Friday 25 August 2017

Zadok

Someone said that Ezekiel's vision of the temple and priesthood hasn't been fulfilled yet because the priesthood Ezekiel envisioned was no ordinary Levitical priesthood but was to be a Zadok-family priesthood - and therefore a future Judaistic-style Millennium is still required in order to fulfil it.
But according to Maccabees, and Josephus and manuscripts found at the Dead Sea, there indeed was a Zadok-family dynasty of high priests during the inter-testament period.
And as for the grand imagery of Ezekiel's visions - the apocalyptic genre was a known genre of literature, one in which the writer himself didn't always intend to be taken literally.
Ezekiel also foretold that the Zadok-family priests would marry, have children and offer sacrifices for their own sins as well as the sins of others. That either won't be the case after the resurrection of the dead, or already isn't the case this side of the cross.
So could saying that Ezekiel's Zadok-prophecy is unfulfilled and that it requires a future Judaistic-style Millennium in order to be fulfilled, therefore show a poor grasp:
1) of a whole genre of literature known as the 'apocalyptic';
2) of history; and
3) of New Testament theology itself?

Zadok in Prophecy

According to Ezekiel's prophecy, the Zadok priests would marry, have children, and offer sacrifices for their sins. That either isn's something believers do, this side of the cross; or it isn't something we'll be doing after our resurrection. So its fulfilment can't be in the Millennium.

According to sources (like the Maccabees, and perhaps manuscripts found at the Dead Sea), there was indeed a Zadok family dynasty of priests, in the inter-testament period.

There also was an apocalyptic genre of literature in which the writers themselves didn't intend to be taken literally.

Could saying that Ezekiel's Zadok prophecies are unfulfilled and that it requires a future Judaistic-style Millennium in order to be fulfilled, therefore show a poor understanding both of history and of the apocalyptic genre of writing?  

How it Was in Israel

If it seems too inappropriate an idea that the Gospel was told as the story of Israel's kingdom-promises fulfilled, fulfilled in the remnant of believing-Jews (and in Gentiles who believe, along with them), then consider that in the last century BC and first century AD it was already common for there to be groups which disputed certain Jews' rights to certain claims, and claimed rights to certain things. They each had their own idea of what the kingdom-salvation was going to look like and who in Israel would be part of it.

There probably wasn't a standardised Judaism, or standardised view of Israel, and Kingdom and Messiah, early in the fist century AD!

So the Gospel wasn't unique in that it unpacked 'Israel' and 'kingdom' - there were already numbers of groups each of whom were 'unpacking' Prophecy, or trying to - what was unique about the Gospel was its way of unpacking or interpreting or applying it.

What strikes me about the Dispensational way of unpacking Prophecy is that it seems to miss the way the New Testament unpacks it and aligns itself more with the way some of these groups in Israel were interpreting it.

To do so misses the point - it loses the story the Apostles were really telling - that Jesus, the Gospel is the fulfilment of the story of Israel, of Abraham's story. It is the true revelation of the mystery: not just something else we're doing while we're waiting for that to finally happen in some first-century Judaistic type way. 

