CONCERNING OTHER FORMS OF HYPOCRISY:
Those who are not the same within as they are without are said to be coloured or painted…”…‘painted men, pretending to be Pharisees, whose works are as the works of Zimri, and yet they expect the reward of Phineas. The Gloss is…”Those painted men are those whose outward show doth not answer to their nature; they are coloured without,…but their inward part doth not answer to their outward; and their works are evil,…A disciple of the wise, who is not the same within that he is without, is not a disciple of the wise.”
“…The masters themselves acknowledge [their own hypocrisy] to their own shame. They inquire, what were those sins under the first Temple for which it was destroyed; and it is answered, ”Idolatry, fornication, and bloodshed.” They inquire, what were the sins under the second; and answer, ”Hate without cause, and secret iniquity;” and add these words, ”To those that were under the first Temple their end was revealed, because their iniquity was revealed…but to those that were under the second their end was not revealed, because their iniquity was not revealed.” The Gloss, ”They that were under the first Temple did not hide their iniquity; therefore their end was revealed to them: as it is said, ‘After seventy years I will visit you in Babylon:’ but their iniquity under the second Temple was not revealed:…those under the second Temple were secretly wicked.”” [2:300-01]
Josephus speaks of the careful way the priest’s marriages were regulated “…that the whole priestly generation might be preserved pure and unblended.” [3:13]
The commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself brought forth the question: “Who is my neighbor?” The Jews commonly taught: “…’He excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour.’
“‘An Israelite killing…a stranger inhabitant, he doth not die for it by the Sanhedrim: because it is said…If any one lift up himself against his neighbour. And it is not necessary to say, He does not die upon the account of a Gentile: for they are not esteemed by them for their neighbour.“
“‘The Gentiles, amongst whom and us there is no war, and so those that are keepers of sheep amongst the Israelites, and the like, we are not to contrive their death: but if they be in any danger of death, we are not bound to deliver them: e.g. If any of them fall into the sea, you shall not need to take him out: for it is said, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour;… but such a one is not thy neighbour.'” [3:107-9]
To the question: “…’Lord are there few that be saved?’… it was a received opinion amongst the Jews, ‘that all Israel should have their part in the world to come,’….” [3:143] [Note how this opinion is explained in Rom. 11:25-6; that is, that ‘all Israel’ are those who are in Christ, and are therefore saved.]
“…This great Shepherd, {of Zech. 11}, broke that covenant that had been made and confirmed with that people, ver.10: ‘I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.’ With all the people; i.e. with all Israel, the ten and the two tribes too. And in ver. 14, the affinity and kin which was betwixt Judah and Israel is dissolved; which it would not be amiss for those to take serious notice of, who as yet expect a universal conversion of the whole nation of the Jews. Let them say by virtue of what covenant; if the covenant of grace, that makes no difference betwixt the Jew and the Greek, nor knows any one after the flesh. If by virtue of the covenant peculiarly made with that people, that was broken and dissolved, when God had gathered his flock out of that people. For,
“…The great Shepherd, when he came, found that there must be a flock gathered in that nation, … as Rom.xi.5, A remnant according to the election of grace; and these he took care to call and gather before Jerusalem should be destroyed. Zechariah himself calls it … the flock of slaughter…. [3:348]
“That of the apostle ought to be strictly heeded; … Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Which indeed is, as it were, the gnomon to that chapter, and, above all other things, does interpret best the apostle’s mind. For he propounds to discourse not concerning the universal call of the Jews, but of their not being universally rejected… {Paul using the analogy of the time of the worship of the golden calf which Jeroboam set up, God said:} ‘I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee … ‘ to that golden calf, the common and universal error of that nation…. ‘Even so’ (saith the apostle), ‘at this present time also there is a remnant;’ plainly intimating, that he does not assert or argue for the calling of the whole nation, but of that remnant only; and that he discourses concerning the present calling of that remnant, and not about any future call of the whole nation.” [3:349]
“…It is observable that the apostle, throughout this whole chapter, {Rom. 11}, doth not so much as once make mention of the Jews, but of Israel, that he might include the ten tribes with the two within his discourse.
