LAI-LEENG

INTRODUCTION

The chosen text (Mt. 5:43-48) is the last antithetical saying of Jesus in which He is thought to have re-interpreted the Old Testament Law. Many scholars believed that the Law had been abolished by such re-interpretation (“You have heard that it was said…But I say to you”).[1] However, far from being abolished the paper presupposes that the Old Testament Law is rather fulfilled by way of giving its intended meaning. Likewise, some scholars believed that the fulfilment of the Law is realized in terms of its radicalization and transcendence.[2] In other words, the interpretation of the Law brought to realization that which the Law had always been anticipating.[3] And that realization is considered to be Matthean Community’s understanding of the Law in the paper which can be identified from the redactional materials of the evangelist (Matthew). Besides, it is also considered important to look at the redactional materials in the Gospel in order to identify the social context of Matthean Community in its historical setting. For this, a socio-historical reading of the text is deemed necessary. While redaction basically indicates those materials which the evangelist modified and extended to address the needs of his audience,[4] it is understood in the paper not only as added materials but also those materials which the evangelist created independently, called the ‘M’ materials.[5] Those materials may not form the ipsissima verba Jesu, but they are considered to be the ipsissima vox of Christ, which recall the words and deeds of Jesus.[6] Prior to that, a brief survey of the Matthean Community may firstly be made.

1. TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY: A BRIEF SKETCH

1.1 Identifying the Matthean Community: There are different ways to define the term “Jewish Christian” for Matthean Community. The first definition is concerned with the ethnicity in which Jewish Christians are considered to be Law – free Christians, while the second proposal seeks to define Jewish Christianity around a common set of ideological and doctrinal issues. Yet another definition called the praxis–oriented understands Jewish Christians as people who accept Jesus as the Messiah but still continued the practices associated with Judaism.[7] However, this paper takes the definition of both ethnicity and religion in which the Matthean Community is believed to be ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian.[8] In the words of Broadhead, the Jewish Christians both “follow Jesus and maintain Jewishness and that they do so as a continuation of God’s covenant with Israel.”[9] They were Christians who kept the whole law and interpreted it through the Jesus tradition.[10] Therefore, a Jewish Christian is a “Jewish believer in Jesus but on the other hand maintains a Jewish way of life.”[11] In such a community the Law is mostly superseded and spiritualized[12] but not replaced.

1.2. Why Matthean Community? It would be wise to briefly discuss under this topic the preference to use “Matthean Community” over (Matthean) Jesus because the chosen text (i.e., Mt. 5:43-48) appears to be directly taken from Jesus’ interpretation of the Law.  To understand this matter, it is essential to assume that Matthew exercises a strong compositional and creative control over the documents and traditions at his disposal, thereby edited them to “fit the needs of his community, to convey his understanding of the Jesus movement, and to promote his solutions to community problems.”[13] In other words, it was the evangelist who interpreted the Torah in the light of God’s will as revealed by Jesus. True that he took the pain to reveal “the truth of Jesus’ interpretation of the Law over against the accusations of his opponents.”[14] Likewise, Matthew 5:43-48 is also considered to be the view of Matthean Community on the Law than that of Jesus[15] even as they seem to reflect the practice of his community and its social situation (and not necessarily the practice of Jesus).

2. THE JEWISH UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW

To see that Matthean Community’s understanding of the Law is different from that of the Jews, it is necessary to briefly discuss the Jewish understanding of the Law as it appears in Matthew 5:43. The Jewish Law teaches that one must hate his/her enemies and love his/her neighbours (cf. Mt. 5:43). Perhaps the command to love neighbours is cited by Matthew from Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord” (cf. Prov. 24:17). It was a term used to legitimate hatred of enemies. In other words, “neighbour” was a term used in a sense of excluding enemies.[16] The command to love one’s neighbour is also seen in Qumran Literature where all who join the group were “to love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in God’s counsel” (1QS 1.10). Here, “neighbours” are identified with “the sons of light” (cf. 1QS 1.10).[17] The practice was also common in the Greek philosophy. Accordingly Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1.38-40, 1421b reads that “what is just (dikaioj) is the unwritten custom of the whole or the greatest part of mankind …to honour one’s parents, do good to one’s friends, and repay favours to one’s benefactors”  (cf. Hesiod, Works 352; Xenophon, Mem. 4.4.24).[18]

 On the other hand, there also appeared in Qumran Literature a command to hate for members outside of the Community known as “the sons of darkness” (1QS 1.10; cf. 1QS 9:21).[19] Interestingly, only the Qumran Literature has a command for hatred of enemies and such command does not appear in the Hebrew Scripture. Therefore, it is unlikely that the command in Matthew 5:43c is a scriptural quotation; instead, the evangelist added the statement for the sake of contrasting the preceding citation (Mt. 5:43b), asserts Schnackenburg.[20] However, Talbert’s argument seems rather noteworthy when he understands “hatred of enemies” in terms of the interpretation of the OT command “love your neighbour” (19:18). He further argues that the phrase also appears in passages like Deut. 7:2, 30: 7; 2 Chron. 19:2; Pss. 26:5; and 139: 21-2.”[21] Therefore, the command seems to be a conflation of different passages from the Old Testament or an echo of general sentiment (Jewish and pagan) near the time of Matthew.[22]

In sum, it may be stated that “neighbours” in the Hebrew Scripture refers to the Jews[23] while “enemies” refers to non-Israelites such as the Gentiles or the pagans (Jer. 7:5-6; Zech. 7:9-10).[24] Sometimes, “enemies” may also include both national foes or foreigners (cf. Deut. 20) and personal foes.[25] 

3. MATTHEAN COMMUNITY’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW: A PARADIGM FOR LIVING OUT AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN FAITH

3.1. Loving One’s Enemies (v. 44a): The first model to living out authentic Christian life is to love one’s enemies. It has been mentioned that enemies were not limited to personal enemies alone but also include corporal enemies (of God’s people).[26] It is therefore likely that “enemies” in Matthew refers to the political foreign enemies such as Romans as well as their collaborators Jewish religious leaders.[27] However, the social context of the Gospel suggests that the direct rivals of the Matthean Community were the Jewish religious leaders (or the Formative Judaism). It appears that the Matthean Community, a distinct and new subgroup of the larger Jewish community, have competed with them for the hearts of Jewish community.[28] This was a possibility because Matthew and his community claimed “the same tradition, the same authority, even, at points, the same roles as formative Judaism”[29] which likely to result in the hostility and antagonism of direct confrontation.

Similarly, scholars have long realized the evidences of tension between the Matthean Community and the Jewish religious leaders from the redactional materials in Matthew.[30] For instance, Matthew uses “synagogue” only 3 times (6:2, 5; 23:6) with a harsh tone against the scribes and the Pharisees. Besides, there existed negative and hostile references to Jews as indicated by phrases like “their synagogue” [4:23; 9:35; 10:17 = Mk. 13:9; 12:9; 13:54] and “your synagogue” [23:34 = Lk. 11: 49-51 (Q)],[31] mirroring the conflict between his own church and the synagogue (e.g., 13:11-5; 8:11-12; 11: 20-4; 21:43; 23:1-39).[32] Likewise, some of Matthean redactional changes target the religious leaders and portray them negatively. In two instances (21:43; 22:7) Matthew inserts verses to parables from Mark (12:11) and Q (Lk. 14:21) to emphasize judgment on religious leaders. Matthew also adds 7 references to “hypocritical” Pharisees [(Mt. 23:13 =Lk. 11:52 (Q), 15 (M), Mt. 23: 23 = Lk. 11: 41 (Q), Mt. 23: 25-27 = Lk. 11:39-41, 44 (Q), Mt. 23: 29 = Lk. 11: 47 (Q)] and replaces “scribes” in Mark with “Pharisees” at least for 4 times (Mt. 9:11, 34; 12: 24; 22:41).[33] Thus, Matthew redactionally singles them (Pharisees) out as the arch opponents of Jesus.[34] They emerged in many instances as “the debate partners” of Jesus (12:1-8, 9-14; 15:1-20; 19:3-9; 22:34-40, 41-46).[35] They charged Jesus with blasphemy and thought evil of Him (9:3-4), attacked Him for breaking the Law (12:2; cf. 15:1-2) and for eating with sinners (9:11), tested and tried Him (19:3; 22:15-6, 34-5), plotted to kill Him (12:14), and questioned His authority (12:38; 16:1).[36] Apart from this, it is also noteworthy that Matthew intensifies the negative portrayal of the “scribes” in his Gospel.  Except for one (Mt. 13:52), his references to the “scribes” are all negative (10 out of 11).[37] While Mark portrays “scribes” as not being far from the Kingdom of God (Mk. 12:28-34), Matthew account skips such appreciation by Jesus. Instead he identifies them as those who opposed Christ (Mk. 12:28 with Mt. 22:34).[38] 

In spite of such hostility, Matthean Community was instructed to love them. Such interpretation maintains a close association with the 5^th antithesis (Mt. 5: 38-42) which emphasizes “breaking the cycle of hatred and violence.”[39] Martin believes that Matthew here challenged the Jewish understanding of “neighbour” which limits to Jews alone.[40] Therefore, the command is an attempt to “redefine” in the broadest possible way the term “neighbour” (cf. Lk. 10:29-37).[41] The divine intent is not simply turning enemies into friends, but to love “actively and indiscriminately” irrespective of one’s backgrounds such as ethnics, genders, and social status.[42] In other words, it was a command to love “disinterestedly.”[43] Theissen believes that such was the Law of God. It was the way in which God demonstrates His love to all humanity.[44] Therefore, the best way to be like Him is to love un-reservedly, with no boundary of love.[45] And the reason for Matthew to command his community to love their enemies like that may be he realizes love (a;gaph) as the best instrument to reach out to one’s enemies.[46]

3.2. Blessing Those Who Curse and Doing Good to Those Who Hate (v. 44b; cf. Lk. 6:27-28): Although these phrases are dropped by the Alexandrian Text, the Byzantine Text (Byz) upholds the whole thing: “Bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you” (v. 44b). In regards to the variation of the two texts, Robert H. Gundry argued that Matthew intentionally omitted them because he has already used the idea in the first half of antithesis.[47] It is also possible, as James Snapp asserts, that the copyist(s) might have rather overlooked them instead of making a purposeful omission. He further argues that the latter reading (Byz) is considered to be more original[48] in which case it may be deemed safe to use the commands for living out authentic Christian faith in Christ. While the Old Testament has numerous examples of “blessing only those who bless” and “cursing those who curse” (cf. Gen. 12:3; 27:29), the basic intention of the command rather appears to be showing kindness to the antagonists (cf. Lk. 6:27) and to return blessing for cursing. It runned against the Law of retaliation (lex talionis) in the Old Testament which even permitted unlimited retaliation in the case of vengefulness blinded with rage (cf. Exo. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21).[49]

            As already suggested above, “those who hate” and “those who curse” in the Matthean context may also indicate leaders of the Jewish community who were “narrow, exclusive, intolerant and hence largely loveless and condemning.”[50] At times, they even considered hatred of enemies to the status of a spiritual virtue (cf. Mt. 5:43) while “cursing” is often identified with calling down divine judgment on others which may result in excommunication from temple and expulsion from the Synagogue (cf. Jn. 9:22, 34).[51] Likewise, it is observed in the Gospel that many of Christ’s followers were vilified and ostracized in an unofficial way (cf. Mt. 10:35-37).

In spite of this fact, members of the Matthean Community were to “do good” rather than seeking a revenge. “Good” (kaloj) here may be described as “what is inherently, not superficially good. It … [also] refers to doing things that will benefit one’s enemies.”[52] Therefore, the command is not “to feel” in a certain way, but “to act” in a certain way.[53] The command does not end there. It also includes “saying” good things (and not reviling) to enemies in response to the evil words spoken against them.[54] In this case, the command to Matthean Community was not limited to manifesting love to enemies by what it was done, but also by what it was said, i.e., by blessing them. Having understood “blessing” as an “act by which a blessing is pronounced upon the community or an individual in the name of God…,”[55] the combination of the two (i.e., “doing good” and “blessing”) will probably pave the way for Christians to live out their faith in Christ.

