Monday 27 February 2017

Nations = Individuals

The Gospel isn't merely a secondary theme in Old Testament Prophecy. The Gospel isn't even merely an equal second ultimate-theme in Old Testament Prophecy, the other being Israel. The Gospel is the ultimate theme of Old Testament promise, shadow and prophecy!

Many consider Romans chapter 11 to be about the future of national Israel - as if the Gospel is only an equal-second concern of God's, or worse: hardly mentioned in Old Testament Prophecy at all.

But when Paul discusses Israel in Romans chapter 11, it isn't clear to me that he's necessarily thinking about the future of the polity of Israel, as a block, as a nation-State. He's probably just thinking about Israelis. About Jews. Individual Jews.

We see nations and individuals discussed the same way in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus said all nations shall be called before Him in the day of Judgment. But still, individuals from all nations shall be judged on an individual basis: it's not talking about blocks of nations. The sheep and goats are individuals, not whole nations.

Similarly in Romans chapter 11, Israel isn't necessarily literally the whole nation in future - it probably just meant Jews, individuals. Jews could still be saved if they repented and believed: God hadn't closed that door to a Jew.

That's pretty much all Paul was saying, I think. He was explaining a timeless Gospel-truth, in order to correct a potential misconception - asserting a first century reality - he probably wasn't mainly forecasting the future of the political State of Israel.

The Gospel fulfilled Israel's prophesied salvation - the Gospel isn't something else.

The remnant obtained it, and the rest were hardened and blinded, as a consequence of their unbelief.

Then through the ministries of believing-Jews, Gentiles next heard and and believed. A scenario also foreseen by the Prophets.

That outcome didn't mean however that God had closed the opportunity for Jews to be saved - any Jewish individual could still be saved, if he repented and believed.

In fact, God was using the salvation-experience of Gentiles to try to provoke that very response in more Jews!

And this scenario is to continue until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in - that is, until the end. And then all who have been born again shall see the Kingdom of God, the eternal consummation of the Gospel-Kingdom scheme.

That's pretty much what Paul was asserting in Romans 11 - I'm not convinced he was instead separating the Gospel from the supposed future-salvation of national Israel, in Bible-Prophecy, like many today are thinking.

To Paul, the Gospel was the apex of promise, shadow and prophecy. The Gospel didn't even share that podium with any other purpose and plan, in Prophecy. It was it!

   

Sunday 26 February 2017

Where Are You From?

That's not always an easy question for me.

I was born in Japan, so I could say I'm from Japan - but I'm not a Japanese citizen. I'm an Australian citizen, so I could say I'm from Australia - but I wasn't born in Australia. I spent most of the first few years of my life in Kobe, Japan, so maybe I could say I'm from Kobe - but I didn't grow up in Kobe. I grew to adulthood in the city of Ipswich, Queensland, Australia, so I could say I'm from Ipswich - but I don't live in Ipswich. I'm mostly based at the
city of the Gold Coast, Queensland now, so I could say I'm from the Gold Coast - but I'm not a local here: I was nearly 30 when I came here. My parents, grandparents or great-grandparents weren't from the Gold Coast either: they were born or grew up either elsewhere in Australia, or in England, Wales, Sweden or Germany. So where I come from, depends. Therefore before answering, I always have to decide why someone's asking - then I can decide how best to answer. It's usually easy enough to decide why someone's asking - but often enough it isn't easy. When it isn't easy, and I hesitate for just a moment, someone might wonder what's wrong with me. They'd think I was downright queer if I actually said, "It depends". But I'm always kind enough not to throw the question back on them, by asking "What do you mean?"

Saturday 25 February 2017

Give and Receive

I was talking with a friend of mine, a Pastor, when someone came up to him and gave him a gift.

He opened it - it was a watch.

"I keep receiving watches," he told me, "I wondered why, then I realised: I keep giving watches away".

Jesus said: "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again" (Luke 6:38).

Friday 24 February 2017

John's Gospel Through Jewish Eyes?

Anyone reading John's Gospel in the first century AD would get the impression that: 
  • Jerusalem was no longer to be central to worship or to God's eternal purposes; 
  • God wasn't all that impressed with the Jewish leaders of the day;
  • Jewish ethnicity was irrelevant in the eternal scheme of things; and
  • Gentile believers in Jesus need not become at all concerned with carrying-out Jewish customs.
Rather, the message of John was that salvation was all about believing in Jesus, regardless of ethnicity, and without the deeds of the Law.

(They wouldn't have got the impression that the future salvation literally of every living Israeli is an inevitable outcome, or that this thing we call the Gospel is merely some parenthesis added temporarily while we wait for God to once again turn his attention to His real purpose.)

Thursday 23 February 2017

The Work of God

If you want to look at what God is doing around the world, look at what man (believers) are doing - because anything God does in the world, He does through a man - through a believer, through someone acting, acting his faith, acting on the Word.

The Reformation happened because someone got ahold of what the Word was saying about something, and acted on it, and believed to see it take hold in their world.

The charismatic renewal happened because people saw some things in the Word, and started facilitating it in their meetings.

A missionary movement happened because someone started acting on a missionary-vision.

And once someone acts on something, and others act on the same thing, it catches on and more people starting acting on the same thing too.

So, what can we see God do in our day? What can we facilitate? What can we do - how can we act? What do you see in the Word? We can act on it and see it happen - see God do it.

Wednesday 22 February 2017

Definition

'Church-planting' in Australia is defined as the expensive action of reorganising existing believers to meet in a different building. 

So You Want to Keep the Torah

If you don't keep the whole Torah, you're not keeping the Torah at all.

If you don't offer sacrifices on the altar in Jerusalem with a Levite priest, you're not keeping the Torah.

If you try to keep the Torah, you're not keeping the Torah - because the Torah included its own sunset clause, by predicting a new covenant. 

The only way to 'keep' the Torah now that the new covenant has come, is to embrace the new covenant instead of the 'Torah'.