“And indeed, this great Shepherd had his flock, or his sheep, within the ten tribes, as well as within the two: and to me it is without all controversy that the gospel, in the times of the apostles, was brought and preached as well to the one as the other. Doubtless St. Peter, whilst he was in Babylon, preached to the Israelites dispersed in those countries as well as to the Jews.
“Some of the Gemarists do vehemently deny any conversion of the ten tribes under the Messiah: let them beware lest there be not a conversion of their own.
“…’The ten tribes shall never return, as it is written, ‘And he cast them into another land, as it is this day,’ Deut.xxix.28. ‘As this day passeth and shall never return, so they are gone and shall not return again.’ They are the words of R. Akibah.’ [3:348-50]
On the method of interpretation employed by the Talmudists Lightfoot writes: “…we may learn from hence the pleasant art they have of working any thing out of any thing.” [3:230]
The nature and extent of the eradication of Jews is described by Lightfoot: “…How great a multitude of Jews there were in Cyprus may be somewhat conjectured from the times of Trajan {Roman emperor 98-117 A.D.} backward from this story, {i.e. Acts 8:4}, … ‘In the mean time, the Jews who dwelt about Cyrene, under the conduct of one Andrew, fall both upon the Romans and the Greeks, feed on their flesh, eat their bowels, besmear themselves with their blood, and cover themselves with their skins: many of them they sawed asunder from the crown of the head down the middle; many of them they threw to the wild beasts; many of them they forced to fight amongst themselves, till they had destroyed above two hundred and twenty thousand men. In Egypt and Cyprus they committed the same kind of outrages, the leader (of the Cypriots) being Artemion; where two hundred and forty thousand men were lost: whence it came to pass that a Jew might not come into Cyprus. But if by chance and stress of weather he put in upon the island, he was killed. But the Jews, as by others, so especially by Lucius, whom Trajanus sent upon that expedition, were all subdued.'” [4:112-3]. Quoting Dion. Cass. in Vit. Trajani [lxviii.32.])
“It was common in the Jewish nation, that among the Jews they went by a Jewish name; but among heathens by another. That is, either by the same name turned into the heathen language…. Or they went by some different name….
“Hence the Gloss upon Maimonides; ‘Perhaps he hath two names, viz., a Jewish, and that whereby …those that are not Jews do call him.’ And that passage, ‘The Israelites without the land of Israel have names like the names of the Gentiles.’ Yea, hearken to what they say in the same tract concerning Jews dwelling even in the land of Israel: ‘Perhaps he hath two wives, one in Judea another in Galilee. And perhaps he hath two names, one in Judea another in Galilee. If he subscribes his name whereby he goes in Judea, to put away her who is in Galilee, or the name whereby he goes in Galilee, to put away her who is in Judea, it is not a divorce.” [4:171-2]
“… The Romans little cared to distinguish between a Judaizing synagogue of the Jews, and a Christianizing synagogue of the Jews….” [4:197]
Davies, [3, note 1]:”… Klausner, however, is more sceptical of Paul‘s claim to be a Benjamite because, so he claims, books of genealogy would hardly exist, for an obscure family like Paul’s at least, at the end of the period of the Second Temple ….” (Quoting J. Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, p.304f.)
[63-4] “With the decline in the belief in the ultimate salvation of the Gentiles it came to be recognized that the only hope for the latter was to become Jews, i.e. to be naturalized into the Jewish people, and it is this that accounts for the considerable activity shown in the gaining of proselytes. The New Testament supplies evidence for the latter, and the large number of proselytes gained shows that Jewish propaganda was successful. R. Eleazar of Modiim ( AD 120-40) said that ‘God scattered Israel among the nations for the sole end that proselytes should wax numerous among them’. [Quoting b. Pes. 87b. See R.A. {Rabbinic Anthology} p. xliv.] Generally, however, the Rabbis seem to have oscillated between a desire to keep off proselytes with one arm and the desire to draw them with the other. Thus Shammai ( AD 10-80) adopted a strict attitude towards proselytes, demanding that they should give assent to the Torah both written and oral before knowing its contents, {Quoting b. Shab. 31a.} and R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos ( AD 80-120) was suspicious of all proselytes. {Citing Mekilta Nezikin 18 on Exod. 22.20f.; Eccles. Rabbah on 1.8}.