Thursday 24 August 2017

Thoughts on Dead Sea Scrolls

From what I can ascertain, there were manuscripts found at the Dead Sea which align with both the LXX and MT, but mostly with the MT it seems. And there were also texts found which align with neither. There were also different versions of the same books. And there were versions which harmonised different versions. So it was like a library of all different sorts! Some of it was all remarkably similar though to the oldest heretofore manuscripts of the MT (circa AD1000) and LXX (circa AD500s). So that denies the theory of Jewish critics (who wanted to say the surviving LXX was a later corruption by Christians) and denies the theory of secular critics (who wanted to say that the MT didn't reflect first-century and earlier texts). There is a high degree of congruity! So what it seems to show is that in the first century AD and earlier, there was an acceptance of both types of manuscripts (both proto-MT texts and proto-LXX texts). It seems there was some fluidity in manuscript acceptance. And not only the non-Christian Jews, but also the NT reflects this - because it quoted from both the LXX and from proto-MT. There are at least four good explanations for the differences between the LXX and proto-MT. One of the explanations is that where the proto-LXX text contained Hebrew idioms, if the idiom couldn't be translated by a single Greek word, rather than pick a single Greek word and thereby lose the meaning that was inherent within the Hebrew idiom, they expanded it so as to convey into Greek the meaning which Hebrew-speakers would have understood. But what seems clear is that there was acceptance and reliance on both proto-MT and proto-LXX manuscripts by both Jews and Jewish-Christians in the first century AD. But I've still got a lot more reading to do.
John
Something else the Dead Sea scrolls show is that there wasn't a common form of Judaism in the first century. There were different groups among the Jews, which were defining Israel differently, had different Messianic concepts, different baptisms even, and there didn't seem to be a standardised version or even canon common to all groups. And there had been a Zadok-family dynasty of high priests - which lends weight to the view that Ezekiel's vision of future temple had been fulfilled (because Ezekiel's prophecy had specified the Zadok family). It's interesting learning what first century Judaisms, manuscript versions, and canon versions (plural) were like in the first century. It gives context to John the Baptist's ministry, and Jesus, and the Apostles and early Christianity. It lends weight in certain directions with regards to certain questions today I think (like the law, Christology, eschatology etc.)

Wednesday 23 August 2017

The Solution

 

The solution to race-relations, international relations, any type of relations, is the cross.
Only at the foot of the cross is there mutual absolution from the past, and new creation from here on in.
At the cross there is end, and there is beginning:
The end of the Law of Judaism, sin, political tyranny and physical death;
The beginning of new creation, righteousness, the Kingdom and life.
The resurrection of JESUS proved it.
The Holy Spirit seals it.
Love is the fulfilling of the law.
Good news!

Saturday 19 August 2017

All One in Him

As much as Paul didn't want Jewish Christians to think less of Gentiles, he also wanted to make sure Gentile Christians at Rome didn't think less of Jews. 

The tendency in other cities was probably more the other way - that Gentile Christians might ea
sily be led astray into feeling they needed to become proselytes to Judaism in order to really be up to standard. And to avoid that grave mistake, Paul was constantly writing letters to the churches in those cities, building-up the Gentiles' esteem, and confronting the Judaisers head-on.

But Rome may have had something else going on too. Yes Paul still made the point that Jews needn't demand that Gentiles become proselytes. But there may have also been a tendency at Rome for some Gentiles to kind of reverse the 'racism' if you call it that, this time towards the Jews. 

Claudius had not too long before expelled all Jews from the city. By the time Paul wrote, Jews must have filtered back into the city, and back into the church. In the meantime Gentile Christians would have gotten quite used to living-out their Christian life without being disturbed by the Judaism question at all. But now Paul also wanted to make sure they didn't go too far the other way by thinking God was over with saving Jews altogether.

The fact that the congregation at Rome might have been predominantly Gentile, didn't mean God wasn't saving Jewish people any more. He'd already saved many Jews, and was still saving more, Paul explained! Gentiles and Jews were mutually ministering to and benefiting each other spiritually. That's how it was always meant to be, actually - and God had left the door wide open to both Gentiles and Jews. 

That scenario was precisely what the Prophets had foreseen. It had been a bit of a mystery though - they never fully understood what it was all going to look like - but the Gospel explained it. 

The Gospel was to be first to the Jew, and also to the Greek - then Gentiles and Jews would continue getting saved together, in one body - with no ethnicity having the door closed on it, and no-one a second-rate member irrespective of whether or not he observed Jewish cultural markers. By explaining this, Paul hoped to achieve unity of thought in the congregation at Rome. Isn't that beautiful! 

So what Paul probably wasn't saying is anything like that God was blinding Jewish people just so He could save Gentiles and then one day when He's got enough Gentiles He won't focus on them anymore and then He'll finally stop blinding Jewish people and they'll all be saved like after the Second Coming or something. 

No, the text of Romans itself tells us what the issue was which Paul was addressing in the church at Rome - and Paul answered the question by explaining a timeless truth of the Gospel, a truth which he fully applied directly to their very own situation in the first century AD. 


And it's still the gospel-truth. No individual is excluded on the basis of race from the salvation-offer; and once saved no-one needs to start carrying-out modern-Judaisms. We are all one in Him, and complete in Him, JESUS.

