capitals was discovered (see Thompson, 1962, p. 314). Finegan gives the entire Greek text, and translates the inscription as follows:

No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and enclosure around the temple area. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which will follow (1992, p. 197).

In addition to this single inscription, another stone fragment was found and described in 1938. Discovered near the north gate of Jerusalem (also known as St. Stephen’s Gate), this additional stone fragment was er than the first, and had six lines instead of seven. The partially preserved words clearly coincided with those on the previous inscription. Finegan noted concerning the preserved words: “From them it would appear that the wording of the entire inscription was identical (except for aut instead ofeautoo)….” As an interesting side note, Finegan mentioned that the letters of this second inscription had been painted red, and that the letters still retained much of their original coloration (1992, p. 197).

In light of these finds, and the comments by Josephus, one can see why the mob in Acts 21 so boldly sought to kill Paul. These inscriptions shed light on the biblical text, and in doing so, offer further confirmation of its accuracy.

CORBAN

On several occasions, Jesus was accosted by the Pharisees and other religious leaders, because He and His disciples were not doing exactly what the Pharisees thought they should be doing. Many times, the religious leaders had instituted laws or traditions that were not in God’s Word, but nonetheless were treated with equal or greater reverence than the laws given by God. In Mark 7:1-16, the Bible records that the Pharisees and other leaders were finding fault with the disciples of Jesus because Jesus’ followers did not wash their hands in the traditional manner before they ate. The Pharisees said to Jesus: “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” (Mark 7:5).

Upon hearing this accusatory interrogation, Jesus launched into a powerful condemnation of the accusers. Jesus explained that His inquisitors often kept their beloved traditions, while ignoring the commandments of God. Jesus said: “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition” (Mark 7:9). As a case in point of their rejection of God’s Law, Christ went on to say:

For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.” But you say, “If a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift to God),” then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do (Mark 7:11-13, emp. added).

In this passage, Jesus repudiated the Pharisees’ ungodly insistence upon their own traditions, and at the same time included a reference that can be (and has been) authenticated by archaeological discovery. Jesus mentioned the word corban, a word that the writer of the gospel account felt needed a little explanation. Mark defined the word as “a gift to God.” In a discussion of this term in an article by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer, the word comes into sharper focus. They documented a fragment of a stone vessel found near the southern wall of the temple. On the fragment, the Hebrew word krbn(korban—the same word used by Jesus in Mark 7) is inscribed (1992, p. 41). Of further interest is the fact that the inscription also included “two crudely drawn birds, identified as pigeons or doves.” The authors mentioned that the vessel might have been “used in connection with a sacrifice to celebrate the birth of a child” (Ritmeyer, 1992, p. 41). In Luke 2:24, we read about Joseph and Mary offering two pigeons when they took baby Jesus to present Him to God. Since these animals were the prescribed sacrifice for certain temple sacrifices, those who sold them set up shop in the temple. Due to the immoral practices of many such merchants, they fell under Jesus’ attack when He cleansed the temple and “overturned the tables of the moneychangers and seats of those who sold doves” (Mark 11:15).

CONCLUSION

Over and over, biblical references that can be checked, prove to be historically accurate in every detail. After hundreds of years of critical scrutiny, both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible have proven their authenticity and accuracy at every turn. Sir William Ramsay, in his assessment of Luke’s writings in the New Testament, wrote:

You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice (1915, p. 89).

Today, almost a hundred years after that statement originally was written, the exact same thing can be said with even more certainty of the writings of Luke—and every other Bible writer. Almost 3,000 years ago, the sweet singer of Israel, in his description of God’s Word, put it perfectly when he said: “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160).

REFERENCES

Adler, Jerry and Anne Underwood (2004), “Search for the Sacred,” Newsweek, 144[9]:37-41, August 30.

Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Blaiklock, E.M. (1984), The Archaeology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), revised edition.

Bonz, Marianne (1998), “Recovering the Material World of the Early Christians,” [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/arch/re covering.html.

Bruce, F.F. (1990), The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), third revised edition.

Butt, Kyle (2002), “James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/495.

Eaves, Thomas F. (1980), “The Inspired Word,” Great Doctrines of the Bible, ed. M.H. Tucker (Knoxville, TN: East Tennessee School of Preaching).