[Note 10, p. 63: “… The success of Jewish proselytizing led to legislation to hinder it…. “]
“On the other hand one of the sayings of Hillel ( AD 10-20) recorded in Aboth 1.12 reads: ‘Be one of the disciples of Aaron a lover of peace, following after peace, loving mankind and drawing them to the Law.’ It is also worth referring to the story of how ‘a foreigner came to Shammai saying, ‘Make a proselyte of me on condition that you teach me the whole of the Law while I stand on one foot.’ Shammai drove him off with a measuring stick that he had in his hand. Thereupon he repaired to Hillel with the same proposition. Hillel received him as a proselyte and taught him: ‘What you do not like to have done to you do not do to your fellow. This is the whole of the Law: the rest is the explanation of it. Go learn it.'” {Quoting b. Shab.31a.}
[Note 2: “…Consideration for the feelings of the Proselyte is urged, e.g. in M. Baba Metzia 4.10. Mekilta, ibid. A prayer for proselytes was included in the Eighteen Benedictions….”]….
[64-5] “… It was the Gentiles themselves who were responsible for their miserable lot: they too had had the opportunity of accepting the Torah but had refused it. {Citing 4 Ezra 7.72.} R. Jose b. Simeon said ( AD 120-90): ‘Ere you stood at Sinai and accepted my Torah you were called Israel, just as other nations, … are called by simple names without addition. But after you accepted the Torah at Sinai you were called ‘My people’, as it says, Hearken O my people and I will speak.‘ {Citing Tanhuma, … ¶1,p.19; cf. Num.R.14.10; Sifre Deut. on 33.2 ¶343.} Moreover, not only had the Gentiles failed to keep the Torah revealed on Mount Sinai. Adam had been given six commandments that were to be binding on all nations. One other commandment had been added to these and all seven were again given to Noah so that his descendants — the Gentiles — should obey them, but all in vain: the Gentiles did not accept even these…. In all seven prophets had been given to the Gentiles. Thus R. Simeon b. Gamaliel {Citing Lev.R. 2.9} ( AD 140-65) said: ‘I was once on a journey and a man came up to me with outstretched arm and he said to me, ‘You say that seven prophets have arisen among the nations and they warned them [but they hearkened not] and they went down into hell’. I said to him, ‘My son, so it is’.’ The view remains to be noticed also that proselytism itself was intended for a warning to the Gentiles. This appears from the following: {Citing Pesikta R.161a.} ‘And many nations shall be joined to the Lord on that day’ (Zech.2.11).” (See continuation of this at Rev.20:4).
[201] “… for Paul the Spirit is not only the life of the new man but of the New Israel, the Church. The latter is the Body of Christ and is animated by the Spirit; the solidarity of all Christians with one another and with their Lord, through the one Spirit, is such that Christians as a Body no less than as individuals constitute a temple of the Holy Spirit.”
[300] “[Concerning the resurrection body]… In Mishnah Sanhedrin 10.1 we read: ‘All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it is written, Thy people are all righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting; the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. But the following have no portion therein: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine. Proof texts from the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa were adduced in support of the doctrine.”3 [Note 3:”See b. Sanh. 90b.”]
[322-3]”… Dr. Dodd has claimed with regard to Paul‘s insistence on the ultimate restoration of the Old Israel to the Church and its significance in Rom.11.1-32, that ‘from our standpoint with a far longer historical retrospect than Paul would have dreamt of the special importance here assigned to the Jews and their conversion in the forecast of the destiny of mankind appears artificial’. It may, however, be questioned whether our longer historic perspective does in fact confirm this judgement. One thing at least shines clear, that ‘Israel after the flesh’ persists as an enigma to the twentieth no less than to the preceding centuries…. [p.323] “…it appears that for the Apostle the Christian Faith was the full flowering of Judaism, the outcome of the latter and its fulfillment; in being obedient to the Gospel he was merely being obedient to the true form of Judaism. The Gospel for Paul was not the annulling of Judaism but its completion, and as such it took up into itself the essential genius of Judaism.”