In the new covenant, God made a new heart in us, by His Holy Spirit - causing us to walk in His ways.

Thus we fulfil the righteousness of Divine law - without literally carrying-out the Torah (as the literal, religious unit that it once was) - but by receiving the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Then, since we live in the Spirit, we can walk in the Spirit. We can walk in love. And love is the fulfilling of Divine law - for God is love.

We are made sons, not merely servants.

And this blessing (the gift of righteousness through faith without the deeds of the Law) is for all nations, regardless of ethnicity.

Tuesday 21 February 2017

More on Romans 11

Reading Romans 11:1-24, 28-36 again, it seems to me Paul was simply asserting that it was still possible for Jewish individuals to get saved.
He was answering a first-century misconception, that God had closed the opportunity for Jews to be saved. God hadn't closed that opportunity, Paul asserted. Jews could still be saved.
Paul was simply explaining a timeless truth of the Gospel, something that was already seeing its expression in the first century AD.

It's not clear that Paul was instead presenting an eschatology.
Therefore verses 25-27 were probably not eschatological either - but were probably the succinct summary of his arguments in the rest of the chapter.
But even if Paul's statements were intended instead as an eschatology, still some of his statements would paint a very different picture to the popular end-times framework.
Just my impression, approaching the text without presuppositions.

On the Dating of Revelation

Someone wrote:

The first verse reveals WHO it was written to. Therefore the audience was 'BONDSERVANTS/SLAVES.' Rev1:1 . Only one people were ever referred to as SLAVES to a MASTER. Israelites to the LAW. They had to obey their MASTER to be 'adopted,' or be 'cast out.' Sons and daughters of a loving FATHER can never be 'cast out.' Simply apply the rules of proper hermeneutics: who, what, when, where, how and why. Then the entire bible will make sense. Angels ordained the old covenant and carried out it's curses. The New is not subjected to angels. Heb 2:5. Many more proofs that Revelation was written before 70 AD.

My reply:

Only one people were ever referred to as slaves to a master - really? 
Every New Testament Epistle was written by someone who described himself as a servant of Jesus Christ - Paul, James, Peter, Jude and John. They said that their readers - believers in Christ - were also the servants of Jesus Christ. And it's the same Greek word 'doulos' as in Rev.1:1. 

Therefore the fact that John addressed the servants of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:1 does not necessarily mean John was addressing unbelieving-Jews. Nor does the use of the word 'servant' in Revelation mean that the theme of the Book of Revelation was about the destruction of Jerusalem circa AD70. It doesn't necessarily preclude it either - but it's no proof that it was. 

As for what you call proper hermeneutics, how about this: Jesus' Olivet discourse was to Peter and James and John and Andrew privately (Mark 13:4), and Jesus repeatedly addressed them directly as "ye" (e.g. verse 14: "but when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains") - but James we know didn't live to see it, he was martyred earlier - and yet Jesus had addressed him as 'ye' - "when ye see". According to tradition Peter and Andrew didn't live to see it either. 

Jesus addressed His immediate audience as 'ye' - but He didn't necessarily always have all of them, or even any of them, in mind every time He said 'ye' - He sometimes had a far wider group in mind, and even a time beyond the lifetime of all of His immediate audience - even though He'd addressed His immediate audience directly using the personal plural pronoun 'ye'.

So here we have a precedent, set by the Lord Himself, and in the Preterists' favourite proof-passage itself: the Bible can address an immediate audience, and yet sometimes have a different group, a wider group, and even a different lifetime in mind. How about that for a hermeneutic!

Hebrews 2:5 doesn't mean angels aren't involved in the work of the Gospel, or in believers' lives, or in future judgments. Angels weren't created only for the period of the Law. They are sent forth to minister "for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb.1:14). Angels were reported as ministering for the heirs of salvation, all the way through the Book of Acts. 

So I don't feel satisfied that any of the points you mentioned are 'proofs' that Revelation was written before AD70. 

But it doesn't matter anyway, because regardless of when it was written, it doesn't change the main themes of Revelation, and it doesn't change the Christian's stance, as taught throughout the entire New Testament: that is, we look BACK to the cross, and FORWARD to the second coming. And in the mean time, we overcome, regardless.