Finegan, Jack (1959), Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), second edition.

Finegan, Jack (1992), The Archeology of the New Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), revised edition.

Finegan, Jack (1998), Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Hughes, J.J. (1986), “Paulus, Sergius,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), Antiquities of the Jews, in The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, transl. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint), “Cyprus,” Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

McGarvey, J.W. (no date), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

McGarvey, J.W. and Philip Y. Pendleton (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Foundation).

McRay, John (1991), Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

“Ossuary” (2001), Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, ed. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson (New York: Continuum).

Price, Randall (1997), The Stones Cry Out (Eugene, OR: Harvest House).

Ramsay, William M. (1897), St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962 reprint).

Ramsay, William M. (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the NewTestament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).

Ritmeyer, Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer (1992), “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,”Archaeology and the Bible: Archaeology in the World of Herod, Jesus and Paul, ed. Hershel Shanks and Dan P. Cole (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Review).

Shanks, Hershel (2004), “The Seventh Sample,” [On-line], URL: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingseventh.html.

Thompson, J.A. (1962), The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Thompson, J.A. (1987), The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), third edition.

Unger, Merrill (1962), Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Wright, G. Ernest (1960), Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Controversial Orthodox Jews Call for Renewal of Sacrifices by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=503

Controversial Orthodox Jews Call for Renewal of Sacrifices

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Judaism, as a modern religion, exists in four general forms: Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, and Messianic (Ridenour, 2001, p. 67). An Orthodox Jew is one who claims the Mosaic code of the Old Testament, along with certain non-biblical Jewish documents, as his religious authority. At February’s end, CNN reported that certain “extremist rabbis” (Orthodox Jewish leaders) in Jerusalem wanted to “resume the biblical practice of animal sacrifice” despite the absence of the Levitical priesthood (“Extremist...,” 2007). Since the Romans destroyed Herod’s temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the ritual of animal sacrifice has ceased there (see Ridenour, p. 67). Now, a new group that calls itself the “Re-established Sanhedrin” is trying to reinstitute the practice at the Temple Mount (“Extremist...”).

Some Jews are against restoring animal sacrifices. Doniel Hartman, of the Shalom Institute in Jerusalem, said of the A.D. 70 destruction: “Around that time, animal sacrifice, as a mode of religious worship, stopped.... Moving back in that direction is not progress” (quoted in “Extremist...”). Muslims also are protesting the move to renew animal sacrifices. Jerusalem’s senior Islamic cleric, Mohommed Hussein, said: “Regrettably, there are many extremist Israeli groups who want to carry out their plans.... Let them say what they want, Al Aqsa [formerly the site of Herod’s temple—CC] is a Muslim mosque” (quoted in “Extremist...”). Jewish leaders have conceded that the sacrifices will not be renewed anytime soon.

The Sanhedrin was “[t]he Jewish court in Jerusalem from the Persian through the Roman period; it had both religious and political powers and comprised the elite (both priestly and lay) of society” (Moulder, 1988, p. 331, parenthetical in orig.). Though the Sanhedrin was a manmade institution, absent any divine mandate, these modern Jews are reviving it to add perceived authority and significance to their movement.

Of course, the Bible plainly teaches that the Old Covenant between God and Israel was removed and replaced when Christ provided the single, perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Consider these biblical passages:

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...” (Hebrews 8:7-9; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34).

But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7:6).

[H]aving wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:2-11).

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace... (Ephesians 2:14-15; cf. Galatians 4:21-31).

The prophets foretold the coming of a new covenant, and the Lord established it in the New Testament age; the theme of the entire Bible centers around God’s plan to redeem mankind through His Son and the church that Christ would establish. So, persisting in the Jewish faith in the Christian age is out of harmony with both Old and New Testaments.

However, consistency demands that modern Jews keep Old Testament sacrificial policy. As it stands now, the only religious rite on which all Jews seem to agree is the observation of the Sabbath (Korobkin, 2004; Ridenour, 2001, p. 68). While the Bible makes it plain that Christians must not observe the Sabbath as a holy day (Colossians 2:16; see Wright, 1977), it seems unthinkable that any religionists would adhere to one portion of Mosaic legislation and dismiss hundreds of other regulations as being non-binding for those alive today. The Seventh-Day Adventists are eager to develop this dichotomy, but the Bible makes no such distinction (“Fundamental Beliefs,” 2007; seeLyons, 2001).

