Dr. Rodney Plunket

During the month of November, many of our adult Bible classes have been involved in a study of the Intertestamental Period.  The term “Intertestamental Period” refers to that period of Jewish history that takes place between the writing of the Old Testament and the writing of the New Testament.  You see, there are a few hundred years between the writing of the last book of the Old Testament and the birth of Jesus.  During those few hundred years many events took place that shaped the world into which Jesus was born, the world to which Jesus preached and ministered.  Jesus ministered primarily to Jews living in Palestine, and those Jews experienced some cataclysmic events during the Intertestamental Period.

An extremely important event took place in 332 BC; Palestine came into the possession of Alexander the Great.  Prior to the inclusion of Palestine into Alexander’s empire there was already a great force impacting that part of the world.  That force is referred to as Hellenization.  Now the word “Hellenization” is in no way related to our English word “Hell.”  The word “Hellenization” comes from the Greek word that English translations of the New Testament render with the word, “Greek.”  Let me say that again, because this can be a bit confusing.  There is a Greek word that we translate into English as “Greek.”  The Greeks did not call themselves “Greeks.”  That is what we call them.  A Greek was called a “Helleœn,” and from that word comes the word “Helleœnization/Hellenization” which refers to the spread of Greek culture.  Alexander the Great intensified the push of Hellenization through his conquests, through the building of his empire.  He was convinced of the superiority of the Greek way of life.  So he “devoted his life to conquering the world for the spread of Greek culture.”[1]

After Alexander the Great died, his empire was split up into smaller empires; and Palestine was eventually caught up in the battles between the resultant rivals.  But Hellenization continued throughout that period whether there were battles going on or not.  In fact, during certain periods of the post-Alexander period, the Hellenization push in Palestine was far more radical than it had been while Alexander was still alive.

In time the Roman Empire was built, and Palestine was absorbed by that world-changing power.  But the culture of Rome was still Hellenism, and the push of Hellenization continued.

Any time someone seeks to move a people toward a different culture, a different worldview, a different way of seeing and living, there are difficulties.  Some people will accept completely the incoming culture and will want to leave all of their old culture behind.  Others will want to mix the two cultures, trying to take the best of the new culture and mix it with the best of the old.  Still others will want no part of the incoming culture; they will want to fight even the slightest innovation or change.  These differing responses taking place within the same ethnic group or nationality often precipitate great tension and hostility.

Great tension and hostility were certainly precipitated by Hellenization in Palestine.  And the greatest tensions were created because Hellenization often profoundly affected the practice of the Jewish religion.  It appears that those Jews who were most in favor of Hellenization sometimes even pushed to outlaw the very practice of the Jewish religion altogether.[2]

In between the death of Alexander the Great and the conquest of Palestine by the Romans, just such a push to outlaw the practice of Jewish religion created a guerilla warfare resistance movement led by the sons of a man named Mattathias.  Mattathias was nicknamed “Maccabee”––“the hammer,” so his sons and their resistance army were popularly referred to as “the Maccabees.”  The Maccabees had some major military victories in their battles against Hellenization, but the Jews were still divided among themselves.  In fact, it was due to an appeal from the Jewish Hellenizers that a Syrian army was sent and in the ensuing battle the current leader of the Maccabees, Judas, son of Mattathias, was killed.  But the Maccabeean resistance carried on with a new leader, Jonathon, another son of Mattathias.

When Rome took over, the Jewish fight against Hellenization continued unabated.  The battle against Roman rule and the Hellenization it promoted continued even after the death of Jesus.  The ferocity of that resistance resulted in the city of Jerusalem being destroyed by the armies of Rome in 70 AD.

So the Intertestamental Period was a time of conflict; it was a time of what we might call today “culture wars.”  During that time two groups rose to prominence among the Jews of Palestine.  We meet both of those groups in the New Testament.  They were the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  These two groups had different ways of dealing with the encroachment of the Hellenistic culture.  Their differences brought them into conflict many times.

The Pharisees were that group that was very concerned about keeping, not only the Law of Moses, but also all of the Jewish traditions that had been built up around that Law.  They also believed in the resurrection of the dead and in a final judgment by God following that resurrection.  The Pharisees appear to have been very well respected by the common people of Jesus’ day.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, did not believe in the resurrection and did not believe in the traditions surrounding the Law.  And, unlike the Pharisees, they appear not to have been well respected by the common people.  The wealthy and the elite appear to have provided their power base.

As a result of all that happened during the preceding period and all that was still happening in His own day, Jesus encountered a Jewish world that was caught up with questions like how should we respond to Greek culture, how religiously rigid should we be to keep from being polluted, how should we respond to Roman rule.  So much of the religious life of the Jews revolved around these questions.

One example of how important these issues were is Jesus’ relationship with Jewish tax collectors.  The religiously devout despised tax collectors.  Tax collectors collected taxes for the Romans and had Roman soldiers at their disposal to make sure the people paid.  Surely they were corrupted by such a close relationship with the infidels.  Surely their conduct put them far away from even the remotest opportunity to have a relationship with God.  Surely the truly religious person should never have fellowship with tax collectors.  But Jesus did.  He even ate with them, and there was no stronger indication of fellowship and acceptance than eating with someone.  Jesus was harshly criticized for eating with tax collectors, but it did not stop Him from doing it.