3.3. Praying for the Persecutors (v. 44c): The third and last way to living out the authentic Christian faith is to pray for the persecutors.In order to identify the persecutors of Matthean Community, a closer look at the social context of the Gospel is deemed necessary. The social context of the Gospel shows that the Matthean Community was a “fragile minority,”[56] even though some scholars tended to argue that the Community was a full-fledged Christian community.[57] While it is a possibility that the Formative Judaism was unformulated and a developing entity, it may also be argued that the Community was well-established and powerful enough to stand as a “parent body,” argued Sim.[58] As such, members of the Matthean Community were expected to have undergone certain persecutions at the hands of their fellow Jewish leaders. While some conjectured that the persecution was not severe,[59] phrases in the Mission Discourse (Chap. 10:17-8; 22) such as dragged, flogged, handed over (betrayed) and hated, reflected the intensity.[60] In the same way, certain phrases like killed, crucified, and scourged in the Eschatological Discourse (Chap. 23:34) mirrored their sufferings.[61] Therefore, the societal experience and perception of Matthean Community appeared to be harsh, even possible to be identified with rejection, alienation and hostility.[62]

However, the command has no reserve; rather it is direct and clear: “Pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (v. 44c). The phrase is believed to be taken from Q, with “persecute” (diwkw) as Matthean redaction (cf. “abuse” in Luke).[63] It also has parallels in Judaism (Ps. 35:11-4; 1QapGen. 20:28-9), and such sentiment is also continued in early Christianity (e.g., Lk. 23:34; Acts 7:60; Rom. 12:14).[64] However, the command is different from that of Judaism in the sense that it also required concrete deeds (love) for people especially enemies and not only about feelings (praying) for them.[65] Such action-oriented is the way to express one’s love for enemies (cf. Lk. 23:34; Acts 7:60) which also reflects the true mark of Christians, who through their reconciling role in the world, manifest resemblances to the Father (Mt. 5: 9).[66] Besides, the command also made it clear that it is godly to return good for evil.[67] Therefore, it is expected that, in the same manner as members of the Matthean Community were commanded to live out their true faith in Christ by praying for their persecutors, Christians today are also commanded to do the same.      

4. A CALL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PERFECTION/HOLINESS OF GOD

The outcome of living authentic Christian faith is to become the children of the heavenly Father (v. 45a). “To become sons” (ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ) appears to be Matthean redaction; while Luke 6:35 (closer to Q) is future, Matthew maintains the “realized eschatology” [show yourselves (now) to be sons]. The form is typical of Pentateuch in which Israelites were called children of God (cf. Deut. 14:1).[68] And the adaptation of the word “sons” (ui[oi) by Matthew implies the Father – children relationship in which children take the character of the Father.[69] Likewise, the phrase “be perfect” (v. 48) may be understood in terms of God’s relationship with human beings in general and with His covenant people in particular.[70] Originally, it refers to imitating God in all speeches and deeds.[71] The Greek equivalent of Hebrew ~ymiT’ (tāmȋm) in the Old Testament was often used to refer to “perfection in the sense of ethical uprightness (blameless).”[72] For Qumran covenanters, it was “full obedience to the norm revealed to the community, and failure to observe all the rules of the sect meant exclusion from fellowship.”[73]

Matthew uses the term “perfect” (teleioj) to indicate inclusiveness in one’s love[74] or “wholeness” in one’s relationship to God.[75] The term is believed to be taken from the Holiness Code in Old Testament where it reads: “You shall be holy; as I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2; cf. 20:26; 21:8).[76] It describes God’s divine transcendence, eternal love and grace.[77] The teaching is thus about the “unrestricted love” of God and of “ethical perfection.”[78] Such perfection may be found only in the Father’s selfless and immeasurable love who is the lone measure of human perfection (v. 45).[79] Understood this way, words on love for enemies, doing good and praying for them are not prophesied but arose from a desire to be like God. They correspond to the extreme love of God in His kingdom over against “sinners and the underclass.”[80] In the same manner, Christians are invited to participate in the perfection of God by way of manifesting mercy, love and grace to everyone, including their enemies.[81] It is also a privilege to live out one’s true faith in Christ by doing such.

CONCLUSION

The discussion attempts to demonstrate that Jesus’ interpretation of the Law in Matthew 5:43-48 fulfils the Old Testament Law by way of giving its intended meaning to it. The paper also discusses that in such interpretation of the Law, there concealed some basic models for Christians to live out their faith. They are classified as loving one’s enemies, blessing those who curse, doing good to those who hate, and also praying for those who persecute them (which in fact are considered to be going against the Jewish understanding of the Law). Such interpretation runs well with the 5^th antithesis (cf. Mt. 5: 38-42) in its care for those outside of the Matthean Community, who may be called enemies, haters, and persecutors. In the same way as the Matthean Community understands the Law by loving, praying and doing good to everyone, the command also expects every Christian today to manifest love towards their enemies, praying for them and also doing good to them. Such commands are also identified particularly in the redactional materials of Matthew which are believed to be his own creations. In this case, the changes made by the evangelist can also be construed as the stance of his community towards the Law whereby the Law is not abolished but fulfilled. However, one must also aware that the mission expected from Matthean Community is not a passive submission to enemies; instead, it is a suggestion to renounce violence despite the persecutions and suffering pressing problems. This may also represent the way for Christians to live out their faith.

---

[1] J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 135.

[2] David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT;Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 158; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 105-06.

[3] W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew 1-7 (ICC, New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 487.

[4] Bruce J. Malina, “Early Christian Groups: Using Small Group Formation Theory to Explain Christian Organizations,” in Modeling Early Christianity: Social – Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, edited by Philip F. Esler (London: Routledge, 1995), 100.

[5] ‘M’ indicates those materials which are unique to Matthew Gospel, but are not found in other 3 Gospels. Brooks, Matthew’s Community, 15.

[6] Richard S. Ascough, “Matthew and Community Formation,” in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, edited by David A. Aune (GR: Eerdmans, 2001), 101.

[7] James Carleton Paget, “Jewish Christianity,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period, edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy, vol. 3 (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 733-742.

[8] Martin Goodman, “Modeling the ‘Parting of the Ways,’” in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 128.

[9] Edwin K. Broadhead, Jewish Ways of Following Jesus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 56.

[10] Anthony J. Saldarini, “The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict,” in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by David L. Balch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 41.

[11] He prefers “Jewish Believers in Jesus” rather than Christian Judaism or Jewish Christian to designate “Jews by birth or conversion who in one way or another believed Jesus was their Savior.” Oskar Skarsaune, “Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity – Problems of Definition, Method, Sources,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 3-17.

[12] Broadhead, Jewish Ways, 52.

[13] Saldarini, Social History, 39.

[14] Alan F. Segal, “Mathew’s Jewish Voice,” in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by David L. Balch (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 4.

[15] Cf. Segal, Social History, 4.

[16] Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, translated by Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985), 344; Turner, Matthew, 176.

[17] Another passage 1QS 10.18 reads: “I will repay no man with evil’s due; [only] with good will I pursue a man; for with God is the judgment of every living thing.”

[18] Cf. C. H. Talbert, Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Ethical Decision Making in Matthew 5 – 7 (GR: Baker, 2004), 96.

[19] R. E. Brown, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,” CBQ 17 (1955): 561-3.

[20] R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 62.

[21] Talbert, Reading the SM, 93-4.

[22] Marius Reiser, “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity,” NTS 47/4 (2001): 411-427.

[23] Turner, Matthew, 176.

[24] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 134.

[25] Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (New York: Orbis Books, 2000), 154.

[26] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 551. However, Richard Horsley argues that Jesus could have addressed personal enmity in the setting of Galilean villages. Richard Horsley, “The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt,” Novum Testamentum 28/2 (1986): 159-192. But for Jesus’ contemporaries, the “enemy” perhaps refers to a corporate threat to Israel or the moral fabric of the community such as “outsiders” to Israel. G. Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 157.

[27] O. J. F. Seitz, “Love Your Enemies,” New Testament Studies 16 (1969): 44.

[28] Anthony J.  Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 44, 86.

[29] J. Adrew Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 153.

[30] Carter, Matthew, 31.

[31] Q is taken to refer to those materials common to both Matthew and Luke.

[32] Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, translated by J. Bradford Robinson (Cambridge: CUP, 1995), 65-6.

[33] Carter, Matthew, 32.

[34] Graham N. Stanton, “Matthew’s Christology and the Parting of the Ways,” in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 – 135, edited by James D. G. Dunn(GR: Eerdmans, 1999), 103.

[35] J. Andrew Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996),13.

[36] D. C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 119.

[37] Carter, Matthew, 32.

[38] G. Baumbach, “Grammateu,j,” EDNT, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 1 (GR: Eerdmans, 1990), 259.

[39] D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina Series 1 (Minneapolis: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 89.

[40] Brice L. Martin, “Matthew on Christ and the Law,” Theological Studies 40/1 (1983): 63.

[41] W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew 1-7, ICC (New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 550.

[42] Carter, Matthew, 155.

[43] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 556.

[44] Gerd Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament, translated by Margaret Kohl (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993),135-6. Likewise, Jewish sages “recognized that those who imitated God’s kindness were truly his children” (Sir. 4:10). But the most common practice was “to make sure that you did your enemies more harm than they did to you.” Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand: Eerdmans, 1999), 203-04.

[45] W. Carter, “Love Your Enemies,” Word and World 28/1 (2008): 13-21.

[46] Overman, Church and Community, 83-4.

[47] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Second edition; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 97.

[48] James Snapp also asserts that “the phrase in the middle of Matthew 5:44 that does not appear in the Alexandrian Text could accidentally be lost via parablepsis, when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from umwn to kai, skipping the words in between.  Similarly, near the end of the verse, scribal inattentiveness accounts for the loss of the Greek phrase that means ‘despitefully use you and.’” James Snapp, Jr., “Matthew 5:44 – Love Your Enemies,” https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/963118260441841/ (31/10/2015)

[49] Talbert, Reading the SM, 88.

[50] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Luke 6-10 (Chicago: Moody Publisher, 2011), CD-ROM.

[51] International Lesson Commentary: The Standard in Biblical Exposition (Colorado: Cock Communication Ministries, 2007), CD-ROM.

[52] MacArthur, The MacArthur NT, CD-ROM.

[53] Robert A. Stein, Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 24 (NAC; Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 1992), 206-07.

[54] MacArthur, The MacArthur NT, CD-ROM.

[55] W. J. Harrelson, “Blessings and Cursings,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, edited by George Arthur Buttrick(Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 446.

[56] Saldarini, Social History, 38.

[57] For instance, Tilborg claimed that Judaism was no longer a serious competitor [S. Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 171] and that the Gospel came into being in an essentially Christian milieu. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946), 123.

[58] Sim, The Gospel of, 113-5.

[59] Sim, The Gospel of, 157.

[60] Carter, Matthew, 33.

[61] George Arthur Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. VII (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), 539.

[62] Understood this way, a supposition that the persecution was sporadic may arise out of Orthodox Christianity’s inability, as a smaller community, to reveal its suffering amidst the consolidation of the dominant Jewish group. Carter, Matthew, 33.

[63] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 553.

[64] Talbert, Reading the SM, 95.

[65] Luz, Matthew 1-7, 341.

[66] Turner, Matthew, 176-77.

[67] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 554.

[68] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 554.

[69] Turner, Matthew, 176.

[70] David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’ SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: CUP, 2005),25.

[71] Talbert, Reading the SM, 96-7.

[72] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 135.  

[73] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 562.

[74] Talbert, Reading the SM, 96.

[75] Paul Johannes Du Plessis, Teleios: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1959), 96; cf. Carter, Matthew, 157.

[76] Harrington, The Gospel of, 90.

[77] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 135-6.

[78] Ethical perfection here simply means obedience to Jesus’ commands. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 135.

[79] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 563.

[80] Luz, Matthew 1-7, 342.

[81] Davies – Allison, Matthew 1-7, 555.

INTRODUCTION

The trial of Jesus Christ may be one of the most difficult passages in the entire Bible.[1] Even James Crichton sees the difficulty of the said subject when he asserts: “The Gospels were written from different viewpoints, and for different purposes, each of the writers selecting such particulars as seemed to him to be of special importance…the difficulty is increased by the great irregularities and the tumultuous character of the proceedings; by our imperfect knowledge of the topography of Jerus[alem] at this time (29 AD)…”[2] The intention of the paper, however, is not an attempt to solve such problems rather it intends to unearth the events leading to Jesus’ crucifixion from the perspective of the Jewish Law of the day. Therefore, it is important to look at the Jewish trial of Jesus through the lens of a socio-legal[3] reading in order to see if Jesus’ legal rights had been violated in the process of His trial. Legal rights here may simply be understood as a fair and just trial. To put it differently, any kind of illegal trial is considered to be a violation of one’s legal right. No doubt, voluminous articles seemed to have been published in relation to the trial of Jesus but most of the previous writings focused on the illegality of the trial.[4] But scanty attempt has been made in regards to the violation of His legal rights. Therefore, attempt will be made in the paper to show that Jesus not only underwent illegal trial but that His right was also violated through such illegal trial. However, as the title has clearly indicated, matters related to the Jewish trial will only be discussed.