Non-orthodox Jews have attempted to justify their piecemeal application of the Old Covenant by arguing that that God “has no delight in sacrifices, and that the sacrifice He has chosen is a contrite spirit” (e.g., Morris, 1984, 7[1]:170; see Psalms 34:18; 51:17; etc.). While the Bible certainly teaches that the follower of God must be contrite, he also must keep God’s commandments. To teach otherwise is to ignore multiple Old Testament passages that reflect how God insisted that Israel keep every statute of the Covenant.

But if you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments, and if you despise my statutes, or if your soul abhors My judgments, so that you do not perform all My commandments, but break my covenant, I also will do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart.... I will set My face against you, and you shall be defeated by your enemies.... And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins (Leviticus 26:14-18, emp. added; cf. 19:37; Deuteronomy 5:29; etc.).

And you shall have a tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined, and that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your God (Numbers 15:39-40, emp. added).

We could list many similar passages from the Mosaic law. We may never understand fully why some Jews are trying to revive sacrificial practices, or for that matter, any portion of the Old Testament. Perhaps is it largely because of what Ahlstrom noted: “In addition to these domestic confrontations, secularization, increased social mobility, and the decline of anti-Semitism tended to erode the Jewish sense of particularity” (1973, p. 984). It could be that modern Jews feel a need to authenticate, bolster, and/or justify their religion by restoring ancient practices, starting with animal sacrifices and ultimately, logically culminating in a rebuilt temple (see “Extremist...”).

Because modern Jewish faith is based squarely on a rejection of the best-attested historical fact in antiquity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, one might expect the Jewish religion to exhibit striking confusion and contradiction (see Butt and Lyons, 2006, pp. 135-168). Those of us at Apologetics Press will continue to stress that the evidence proves that “we have found the Messiah,” the only Son of God, Jesus Christ (John 1:41; see Butt, 2002). Man gains access to the Father only through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6-7).

REFERENCES

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. (1973), A Religious History of the American People (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Butt, Kyle (2002), “What Did You Expect?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1780.

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Extremist Rabbis Call for Return of Animal Sacrifice” (2007), The Associated Press, [On-line], URL:http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/28/israel.animal.ap/index.html.

“Fundamental Beliefs” (2007), Seventh-Day Adventist Church, [On-line], URL: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html.

Korobkin, Daniel N. (2004), “Lost in Translation: Parshat Beher-Bechukotai (Leviticus 25:1-27:34),” [On-line], URL: http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=12238.

Lyons, Eric (2001), “Which Law Was Abolished?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1659.

Morris, Joseph (1894), “Note by the Author of ‘The Ideal in Judaism’,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, 7[1]:169-172, October.

Moulder, W. J. (1988), “Sanhedrin,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Ridenour, Fritz (2001), So What’s the Difference? (Ventura, CA: Regal).

Wright, Gerald N. (1977), Sabbatarian: Concordance and Commentary (Fort Worth, TX: Star Bible Publications).

From Mark Copeland... "THE BOOK OF ISAIAH" The Source Of True Deliverance (28-35)

                          "THE BOOK OF ISAIAH"

                 The Source Of True Deliverance (28-35)

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS SECTION

1) To review the messages Isaiah delivered when Israel and Judah were
   being threatened by Assyria

2) To note the condemnation for seeking help from Egypt when the people
   should have looked to the Lord for deliverance

SUMMARY

The messages in this section (chs. 28-35) seem to relate mostly to the
approaching calamities involving the Assyrian invasion.  During the
reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, Shalmaneser king of Assyria
came against Israel to the north and took them away captive (cf. 2 Kin
17:1-18:12).  In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of
Assyria sought to do the same thing with Judah (cf. 2Ki 18:13-17).
What was Judah to do?  Surrender to the Assyrians?  Put their trust in
an alliance with Egypt to the south?  Isaiah's message was simple:  The
source of true deliverance was in the Lord!