Israel

In a bookstore today I saw copies of "The Jewish Bible" on display. I picked one up and opened it to Romans 11:25-27. I quite liked the translator's grasp of what Paul was saying.
"For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won't imagine you know more than you actually do.
It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra'el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness; and that it is in this way that all Isra'el will be saved. As the Tanakh says, "Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer; he will turn away ungodliness from Ya'akov and this will be my covenant with them, . . . when I take away their sins."
Then I picked up "The New Testament for Everyone" - a translation by Tom Wright - and opened it to the same passage. And there was something I liked in verse 26. He puts part of it in inverted commas:
"That is how 'all Israel will be saved', as the Bible says..."
So, what they're both grasping Paul as saying to the Gentile church-members at Rome, was like this:
"God's promise to save Israel hasn't failed - lots of Jews have already experienced it! And those who haven't, still can - simply by turning from unbelief.
Just because many Gentiles are getting saved doesn't mean Jews have lost the opportunity to believe and be saved. In fact, God is using the Gentiles' experience of salvation to try to provoke that very response from Jews!
That whole outcome was a mystery in times past, but in fact it's precisely the way Israel's promised-salvation was always going to work out..."
Jews getting saved first, then the Gentiles, then more Gentiles and Jews continuing to get saved. And that's how it will be - and then the end will come. And then the end will come.
And then Paul quotes a couple of sample-verses about Israel's salvation, just to show God's goodwill towards Jews. (Verses which in fact had already been fulfilled and were continuing to see its outworking.)
It probably wasn't really a prediction of some complete change of program in future (like at the end of some 'Great Tribulation', or during some 'Millennium' after Christ's return. Rather Paul was likely just explaining the manner in which Israel's promises had been fulfilled, and how a Jew could still come to the party.
It was an appeal to Gentiles in first-century Rome to be tender-minded towards Jews, not to despise them. The goal was true unity in the church there, between Gentiles and Jews. Because God was still reaching out to Jews, just as He is to Gentiles.
That's the gospel!

Tuesday 15 August 2017

Paul's Use of Terms

Paul said "What if the uncircumcision keeps the law". 

Wait! Circumcision was a commandment in the law! So how could uncircumcision 'keep' the law?

Obviously Paul saw another way of 'keeping' the law. 

He saw another 'law'. 

He saw another 'circumcision' - the true circumcision. 

See Paul's use of terms? See where he was going with all that? and his conclusion?

It mightn't quite be what some are thinking!

Sunday 13 August 2017

Dominion? Dispensationalism? Cruciform!

Yes "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" Paul said.

And Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, Jesus said, or else His disciples would have fought in His defence.

The kingdom is still to come - and the picture Jesus painted of life before He comes included some grim themes.

But let's not fail to consider in what sense there has already come (in Messiah, and in the Gospel, through the cross and resurrection of Jesus, in the experience and commission of the church) a fulfilment of the promised and prophesied kingdom-hope.

As believers in Jesus, we do experience the nearness of the Kingdom, among us, in us perhaps, we are pressin
g into it, we are receiving it, and we are in a sense already in it - in some very real and new way that wasn't the case prior to the New Testament, aren't we?

The Gospel is the Gospel 'of the kingdom' - so it's a much better kingom-program than what they already had under the Old Covenant, isn't it.

There wasn't any point where the message changed from being the Gospel of the kingdom to becoming the Gospel of something else.

The Apostles did seem to tell the story of Jesus precisly as the climax and fulfilling of the story of Israel, and of Abraham, inclusive of their kingdom-hope.

(Daniel did after all say something about Messiah coming on the scene within a set timeframe; and something about the Kingdom being set up in the days of a fourth regime, which arguably could have been the Roman empire, or not?)

So even though this present age is always going to be cross-shaped, for us believers, while waiting for the Second Coming and Kingdom - still it's not the case that the Kingdom-scheme has been delayed altogether, and that the Gospel and the church is really just some separate scheme unrelated to 'kingdom', until such a time as God decides to finally begin the kingdom-plan, is it?

If the Gospel is in some sense related to the Kingdom (like a proclamation of it, or 'inauguration' of it, or some such thing, even though we still await its 'consummation'), then in the consummation (once Christ returns) the Kingdom must look more like the Gospel sheme of things than say the old Judaistic scheme of things (with its temple and Levitical sacrifices and pilgrimages and feasts and all that), right?