And Jesus was even asked about the paying of taxes to the Roman Empire.  The question is found in Lk 20:22.  In an effort to trap Him they ask, “Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?”  Jesus’ answer is a classic.  He asks to see a common coin used to pay taxes.  He then asks,

“Whose head and whose title does it bear?”  They said, “The emperor’s.”  He said to them, “Then give to the emperor the things that are the emper­or’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Luke [Lk] 20:24-25; see also Matthew [Matt] 22:17ff; Mark 12:14ff).

Jesus also got involved with the beliefs that divided and defined the Pharisees and the Sadducees––beliefs carved out in the debate over Hellenization.  Jesus disagreed with the Sadducees about their denial of the resurrection (e.g., Matt 22:23ff), and He denounced the Pharisees for the way they followed the Jewish traditions (e.g., Matt 15:1-20).  In other words, He did not fit into either of those groups, and He offended them both.

Jesus’ path was very different.  Rigid traditions and law keeping did not define his path.  But it was not really characterized by Hellenization or anti-Hellenization either.  It focused upon what Jesus knew to be the heart of God’s Law––love God with your whole self and love others as you love yourself (e.g., Matt 22:36-40).  As a result, he rejected the path of violent opposition to the Romans.  He even told His disciples that “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile” (Matt 5:41).  Only a member of an occupying army had the power to force someone to carry their equipment for a prescribed distance.  Jesus, therefore, is teaching His followers to carry a Roman soldier’s equipment twice as far as the law required.  In other words, change them through generous service not violent opposition.  Jesus lived this instruction when he healed the servant of an officer in Roman army, and Jesus even praised the faith he saw in that man (Matt 8:5ff; Lk 7:1-10).

The Jews did not follow Jesus’ path.  As a result, their resentment of the Romans just grew and grew.  Jerusalem was destroyed some forty years after Jesus’ death and resurrection because that resentment finally exploded.  Jesus’ foresaw Jerusalem’s destruction, but He took no delight in being vindicated by that destruction.  His love for Jerusalem and His pain at its coming devastation affects Him profoundly, and He says,

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!  How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not will­ing!” (Matt 23:37; see also Matt 23:38-24:2).

Yes, Jesus rejected much of what absorbed religious Jews during the Intertestamental Period and during His own time.  He did not believe that political maneuvering and guerilla warfare were the ways to achieve God’s ends.  He did not believe that creating and living within a group of religious purists was the way to do that either.

But Jesus did live out a cherished belief carved out by the devout Jews of that period.  He lived out the belief that the person who is truly faithful to God will be faithful unto death no matter how horrific that death.  Many Jews during the Intertestamental Period were tortured and died horrible deaths because of their refusal to turn away from their faith.

There are two books written by the Jews called First and Second Maccabees.  These books report many events from that period.  And in 2 Maccabees (2 Macc) 6-7 we have several stories of torture.  It may be that these stories are not historical, but they do convey the kinds of pressures that were placed upon the Jews and the way that the truly devout Jews responded to them.

One of those stories is of a ninety-year-old Jewish scribe named Eleazar who was commanded to eat pork, something that is forbidden by the Law of Moses.  The pork apparently was forced into his mouth, but he spat it out.  He went willingly to the rack where he was beaten to death.  In 2 Macc 6:30 we read,

When he was about to die under the blows, he groaned aloud and said:  “It is clear to the Lord in his holy knowledge that, though I might have been saved from death, I am enduring terrible sufferings in my body under this beating, but in my soul I am glad to suffer these things because I fear him.”

Another story takes up the whole of 2 Macc 7.  And it is the story of a mother with seven sons who are tortured and killed because they refused to break the Law of Moses by eating pork.  They experienced horrible deaths that I will not describe.  The king who is seeking to force them to go against the Law kills them from the oldest to the youngest.  And the ones still alive watch as one-by-one they are tortured and killed.  Finally only the youngest is left.  The king seems to have a soft spot for the youngest.  Listen to what happens:

The youngest brother being still alive, Antiochus not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he would make him rich and envia­ble if he would turn from the ways of his ancestors, and that he would take him for his Friend and entrust him with public affairs.  Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself.  After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son.  But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native language as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant:  “My son, have pity on me.  I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.  I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.  And in the same way the human race came into being.  Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again along with your brothers” (2 Macc 7:24c-29).

The youngest brother’s faith remained firm, and he made his resolve clear to the king.  Here are the results of his faithful resolve.

The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated at his scorn.  So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.

Last of all, the mother died, after her sons (2 Macc 7:39-41).

Jesus was also faithful unto death.  He obeyed the Father to the bitter end.  And reports indicate that most of his apostles and many other of His followers died horrible deaths as well because of their refusal to deny their faith.  They also were faithful unto death.

Do you have a truth worth dying for?  I doubt that a person has really lived unless they have lived with a truth worth dying for.  I want us to watch a video clip together.  This video clip brings home the profound power of having a truth worth dying for.

[A clip of someone dying for freedom is shown].

Jesus was faithful to death.  He had a truth worth dying for.  He died for the truth of God’s love, the truth of God’s forgiveness.  He died that we might have eternal life.

Come receive His truth worth dying for.  Come and be saved by the power of Jesus’ faithfulness unto death.

Top | Sermons | Home