1. THE QUESTION OF HISTORICITY

1.1. The Issue: The issue to be addressed here is whether or not Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin.[5] After having closely read the passion narratives of the Gospels, many scholars came to the conclusion that Jesus underwent only a single trial – the Roman trial – for they considered that the so called “the Jewish trial” did not occur historically.[6] Proponents of this view based their argument on the fact that Luke and John made no mention of the Jewish trial. Although Luke mentions a formal setting, “There are no witnesses, there is no charge that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple, the high priest does not question Jesus, there is no accusation of blasphemy, nor does the council formally condemn Jesus to death” (cf. Lk. 22:71);[7] thereby, lacking in description about a formal trial. Similarly, the Gospel of John maintains that “there is no accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple, nor is Jesus asked if He is the Messiah.”[8] For this reason, many scholars expressed doubts over the Jewish trial of Jesus in various ways. For instance, Moltmann called it a “moral consultation” in order to avoid the Jewish uprising against him (Caiaphas) because of Jesus’ execution,[9] while B. Corley considered the atmosphere as a “roughshod interrogation by a notable examiner to get incriminating evidence.”[10] For Matera it was more or less a “prelude” to the Roman trial rather than that of a formal legal process.[11] James D. G. Dunn still considered the hearing before the Council as being held for the purpose of getting an advice; therefore, is insufficient to pursue the legality of Jesus’ trial as it is only “a waste of time with so many anachronisms in play.”[12] While being sceptical about Jesus’ appearance before the Great Sanhedrin, Gerard S. Sloyan also interpreted the event as a literary composition by Mark enabling him to state a religious belief, not a historical happening.[13] Likewise, John R. Donahue bluntly argued that Mark created the entire narrative, including the blasphemy charge and condemnation.[14] Such arguments thus call for a closer look at the Gospel account of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin.  

1.2. The Gospel Account: The grave concern here is that even the evangelists do not come to the same conclusion. While John has no record of trial before the Sanhedrin,[15] a sort of morning trial before the Council appears in Luke’s account even though no verdict was passed against Jesus (Lk. 22:66-71). Again, Mark (cf. 14:53-15:15), further developed by Matthew (cf. 26:57-27:26) strongly points to a night hearing or trial before the Sanhedrin and also to Jewish involvement in Jesus’ death,[16] thus suggesting two formal trials – one before the Sanhedrin and another before Pilate. Matthew and Mark are also quite definite that Caiaphas, in the company of the chief priests and the whole council, held a night interrogation (Mt. 26: 59-68; Mk. 14:55-65) in which they “all” condemned Jesus to be worthy of death (Mk. 14:64; Mt. 26:66).[17]

In this case, Markan account (14: 55-65) may be taken as more reliable than Luke because Mark could have been “influenced by the Scripture proof and the Christian confession,” says Lohse.[18] J. B. Tyson even goes to the extent of suggesting that the sequence of events in Luke might have been an “abbreviation of the Markan narrative” than Lukan (L) source itself,[19] thus suggesting the reliability of Markan account over Luke.[20]  Such view is further strengthened when Matera attributed the differences between the two Gospels (Mark and Luke) to Lukan redaction, stating that “Luke is primarily dependent upon Mark and does not bring forth new, historical information.”[21] Even if the material does belong to Luke (L), it may be taken that Luke intended to present the night hearing as a “pre-trial hearing” which was meant particularly to please the Roman officials who always desire to keep jurisdiction in their hands so that Jesus may be tried “either by an official appointed directly by the Emperor or by this official’s representative, the prefect” and not by the local officers of the subject states.[22] Therefore, it can be concluded with Ben Witherington that Jesus was tried at night before the Sanhedrin on the eve of Passover for such is not impossible in the pre-AD 70.[23]

            But Luke, having described only a mockery and beating at night (Lk. 22:63-65), also mentions Jesus’ hearing before the Council in the morning (Lk. 22:66-71).  Does that mean there were two sessions of the Sanhedrin, one at night and the other in the morning? Even though R. P. Martin seems to support the existence of  a second meeting,[24] the single session is widely accepted because the morning session described by Luke echoes most of the night time dialogue found in Matthew and Mark (except the questions are put by the entire body and no witness called). Moreover, the morning assembly described by Mark and Matthew may be taken  not so much as another trial; because there was no accusation of temple destruction or of a blasphemy of God (Lk. 22:66-70). In the words of Corley, “since the morning assembly went to Pilate with expanded allegations (Lk. 23:2), the entire Sanhedrin may well have rehearsed the previous night’s dialog (Lk. 22: 66-71) in order to devise the sedition charge.”[25] Therefore, the morning assembly cannot be counted as a trial.

2. THE SANHEDRIN: ITS JURISDICTION, POWER AND PROCEDURES

As the paper intends to use the Mishnaic presentation of the Sanhedrin as a yardstick to see if there be any violation of the existing Jewish Law of the day throughout Jesus’ trial, it is firstly important to have a brief description of the Sanhedrin.

2.1. Jurisdiction and Functions: The Sanhedrin deals with every problem that had any connection with religion however small. It also acts as the civil court for Jerusalem and as a court of appeal or arbitration for the other toparchies.[26] It has recently been argued by Ellis Rivkin that the Sanhedrin was in fact a political body with no jurisdiction over religious matters and that the charge brought against Jesus was a political one, not religious.[27] However, it is unlikely that such a body, exercising political powers only, would have existed under Roman rule. Therefore, the charges brought against Jesus are likely to have been religious ones.[28] It is also seemingly that by the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin held both the religious and political powers, and saw Jesus’ popularity as a threat to their position of power.[29] To some extent, the Sanhedrin also exercised criminal jurisdiction[30] which will further be discussed below. The high priest acted as the president (cf. Mt. 25:5-6; Jn. 11:49) of the Great Sanhedrin.[31] He convened the Council and was also the presiding officer. In this manner, he enjoyed a “very considerable power, not only in strictly religious matters, but also through his leadership of an organization in which the boundaries separating politics from religion and theocracy were also ill-defined.”[32]

2.2. Powers: Whether the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment in the late Second Temple period remains debated. Theodor Keim, as cited by Chandler, asserted that Sanhedrin acquired the highest legally constituted tribunal and even has the right to pass sentence to death (cf. Ant. 14.168; Mt. 26:66)[33] even though the death penalty was relative only to Jewish religious offences.[34] But, things changed following the Roman interference in Judea. As never before, the appointment of a procurator for Judea in AD 6 (by the Romans) marked an end to the power of Sanhedrin to execute capital punishment. [35] Now, the Sanhedrin is empowered to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment (Acts 4-5). Capital cases required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (cf. Jn. 18:31) even though the procurator’s judgement was normally in accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.[36] It is therefore argued by James Orr that the Jews had no power to execute death sentence (cf. Jn. 18:31), for such power belonged to the Romans and was vested in the Roman governor.[37]  Accordingly Witherington posited that the Sanhedrin could legally pass sentence on Jesus, but could not legally execute Him because the power of capital punishment is held by the Romans.[38] Such understanding is probable because the Sanhedrin would execute Jesus if they had the power.[39] Lohse made this point very clear:

Undoubtedly the Sanhedrin could decide all matters relating to the cultic community and it could punish offences against the Torah so long as these did not involve the death penalty. It was even conceded the right to punish with death a pagan – even a Roman – who went across the temple barrier and entered the sacred precincts. But one should not deduce from the granting of this special privilege that under the rule of the procurators the Jewish court maintained the right to impose and execute a capital sentence.[40]

It may thus be concluded that the Sanhedrin could try criminal cases but could not pronounce the death sentence without the sanction of the Roman governor.  This means that any execution on the orders of the Jewish court between 6 and 70 AD was done “probably during the short reign of Agrippa I (41-44AD) in which the Jews had again their own independent state.”[41]

2.3. Time and Procedures: There is no record found as to the proceedings of the Sanhedrin except that Mishnah[42] gives detail judicial procedures of the lesser Sanhedrin.[43]  Few of them may be made mentioned even as they may reflect the Jerusalem (Great) Sanhedrin before AD 70. Twelftree may best summarize the procedures for capital cases in the Mishnah thus:

A majority of two [two-thirds] was required for a guilty verdict on a capital charge. Verdicts could be reversed but not from an acquittal to a conviction in a capital trial…a speaker in favour of conviction could only charge and argue in favour of the accused, not the reverse…the verdict for an acquittal could be reached that night, but a verdict of conviction had to wait until the following day (m. Sanh. 4:1). In that way members of the Sanhedrin could go off in pairs to eat a little (no wine was permitted) and discuss the matter all night before meeting in court early next morning (m. Sanh. 5:5). Therefore, trials were not to be held on the days before a sabbath or festival (m. Sanh. 4:10). In capital cases voting began with the most junior members standing, each giving their verdict (m. Sanh. 5:5).[44]

Mishnah also stated that in case of capital trial verdict must be announced during daytime and not at night (m. Sanh. 4:1); that a person condemned to death could not be mocked, beaten, scourged, or mistreated (Num. 35:9-34; m. Sanh. 4:2); that a person could never be condemned on the ground of his/her own testimony even as the testimony of two or three witnesses was required (Deut. 17:6-7; 19:15-20; m. Sanh. 3:3-4).[45] Each witness in a capital case was to be questioned individually and not in the presence of other witnesses (m. Sanh. 3:6). Besides, all trials were to be done publicly and secret trials were forbidden (m. Sanh. 1:6), and a person is considered guilty only when he/she pronounced the very name of God (m. Sanh. 7:5).[46]

3. AN APPRAISAL OF THE JEWISH TRIAL OF JESUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW

3.1. The Wrong Procedure: According to the Jewish religious Law, capital cases were to begin with the case for acquittal. In the words of Laura L. Berg, “Capital cases required that proper procedures be followed in the trial, beginning with arguments for acquittal (the defence presenting the case for innocence), and then followed by arguments for conviction (the prosecutors presenting the case for guilt).”[47] However, the arguments for guilt were presented first in the case of Christ, and no argument for His innocence was presented.[48] It is also seen that the rights of the defence was not considered while the Jewish Law authorizes “the right to a defence, lest an innocent be convicted” (Deut. 13:14).[49] It may therefore be stated that Jesus was convicted on the basis of false accusations and hearsay even as there was no first hand (prima facie) evidence. In such case, Jesus could have been dismissed or He could have asked for dismissal since the rules of legal proceedings were not followed.[50] However, far from releasing Him, He was all the more charged with blaspheming God which in fact was a way of suppressing His legal right.

The Jewish Law also states that in capital case the trial and the verdict of guilt must not occur on the same day (cf. m. Sanh. 4:1; 5:5). While a criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day, it cannot be concluded before the following if a sentence of death is to be pronounced.[51] Therefore a verdict of guilt must be announced the following day (cf. m. Sanh 4:1). Lohse also strongly believes that in the days of Jesus “judicial proceedings were strictly forbidden on the Sabbaths, on feast-days, and on the related days of preparation.”[52] For this reason, trials were not to be held on the eve of a Sabbath or other festival (cf. m. Sanh. 4:1). Such understanding, however, is incompatible with the Synoptic account of the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in which Jesus is said to have been tried on the eve of the Passover.[53] Therefore, not only did the trial violate the Jewish Law but also the legal rights of Jesus as a Jew.

3.2. The Illegal Session: Scholars, who held the view that Jesus underwent only a single trial, did not believe in the occurrence of the night trial. Accordingly, Raymond E. Brown argued that hearing or scheduling serious criminal cases at night was highly irregular in the New Testament period (cf. Acts 4:3-5; Acts 22: 30).[54] But the Gospel account makes it clear that there was indeed a night trial in the case of Jesus. One such indication is the account of Peter, who before the rooster crowed, warmed himself at the fire in the courtyard of the high priest with the officers and others present (cf. Mk. 14:67).[55] Mark seems to have even made the night session as of the Senate where 71 members of the Sanhedrin were present.[56] Such understanding, all the more, leads to a violation of the existing Jewish Law which prohibited all proceedings by night (cf. m. Sanh. 4:1).  