Chapters 28-29 reveals the Lord's design for Ephraim (Israel) and Ariel
(Jerusalem). Ephraim's crown of pride would fade, while the Lord would
be a crown of glory for the remnant.  Led to error by intoxicating
drink, Israel's leaders had not been able to benefit from God's
instructions.  As for Ariel, her leaders (like Ahaz) had trusted in a
false confidence for deliverance.  God would instead lay in Zion a sure
foundation based on justice and righteousness (a shadow of Christ, cf. 1
Pe 2:4-8).  Removing their false and inadequate confidences, God would
have Ariel besieged but then her enemy mysteriously defeated.  The house
of Jacob would again fear the God of Israel, and those who erred and
complained would come to understand and learn the ways of God.

In chapters 30-31 we find the desire to create alliances with Egypt
denounced.  Confidence in Egypt was futile and those who trusted in her
would be judged.  On the other hand, God would be gracious and merciful
to those who trusted in Him.  As God would judge the nations, including
Assyria, it was folly to trust in Egypt with her chariots and horsemen.
God would deliver Jerusalem Himself, having Assyria fall by a sword not
of man, fleeing with fear (cf. 37:36-39).

Chapter 32 describes the coming of a new regime in which a king will
reign in righteousness and his princes in justice.  It will be preceded
by difficult times, but the work of righteousness will produce peace,
quietness and assurance.  Some think there may have been an initial
reference to Hezekiah, but virtually all believe its ultimate reference
is to the coming of the Messiah.

Chapter 33 depicts how the plunderer (Assyria) will be defeated while
the plundered (Judah) looks to the Lord for deliverance and salvation.
The Lord will indeed intervene with His might, and Zion (Jerusalem) will
be made a quiet and secure home.  Assyria's plunder will be divided,
while God's people will be healed and forgiven.

Chapters 34-35 contain a fitting conclusion to the prophecies delivered
by Isaiah during the Assyrian period.  It is a beautiful poem consisting
of two parts, both of which proclaim the sovereignty of God.  God's
sovereignty would be manifested in His judgment on the nations of the
world, with a focus on His judgment on Edom in particular.  His
sovereignty would then be manifested in His salvation for Zion, in which
the land will be transformed and the redeemed traveling to Zion with
singing and everlasting joy.  While some might see an initial
fulfillment with the deliverance from Assyrian or Babylonian oppression,
its ultimate fulfillment is likely Messianic:  "The prophecy before us I
regard as a kind of summing up, or recapitulation of all that he had
delivered; and the general idea is, that the people of God would be
delivered from all their foes, and that happier times under the Messiah
would succeed all their calamities. This he had expressed often in the
particular prophecies; he here expresses it in a summary and condensed
manner." (Barnes)

OUTLINE

I. TRUE DELIVERANCE FOUND NOT IN EGYPT (28:1-31:9)

   A. THE LORD'S DESIGN FOR EPHRAIM AND ARIEL...
      1. Regarding Ephraim (Israel) - 28:1-13
         a. Her crown of pride will fade - 28:1-4
         b. The Lord will be a crown of glory for the remnant - 28:5-6
         c. Intoxicating drink has led them to error - 28:7-8
         d. They are unable to benefit from God's instructions - 28:9-13
      2. Regarding Ariel (Jerusalem) - 28:14-29:27
         a. Her leaders have trusted in false confidences for
            deliverance - 28:14-15
         b. God will lay in Zion a sure foundation - 28:16; cf. 1Pe 2:
            4-8
         c. God will remove their false and inadequate confidences
            - 28:17-22
         d. Learn from the farmer; so God varies His judgments
            accordingly - 28:23-29
         e. Ariel will be besieged, but her enemy mysteriously defeated
            - 29:1-8; cf. 37:36
         f. Her blindness the result of disobedience and impiety
            - 29:9-13
         g. Judgment to come on those who try to hide their counsel from
            the Lord - 29:14-16
      3. The future restoration of the house of Jacob - 29:17-24
         a. Lebanon shall be a fruitful field, esteemed as a forest
            - 29:17
         b. The deaf shall hear, the blind shall see - 29:18
         c. The humble and poor shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel
            - 29:19
         d. The wicked and scornful are brought to nothing, sinners are
            cut off - 29:20-21
         e. Jacob will not be ashamed, but fear the God of Israel
            - 29:22-23
         f. Those who erred and complained will come to understand and
            learn - 29:24