It means the pathway into the Kingdom isn't modern Judaisms, but only via the King - Messiah, Jesus.

And we (even Jews) have to be prepared before He comes - or it'll be too late.

In the mean time, until the Kingdom comes in ultimacy, we're experiencing it in some real, new and powerful way - but it's cruciform.

For "it is given to us not only to believe on His name, but also to suffer for Him".

Monday 7 August 2017

Roman Jewish Unity

Romans 9-11 isn't to be understood in a vacuum, like a rugby ball having suddenly landed on a tennis court mid-game - it's a continuation of the flow of where Paul was going in his Epistle. And we don't really end up at where he was going until, at the earliest, chapters 14 and 15!

When you consider it in that light, you realise chapter 9 to 11 is not about 'TULIP'; and it's not about some future Jewish/Levitical Dispensation.

Rather the goal was the unity of the Gentile/Jewish congregation at Rome.

And with that goal in mind Paul clarifies some objections or misnotions about the scheme of the gospel which might have otherwise hampered that unity.

"I See Another Law"

I think Paul had this concept that it was possible for a person to be compliant with Divine 'law', without the person necessarily having to go the route of Moses' Law - i.e., without needing to become a proselyte to Judaism.

For example, Paul mentioned that the law was written on the Gentiles' hearts even though they didn't have Moses' Law. It wasn't a law which included all the outward requirements of Moses' Law - but it was Divine law nonetheless.

And he said that if Gentiles who didn't have Moses' Law, nevertheless by nature kept the law - then they were actually better than a Jew who had the written Law but didn't keep it. 

Paul had this concept that a Gentile, without necessarily carrying-out all of the Jewish cultural markers of Moses' Law, could in some very real and valid sense be 'keeping the law'. 

He mentioned "the uncircumcision" keeping the law. Wait a minute! - circumcision was a requirement of the law - so how could 'uncircumcision' be thought of as 'keeping the law'! Paul was seeing something here. 

But before we get to that, Paul went on to say that even Jews who were blameless in their Law still struggled with sin in the flesh, in the mind of their flesh. He used his own experience as an illustration of that. The Law wasn't able to make him fully, deeply compliant with the Divine nature like he knew he ought to be. 

So now He brings us to the point. We all needed Jesus. The Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death! But get this: he called it 'the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus'. The law? I thought he just said we're free from the Law! Yes we are free from the Law, but not altogether without 'law'.

He said that if we walk in the Spirit, we won't fulfil the lusts of the flesh; and the fruit of the spirit is a lifestyle against which there is no law. Walking in love 'fulfils the law' he said. He is 'under the law to Christ'. 

So Paul saw that in Christ Jesus, and through the Spirit, the Gentiles became compliant with Divine law - without needing to go the route of becoming Jewish proselytes and adopting all the Jewish cultural markers; and also, Jews who had the Law but realised their inner deficiency despite having the Law, were able to truly be made partakers of the Divine nature, not through the Law, but by being born of the Spirit. Through an inner circumcision which was by faith in Jesus Christ, both Gentiles and Jews were made truly compliant with Divine 'law' - and were empowered to truly walk in compliance with it.

What that looks like is universally understood by all true believers in Jesus to mean the fruit of the Spirit, love. There are really only two points which some have a different conscience about: diet and days. And those two things are the very two things which Paul singled out for discussion, and basically concluded "live and let live". It wasn't to become divisive.

The Apostles' Story

To detach the 'church' from the Israel-focus of early Acts, and from the four gospels, and from Israel's OT hope, is to tell a different story of the Gospel to the glad story the Apostles were telling.

Wednesday 2 August 2017

Quote Bernie Wade

Bishop Bernie L Wade Amen. It would be shocking to some how many preachers believe there is a different Gospel for Jewish people.