Against the legal proceeding of the Jews, there was also a hurried search for witnesses.[57] At all costs, however, must Jesus be condemned. Therefore, they seek a conviction from the mouth of the accused Himself even though the Jewish Law forbids that a person be condemned on the basis of his/her own testimony alone (Deut. 17:6-7; 19:15-20; m. Sanh. 3:3-4). In other words, a lone self-accusation was not considered sufficient for gaining a conviction, nor was it right for judges to ask the accused to condemn himself/herself. If the witnesses did not agree (cf. Mk. 14:59), he/she could have been released even as no legal judgment could have been passed on presumptuous and unclear evidences[58] but that was not done with Jesus. The Jewish Law also forbids that a person condemned to death be mocked, beaten, scourged, or mistreated (Num. 35:9-34; m. Sanh. 4:2). To speak legally thus, the condemnation pronounced against Jesus was illegal because it was based solely on the unproven confession (Mt. 26:59-66; Mk. 14:55-59), asserts Gowens.[59] It is therefore understood that Jesus, being a Jew, was not even able to receive a fair and just trial. Justice seems far a distant for Him in the face of such ruthless violators of one’s legal rights.

3.3. The False Accusation: The purpose of the accusation against Jesus was objective to convict Him of blasphemy against the temple and consequently against God (Mk. 14:53-64). However, matters related to the accusation are not that simple which thus calls for a further deliberation. For instance, Adela Yarbro Collins accepts the accusation of Jesus as authentic especially in the light of the cultural context of Mark. Accordingly she asserts, “Jesus blasphemed [God] from the perspective of the high priest and the council” and this is also true from the perspective of the audiences as well.[60] Unlike the m. Sanh. 7:5 which states that one is not considered guilty unless he/she pronounces the name (God) itself, Collins contends that Jesus uses the indirect name (i.e., “the power”) rather than the divine name (Mk. 14:62) to blaspheme God.[61] Likewise, Vincent Taylor, as cited by Martin, agreed to the view that Jesus’ speech with the assurance of sharing the throne of God and of the fulfilment of Daniel’s vision in Himself and His community was considered blasphemy.[62]

On the other hand, it is also admitted the uncertainty whether or not the use of indirect name was “the official one that the council of Judea would have applied in the case of Jesus.”[63] Therefore, it may rather be postulated that the high priest already had a foregone conclusion (i.e., the death of Jesus)[64] even before the trial had begun. In other words, it may simply be stated that Jesus was illegally convicted as a blasphemer (Mk. 14: 62-64). It appears therefore that the trial before the Sanhedrin was meant to uncover evidences adequate to convict Jesus of crime warranting the death penalty (cf. Mk. 14:55). This is plausible even as the use of “kata” (against) by Mark (cf. 14: 55-64) further indicates the seriousness of the Jewish hostility towards Jesus and their commitment to His conviction of a capital offense.[65] Besides, it is also unlikely that Mishnah simply reads like a polemic against the Gospels as Israel Abrahams suggested,[66] because Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6 §202)[67] and the Community Rule from Qumran (1QS 6.27-7.2)[68] also attested that the blasphemer is not considered guilty unless he/she pronounces the name itself (cf. m. Sanh. 7:5; Lev. 24:16). Likewise, Taylor claims that claiming to be a Messiah per se was not considered a blasphemy (or even a capital offence).[69] Even others claim the same yet escape capital punishment, asserts Witherington.[70] Strictly speaking thus, “blasphemy” can refer only to naming the name of Yahweh (Lev. 24:16; m. Sanh. 7:5) in which case the “Son of the Blessed” does not fall under that definition.[71] Therefore, it may be concluded that Jesus was convicted illegally by not giving Him even a chance to defend Himself while the Jewish Law makes a room for the convict to speak his/her guiltless (or even the judge to support the convict).              

CONCLUSION

The discussion makes it clear that the paper is not an attempt to reclaim the rights of Jesus Christ nor is an aim to call for the re-trial of Jesus Christ. Rather it simply intends to demonstrate that the illegal trial together with the violation of His legal rights resulted in His crucifixion. In other words, there existed a violation of the legal rights of Jesus Christ in the trial before the Sanhedrin. Violation, according to the paper, then is simply understood to be an illegal trial. To put it differently, by having identified one’s legal right as a fair and just trial, it may be posited that Jesus’ legal right was violated. However, to say that Jesus underwent illegal trial, the paper made use of Mishnaic presentation of the Sanhedrin (written around 200 CE) as a yardstick. Therefore, it cannot be denied that there is anachronism in play. However, it is also seen that Mishnah was the only written source which preserves important information about the Sanhedrin; in which case, it may be considered safe to use as a yardstick. Besides, the suggestion that Jesus was tried illegally does not mean that He, as a Jew, has legal rights like the way one have it today. But only when the Jews went beyond what their Law says and demands that they are considered to be violating Jesus’ rights. Thus, Jesus’ right was considered upheld so long as He was tried in accordance with the Jewish Law.

---

[1] B. Corley, “Trial of Jesus,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Illinois: IVP, 1992), 841-45.

[2] John James Maclaren, “Jesus Christ, Arrest and Trial of,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr, et. al., vol. III (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996), 1668.

[3] Socio-legal study is an interdisciplinary approach to analysing law, legal phenomena, and relationships between these and wider society.

[4] Chandler jotted down at least 12 points through which Jesus was illegally tried by the Jewish religious leaders. Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint: The Hebrew Trial, vol. 1 (Newstead: Emereo Publishing, 2013).

[5] Sanhedrin is the supreme Council of the Jews. In it were 71 members including the presiding officer, who is the High Priest. Its member consists of “the chief priests (the acting high priest and those who had been high priest), members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken, the elders (tribal and family heads of the people and the priesthood), and the scribes, i.e., the legal experts.” J. A. Thompson, “Sanhedrin,” New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, et. al. (Secunderabad: OM Books, 2002), 1060.

[6] Frank J. Matera, “The Trial of Jesus: Problems and Proposals,” Interpretation 45(1991): 5.

[7] Matera, Interpretation, 7-8. Hans Lietzmann [Der Prozess Jesu, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. Hist. Klasse (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1931), 313-322]  followed by Paul Winter [On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), 74-87] also denied the fact that there was a trial before the Great Sanhedrin.  Rabbi Wise even went to the extent of saying that “this body (Sanhedrin) did positively not exist at the time when Jesus was crucified, having been dissolved 30AD. In nowise, then, any passages of the Gospels must be understood to refer to the Great Sanhedrin.” Rabbi Wise, The Martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth: A Historico-Critical Treatise on the Last Chapter of The Gospel (Cincinnati: Office of the American Israelites, 1874).

[8] Matera, Interpretation, 7-8.

[9] Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993),137.

[10] Corley, Dictionary of Jesus, 845.

[11] Matera, Interpretation, 5,9.

[12] James D. G. Dunn, “Are You the Messiah?: Is the Crux of Mark 14:61-62 Resolvable?,” in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, edited by David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett(Leiden: Brill, 2000), 3.

[13] Gerard S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), cited in Leonard W. Levy, Blasphemy: Verbal Offence Against the Sacred, From Moses to Salman Rushdie (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995), 24.

[14] J. R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 10; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), cited in Levy, Blasphemy, 25.

[15] The private interview with the high priest and former high priest does not qualify the view that Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin (cf. Jn. 18:12-14, 19-27).

[16] Ben Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006), 148.

[17] Corley, Dictionary of Jesus, 846; E. Lohse, “Sunedrion,” TDNT, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, vol. VII (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1971), 868. According to Walter W. Wessel, “all” may not refer to the 71 members but that a quorum of at least 23 was present.  Walter W. Wessel, Mark: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2010), 768. It is unlikely that the community has an eye-witness for the Sanhedrin hearing, but in view of the “all” (pantej, Mk. 14:64), “one can hardly adduce Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, as against [the edict].” Lohse, TDNT, 869.

[18] Lohse, TDNT, 869.

[19] J. B. Tyson, “The Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus,” Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 249-58; J. Blinzler, Der Prezess Jesu (Verlag: Pustet, 1960), 120-22, cited in Lohse, TDNT, 870.

[20] Matera, Interpretation, 9.

[21] Matera, Interpretation, 9.

[22] Tyson, Novum Testamentum, 254.

[23] Witherington, New Testament History, 150.

[24] R. P. Martin, “Trial of Jesus,” New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, et. al. (Secunderabad: OM Books, 1995), 1218.

[25] Corley, Dictionary of Jesus, 845.   

[26] Charles Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus (New York: University Books, 1968), 54.

[27] Ellis Rivkin, What Crucified Jesus? The Political Execution of a Charismatic (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984), cited in Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (BNTC; Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2009), 355.

[28] Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark,355.

[29] Newton Walkin, Praying for Miracles (Maitland, Florida: Xulon Press, 2011), 310.

[30] Thompson, New Bible Dictionary, 1060-061.

[31] Amy – Jill Levine, “Sanhedrin,” A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations, edited by Edward Kessler and Neil Wenborn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 396.

[32] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 55-7.

[33] Walter M. Chandler, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer’s Standpoint: The Hebrew Trial, vol. 1 (Newstead: Emereo Publishing, 2013), n.p.

[34] At the same time, he expresses that it is difficult to harmonize this understanding with John 18:31 which claims that death sentences required Roman confirmation. Martin, New Bible Dictionary, 1218.

[35] G. H. Twelftree, “Sanhedrin,” Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Illinois: IVP, 2000), 1064.

[36] Thompson, New Bible Dictionary, 1060-061.

[37] James Orr, “Jesus Christ,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr, vol. III (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 1661.

[38] Witherington, New Testament History, 152.

[39] Levine, A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian, 396.

[40] Lohse, TDNT, 865.

[41] Lohse, TDNT, 865; Twelftree, Dictionary of New Testament, 1064.

[42] Mishnah is a book of rules, understood to be written form of the Jewish oral law, was preserved by the rabbis following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, and was completed in approximately 200 CE. The book consists of six major parts which is divided into large tractates, and each tractate is divided into chapters. Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), xiii – xxi; Jacob Neusner, Learn Mishnah (New Jersey: Behrman House, Inc. Publishers, 1978), 4.

[43] Twelftree, Dictionary of New Testament, 1064.

[44] Twelftree, Dictionary of New Testament, 1065; cf. Thompson, New Bible Dictionary, 1061.

[45] Laura L. Berg, “The Illegalities of Jesus’ Religious and Civil Trials,” Bibliotheca Sacra 161 (July – September 2004): 332-334.

[46] Berg, Bibliotheca, 331-34.

[47] Berg, Bibliotheca, 333.

[48] Berg, Bibliotheca, 333.

[49] Michael L. Gowens, The Gospel of Luke: Expository Essays Series (Lexington, Kentucky: Sovereign Grace Publications, 2011), 266.

[50] Gowens, The Gospel of Luke, 266.

[51] Gowens, The Gospel of Luke, 265.

[52] Lohse, TDNT, 869.

[53] Lohse, TDNT, 869.

[54] This may be the reason Luke reports that Jesus was not brought before the Council until morning following His arrest (22: 66-71). Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 284.

[55] Berg, Bibliotheca, 331; M. Dupin, The Trial of Jesus Before Caiaphas and Pilate (Boston: Cambridge Press, 1839), 37-8.

[56] Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 43.

[57] Orr, International Standard Bible, 1660.

[58] Witherington, New Testament History, 151.

[59] Gowens, The Gospel of Luke, 265.

[60] She believes that the conviction – that Jesus had already been enthroned as the heavenly Messiah – even intensifies the ironic effect. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26/4 (2004): 381.

[61] Collins, Journal for the Study, 380-81.

[62] Martin, New Bible Dictionary, 1218.

[63] Collins, Journal for the Study, 380-81.

[64] Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 362.

[65] Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 360-61.

[66] Israel Abrahams, “The Tannaitic Tradition and the Trial Narratives,” in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, vol.II (New York: Ktav, 1924), 137.

[67] Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, vol. IV (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930), 572-73.

[68] Collins, Journal for the Study, 379, 395.

[69] Cf. Martin, New Bible Dictionary, 1218.