Sunday 19 February 2017

OT Prophecy

Many Old Testament Prophecies covered a whole gamut of themes, from things specific to the prophets' own circumstances, to Israel's captivity and restoration, to Messiah's first coming and second coming - and sometimes all in the same passage.
Sometimes the Prophets wrote in straight prose - but other times they described visions which from the start were intended somewhat symbolically.
The Prophets themselves probably didn't fully understand exactly when and how their own Prophecies would all pan out - the themes, details, sequences, timeframes, etc.
Even the disciples, despite being raised on Biblical Prophecy, and despite spending three years with the Messiah Himself, still did not understood that Messiah had to die - until after His resurrection, then they understood it.
Very few godly men and prophets, if any, understood at first that Messiah was to come twice.
Those are only some of the biggest themes in Old Testament Prophecy - yet it probably wasn't possible for someone to know just by reading the Old Testament Prophecies alone, that all those things even had to happen at all, let alone when or how and in what order.
So, it probably isn't possible to properly understand Old Testament Prophecies, except in the light of the teaching in the New Testament. Old Testament Prophecy can only be rightly applied within the framework of New Testament theology. Unless we're smarter than the disciples and prophets.
It just can't be - no matter how good our grammar is. It wasn't meant to be. Some things were kept hidden on purpose. A mystery.
But Jesus Christ came to reveal it. He expounded the Scriptures to His disciples after His resurrection. Their hearts burned within them while He opened up the entire Old Testament to them.
The Apostles derived their take on Old Testament Prophecy, from the Lord Himself. We can hear their take on it, by reading their assertions, in their sermons, in the Book of Acts.
As the work of the early Church progressed, the Holy Spirit made additional things clearer to them - such as God's plan to include the Gentiles. Jesus had said earlier that He had more things to tell the disciples but they were not able to bear them at the time, and that the Spirit of truth Whom He would send would guide them into all truth. We can see that happening in the Book of Acts, and we can read all about the Holy Spirit's guidance, and the decisions decreed by the Apostles and elders for the churches, in Acts.
It's called 'the Apostles' doctrine'. The Apostles explain it for us in detail in their Epistles. They proclaimed, decreed and explained the manner in which Old Testament Prophecy was seeing its fulfilment. They were eyewitnesses, taught by the Lord Himself from the Scriptures, and guided by the Holy Spirit - they called it the Gospel.
Today there are all sort of takes on Old Testament Prophecy. Some say Israel's salvation is still future, and that it must include a return to Levitical sacrifices; others spiritualise all those details in Prophecy. The Apostles' approach wasn't exactly either of those.
Many Old Testament Prophecies covered a whole gamut of themes, from things specific to their own circumstances, to Israel's captivity and restoration, to Messiah's first coming and second coming - and sometimes all in the same passage.
Sometimes the Prophets wrote in straight prose - but other times they described visions which from the start were intended somewhat symbolically.
The Prophets themselves probably didn't fully understand exactly when and how their own Prophecies would all pan out - the themes, details, sequences, timeframes, etc.
Even the disciples, despite being raised on Biblical Prophecy, and despite spending three years with the Messiah Himself, still did not understood that Messiah had to die - until after His resurrection, then they understood it.
Very few godly men and prophets, if any, understood at first that Messiah was to come twice.
Those are only some of the biggest themes in Old Testament Prophecy - yet it probably wasn't possible for someone to know just by reading the Old Testament Prophecies alone, that all those things even had to happen at all, let alone when or how and in what order.
So, it probably isn't possible to properly understand Old Testament Prophecies, except in the light of the teaching in the New Testament. Old Testament Prophecy can only be rightly applied within the framework of New Testament theology. Unless we're smarter than the disciples and prophets.
It just can't be - no matter how good our grammar is. It wasn't meant to be. Some things were kept hidden on purpose. A mystery.
But Jesus Christ came to reveal it. He expounded the Scriptures to His disciples after His resurrection. Their hearts burned within them while He opened up the entire Old Testament to them.
The Apostles derived their take on Old Testament Prophecy, from the Lord Himself. We can hear their take on it, by reading their assertions, in their sermons, in the Book of Acts.
As the work of the early Church progressed, the Holy Spirit made additional things clearer to them - such as God's plan to include the Gentiles. Jesus had said earlier that He had more things to tell the disciples but they were not able to bear them at the time, and that the Spirit of truth Whom He would send would guide them into all truth. We can see that happening in the Book of Acts, and we can read all about the Holy Spirit's guidance, and the decisions decreed by the Apostles and elders for the churches, in Acts.
It's called 'the Apostles' doctrine'. The Apostles explain it for us in detail in their Epistles. They proclaimed, decreed and explained the manner in which Old Testament Prophecy was seeing its fulfilment. They were eyewitnesses, taught by the Lord Himself from the Scriptures, and guided by the Holy Spirit - they called it the Gospel.
Today there are all sort of takes on Old Testament Prophecy. Some say Israel's salvation is still future, and that it must include a return to Levitical sacrifices; others spiritualise all those details in Prophecy. The Apostles' approach wasn't exactly either of those.

Australia

Some new immigrants to Australia notice Australians don't exactly roll out the red carpet for a new person. Take it as a compliment - it means they're already treating you as an equal!

Other cultures might treat a new person pretty special, at first - but believe me: after a while they ease off on the special treatment, and then no matter how long you've been there, you never quite feel like an equal.

If you don't feel like you're being treated special like a visitor, it's because you're being viewed like Australia is already your own home.

Saturday 18 February 2017

Not in Exile

It isn't possible to keep the Law anymore, as the composite whole that it was - as the complete religious, ritualistic and ceremonial unit that it was. Not literally - not entirely. Everyone knows that - even Orthodox Jews.
In fact one Jewish organisation claims that only six of 613 Mitzvot (commandments) can be kept in the absence of the Temple and priesthood. Only six! That's their claim - a Jewish claim - not mine.
The so-called 'Hebrew-roots' people get around that by claiming 'exile provisions'. Israel never carried out the Law while in exile, but they still had to do the parts they could - and now we're in the same boat, they say. They say that just like Israel was restored to carry-out the Law literally and completely again after captivity, so shall we in future.
But the difference is: Israel's captivity had been a function of the Law itself - but that's not the case now - we actually have a New Covenant now. We're not in 'exile' - we are the beneficiaries of a new covenant!
In contract law, there can never be two contracts covering the same thing at the same time. So the bringing-in of the new covenant implied the end of the first covenant.
The first covenant stated that Israel would go into captivity if they broke the commandments. The Prophets predicted the captivity in advance, they even stated how long it would last; and they gave them instructions covering how to act while in captivity. That all came to pass.
The Prophets also foretold Israel's restoration to their land and of their temple and priesthood soon afterwards. That also came to pass. It's now history. We're not still looking forward to a reinstatement of the old style of worship in future.
Israel was able to legitimately return to Levitical worship after captivity, because the Old Covenant still stood. And the Levitical genealogies which were required to authenticate a priest as a Levite, still existed. Those required-genealogies don't exist anymore - therefore a Levitical priesthood can't legitimately exist again in future.
The reason we now worship in spirit and in truth, is not because we're in exile, but because Jesus said the time for change had come - because that's the kind of worshipers the Father is now looking for, Jesus said.
Jerusalem is no longer the required place of worship, not because we're in exile, but because God Himself changed the program, by His own actions in Christ.
Sacrifices aren't necessary, not because we're in exile, but because Jesus sacrificed Himself one for all.
Those things had only been the shadow - but God Himself has brought the real thing, in His Son. And since God brought the real thing, He won't ever revert to the shadow. Not now, not in future, not ever!
Sacrifices won't even be required in future as some 'memorial'. The only memorial instituted in the New Testament, is the Lord's table - and only 'til He come. Once He comes, we'll no longer need any memorial, for we shall see face to face.
So modern Judaism is really quasi Law-keeping. It's not literally Moses Law - it's a substitute they concocted knowing they couldn't literally carry-out Moses' Law anymore.
Without some substitute, the Jews would have felt in a total void. An unexplainable void, one not predicted by their Law or by any of their Prophets, with no telling how long it might last, and no instructions covering how to act. That would be like as if God just walked away! That wasn't the case at all during Old Testament exile.
The good news is, God didn't leave them in a void. Their Law itself had included its own sunset clause - by mentioning the coming New Covenant. Jesus Christ made that new covenant in His blood, on the cross. He didn't leave them in a void - He fulfilled everything the Law and Prophets spoke about!
We believers today are not in exile - we don't need any substitute version of 'Law' not even some 'Messianic' version of it - we've embraced the Son Himself - His New Covenant - the very thing all the Law and Prophets spoke of.
The Old Covenant was only temporary - the New Covenant is eternal. And that's what we're in now - the New Covenant.
Through the New Covenant, God's Spirit has made a new heart in us - a heart that walks in God's ways - causing us to walk according to God's nature, which is love.
And 'love' fulfils all of the intent, morals, ethics and spiritual principles of the Law - without actually making us obligated to carry-out Moses' ancient Law itself (as the ritual, ceremonial, literal, entire unit that it was). But by a new and living way.
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; He was buried; on the third day He rose again. Now all who believe in Him - regardless of ethnicity, and without the deeds of the Law - are justified freely by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
That's the good new of the grace of God, for all nations, fulfilling Abraham's blessing which was promised for all nations before Israel (Jacob) was even born, and before the Law was given!
"In thee and in thy seed [not 'seeds' plural, but 'seed' singular - which was Christ] all families of the earth (all nations] shall be blessed".