   B. ALLIANCE WITH EGYPT DENOUNCED...
      1. Woe to those seeking aid from Egypt - 30:1-17
         a. Trusting in Egypt is to be deceived, for her help is in vain
            - 30:1-7
         b. God will break those who reject Him for their rebellious
            attitudes - 30:8-14
         c. Their trust in God should be their strength; but no, they
            would not - 30:15-17
      2. God would yet be gracious and merciful to those who trust Him
         - 30:15-33
         a. People will dwell at Jerusalem after adversity and
            reformation - 30:15-22
         b. God would bless the land as He heals the bruise of His
            people - 30:23-26
      3. God will judge the nations, especially Assyria - 30:27-33
         a. With indignation toward the nations, while His people
            worship Him - 30:27-30
         b. Assyria will be beaten down, followed by rejoicing
            - 30:31-33

   C. FOLLY OF TRUSTING EGYPT AND NOT GOD...
      1. Woe to those who trust in Egypt - 31:1-3
         a. Trusting in her horses and chariots rather than in God
            - 31:1
         b. God will bring disaster on Egypt and those helped by her
            - 31:2-3
      2. The Lord will defend Jerusalem from the Assyrians - 31:4-9
         a. As a lion He will fight for Mount Zion - 31:4-5
         b. Return to Him against Whom they revolted with their idolatry
            - 31:6-7
         c. Assyria will fall by a sword not of man, fleeing with fear
            - 31:8-9; cf. 37:36-38

II. TRUE DELIVERANCE FOUND IN THE LORD (32:1-35:10)

   A. THE NEW REGIME TO COME...
      1. With a righteous King and spiritual illumination - 32:1-8
         a. The King and His princes will rule with righteousness and
            justice - 32:1
         b. A man (Messiah? Hezekiah?) will offer protection and
            provision - 32:2
         c. Spiritual blindness and deafness removed, knowledge
            understood - 32:3-4
         d. Moral distinctions made clearer - 32:5-8
      2. Preceded by painful judgment - 32:9-14
         a. Upon women at ease and complacent - 32:9-11
         b. People will mourn the devastation of the land - 32:12-14
      3. Inaugurated by the outpouring of God's Spirit - 32:15-20
         a. Producing a fruitful field and forest from the wilderness
            - 32:15
         b. In which justice and righteousness will produce peace
            - 32:16-17
         c. Peace and security, even in hard times - 32:18-20

   B. ASSYRIA'S DEFEAT AND JERUSALEM'S VICTORY...
      1. The plunderer (Assyria) will be defeated - 33:1-16
         a. The plunderer will himself be plundered - 33:1
         b. The plundered looks to the Lord for deliverance and
            salvation - 33:2-6
         c. The pitiful condition of the land before deliverance
            - 33:7-9
         d. The Lord to intervene with His might - 33:10-13
         e. The sinners in Zion will be fearful, the righteous secure
            - 33:14-16
      2. Jerusalem to be a quiet home, made secure by the Lord
         - 33:17-24
         a. They shall see the King (Messiah? Hezekiah?) in His beauty
            - 33:17
         b. The people will later wonder:  why all the worry? - 33:18-19
         c. Zion (Jerusalem) will be peaceful, secured by the Lord
            - 33:20-22
         d. Assyria's plunder will be divided; God's people healed and
            forgiven - 33:23-24

   C. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD...
      1. Manifested in His judgment on the nations - 34:1-17
         a. Judgment on the nations as a whole - 34:1-4
         b. Judgment on Edom in particular - 34:5-17
            1) A great slaughter in the land - 34:5-7
            2) The day of the Lord's vengeance, with total devastation
               - 34:8-15
            3) It's judgment inevitable - 34:16-17
      2. Manifested in His salvation for Zion - 35:1-10
         a. The transformation of the land - 35:1-2
         b. The weak and fearful reassured - 35:3-4
         c. The blind, deaf, and lame healed; the dry land filled with
            pools and springs - 35:5-7
         d. The Highway of Holiness, upon which the redeemed will travel
            to Zion with singing and everlasting joy - 35:8-10

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THIS SECTION

1) What is suggested as the theme of Isaiah chapters 28-35?
   - The Source Of True Deliverance