[70] Witherington also argues that “the blasphemy most likely was perceived in His claim in Mark 14:62 to sit at the right hand of God, and to come in power to judge the high priest (who was also the high court), suggesting his possession of divine honors, powers and prerogatives. Witherington, New Testament History, 151.

[71] Dunn, Christology, Controversy and Community, 18.

1. INTRODUCTION

The thesis of the paper can be summed up as the analysis of factors behind Jewish uprising in AD 66-70. However, unlike previous studies which suggested economic, religious, political and military as the factors behind the Revolt; the paper intends to suggest another possibility which is “corruption.” Thus, it endeavors to investigate the nexus between the Roman State and the Jewish religious authorities[1]  during the first century AD (ca. 6 – 66) from a socio – historical perspective. The intention of the paper is to first highlight the Roman administrative system followed by a brief discussion on the Jewish administration and its meeting with the Roman administration. Then, it goes on to discuss the impacts of the collaboration between the two administrations, and concludes with the analysis of factors leading to the First Jewish Revolt. But, before that, the paper will briefly define the term “corruption.”

2. WHAT IS CORRUPTION?

Oxford Dictionary defines corruption as, “dishonest or illegal behavior, especially of people in authority, the act or effect of making something change from moral to immoral standards of behavior.”[2] In other words, it is the misuse of “public power for obtaining benefits and advantages to self or to his/her associate in various forms.”[3] Thus, “it goes beyond bribery” asserts Paul. [4] It also includes, as Nye suggests, “behavior” such as “bribery,” “nepotism,” and “misappropriation.”[5] Therefore, the concern is not only fiscal, but goes beyond that.[6] Samuel Paul mentions 3 types of corruption: (i) Collusive corruption which means “the planned cooperation of the giver and taker,” (ii) Extortionary corruption, forcible extractions of money from the subjected people, and (iii) Anticipatory corruption in which gift is presented to the authority with the “anticipation of favorable actions or decisions” (bribery).[7] Keeping these definitions in mind, the paper will try to uncover the Roman-Jewish practice of corruption which gave rise to the Revolt in AD 66.

3. THE ROMAN IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATION: AN OVERVIEW

The Roman administration can be characterized as an aristocratic empire in which the Emperor acts as “an aristocrat whose word was law and whose relationship with his subjects was highly personalized.”[8] Below him were the senatorial (State Council), the equestrian and the local ruling elites. Horrell describes this hierarchy as a “large pyramid” in which 1 % of the total population ruled the empire.[9] Carter classified these ruling groups as the “elites” while the rest belonged to the “non-elites.”[10] Hence, “there was no middle class” but the elites and the non – elites.[11]  

As agrarian Empire, “the wealth and power of the Roman imperial elite was based more in land than in trade and industry.”[12] Land was the “safest investment” from which most of the elites’ profits were “derived.”[13] While most of the land productions came from rural areas, they were brought to the city to be consumed by the elites. It is estimated that 65% of the land production was shared by the ruling elites of 2-3% of the total population.[14] Besides, the populace was divided into “citizens” and “noncitizens,” and the word often uttered by the Roman citizens was Civis Romanus sum (“I am a Roman citizen”) in order for him to get “protections and rights.”[15]

The Romans also established many provinces which according to Garnsey and Saller was more than 40 provinces.[16] The larger provinces were governed by a “Governor” (a commander – in – chief of any troops), and the smaller provinces were governed by a “procurator” (senatorial rank). Both rulers played vital roles in the establishment of a well-defined aristocracy by overseeing the political, socio-economic, religion and military affairs in different provinces.[17] Besides, “legions” or “auxiliary troops” were stationed to enforce the elites’ interests.[18] The Romans also maintained healthy relationship with the local rulers for the stability of the Government.[19] Such cooperation also contributed to their mutual benefits, especially when the local rulers “used their knowledge to collect census statistics and were responsible for the gathering of the taxes so crucial for the consumer society in the city of Rome.”[20] In turn, the local rulers could expect:

Roman confirmation and support for their local prestige, but they could also hope to make some profit by creaming off some of the income from tax collection. Eventually they could expect Roman citizenship and would thus merge into the Roman governing class itself, through service in the Roman army or as representatives (procurators) of the emperors.[21]

But only those who were rich and “accorded high status” in the society could qualify for client rulers.[22]  Wealthy rulers were needed especially in times when people refused to pay taxes to Romans, because he could easily pay from his own resources.[23] The Romans also entrusted them with the responsibility of tax collection.[24]

4. THE JEWISH ADMINISTRATION

The interest of this section is to briefly highlight the Priestly office.

4.1 Before the Arrival of the Romans

Religiously, the priests “serve as teachers and administrators of the divinely revealed law.”[25] According to Mason, “they were the natural and acknowledged guardians of the Temple whose duty … was to preserve the cult and to administer it.”[26] Their hereditary can also be traced from the Bible.[27] The High Priest (HP) served as the chief: “The most important member of the Priesthood and consequently of the whole people.” [28] He “was consecrated in the same manner as the other priests” [29] and his cultic function involves making “atonement for the sins of the whole people” ((Ex. 30:10; Lev. 16) on the Day of Atonement,[30] thus representing the Jews before God (Yahweh). He was a:

Mediator between God and the people, for he is the only one who may enter the holiest place, and that but once a year (Exo. 29:44; Lev. 16:2-5)… (He) is charged with representing the people to God, by supervising the whole sacrificial system and representing God to the people by ensuring that the divine teachings are propagated and observed (Lev. 10:8-11).[31]

The ordinary priests assisted the HP in his “cultic activities” and sometimes functioned “in his stead.”[32] The HP served as supervisor in the “censing,” and “burnt offering,” under whose supervision was the cultic acts performed.[33] It might be asserted that the HP enjoyed a considerable power in Judaism. He also received certain privileges out of his religious duty. He had the right to first choose the “holy things of the temple” such as “a sin offering (animal or bird), a guilt offering, a portion of food offering, taken from what remained after the offering had been made on the altar…”[34]

Following the Babylonian exile in 586-538 BC, the Jews experienced political instability[35] with the absence of kings and regular prophets, the HP began to function as both religious and political leader.[36] Such reigning in times of troubles was significant for the Jews.  “By about 300 BC” or even earlier, the HP “became the head of senate or council of elders (gerousia).”[37] Since then the HP was regarded the leader of the nation.     

4.2 After the Arrival of the Romans

The HP functioned as the presiding officer in the Sanhedrin but this time under the restriction of Romans. He became a puppet at the hands of Romans, and a mere “representative of the people of Judea before the procurator.”[38] The Procurator was the one who controlled all the local authorities both civil and religious. He was also given authority to appoint or depose the HP at his will,[39] and the HP was supposed to act according to his supervision.[40] Besides,  the Procurator was entrusted to “oversee the revenues flowing into the fisc from the imperial domains and provinces”[41] and “to see that the taxes were duly collected …”[42] The domestic governing body the Sanhedrin was “responsible for the returns of the Roman taxes,” and there is also a possibility that the Council raised taxes from the toparchies.[43] The High Priestly office lost its basic function which is religious at the implementation of Roman administration in Judea. The Romans turned the office into a political institution, and they replaced the legitimate HPs with those who would serve their interests better.[44] Thus, the arrival of Romans in Judea marked the birth of aristocracy: “… constitution became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation,” reported Josephus.[45]

5. THE IMPACTS OF ROMAN ADMINISTRATION IN JUDEA

5. 1. Taxation

In fact, taxation was the direct outcome of Roman aristocratic rule in Judea. There were two common types of taxes: (i) “Tax on agricultural produce” (tributum soli/agri), which was “paid partly in kind, partly in money,” and (ii) “Poll-tax” (tributum capitis) which “included various kinds of personal taxes.”[46] Poll – tax was levied on every male from 14- 65 years old, and female from 12 – 65 years old. [47] There was also “a water tax, a city tax, a tax on meat and salt, and a house tax,”[48]and “indirect charges on imports and exports – town and harbor due, bridge tolls, market fees, and the like.” [49] Perkins reports that the number of various taxes crossed hundred.[50] According to Schürer, “no object, and no sector of the country’s economic life, remained untaxed.” Sad to say that failure to pay tax “was regarded as rebellion.”[51] It is thus estimated that “altogether Roman taxes, customs, etc., and Jewish religious levies took away 40 percent of a person’s income …”[52]

Taxes were also farmed out to the highest bidder. Crownfield asserts that “this system was a breeder of extortion…” [53] The Jews suffered from the exploitation of tax – farming because the publican collected extra 25% of interest from what he had paid to the State.[54] In this process, the tax collectors always became the beneficiaries, and the tax payer the loser.[55] The sum may be small (8 to16 talents = 3140 to 6280 USD), but it was sufficient for the publicans to procure great wealth, recalls Edersheim.[56] It is possible that some of the Jews (e.g. Matthew) took active part in taxation process. Josephus reported that the Jewish officials went about villages collecting taxes when War was about to begin.[57] They also levied taxes (“civic taxation”) “for the maintenance of synagogue, elementary schools, public baths, the support of the poor, the maintenance of public roads, city walls, and gates, and other general requirements.”[58] Sometimes, they are said to have imposed “doubled or tripled” taxation.[59] Theissen once reports that the priestly aristocracy collected 40 talents while the State demanded only 17 talents. The “Peasant Revolts” and the social banditry in Judean countryside might all reflect the oppressive system of taxation.[60]

5. 2. Misappropriation

The second impact was mismanagement of the “Temple treasury.”[61] The Temple received numbers of surplus sacrificial items every year. They are, to mention few, of grains, lambs, birds, doves, mints, etc. Besides, there were regular taxes (tithes and first-fruits), shares in the sacrifices, irregular donations.”[62] Theissen questions the way in which these properties were shared and distributed.[63] Josephus seemed to say that the HPs did not even share rather they appropriated for their own cause.[64] Therefore, those priests who depended on the Temple tithes were “starved to death.”[65]

The HP was also said to have misused his power to procure large money. He practiced “nepotism,” by appointing a Temple treasurer or Temple captain from his family members.[66] Such incident can be drawn from the appointment of Ananus by his father Ananias to be the captain of the Temple, which was the “highest ranking priest after the HP.”[67] Besides, there was “substantial amount that never reached the treasury but was diverted by a horde of tax – collectors and officials, partly as legal perquisites (known as sportulae), partly as illegal exaction,” asserts Finley.[68]

5. 3. Social Tension

Jews believed in theocracy; therefore, the rich and the poor maintained equality compare to other provinces. Since the arrival of the Romans in Judea, Jews experienced social tension between the rich and the poor which they had never experienced before. It widened the gap between rural dwellers (poor peasants) and urban dwellers (rich). Lenski reported that the ruling elites comprised of 5% of the total population consumed 50-65% of the land production. [69] This means that the non – elites comprised of 95% of the total population shared 35-45% of the land production. While the elites enjoyed life in cities, the non-elites lived a miserable life in villages where they were vulnerable to different kinds of sicknesses, malnutrition, etc.[70]

The poor peasant suffered most in times of drought and bad harvest because he had to borrow grain, oil or money (as there was no lending bank) from the rich rulers (which included religious leaders). He could depend on this lending for a short term, but as his debts increased he had no choice but to give up his lands/estates (a son or a daughter into slavery).[71] This was how the rich “gained their wealth at the expense of peasants suffering from a bad harvest.”[72] Worst still was the interests on loan which even reached 300% while the Law permits only 12% interest.[73] Besides, the rich rulers demand repayment of debts even “after the Sabbatical Year” whether or not a formal agreement was made.[74] The pathetic condition of the poor was again aggravated by the Roman landowners who “depended for their wealth on their ability to capture a portion of surplus produced by the peasants in the countryside.”[75] Carter seems right when he posits that “the hard manual work of nonelites and coerced extractions of production sustained the elite’s extravagant and elegant way of life.”[76] Therefore, the infuriated Zealots burnt the archives in AD 66 in which loans were deposited.[77]

6. AN APPRAISAL OF THE EVENTS LEADING TO THE FIRST JEWISH REVOLT

Given the meaning of “corruption” as the misuse of power for personal gain, such form of corruption could be traced from the activities of religious rulers (the HPs) in Judea. HPs were reported to have depended largely on their ability to extract money from their religious function. They were reported to have extracted money from the Temple treasury and tithes, as a matter of fact, the ordinary Priests who previously depended on tithes died in hunger.  Besides, the HPs misused their power by the practice of nepotism (which according to Nye is corruption). Thus, it appears that power was misused for personal gain in all probability so that the discontented masses rebelled against them in AD 66.