Tuesday 14 February 2017

By This Shall All Men Know

One day I told the Lord I desired to meet Muslims - because I'd come to feel a bit better equipped to minister to them.
Just a few days later someone phoned me, saying he wished for me to meet his workmate - a Muslim.
So we met - and I visited him in his home a number more times, sharing Jesus, and just showing love. He was hospitable to me too.
I told him that while I wish for him to know Jesus the way I have experienced Him, as Saviour, I will still love him even if he doesn't convert to Christianity. That felt a bit different to him.
Furthermore, he was from Turkey - a couple of times when we met or talked, it was ANZAC Day.
He argued from the Koran, and even from the Bible in some ways. He had bookshelves lined with well-studied Islamic commentaries. But he seemed a bit stumped once he personally came to know a couple of Christians who he could see worshiped God with the disciplined lifestyle he himself strived for. He was well aware of the struggle in his own life - but the difference with us was we claimed to have received the changed-life as a gift - and he could see it.
One day he told me he'd visited a nearby church, by himself.
He said, "It was all dark - looked like a nightclub. I didn't really hear about Jesus there. They talked more about how to feel good about yourself. I don't want to hear how to feel good about myself - I already feel good about myself. I was hoping to hear about Jesus, from the Bible. I don't think I'll go there again - I'd rather talk to you," he said.
Across the course of our association, he never did say whether he'd come to believe everything I'd said about Jesus from the Bible (His Lordship, His death for us on the cross, His resurrection, His salvation, forgiveness and ability to make in us a new heart) - but one thing he did remark: "You've got love".
On my next visit to his house, no-one was home. I made a follow-up visit sometime afterwards, but found he and his precious family had moved away - I don't know where.

Sunday 12 February 2017

Does Romans 11 Mean Israel's Salvation Must Be Future?

Another Look at Romans 11

Many people think that Israel's promised-salvation has not occurred yet, and that it must still happen in future in order for Bible-Prophecy to be fulfilled.

Many of them also imagine that Israel's future-salvation must include a temple and a priesthood offering sacrifices - because many of the Old Testament prophecies in which Israel's salvation was foretold, also predicted the regathering of the Jews after captivity, and the rebuilding of their Temple, and the reinstatement of the Levitical priesthood complete with sacrifices.

The problem with that view though is the Gospels didn't record Jesus saying anything about that; and neither did any of the Apostles' sermons in Acts; and it's not expressly taught in the Epistles.

Unless perhaps the single strongest claim being cited for it, is a single statement by Paul in Romans chapter 11: "all Israel shall be saved".

But did Paul really mean literally all Israel will be saved? Was he even focusing on the future at all, in Romans chapter 11!

Throughout the chapter, Paul mentioned things like Israel's "fulness"; the "receiving of them"; their being "grafted in again"; and them potentially "receiving mercy" - but was he predicting a still-future change in God's program - one where the focus will shift from individual Gentiles to Israel as a whole - or was Paul simply explaining first-century possibilities for Jews.

I think that instead of issuing an eschatological forecast, Paul was likely really dealing with the attitude of Roman believers towards Jews, in the first century. He was safeguarding them against a misconception about God's attitude towards the Jews. He was explaining a truth about the Gospel in relation to the Jews that was likely a timeless truth. He was being highly practical - dealing with the Gentiles' attitudes towards some of the main persecutors of their day, the Jews.

Basically Paul was clearing-up the misconception that God had removed the availability of salvation to Jews, I think. Jews could still be saved, he said - and that Gospel-truth was meant to shape the Gentiles' attitude towards Jews, despite the fact many Jews were unbelievers.

Whether or not the points which Paul touched on also meant that Israel's salvation was by-and-large a still-future event, doesn't seem to me to be necessitated by his discussion at all. Certainly it doesn't necessitate a future temple and priesthood in Israel with sacrifices.

And the reason this is important is because either the Gospel and the Church is just something largely unforeseen by the Prophets, and God's real prophetic program must revolve around Israel in future, and we must all be required to revert to Old Covenant style worship in future; or...