2) What are the two main divisions of this section?
   - True Deliverance Found Not In Egypt (28-31)
   - True Deliverance Found In The Lord (32-35)

3) Upon what and whom does Isaiah pronounce woe in chapter 28? (28:1)
   - Upon the crown of pride and the drunkards of Ephraim

4) For whom will the Lord be "a crown of glory" and "a diadem of
   beauty"? (28:5)
   - The remnant of His people

5) What had caused the people, including their religious leaders, to
   err? (28:7)
   - Wine and intoxicating drink

6) To whom does Isaiah begin to address his comments in verse 14?
   - Those who rule in Jerusalem

7) With whom had they made a covenant?  What were they hoping to escape?
   (28:15)
   - Sheol (death)
   - The overflowing scourge that would pass through

8) What would the Lord lay in Zion?  Who would therefore not act
   hastily? (28:16)
   - A stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone
   - Whoever believes

9) To whom is this applied in the New Testament? (cf. 1Pe 2:4-6)
   - Jesus Christ

10) What would God do to those who made their covenant with Sheol?
    (28:18)
   - Annul their covenant with death; trample them with the overflowing
     scourge

11) Whom does Isaiah use to illustrate how God varies His ways of
    judgment? (28:23-29)
   - The farmer

12) What will happen to Ariel (Jerusalem)? (29:1-3)
   - God will lay a siege around it

13) Yet what would happen to those nations who fight against it? (29:
    7-8; cf. 37:36)
   - They will be mysteriously defeated

14) What caused the blindness of so many at that time? (29:9-13)
   - God brought it upon them because of their disobedience and impiety

15) What would come upon those who try to hide their counsel from the
    Lord? (29:14-16)
   - A marvelous work and a wonder as judgment from the Lord

16) Yet what did the future hold for the house of Jacob? (29:17-24)
   - Restoration, in which they will hallow the Holy One of Jacob and
     fear the God of Israel

17) Upon whom were the rebellious children of Israel placing their
    trust? (30:1-7)
   - Egypt, whose help would be in vain

18) What would God yet do for those who trusted Him? (30:15-26)
   - He would be gracious and merciful, and allow them to dwell at
     Jerusalem after adversity and reformation

19) As God sifted the nations with "the sieve of futility", what nation
    in particular would be beaten down? (30:27-33)
   - Assyria

20) Why was it foolish for the people to trust in Egypt and her
    chariots? (31:1-3)
   - Because God would bring disaster on Egypt and those helped by her

21) Who would defend Jerusalem from the Assyrians? (31:4)
   - The Lord, fighting for Mount Zion as a lion

22) How would Assyria fall? (31:8)
   - By a sword not of man, fleeing with fear (cf. 37:36-38)

23) What is foretold that would give hope? (32:1)
   - A reign involving a righteous King and princes ruling with justice

24) What would precede this hopeful future? (32:9-14)
   - A painful judgment involving devastation upon the land


25) What would inaugurate the time of justice and righteousness? (32:
    15-16)
   - The pouring out of God's Spirit

26) What would be the result of this justice and righteousness? (32:
    17-19)
   - God's people would enjoy peace, quietness, and assurance, even in
     stormy times

27) What will happen to the one (Assyria) who has been plundering?
    (33:1)
   - He will be plundered

28) To Whom does the faithful look for deliverance and salvation? (33:
    2-5)
   - The Lord

29) What will provide stability and the strength of salvation? (33:6)
   - Wisdom and knowledge

30) When the Lord brings His judgment on Zion, who will be afraid, and
    who will be secure? (33:10-16)
   - The sinners will be fearful, the righteous secure

31) What will Jerusalem become? (33:20-22)
   - A quiet home, made secure by the Lord

32) What will happen to the prey of the plunderer?  To those in the
    city? (33:23-24)
   - The lame will take the prey, those in the city will be forgiven

33) How is the sovereignty of God depicted in chapter 34? (34:1-4)
   - By His judgment on the nations

34) What nation in particular is marked for judgment? (34:5-17)
   - Edom

35) How is the sovereignty of God depicted in chapter 35? (35:1-10)
   - By His salvation for Zion

36) How shall the ransomed of the Lord return to Zion? (35:10)
   - Singing with everlasting joy and gladness

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015