The practice of extortionary corruption was prevalent in the Judean province of Roman Empire. The Romans together with Jewish religious leaders extracted money with coercion. They imposed double/triple taxation, they charged extra interest for loan, they captured the portion of surplus produced by the peasants, and used these agents for personal gain. The rich enjoyed life at the expense of the poor peasants. Therefore, the open protest took place in AD 66 which is the common characteristic of extortionary corruption.

The practices of corruption in Judea by the religious leaders may also reflect the Roman administration which was aristocratic. When the Romans came to the province in AD 6, they forced the local rulers (HP) to collaborate with them and appointed them as client rulers.  They also entrusted them to carry out the State’s interests. The Sanhedrin, in which the HP acted as the presiding officer, was also said to have participated in the actualization of the State’s interest (e.g., collection of taxes).[78] Thus, there is a plausibility that the practice of corruption in Judea by the HPs began with the implementation of Roman Administration in the province.

7. CONCLUSION

The Roman administration was aristocratic in a sense that power and wealth lay at the hands of few ruling elites. As imperial empire, the Romans established many new provinces in which they also implemented new administration. Likewise, the province of Judea witnessed new administrative system (aristocracy) upon the arrival of Romans. The Priestly office of the religious administration was turned secular (political) administration. Since then, the main function of Jewish religious leaders became political which carried out the interests of Roman Government. In the course of time, greedy religious leaders were born. Therefore, they applied every possible means to extract money for their self gain. They demanded doubled/tripled taxation and misused the Temple treasury, leaving the ordinary priests starved to death. As a result, the poor peasants were left wanting. Infuriated by the practices of corruption by religious leaders together with the Roman State, the common masses rose against them in AD 66-70, targeting both the Romans and the religious leaders.

---

[1] It generally refers to Priests/High Priests. Note also that the phrase religious leaders or Jewish religious leaders convey same meaning.

[2] A. S. Hornby, “Corruption,” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, edited by Sally Wehmeier, Collin McIntosh and Joann Turnbull, 7^th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): 334.

[3] Pankaj Deep, “Corruption, Transparency and Good Governance,” Social Action 59/4 (Oct – Dec 2009): 384.

[4] Samuel Paul, “Corruption: Agenda For Action,” Integral Liberation 7/3 (Oct – 2003): 194.

[5] Joseph S. Nye, 1967, “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost – Benefit Analysis,” 417, as cited in Deep, “Corruption,” 384.

[6] Anupam Hazra, “Corruption and Development: Exploring the Dynamics,” Social Action 59/4 (Oct –Dec 2009): 370.

[7] Paul, “Corruption,” 196.

[8]Colin M. Wells, “Roman Empire,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992): 803.

[9] David G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement, edited by John Barclay, Joel Marcus and John Riches (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 65.

[10] Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 3.

[11] Carter, The Roman Empire, 3.

[12] Richard Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and New World Disorder (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 24-5.

[13] Wells, “Roman Empire,” 805.

[14] Carter, The Roman Empire, 3.

[15] Gregory S. Aldrete, Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia (London: Greenwood Press, 2004), 43-4.

[16] Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 21.

[17] Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A. D. 66-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 35.

[18] Carter, The Roman Empire, 4.

[19] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 33.

[20] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 33-6.

[21] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 34. The advantage of becoming Roman citizenship is “exemption from paying most taxes.” John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), 30.

[22] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 36.

[23] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 33, 35-6.

[24] Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C. – A. D. 135), revised and edited by Geza Vermes & Fergus Millar, vol. I (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1973), 401.

[25] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 118.

[26] Charles Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus (New York: University Books, 1968), 56.

[27] Num. 3:10; Deut. 18:1 (NRSV)

[28] Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 147-221.

[29] D. A. Hubbard, “Priests and Levites,” New Bible Dictionary, edited by I. H. Marshall, et. al., 3^rd edition (Secunderabad: OM-Authentic Books, 2007): 957.

[30] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 153. It was a day of fasting, self-denial (on 10^th of the 7^th month, Tishri) (Lev. 16:29).

[31] Mason, Josephus, 118-119.

[32] Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible From 500 B. C. to A. D. 100, translated by David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 164.

[33] The activities were carried out twice a day in both the cases. Reicke, The New Testament, 164.

[34] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 150.

[35] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 56.

[36] Mason, Josephus, 119.

[37] Mason, Josephus, 119. The origin is difficult to trace. Some suggest the “tent of meeting” in Numbers 11:16 or elders in Ezra 5: 5, 9 or nobles and rulers in Neh. 2:16; 5:7.

[38] Reicke, The New Testament, 144.

[39] Reicke, The New Testament, 144.

[40] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 110.

[41] Reicke, The New Testament, 138.

[42] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 37.

[43] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 54.

[44] Mason, Josephus, 119. 

[45] Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities, Book XX, translated by L. H. Feldman, vol. X (London: Harvard University Press, 1981), 20: 251. (Hereafter referred to as A. J.)

[46] In Syria, a personal tax imposed reaches 1% of his property valuation. Schürer, The History of, vol. I, 401-02.

[47] Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 53-4. Taxes were collected even from slaves Schürer, The History of, vol. I, 403.

[48] Frederick R. Crownfield, A Historical Approach to the New Testament (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 96.

[49] Guignebert, The Jewish World, 39.

[50] Pheme Perkins, “Taxes in the New Testament,” Journal of Religious Ethics 12/2 (1984): 183.

[51] Carter, The Roman Empire, 3-4.

[52] James B. Adamson, James: The Man and His Message (Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 235. Carter posits that the peasants or fisherman gave away about 20 – 40% to the elites. Carter, The Roman Empire, 3-4.

[53] Crownfield, A Historical Approach, 96.

[54]Albert A. Bell, Jr., A Guide to the New Testament World (Pennsylvania: Herald Express, 1993), 87-8.

[55] John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 43.

[56] But this example is drawn from the tax farming in Ptolemic period (ca. 300-30 BC). Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish, 52.

[57] Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Books I – III, translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, vol. II (London: Harvard University Press, 1976), 2: 405.

[58] Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish, 53.

[59] Richard A. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Continuum, 1994), 88-9.

[60] A. J. 20. 124.

[61] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 99.

[62] Donations can be those which are “in connection with oaths and penances.” Gerd Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament, translated by Margaret Kohl (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 107.

[63]Theissen, Social Reality, 107.

[64] A. J. 20. 181.

[65] A. J. 20. 181.

[66] A. J. 20. 131

[67] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 99, 160.

[68] M. I. Finley, Ancient Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 90.

[69] Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, 2^nd edition (London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 228, as cited in K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 113.

[70] Carter, The Roman Empire, 10-11.

[71] Horsley, Sociology, 89.

[72] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 56.

[73] Jewish Law in fact forbids taking interest (Lev. 25:36-7) though this was exceptional, the Jews could consider up to 12%. Adamson, James, 251.

[74] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 57-8.

[75] Dennis P. Kehoe, Law and Rural Economy in the Roman Empire (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2007), 5.

[76] Carter, The Roman Empire, 11.

[77] E. Bammel, “The Poor and the Zealots,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 113.

[78] Goodman, The Ruling Class, 115-16.

INTRODUCTION

Based on the common theme “Reformation and Missional Hermeneutics: Indian Perspectives,” attempt will be made to read John 15:4-5 in the light of Martin Luther’s understanding of ‘priesthood of all believers’ and also bring out its missional relevance. As such, it is not an attempt to see Luther’s concept of mission in general, nor is an endeavor to promote the Lutheran understanding of mission. Furthermore, the study does not attempt to exegete the chosen text in detail, rather it functions more or less like a comparative study between the two texts in bringing out their missional aspects and also their relevance for Indian context. For this to happen, the reformer’s Christological interpretation of the Scripture has been considered instrumental in making believers ‘priests/priestesses’ which, in turn, have enabled them to mission (missio Dei).

1. REFORMATION HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLE: LITERAL (CHRISTOLOGICAL) INTERPRETATION

1.1. Reformer’s Christological Interpretation: Reformers rejected the allegorical meaning of Scripture of their day. It was even branded as “empty speculations … the scum of Holy Scripture”[1] or as “awkward, absurd, invented, obsolete, loose rags.”[2]  Therefore, they rather believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible which Luther described as the only proper way to do exegesis.[3] Since Scripture interprets itself, the literal sense can be discerned “by applying the ordinary rules of grammar in the light of Scripture’s original historical context.”[4] For this reason, Luther sometimes calls the ‘grammatical sense’ for such a literal interpretation of the Bible. Philipp Melanchthon (who is Luther’s right hand and his superior in learning) also agrees with Luther that “the Scriptures must be understood grammatically before they can be understood theologically.”[5]An interpreter now no longer needs to depend on “patristic commentary to understand the Bible”[6] but to only consider the “inner or spiritual sense, the true meaning, the Word itself …”[7] through a literal interpretation.

Such a new reading helps Luther to conclude that the whole Bible taught about Christ. Likewise, many Old Testament prophets were considered to be sent by God “to proclaim the Christ.”[8] Gerald Bray even commented that, for Luther, “everything in scripture pointed towards him[Christ], and anything which was not read in the light of Christ was fundamentally misinterpreted.”[9] Accordinlgy, Henry A. Virkler observes Luther’s tendency to see “Christ in many places (such as some of the Psalms which he designated as messianic) where later interpreters failed to find Christological references.”[10] Therefore, the reformers’ way of understanding the Bible can be summarized as finding Christ in it.

It is essentially Christuszeugnis, testimony to Christ. Find Christ everywhere, says Luther… speaking of Scripture as a whole rather than a particular passage, that the literal sense is Christ. ‘Every prophecy and every prophet should be understood as referring to the Lord Christ, except where the reference is explicitly to something else.’ From another point of view we could say that Christ is the spiritual sense of Scripture, and Luther might agree that this is the outstanding example of how the literal and spiritual senses are one. ‘Take Christ out of Scripture and what more is there to find in it? Scripture must be interpreted to mean nothing else but that man is nothing, Christ is all. ‘That which does not teach Christ is not apostolic…’[11]

With such an understanding, it is stated that Luther was able to see the unity of the Scripture better.

1.2. The Aspect of Christ in the ‘Priesthood of All Believers’ and John 15:4-5

 Christ plays a major role in making a believer to become priest/priestess. Accordingly, Luther sees ‘union with Christ’ as the foundation for royal priesthood. Priesthood is “now based upon belief in Jesus, resulting in a new birth (1Pet. 1:3, 23), and a complete identification with the Anointed One (o, Cristoj) through baptism.”[12] In effect, any believer can hear God’s speaking forgiveness directly to him/her without the need for a priestly mediator.[13] Taken this way, Luther’s understanding of ‘priesthood of all believers’ is based on Christ: “Through the Anointed (o, Cristoj), every believer is a priest, an actor in an eschatological drama, called to offer acceptable spiritual sacrifices in a temple being built by God.”[14] In other words, the doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers is resulted from “the doctrine of justification by faith.”[15] 

In a similar way, John 15:4-5 functions as the foundation for a believer to remain in Christ (mei,nate evn evmoi,).[16] To ‘remain in Jesus’ is not to simply belief in Him, but it involves continuing to live in union with Him.[17] As the disciples “remain in Jesus through faith; Jesus remains in them through love and fruitfulness” (cf. Jn. 15:4-5).[18] Such abidance in Christ is enabled by God’s abiding presence in Jesus[19] which eventually results in making a believer to become royal priest/priestess. Hence, it is the experiential presence of Christ in believers’ lives that paves the way for becoming a royal priesthood. This understanding holds true to Luther’s view that it is by total dependence in Christ (i.e., by faith alone) that a person is made priesthood, for he (Christ) alone is the “unique source of life and fruitfulness.”[20] Mark Rogers makes the same remark when he considers each believer to be “deriving his[her] status as a priest from his[her] union to Christ through faith alone.”[21]

2. INQUIRING THE MISSIONAL ASPECT OF JOHN 15:4-5 IN THE LIGHT OF LUTHER’S DOCTRINE OF ‘PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS’