...or the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed the sum of all prophecy and promise - and it's on Him and His glorious Gospel that our focus must remain, not on modern Judaism - even when we're relating to citizens of the modern State of Israel.

The two are tangentally different takes on the Scriptures and the plan of God - and the practical implications obviously could be very important!

So let's take a look at it, and see whether Paul was mainly explaining first-century possibilities with regard to a Jew, or whether he was necessarily instead forecasting a change of program in future specially favouring national-Israel.

ROMANS 11

Verse:

I SAY then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Remember, this question was posed, while Israel was still in their land - they even had the Temple. and the fully-functioning Levitical priesthood, including sacrifices.

And yet the question was posed, "Hath God cast away his people?"

So the matter of Israel's acceptance or rejection by God which Paul was addressing here, was about something other than that - something other than Israel living in their land, and other than them having a temple and a functioning priesthood with sacrifices.

The obvious answer was no - God hadn't cast away His people. And since their rejection or acceptance was to do with a matter other than them inhabiting their land, and having a temple and a functioning priesthood with sacrifices, then any discussion Paul has in the rest of the chapter, about what Israel was seeking for - their promises, prophecies and salvation - also wouldn't necessarily be indicated by things like a subsequent regathering of Jews to their land, a future temple, and a future priesthood and sacrifices either. It was neither here nor there, to Paul's discussion.

Paul used his own salvation as an example of exactly what he had in mind. Proof that God hadn't cast away his people, was his own salvation, as a Jew who once disbelieved but later turned from unbelief to faith in Jesus Christ.

If Paul's subject-matter was all to do with a future regathering of Israelites to their land, a building of a temple, and a priesthood offering sacrifices, then how could Paul have used himself, in the first century, as a case in point when arguing that God hadn't cast away His people?

Therefore Paul must have mainly been talking about first-century issues, realities, and possibilities - not necessarily some new program exclusively for the future.

There's another verse which shows us what Paul was talking about, and the timeframe in which he placed it:

...Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it...

What was Israel seeking for? Whatever it was, the election - Jews who believed in Jesus - obtained it. The election didn't obtain something else - they obtained it - they obtained exactly what Israel was seeking for. Already. So Paul isn't talking about something exclusively future.

What Israel sought for, and what the elect indeed obtained, was the promised, prophesied, and foreshadowed Messianic kingdom-salvation. 'It' wasn't delayed until the future - the elect obtained it - already!

(And Gentiles were grafted in to that - not into something else. The Gospel was first to the Jew - and also to the Gentile.)

11...but rather through their fall salvation is come until the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?


Israel's 'fall' and 'diminishing' didn't mean they'd lost the land, their Temple, priesthood and sacrifices - for Israel still had all those things, at the time Paul was writing, and yet he said the nation had already 'stumbled' and 'fallen' and and was 'diminishing'.

Therefore if an unbelieving-Jew repented and believed, and experienced 'fulness', that wouldn't necessarily be evidenced by his being settled in the land of Israel again, with a temple and priesthood with sacrifices. That was neither here nor there - the real subject in discussion was his salvation.

The Gentiles' experience of salvation was to provoke Jews to jealousy. Meaning, what the Gentiles were experiencing, was precisely what Jews had been promised, not something else. Thus Israel and the Gentiles weren't to have separate destinies. They partook of the same promise.

If the "fulness of the Gentiles" is to have come in before national-Israel begins to experience "fulness", as many Dispensationalists imagine, how then could the Gentiles thereafter experience the "how much more"? Therefore Paul is not likely talking about some last-of-the-last-days scheme imagined by many Dispensationalists - he's mainly talking about the ongoing mutual interaction between Gentiles, and Jewish individuals who get saved, made possible by the Gospel.

And Paul was speaking about a first-century scheme - a first century reality - not a still-future change of program - for he said:

13...inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.


Paul's own ministry to Gentiles had a stated goal of provoking Jews to emulation - back then, in the first century. Therefore Paul was discussing a first-century reality, not necessarily forecasting an eschatological prediction involving some change of program, but rather explaining a likely timeless truth about the Gospel: namely, that a Jew could still get saved.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Since the 'casting away' was a reality even while they were still in their land, with their Temple and functioning priesthood and sacrifices, then "the receiving of them" wouldn't necessarily be evidenced by some proposed restoration of those things either. Rather, it would be about "life from the dead" - spiritual life. It would be a return to the same "root and fatness" that the Gentiles were experiencing:

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

The scenario Paul was talking about didn't necessarily involve the loss of their land, Temple and Levitical priesthood with sacrifices then - so the restoration of similar things in future wouldn't necessarily be an indication that Israel was being grafted "in again".

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The issue was belief - faith - irrespective of their status with regard to the land, the Temple, and the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, actually.

What Paul was stating was that it was still more than possible from God's point of view, for a Jew to be allowed to begin experiencing what they'd been seeking for: God hadn't removed the availability of salvation to Jews.

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

It was still possible for a Jew to recover himself and get saved. It seems Paul was explaining that timeless truth about the Gospel. There's nothing in this chapter which overtly necessitates that he was instead issuing a prediction about the future fulfilment of Israel's salvation, and certainly not a rebuilding of a temple and reinstatement of a priesthood offering sacrifices.

And he had practical reason for explaining that: to avoid boasting by Gentiles (verse 18); to avoid highmindedness and a lack of fear (verse 20); to avoid conceitedness, false wisdom and ignorance about God's plan and the manner in which it was seeing its fulfilment (verses 25-27).

Speaking of God's plan, it was a mystery kept hidden from the beginning of the world, mentioned by the Prophets, but was now revealed plainly through the Gospel.

God's promised salvation had indeed been experienced - by the believing-remnant of Israel - and the rest were missing out. This scenario would continue until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so - not 'and then', but 'and so' (implying manner, not sequence) "all Israel shall be saved" (verse 25) - a familiar concept in the Old Testament Prophets. Two example prophecies are quoted. Both of which had already been fulfilled in the first century AD - or else no-one had ever yet been saved.