The Canons and What the Early Church Believed

USS Ronald Reagan - Port of Brisbane, July 2017
I drove through the bush in an undeveloped spot across the river, then walked along sand in low-tide along the riverbank, 'til I was directly opposite it, and took that picture. I stayed in company of the view, for nearly an hour - taking it in - reflecting on all the history that's associated with the object that was in front of my eyes. I haven't done too detailed a study of the historicity of Christianity and of its canon - because I knew that if I did, it would only lead me to what I already know! Lol. But I do often feel that many people who are prejudiced against Christianity, seem to apply an unequal criteria to the study of the historicity of Christianity than they do to most anything else in history. The thing about an historical hypothesis is that it isn't repeatable, like other scientific hypotheses might be. So balance of probabilities, based on available evidences, is a big part of the discipline - even with regard to secular history. I get the impression, after the little bit of reading I've done over the years, and talking to a Professor etc., that we have all of the types of 'evidences' that we can reasonably expect to find, if the basic story about Jesus really happened. That still mightn't go all the way to proving it did happen. But we've got about as good as we can get - for anything in history, of that nature, of that era. In fact, I think the available evidences we have for the story of Jesus are more numerous than we have for anyone else in history in his category in that era. And yet many critics of Christianity readily accept the historicity of some of those other characters and what they allegedly said and did - despite even fewer available evidences - but they don't accept the basic story of Jesus even with more available evidences. I think that shows prejudice. And my Christian worldview interprets that prejudice as being spiritually driven, not purely academic. I'm not defending nor denying the doctrine of the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture in the Original Tongues, in this Chat. But after what little study I've done, and talking to Professors etc. I'm satisfied (based on the available evidences, and the balance of probabilities), that the general belief of the early Church was that: Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood man; that God did miracles through Him; that He was crucified, buried and rose again on the third day; that He was Lord and Christ; that His message was for all nations; and that He's coming again. From almost the very beginning there were people from among their own ranks who diverged from some of that. And wrote their views. And it was also largely recognised, from early on, among the churches, what was standard belief and what and who was divergent from that. I just don't see the balance of probabilities (and the available evidences) leaning in favour of the Gnostic Gospels, for example - which had such a different message to the message of all of the books which made it into the 'canon'. I can see that even amongst those who accepted what I think was the general view of things, there was some variation in what books they accepted as canonical. But as far as I'm aware, the issue was not, in any of those books in question, about the generally accepted story of Jesus. So I feel as reasonably satisfied as I think we can be about anything of this nature of that era: that the main canons which we have today pretty-well reflect what the early Church believed. Whether or not we personalise that, and confess Jesus is Lord, and believe in our own heart that God raised Him from the dead, is of course a step further. And might require that we're drawn or taught in our hearts, directly by the Spirit. One thing I can say though is that the rapid acceptance of Christianity across Europe, at a time when Christianity was persecuted, when there was no economic advantage to becoming Christian, hardly compares with the spread of say Islam, at the point of the sword. Especially considering Christianity was based on stories many of which could have been falsified, at its inception, and on location, by the very people who were being preached to. Unlike the Koran which was entirely subjective to the writer's claim, and didn't include anything much that was falsifiable by its original readers. So again, I think the early canons - each of them, despite their slight differences - pretty much reflected the early Church's main story. Their criteria was quite scientific - even though they came to different conclusions about a small number of books. Whereas the divergent groups weren't at all scientific - about anything much.

Tuesday 1 August 2017

Don't Forget the 'No More Gaps'

Like nailing a sheet of board to a wall, but not using No More Gaps to make the join seamless - many have nailed some points of the Gospel okay, but miss how the Gospel itself seamlessly completes the story of Israel and of Abraham.

So they understand that the Gospel is about Gentiles experiencing salvation; they pray for healing; they're seeing people getting baptised with the Holy Spirit - but they don't quite grasp how all of that fulfils the very story of Israel (and the Law) and of Abraham (and the Promise).

Consequently, although they're thoroughly enjoying the Gospel-work they're doing, there's a part of their mind that still sees everything 'Israel' as something separate. Like maybe God does have some separate way to salvation for Jews. Or like maybe their story is yet to be completed - like during some future Jewish 'Millennium' or something. Judaism too is probably still legitimate, both now and in future.

When all along this board which they've sheeted to the wall, really was meant to be seen to join seamlessly to the sheet before it. It all fits together a whole lot better and looks far more beautiful then - like it was always meant to be.

The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is the natural apex of the story of Israel and of Abraham.