2.1. John 15:1-8 As Contextual Text: Reformers lived in a changing historical situation especially when hierarchy between was visibly practiced in the church. Clergies were considered to be closer to God than the laity, while they were also expected to engage in helping the lay people draw closer to Christ.[22] That is to say that the pope and the priestly hierarchy completely dominated the faith and life of the laity, whereby “the common Christian can approach God only through the mediation of the priest.”[23] True that a believer’s life was tossed to-and-fro between the Roman concept of priestly hierarchy and the anti-clerical (lay) concept. In such a context, Luther brings out the relevance of the Scripture by quoting it literally from 1Peter 2:9 and Revelation 5:9-10 as a way to rejecting the existing hierarchical structure in the church. He not only challenged the authority of the pope, but advances a view that “all are priests, including those Christians who wield the temporal sword.”[24]  Similarly, in his book To the Christian Nobility, he noted that “there is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, between religious and secular”[25] whereby endorsing the concept of priesthood of all believers. Such a gesture on the part of Luther contributes towards contextualizing the Bible. In other words, the gospel reform of Luther had deep and profound implications within the culture and life of people in sixteenth century Germany. Such a contextualization of the Scripture aims to emphasize that “evangelization … demands the insertion of the Gospel within the very heart of a culture”[26] in order that the Gospel may grow, expand, and develop in that culture. In a way, contextualization of the Gospel makes “the individual and the Christian community a capacity to express meaningfully faith values in ever-new local and indeed creative ways.”[27] 

John makes a similar contextualization of the Old Testament’s metaphor of ‘Israel as a vine’ (cf. Hos. 10:1-2; Isa. 5:1-7; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:1-5, 17:1-21; 19:10-5; Ps. 80: 8-18) in a context where there was contest between “the synagogue vine (the false; Judaism) and the Jesus vine (the true; the believers)”[28](cf. Jn. 15:1-8).When the Jewish Christians, who confessed Jesus as the Messiah, were cast out from the synagogue; the evangelist endeavors to re-interpret the traditional Davidic Christology to his Jewish believers,[29] appealing them to faithfully ‘abide in’ Jesus, the true vine. However, unlike the Old Testament’s tendency to depict Israel as a vine/vineyard with its corruptive nature, disobedience (Ezek. 17:6-10) and failures to produce good fruits (e.g., Isa. 5:1-7; Jer. 2:21); Johannine depiction of Jesus as a true vine is a call to fruitfulness.[30] Thus, by portraying the Father as the gardener, Jesus as the true Israel and disciples as the branches; John makes the Old Testament metaphor of ‘Israel as a vine’ relevant to his own context. Contextualization, in this sense, refers to making the word of God (Gospel) relevant to one’s own socio-cultural and religious context.

2.2. ‘Abidance in Christ’ As Sacrificial: It has been noticed that a believer’s priesthood is built on the royal priesthood of Christ, and one of the functions of Christ’s royal priesthood is His sacrificial act on the cross for the love of humanity. His sacrifice on the cross has been considered as “the highest function of the priestly office” by Luther.[31] Therefore, it is important that Christians live and sacrifice their life for others too.[32]   

As Christ sacrificed Himself for us all, so we are to sacrifice for others. And this is the focus of all three functions of our priesthood. We teach so that others may share our life in Christ. We intercede for others, bringing their burdens before the throne of grace. And we sacrifice ourselves that others may live. The unspeakable love of Christ and His salvation are not simply gifts for me to revel in, but gifts for me to share with others.[33]

In this way, the picture of a believer as a priest/priestess carries missional responsibilities by way of serving others and also in proclaiming the wonderful deeds of God (cf. 1Pet. 2:9).[34] That is to say, whoever has been united with Christ is called to “doing something”[35] and ‘bearing fruit’ (Jn. 15:4-5). ‘Bearing fruit,’ in this sense, could be taken to mean communicating ‘life in Christ’ to others. It is, therefore, important that one’s remaining in Jesus results in “a special type of action, a special way of life which continues the mission of Jesus in the world… to the missionary endeavour of the community in bringing more and more people to accept Jesus” (cf. Jn. 15:5).[36]

2.3. ‘Abidance in Christ’ and Universal Mission: Universal mission may be taken to mean the universal responsibility of every believer in God’s mission. Such an understanding goes in line with the very concept of universal priesthood of all believers that each believer lives to serve others by “helping them draw near to God and maintain justifying faith throughout life.”[37] In other words, every believer has a priestly function to perform and a purpose to become a channel of blessing to others (be it believers or non-believers). They are missionaries by virtue of their priestly responsibility to others,[38] and bear fruit by bringing men and women to repentance and faith in Christ. Accordingly, Coates comments: “Every Christian, by virtue of his relationship with God, has the vocation and responsibility of serving as a priest to and for his fellow-men— which includes bearing the Christian witness to those who are without.”[39] In this case, priesthood is intimately related to the concept of ministry and mission.[40]

A view that every believer, who has union with Christ (Jn. 15:4-5), has a missional responsibility is well attested by Luther who believed that all believers have a horizontal ministerial responsibility: (i) That “every believer has a priestly responsibility to minister to other believers using his or her gifts; and (ii) that “all believers have received earthly vocations whereby they daily offer their lives to God as loving servants of their neighbors.”[41] As such, Christian life itself is considered to be missional.[42] As a holy and priestly family, Christians are to mediate the good news to the world and herald their king to those in darkness.[43]  Such a priestly function, however, is made possible only through a believer’s union with Christ.  It is one’s conformity to Christ that enables him/her in the “ecclesial and missional responsibility for the transformation of human existence…”[44]

2.4. ‘Abidance in Christ’ and Universal Ecclesiology: The universal priesthood of all believers also implies that the church is made up purely of priestly people, thereby forming a universal church. Unlike the medieval ‘ecclesiology’ which was ‘clergy-centric,’ Luther’s new understanding of the church is “Christocentric by returning to the foundational notion of Christ as the great Priest-king with whom believers are united at baptism. [Now] Each baptized believer has priestly access to the Most Holy place through [his]her soul’s union with Christ.”[45] As such, the church is not “a static or authoritarian institution but a fellowship of universal dimensions,”[46] nor is the church defined by “structures but rather by God’s people, in the communion sanctorum, the body of saints, that is, constituted through Word and Sacrament (AC VII).”[47] In and through the church, men and women ought to be brought to Christ. This universal responsibility of the church in mission will continue because all believers’ responsibility, as sanctified members of the church, is meant to bear fruit; that is, “to proclaim the gospel to their neighbors.”[48] It is, therefore, important that the church be ‘productive’ (Jn. 15:5) and essentially missional by virtue of her prayer for others and by “taking all of creation before the throne of God.”[49]

3. ‘UNION WITH CHRIST’ (JN. 15:4-5) AS A PARADIGM FOR DOING MISSION IN INDIA

3.1. Contextual Mission/Indigenization: Contextual mission (or indigenization), which forms the first model for this paper to doing mission, has been considered important and found effective in India. With the coming of foreign missionaries like William Carey and Roberto de Nobili[50] and many others, attempt has been made to relate Christianity to Indian soil. That is to say, missionaries had undertaken the task of indigenizing Christianity. Likewise, Indian thinkers like A. S. Appasamy,[51] Sadhu Sundar Singh,[52] and others have also made the same efforts. There also arose Dalit reading of the Bible partially initiated by scholars like James Massey,[53] George M. Soares-Prabhu (to mention a few) and tribal reading of the Scripture partially pioneered by K. Thanzauva[54] and A. Wati Longchar[55] (among many others). The sole aim of these readings is to make the Gospel relevant to Indian (Northeast Indian) socio-cultural context. Up to the extent that the original meaning of the Bible is not diverted, contextual mission is considered necessary, vital and valid. Paul did the same when he describes in his letter (1 Cor. 9:20): “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law” (NRSV). Only that caution has to be taken to not overemphasize context above the intended meaning of the Scripture (which can happen sometimes as in the case of sociological reading)[56] so that the Gospel is robbed and manipulated for the sake of relevancy. Besides, Tribal/Dalit reading of the Bible should not become a mere academic talk without having an influence on the common masses.

3.2. Sacrificial Mission: Sometimes, doing God’s mission in India is challenging as it (sometimes) involves not only sacrificing one’s precious time but also one’s precious life for the sake of others. Even though the Fundamental Rights of Indian Constitution (Article 25) clearly states the “right to freedom of all religion,”[57] a number of states in India have passed anti-conversion bill to prevent the Hindus (or even others) from converting to Christianity.[58]  With the ruling party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coming into power in 2014, attacks on Christians have doubly increased.[59] Specifically, converts to Christianity from Hinduism suffered the more as they are constantly under pressure with the campaigns of Ghar Wapsi (reconversion) so that the Hindu population increases by leaps and bounds in the next census (i.e., 2021).[60] For this reason, the ruling BJP government has often been accused of undermining “the nation’s secular foundations.”[61] On the same line, the Hindu nationalist extremists are propagating a view that “to be Indian is to be Hindu, so any other faith – including Christianity – is considered non-India”[62] whereby Christianity has slowly been sidelined. In such a context, doing God’s mission can be costly because of the fact that violence can happen at any time.[63] Therefore, to do mission in India is to be willing to suffer for the sake of others, just as Christ has also suffered for humanity. However, this is not to encourage Christians to give up their lives easily in the hands of their persecutors.

3.3. ‘Lifestyle Evangelism’:[64] More than the contextual and sacrificial missions, a better and safer way to do mission in India may be suggested as ‘lifestyle evangelism.’ The study has demonstrated that “every Christian is a multiplier of faith by the simple fact of being a Christian.”[65] In places where Christians are prone to persecution by being Christians or by owing to the sharing of the Gospel of Christ, the best and safest means to present the Gospel is considered to be through one’s life conduct and behavior. That is to say, the Gospel can be preached through one’s lifestyle or by living the rightful way. In this process, actions must take the lead, followed by words. Likewise, Peter also urged his readers to conduct properly in their relationships with others in the society (such as the officials, masters, husbands and wives; 1Pet. 2:13-3:7) in order that others (the Gentiles) may see and glorify God (1 Pet. 2:12). The primary purpose for Peter to propose a self-controlled life is “its evangelistic value for attesting to the truth of the Christian gospel”[66] so that even their pagan neighbors may recognize Christianity as good and worthy of worshipping their God.

Imagined how amazing would it have been to see an IAS officer, a Police or an army officer, government officials, a doctor/a nurse, an Information Technology expert, a scientist, and a student, or even others, becoming God’s missionaries in their own workplaces owing to their union with Christ. India would have never been the same anymore if a Brahmin Christian takes the lead to break barriers of casteism by by-passing his/her position, privileges, glory, and power for the sake of others (which includes the Dalits or the casteless people). This kind of a lifestyle-oriented mission strategy is comparatively simple yet considered to be safer, practical, more effective and realistic (as it is made effective by Christ). Besides, it can also take the form of various strategies mentioned above (contextual and sacrificial mission) and easy to understand for others as the Gospel is presented in a simple manner. Therefore, wherever Christians are, it is important that they realize they are letters of Christ “written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (NRSV, 2 Cor. 3:3) so that they may bear much fruit.

3.4. Personal Evangelism: Closely related to yet differs from lifestyle evangelism, but which must go hand in hand with lifestyle evangelism, is personal evangelism. Personal evangelism claims that there is no “congregation that does not have to be proclaimer of the Word, no congregation in which not all members are called to be witnesses of Christ.”[67] It invites every church member to get involved in bearing fruit for Christ as a result of his/her union with Christ. Looking at the 21^st century India, the situation greatly differs from early centuries particularly with the passing of anti-conversion bills in a number of states. As a corollary, many of the churches could get “no help or support from the state or the society in which it exists. Indeed, in many areas there is enmity, since in the name of globalism and pluralism the Christian message is increasingly questioned.”[68]  When a situation such as this arises, the role of the church and its member (as priest/priestess) involves spreading the gospel “through the impact of individual Christians in their own surroundings,” and not necessarily through an organized mission agencies but through “mouth-to-mouth propaganda.”[69] In this case, personal witness/evangelism is closely related to lifestyle evangelism that “each individual Christian is an ambassador and a multiplier for Christ in his[her] own family, at school, at work, on holiday, in voluntary service overseas, and so on. This [however] does not mean that organized mission is superfluous. On the contrary, it makes it more effective and convincing.”[70] Such a proposal to personal evangelism arises from the observation that the expansion of Christianity in the first century was also resulting from the personal witness of converted slaves, soldiers, tradesman, housewives, politicians, and the like.[71] It may also be suggested that the same evangelism (mission) can be carried out by every Christian member of the church in India who has been united with Christ.