The prophecies were fulfilled alright - but in the manner explained by Paul, with an outcome that previously was a mystery.

So:

The wrong scenario (which Paul was correcting) was the wrong idea that widespread unbelief in Israel meant God had removed the availability of salvation to ethnic Jews.

The correct scenario (which Paul was explaining) was that God's promises to Jews hadn't failed - the remnant had obtained it - and Jews could still get saved (Paul himself was an example of that very thing happening) - this scenario is to continue until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in (and "then cometh the end, said Jesus - see Matthew 24:14) - and this is the precise manner in which Israel's prophesied salvation is seeing its fulfilment.

Therefore, although the Jews were acting like enemies of the church at Rome, Jews were still beloved for the fathers' sakes. They were still potential candidates for receiving the mercy of God in their unbelief, just as the Gentiles also had received mercy of God in their unbelieving state.

When - in the future? Now! Even in Paul's own generation.

31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.


'Now' extends to the whole sentence, not only the first part. Now, through your mercy, they also may obtain mercy - if they continue not in unbelief.

Paul was dealing with the Roman believers' attitude towards Jews, many of whom were persecuting them. He was telling them what was still possible for Jews - even then. Paul was being highly practical, as well as theological - but he likely wasn't being eschatological in the Dispensational way.
Paul's discussion wasn't necessarily about the future.

If there's going to come the nationwide salvation literally of all Israel in future, it can only be because Israel's promised-salvation has already been fulfilled - not because it hasn't been fulfilled and still needs to be.

It can only be on the same basis of the Gospel - not on some other basis, such as modern Judaism.

It's a nice thought of course - but is it really the picture Jesus portrayed of the end-times? in Judea? Did Paul even portray that picture elsewhere in his own writings?

In the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.

Saturday 11 February 2017

Falkland Islands Conflict

One day I went for a ride on a bus to the beach, to give some time to thinking about the Falklands Conflict of 1982, wondering whether the Prime Minister at the time Margaret Thatcher was right in asserting British rule over the islands and engaging Argentina's military - I was asking God for wisdom about it.

(In 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, a self-governing British Overseas Territory, claiming the islands were theirs. Britain, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, dispatched their military and engaged Argentina's military. Over a thousand British and Argentine military personnel and three Falkland islanders were killed. After 74 days Argentina surrendered.)

Along the bus-ride, a South-American lady I'd previously met happened to get on the bus. I was surprised because I had no idea she lived en-route to Burleigh Heads. We talked all the way.

During the conversation I learned she's an Argentine; she also mentioned Britain - and I could sense 'attitude' in the way she talked about Britain because of the Falklands Conflict. I was a bit startled to notice that attitude, seeing I'd earlier perceived her to be a spiritual woman. So I personally noted that there possibly could have been some national-bias in Argentina which might have affected some Argentines' thoughts.

When we arrived at Burleigh Heads, we went our separate ways. I went to a secondhand store, and happened to notice a book about Margaret Thatcher. I bought it, and read a chapter where she spoke about the Falklands Conflict.

So now I'd heard the viewpoint of both an Argentine and the British Prime Minister. After walking around the beach-area thinking about the issue and praying, I went to get the bus home - and my Argentine acquaintance got on the same bus home. So we talked again.

Under the existing arrangement between the Falkland Islanders and Britain, it was an obligation of Britain's to defend the Falkland Islanders.

More than 30 years after the Conflict, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, with an overwhelming majority of voters - 99.8% - still favouring to remain under British rule.

Falkland Islanders, like all people, have the right of self-determination - not to have external rule imposed on them by force.

Britain was therefore fulfilling its obligation under the arrangement and defending the will and freedom of the Falkland Islanders; Britain has given the Falkland Islanders the freedom to determine their own political status - Argentina did not.

God's Faithfulness to Israel

God's faithfulness to His Promises to Israel was not delayed until the future...
...His faithfulness to Israel was demonstrated through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Gospel is God's highest, ultimate plan, fulfilling Prophecy for Israel - and for people of all nations.

Good News

One day some ex-Pharisee believers from Jerusalem, without authorisation from the Apostles and Elders, came down to Antioch, to tell the Gentile-believers there that they needed to become Observant of Moses' Law.
Paul was irreconcilably upset - he knew that such an idea threatened the very truth of the Gospel itself.
So it was decided that Paul should make the 500km journey to Jerusalem, to the Apostles and Elders, to settle the matter once and for all.
There it was agreed that it was pointless to require Gentile-believers to become Observant of the Law, seeing the Jews themselves had never been able to keep it...
...and seeing God had evidently already shown His acceptance of the Gentiles anyway, by having filled them with the Holy Spirit (which the Apostle Peter knew, because he'd heard them speak with tongues).
Any Jewish members of Gentile-churches who wished to hear readings of Moses' Law, could readily avail themselves of that opportunity, by simply attending their regional synagogue any given Sabbath-day.
It was therefore decided that a letter be sent to all the churches of the Gentiles, informing them to that effect.
Which, when the Gentile-churches heard it, they rejoiced at the good news of the grace of God!
Thereafter the churches of the Gentiles flourished unhindered, enjoying a time of growth and multiplication.
The message of salvation - freely by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, without the deeds of the Law - is good news for every language-group in the world!

Wednesday 8 February 2017

Prosper

People say God has to judge society for its homosexuality, and abortion, and warped thinking in general. And that's true - there is a day of judgment coming.
But in a sense, the fact that people are given over to homosexuality or abortion, is itself a judgment of sorts.
Romans 1:28 says that "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, GOD GAVE THEM OVER to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" - including to do homosexuality.
And part of the curse of the disobeyed-Law was that "the tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward...her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates" (Deut.28:56,57).
Higher fertility was a blessing promised to a righteous society (Deut.28:4,11) - but "a miscarrying womb" was something that God would "give them" - because of their sins (see Hosea 9:14).
Since homosexuality and abortion both reduce fertility and offspring - and when you see them protesting against commonsense economics - it is therefore a sort of self-imposed 'judgment' - against their own bodies, against the fruit of their own bodies, against themselves, against their own productivity, prosperity and power, against the longevity of their own society - even before God executes His final judgment against it. Same with any other type of warped ideology.
Meanwhile the LORD shall make you "plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body" 'til they increase to become "the head, and not the tail...above only, and...not be beneath" (Deut.28:11-13).
So, yes - we should rebuke all unrighteousness, injustice and ungodliness in society - and vote accordingly - because hopefully some will acknowledge the truth and repent and be saved...
But for those who don't repent, there's already a sifting process going on. They are the ones who will breed themselves out of existence, if they keep going. They are the ones who are weakening their own economic power by their policies.
But as for us - we will "be fruitful and multiply...and have dominion", and be "plenteous" and "lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow" (Genesis 1:28; Deut.28:11,12).
Aside from preaching the Gospel to the lost, one of the best actions the righteous can do for society, is to just keep on having more kids - have larger families - and just keep on carrying-out sound, Biblical economic principles.
"By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land" God once told Israel (Exodus 23:30).
They do things which lower their own population-growth. They protest against sound economic policies. But the righteous just quietly keep on producing and producing and producing.
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still" - because the Lord Jesus is coming "quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev.22:12,13).
This is not to shame any who haven't yet been gifted with marriage; and of course, some have been separated from ordinary business-life to carry-out a missionary-calling. That's true.
But generally speaking, just carrying-on and prospering, and having larger families is one of the best ways for the righteous to gain influence and achieve change in society...
...even without much political activism. Not that we shouldn't keep doing that appropriately too.
And in it all, the best thing is the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Tuesday 7 February 2017

Post by Steve Gregg

Good presentation below. I wonder whether not only the ever-widening river, but also the dimensions of the Temple, were symbolic from the start? If so, would that mean Israel didn't necessarily utterly fail to act on it as they were intended?

Anyway, here's the article:

"The book of Ezekiel closes with a vision of a temple and its associated rituals. In chapter 40, the prophet is transported in vision from his home among the exiles in Babylon to Israel, where a divine messenger holding a measuring rod appears to him. The messenger gives Ezekiel a tour of the temple, measuring the various walls, gates, and courts. At one point, the glory of the Lord, which was seen departing from the temple in an earlier vision (chap. 10), is seen returning to inhabit the temple (43:1–4).
The following chapters describe various sacrificial rituals performed by priests. Special attention is given to the role of one who is referred to as “the prince.” Near the end, a river is seen flowing out of the temple from under the threshold. The book closes with portions of the land assigned to various tribes.
Biblical scholars acknowledge that the temple vision, which occupies the last nine chapters of Ezekiel, presents special challenges in its interpretation. Some have even described it as the most difficult passage in the Old Testament.
As with the descriptions in Exodus of the tabernacle and its furnishings, many readers will find this section of Ezekiel tedious, due to its many arcane details, but this is not the greatest difficulty presented by these chapters. By far, the greater difficulty has to do with identifying the time and manner of the fulfillment of the vision.
Is It Solomon’s Temple? When Ezekiel saw the vision (573 BC), there was no temple standing in Jerusalem. Solomon’s temple, which had previously stood there, had been destroyed thirteen years earlier by Nebuchadnezzar, when he conquered Jerusalem and deported the citizens to Babylon. This means that Ezekiel was not seeing Solomon’s temple, or any temple that was actually standing at the time. What temple, then, was he shown?
Is It Zerubbabel’s Temple? Perhaps the answer that first comes to mind would be that this was the temple that came to be built, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, on the return of the Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem. However, this solution seems to be ruled out by the fact that Zerubbabel’s temple ended up being much smaller, and less elaborate, than the one Ezekiel describes. If Ezekiel was prophesying that the temple built by the returning exiles would fit this description, the prophecy failed to come true. This option does not commend itself to those who accept the inspiration of Scripture. Other interpretations, therefore, have been offered by evangelical scholars.
Is It the Church? Some Christian commentators have understood the content of these chapters as an apocalyptic vision, which is best interpreted spiritually. They point out that the church, in the New Testament, is often referred to as God’s “temple” or habitation. Each Christian is a “living stone” (1 Pet. 2:5), built, along with others, “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20) into a “temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:16). On this view, the features of temple worship—priests, altars, sacrifices, blood rituals—would be seen as pertaining to spiritual, rather than literal, realities, and applied to our worship of God in the present time. In particular, the description of the river, in chapter 47, would seem to support a nonliteral interpretation. If this is the correct view, we would be required either to see many of the tedious details as being either superfluous or as corresponding to spiritual ideas that would be very difficult to identify with confidence.
Is It the Millennial Temple? Another view of this vision, commonly held among dispensationalists, is that Ezekiel’s temple will be established after the second coming of Christ and will serve as the worship center for all people during the “millennium.” On this view, the one described as “the prince” is often identified as Christ Himself, ruling over the millennial kingdom.
Choosing a Hermeneutical Strategy. In choosing among these options, we are compelled to decide between differing hermeneutical priorities. One of the chief hermeneutical principles recommended by dispensationalist scholars is that of maintaining a consistently literal interpretation. This would mean that “spiritualizing” the text must be seen as a departure from the most faithful handling of Scripture. Therefore, dispensationalists argue for a literal, physical building to be established in fulfillment of Ezekiel’s vision. Since the temple erected after Ezekiel’s time did not fit Ezekiel’s description, they believe that there must be another temple in the future that will do so more admirably.
It would be easier to accept this theory if we did not have the New Testament to guide our thinking. The most obvious problem presented here is that the book of Hebrews (e.g., 10:1–18) speaks of the death of Christ on the cross as a termination of the efficacy of bloody animal sacrifices, such as those Israel offered in the temple. If Ezekiel’s vision applies to a future time, why do we again find the offering of animal sacrifices?
The dispensationalist answer is that the millennial sacrifices will not be intended to atone for sins. The blood of Christ precludes any need for that. Just as the Old Testament sacrifices anticipated the death of Christ as a future event, it is suggested the future millennial sacrifices will commemorate the death of Christ as a past event.
The text of Ezekiel, however, seems to preclude this, since the various offerings in the temple are said to “make atonement for the house of Israel” (45:17).1 Thus, the sacrifices are presented as an atonement for sin, not as a memorial. Christ Himself recommended the use of wine and bread to commemorate His death (1 Cor. 11:24–26). Why would God replace this with animal sacrifices in which God never found any particular pleasure (Ps. 40:6; 51:16; Heb. 10:6)?
Further, Ezekiel says that “the prince” will offer a sin offering “for himself and for all the people” (45:22). If the prince is required to offer sacrifices for his own sins, this would militate against any theory that identifies him with Christ, who never sinned.
Other objections to the idea that Ezekiel’s vision describes a worship economy to be established in the future would include the following:
  • The vision presents a centralized worship in a specified geographical place. In the Old Testament, people were expected to approach the tabernacle, or (later) the temple, for this purpose (Deut. 12:5, 11). Jesus, however, announced to the Samaritan woman that the time of centralized worship was soon to end and to be replaced with spiritual worship, which does not depend on being in any particular place (John 4:21–24; cf. Acts 7:48–50).
  • In Ezekiel’s vision, the Levites and Aaronic priesthood are seen in their former places of service. According to the New Testament, there has been a change of the priesthood (Heb. 7:12). The Jewish priesthood has been replaced by a different priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5) and a non-Aaronic high priest (Jesus). This modification will not be reversed, for Christ is said to be “a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:17, 21).
Literal Interpretation Is Not Always Best. While the difficulties of the dispensational interpretation seem insurmountable, its only strength lies in its hermeneutic of literal interpretation. There is another hermeneutic principle, however, that overrides literalism—namely, the superior revelation given in Christ.
Hebrews 1:1–3 affirms that, while God spoke to Israel through various prophets in the past, the revelation that has come through Christ is more comprehensive because He is no mere prophet, but “the brightness of [God’s] glory and the express image of His person.” The New Testament is not a mere appendix added to the writings of the Old Testament prophets. It is a revelation of the new order in Jesus Christ, in whom all previous revelation finds its fulfillment, and through whom all previous revelation must be understood.
Christ opened the understanding of His disciples so that they “might understand the [Old Testament] scriptures” (Luke 24:45). This being the case, it would be foolish for us to seek a meaning of the prophets contrary to that which Christ and the apostles taught. It is their witness that provides the strongest objections to any literalistic interpretation of Ezekiel 40–48. In Christ’s new order (which, unlike the old order, is permanent), the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices are likewise spiritual (1 Pet. 2:5).
Making Sense of the Vision. How then are we to understand the temple vision? First, one might reasonably refer to the vision as that which “might have been,” had the Jewish exiles in Babylon exhibited a more thorough repentance than they did. There is an indication that the realization of this vision in Israel’s future was contingent on the people being sufficiently ashamed, or repentant, of their past sins: “Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple” (Ezek. 43:10–11).
The response of the Jews to their opportunity to return and to rebuild their temple was notoriously tepid. Only a small remnant opted even to return to Jerusalem, while the rest were content to remain in Babylon. As a result, the temple they built proved to be inferior to the one that Ezekiel described.
Though the Jews did not meet the conditions to have such a temple as Ezekiel’s, the pattern preserved in these chapters stands as a description of an intended order, which, had it materialized, would have testified, as the tabernacle once did, as a type and shadow of “heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5)—the new order in Jesus Christ. This, we may assume, was the long-term purpose served by the vision.
Though some features of the vision were probably intended symbolically from the start (e.g., the seemingly miraculous, ever-deepening river), it is probable that the temple and its rituals would have been literally instituted, as here described, had Israel met God’s conditions.
Whether or not the temple had ever actually been rebuilt, the new revelation in Christ encourages us to see its pattern as having been fulfilled in Jesus Christ Himself, who is the final atoning sacrifice and the eternal high priest of God’s people."
—Steve Gregg



Post by S. A. C.

"God does not dwell in temples built with hands. (Acts 7:48; 17:24) Our Body is a Temple for The Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) The Lord told the religious establishment to tear down the temple, and he would raise it up in three days, in his flesh. (John 2:19-22) There would be no stone left on top of the other. (Matthew 24:2) The Body of Christ is the Temple. (1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:15-16; Ephesians 2:19-22) Christ's atonement is Final (John 19:30; Hebrews Ch. 7; Ch. 9-10), so there is no more necessary sacrifice. We reflect on his atonement in Communion until he returns (1 Corinthians 10-11), rather than repetitively sacrifice animals for atonement. The Levitical Priesthood has been completed, and Christ, who is the soul possessor of the Melchizedek has been established. (Hebrews 4-7; Psalm 110) The Temple sited in Revelation is a Heavenly one. (Revelation 11:19; 14:15; 17; 15:5-8; 16:1) There is no physical temple, but rather, Christ and His Father are The Temple. (Revelation 21:22)

Dispensationalist theology presses so much into Revelation 20:1-10 which simply doesn't support their Millennial Temple Narrative. In proper context, it was fulfilled partially in the 2nd Temple ritualisms, and fully illustrated to an Old Covenant audience the perfection of a Temple operated directly by God, which The Holy Spirit is in The Body of Christ among the genuinely faithful. This is what was revealed by the Apostles to The Church. If there is any kind of eschatological Priesthood, other than Christ's Royal Priesthood (1 Peter 2:4-10), which presently exists, it is cultic. It is not Holy."


- posted by S.A.C