CONCLUSION

As the title indicates, the paper explores in brief about the way in which John 15:4-5 can be read by using a reformation hermeneutical tools. In this process, it is argued that abidance in Christ (union with Christ) plays a central role in making a believer priest/priestess. Then, as a result of a believer’s entry into priesthood, he/she is vested with the responsibility of bearing fruit for God. Various ways to ‘bearing fruit’ have been recovered from the way in which the reformers contextualize the Gospel (contextual mission), from the way Christ has sacrificed for the sake of others (sacrificial mission), from the way in which every believer (as a priest/priestess) is called to God’s mission as a result his/her union with Christ (lifestyle evangelism), and also from the way in which every church and its member (universal ecclesiology) is called to ‘personal evangelism.’ In all these, abidance in Christ functions as the main reason for making Christians to become missional. That is to say, missio Dei is resulting from one’s union with Christ.

And, of different models suggested above, ‘lifestyle evangelism,’ along with ‘personal evangelism,’ is considered to be the most suitable, effective and safest way to do mission in India where free propagation of the Gospel is prohibited in a number of states. While contextual mission may be encouraged and continued, it does not form a new strategy of doing mission in India. Besides, the approach can be biased in overemphasizing the (Dalit/tribal) context rather than the Scriptural text; whereas ‘sacrificial mission’ is also considered risky and could be restricted to a great extent by the opponents/persecutors as it is often carried out openly.

---

[1] Cited in Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “A Short History of Interpretation,” in An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, edited by Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 225.

[2] Cited in Kaiser, “A Short History of Interpretation,” 225.

[3] Kaiser, “A Short History of Interpretation,” 224.

[4] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 41.

[5] Cited in L. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950), 27.

[6] Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Biblical Interpretation, 40-1.

[7] E. C. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 120. “In stressing the grammatical sense Luther was demanding in the interpreter hard study of languages, history, etc.” Blackman, Biblical Interpretation, 121.

[8] Luther’s Works 30:165, cited in William M. Marsch, Martin Luther On Reading the Bible as Christian Scripture: The Messiah in Luther’s Biblical Hermeneutic and Theology (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2017), 138.

[9] Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 198; cf. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Biblical Interpretation, 41.

[10] Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 66.

[11] Blackman, Biblical Interpretation, 122-23.

[12] Hank Voss, The Priesthood of All Believers and the Mission Dei: A Canonical, Catholic, and Contextual Perspective (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2016), 32. Accordingly, Luther says that “through baptism all of us are consecrated to the priesthood, as St. Peter says in I Peter ii, ‘Ye are a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom,’ (1 Pet. 2: 9) and the book of Revelation says, ‘Thou hast made us by Thy blood to be priests and kings’” (Rev. 5:10). Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther, The Ages of Digital Library Collections, Vol. 2 (Albany, OR: Books for the Ages, 1997), 52.

[13] B. A. Gerrish, “Priesthood and Ministry in the Theology of Luther,” Church History 34/4 (1965): 405.

[14] Voss, Priesthood of All Believers, 28.

[15] L. W. Spitz, “The Universal Priesthood of Believers with Luther’s Comments,” Concordia Theological Monthly 23/1 (January 1952): 15.

[16] Hauck, “menw,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, vol. iv (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 576.

[17] George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36 (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987), 272.

[18] Patrick J. Hartin, “Remain in Me (John 15:5). The Foundation of the Ethical and Its Consequences in the Farewell Discourses,” Neotestamentica 25/2 (1991): 350.

[19] H. Hübner, “menw,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 408.

[20] Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 4 (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 419.

[21] Mark Rogers, “A Dangerous Idea? Martin Luther, E. Y. Mullins, and the Priesthood of All Believers,” The Westminster Theological Journal 72/1 (2010): 123.

[22] Rogers, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 120.

[23] Herman A. Preus, “Luther on the Universal Priesthood and the Office of the Ministry,” Concordia Journal 5/2 (March 1979): 56.

[24] Cf. Gerrish, “Priesthood and Ministry,” 406.

[25] Martin Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” in Three Treatises, translated by Charles M. Jacobs (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970),14, cited in Rogers, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 121.

[26] Gerald A. Arbuckle, Earthing the Gospel: An Inculturation Handbook for the Pastoral Worker (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 9.

[27] L. J. Luzbetak, The Church and Cultures: New Perspectives in Missiological Anthropology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 78.

[28] J. C. de Smidt, “A Perspective on John 15: 1-8,” Neotestamentica 25/2 (1991): 254.

[29] J. Painter, “Glimpses of the Johannine Community in the Farewell Discourse,” Australian Biblical Review 28 (1980): 22.

[30] Moloney, Gospel of John, 272; cf. F. J. Moloney, “The Structure and Message of John 15.1-16.3,” Australian Biblical Review 35 (1987): 46; M. Pamment, “Path and Reisdence Metaphors in the Fourth Gospel,” Theology 88 (1985): 119.

[31] Luther’s Works (LW), vol. 30, 53; Luther’s Works, vol. 40, 28ff., cited in Preus, “Luther on the Universal Priesthood,” 57.

[32] LW 30: 55, cited in Voss, Priesthood of All Believers, 141. Yet, there are scholars who concluded on the basis of 1Peter 2:5-9 that individual believers are not priests. Elliott argues that Peter’s ‘believers (2:6-7) are neither a temple of the Holy Spirit (2:5) nor believer-priests (2:5-9) who personally share in the priestly service of the ‘Anointed One.’ J. H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Peter 2: 4-10 and the Phrase (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 406-55.

[33] Preus, “Luther on the Universal Priesthood,” 57-8.

[34] LW 30: 64-6, cited in Voss, Priesthood of All Believers, 33. However, Jo Baily Wells states that 1 Peter 2:4-9’s priesthood “is not a literal conveyance to every believer of priestly rights and functions,” but an understanding “that Reformation imposed on this passage … nowhere in the NT is this the understanding.” Wells, God’s Holy People, 218. Therefore, she denies the priesthood of all believers. Cf. J. H. Elliott, “Elders as Leaders in 1 Peter and the Early Church,” Currents in Theology and Mission 64 (2008): 551; Raymond E. Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 14-5. While the emphasis of 1 Peter 2:4-9 is on the corporate nature of the believer-priests’ life together, this corporate emphasis does not exclude individual believers (o pisteuwn; v. 6) from offering spiritual sacrifices through Jesus Christ (2:5), or from functioning as priestly mediators when they ‘proclaim the wonderful deed God has performed’ on their behalf.” Voss, Priesthood of All Believers, 33.

[35] Moloney, Gospel of John, 420.

[36] Hartin, “Remain in Me (John 15:5),” 350.

[37] Rogers, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 123.

[38] Rogers, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 122.

[39] Thomas Coates, “Were the Reformers Mission-Minded?,” Concordia Theological Monthly 40/9 (1969): 603; cf. H. S. Bender, “Priesthood of All Believers,” Mennonite Encyclopedia 5 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1959), http://www.gameo. org/encyclopedia/contents/P752ME.html.,cited in Gerald Gerbrandt, “Crazy Days: The Priesthood of All Believers Revisited,” Vision (Spring 2013): 21.

[40] Luther even says that he “cannot understand why one has been made a priest cannot again become a layman; for the sole difference between him and a layman is his ministry. But to depose a man from the ministry is so far from impossible that it is even now the usual penalty imposed upon guilty priest; they are either suspended for a season or permanently deprived of their office.” Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther, vol. 2 (Albany, OR: Books for the Ages, 1997), 203-04. “We are all priests and kings in Christ, as many as believe on Christ” (1Pet. 2:9). There are two functions of a priest which are visible, viz., prayers and preaching which are shared by believers alike. Luther, Works of Martin Luther, 234.

[41] “Luther emphasizes that all believers must use their gifts to serve one another.” Voss, Priesthood of All Believers, 147.

[42] J. Tristan Hurley, “Missiologia Crucis: Martin Luther’s Missiology,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 60/1 (Fall 2017): 75.

[43] Vosss, Priesthood of All Believers, 33.

[44] Paul S. Chung, “A Theology of Justification and God’s Mission,” Currents in Theology and Mission 34/2 (April 2007): 119.

[45] Voss, Priesthood of All Believers, 145.

[46] Coates, “Were the Reformers Mission-Minded?,” 603.

[47] Gilberto da Silva, “The Lutheran Church as a Church of Mission Against the Background of the Priesthood of All Believers,” Missio Apostolica 14/1 (May 2006): 24.

[48] Hurley, “Missiologia Crucis,” 74.

[49] Justo L. González, “Explortation of Our Ninety-Five Theses,” Our Ninety – Five Theses: 500 Years After the Reformation, edited by Alberto L. Garciá and Justo L. González (Orlando, Flo: Asociación para le Educación Teológica Hispana, 2016), 276.

[50] Nobili adopted Hindu religious (brahmanic) symbols and traditions; while Carey involved in translating the Bible into local language.

[51] A. S. Appasamy, An Indian Interpretation of Christianity (Madras: CLS, 1924).

[52] B. H. Streeter, The Message of Sadhu Sundar Singh (New York: Macmillan, 1921); Sundar Singh, Sadhu Sundar Singh: Essential Writings, 2^nd edition (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2005).

[53] Cf. James Massey, The Gospel According to Luke, Dalit Bible Commentary, vol. 3 (New Delhi: Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies, 2007); idem. Acts of the Apostles, Dalit Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (New Delhi: Centre for Dalit/Subaltern Studies, 2008).

[54] Cf. K. Thanzauva, Theology of Community: Tribal Theology in the Making (Aizawl: Mizo Theological Conference, 1997).

[55] Cf. A. Wati Longchar, The Traditional Tribal Worldview and Modernity (Jorhat: Eastern Theological College, 1995); idem. In Search of Identity and Tribal Theology (Jorhat: Eastern Theological College, 2001).

[56] Cf. James D. Dvorak, “John H. Elliott’s Social-Scientific Criticism,” Trinity Journal 28 NS (2007): 277-78.

[57] This right includes “freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.” Dharmendra Rajmangal, ed., Fundamental Rights of Every Indian Citizen, Part III of Indian Constitution (Aligarh, UP: Rajmangal Publishers).  

[58] They are: Uttarakhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand. Saji Thomas, “Seventh Indian State Enacts Anti-Conversion Law,” UCA News.com, 3 May, 2018, accessed on 6 March, 2019, https://www.ucanews.com/news/seventh-indian-state-enacts-anti-conversion-law/82213; cf. “India and Its Anti-Conversion Laws,” ADF International, 12 April, 2018, accssed on 6 March, 2019, https://adfinternational.org/commentary/india-and-its-anti-conversion-laws/

[59] Cf. “Violence against Christians Ratchets up in Southern India,” Morning Star News, 9 October, 2018, accessed on 7 March, 2019, https://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/violence-against-christians-ratchets-up-in-southern-india.html; cf. Charlie Moloney, “Christian Persecution: Pastor and Son Battered by Mob After Leaving Prayer Meeting,” Express, 15 August, 2018, accessed on 7 March, 2019, https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1003882/Christian-persecution-india-Hindu-religion-BJP

[60] Shyamlal Yadav, “Nor More Conversion by 2020: Affiliate Sets Target,” Indian Express, August 17, 2015, accessed on 6 March, 2019, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-more-conversion-by-2020-affiliate-sets-target/

[61] The Hindustan Times, December 16, 2014.

[62] “Continued Violence Against Christians and Churches,” OpenDoors, accesed on 6 March, 2019, https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/india/

[63] For instance, violence against a Christian missionary happened on 22^nd January, 1999 when a missionary from Australia (Graham Staines and his two sons Philip and Timothy) were burnt alive by the Hindu fanatics, alleging the missionaries for converting poor tribals at Manoharpur in Orissa, India, to Christianity. Ignatius Fernandez, Through the Eye of a Needle: Transforming Relationships (New Delhi: Sterling Paperbacks, 2007), 77.

[64] Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 167.

[65] da Silva, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 26-7.

[66] Jobes, 1 Peter, 173.

[67] da Silva, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 26-7.

[68] da Silva, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 27.

[69] da Silva, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 27.

[70] da Silva, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 27.

[71] Cf. da Silva, “Priesthood of All Believers,” 27.