The Significance of Gabriel Appearing to Mary - by a Fellow Facebook Group Member

A fellow-member of a Facebook Group Posted this recently. I thought it's really good:

Something dawned on me the other day and I thought it was pretty profound. But I thought I’d see what others think...The angel Gabriel is only mentioned three times in scripture: once when appearing to Mary and twice when appearing to David to talk about the eternal kingdom and the future of Israel. So when we see Gabriel appearing to Mary, do you think God is deliberately highlighting that Jesus is the fulfilment of Daniel’s visions? Of course he is, but do you think that that moment in Luke 1 is making that link explicit? In other words, when we’re reading Luke 1 and we see Gabriel has come to Mary, are we supposed to think. “Oh, this is it!”?

Revelation 10

Whatever more meaning Revelation chapter 10 might or might not be intended to have, it's likely that John's original, first-century readers may have sensed a devotional message in it, perhaps similar to the following:

Revelation 10 King James Version (KJV)

10 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

The cloud and pillars of fire were reminiscent of the pillar of cloud and fire which went before and behind God's people when He led them out of captivity in Egypt. John's seven churches had believed the good news that in Jesus Christ God had accomplished the true 'exodus': they'd been delivered from sin, and were expecting to reign in life with the Messiah. But they were soon to encounter hardships which may have challenged their confidence and allegiance.

The vision was also reminiscent of Ezekiel's vision, by the river of captivity. Like Ezekiel, it assured John's readers of the Divine reality despite the present dilemma. 

By the rainbow - which was reminiscent of God's covenant with Noah - they were reassured in advance of God's continued good intentions for them and for creation itself. Despite the coming challenges, God was still on the throne; His presence was still leading them; His masterplan of redeeming all of creation still had the upper-hand; the churches could rest assured that the glorious destiny promised them by the gospel was still very much in safe-keeping.  

2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,

Despite all that might soon be imposed against them by evil powers, the unseen spiritual reality was that the promise of God, and the purpose of God, and the message of God, and all that would be allowed to happen - everything that might have been represented by the little open book - was firmly under Divine control - represented by the mighty angel's hand. The seven churches were assured in advance that the powers-that-be were really only lesser actors in a mere parody: they were a mere charade - while the spiritual reality, though unseen, was that Jesus was reigning; and they would reign with Him too, if they overcame.

Despite the political appearances of the times, God was truly in control - as represented by His angel having the foot of authority, of possession, of purpose and of power firmly upon sea and land - the whole of creation. The troubles that were soon to transpire in the present, could in in no way impinge upon the reality that in Christ God had inaugurated the restoration of all things.

3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.

God still had the final say - represented by this vision of His mighty angel. God alone could speak of the future; He alone possesses all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and He hides it at His discretion from the rulers of this world, despite all their self-agrandizement, professed wisdom and seeming self-determination.

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

Sealed, because those things were likely for the future - unlike other things which John didn't seal, perhaps because they were more relevant to the time of John's immediate first-century audience; and because the prerogative belonged to God the true Sovereign, not to the presumed rulers of the world. 

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

The angel expressed God's sovereignty over all that was transpiring, by declaring that there would indeed come a Day when there would be time no more - no more delay; no more slack for evil; no more chance to repent. The present human rule couldn't impinge upon the Divine purpose.

7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

In the meantime, prior to the last trumpet when the mystery, plans, purposes, promises and Word of God, which none of the rulers of this world had been able to predict, control or hinder, will be finished, John, and the churches he represented, had a role to continue to play...

8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

The vocation of the Body of Christ in the present, is all to do with participating with the Word; the message; God's unfolding purposes. That's great, but there was a certain twist to it:

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

The believers' participation with the Word of God, and in God's purposes, would be both bitter and sweet. Like it was for Ezekiel the captivity-time prophet who had a similar vision and experience.

10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

It was given to the churches not only to believe, but also to suffer for His Name. Not only to experience sweetness - righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost - the foretaste of the power of the age to come - but also to undergo the temporary bitterness of suffering and persecution. They would both enjoy and endure. 

11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

John, and the churches he represented, were to continue to holding forth the Word of God, continue participating in God's purposes - like Ezekiel had, whether his word would be accepted by his peers or not.  

Jesus wanted the heavenly reality revealed to the churches, so they could keep rejoicing through all that was about to transpire. So the born-again believers wouldn't feel like burnt-again believers!

The redemption of creation had been inaugurated in Christ. Now the curtain had been raised on Christ presently reigning in heaven. The churches were reassured of their destiny to reign with Him, in a renewed earth. Meanwhile they were reassured of God's presence with them no matter what.

Therefore the churches could continue making the bold choice to worship God, and to continue their vocation as victorious participants in the Word and purposes of God - and not succumb instead to pressure from society to honour their pagan Greco-Roman false-gods nor go along with the increasingly menacing trend of Emperor-worship.

For us today, the actors in our modern-play might be different - but the devotional message remains similar. God has acted in Christ Jesus to save the world. Christ already reigns in heaven. And we shall reign with Him on a renewed earth, if we overcome. So keep making the choice to worship God; and don't succumb to pressures of society. They're all FAKE NEWS! The real news is still the Good News!

And So All Israel Will Be Saved

1. What does 'all' mean? It doesn't always literally mean all - not in the Prophets; not in the gospels; nor in the Epistles

2. What does 'Israel' mean. Even elsewhere within Romans itself, Paul discusses the topic in a special way 

3. Paul said "...and 'so' (not, and 'then') all Israel will be saved..." Manner/not sequence

4. And Paul immediately proceeded to quote a couple of verses from the Prophets which, if they hadn't begun to be fulfilled already - if they were only about a time still-future - then no-one yet was saved!

5. Paul was likely therefore not forecasting a future dispensation, but explaining a reality that was intrinsic to the gospel-scheme itself

6. That is, he was explaining something that was already a reality about the gospel, and already seeing its outworking in the first-century AD, something pertinent to the congregation at Rome 

7. So, what was the pertinent issue? In most cities, Paul had to deal with Judaizers. He dealt with them in his Epistle to the Romans too. But the city of Rome was unique in that Paul also wanted to nip in the bud an opposite problem: tinges of antisemitism. (Remember, this is the city from where Claudius had previously expelled all Jews.) 

8. So Paul's objective in this section - and the immediate context in Romans also shows this - was to correct any misconception among the congregation at Rome that God may have been finished with saving Jewish people and that the mission may as well only be to Gentiles from now on. 

If Paul's answer meant what the futurist Dispensationalist assert it means, then rather than proving that God was still just as much into saving Jews as ever, it would instead have confirmed the misconception that the gospel-program wasn't really so much for Jews anymore at least not for now anyway

9. And all of this built on his earlier explanation that God's promise to Israel hadn't failed, because the remnant had obtained it

10. Besides, many passages in the Prophets which futurist Dispensationalists take to be about Israel's grandiose future, didn't quite describe nationwide salvation - rather, they mentioned details like only a third of the population surviving; and anyone claiming to be a prophet being killed by his own family

11. John the Baptist; like Malachi before him; and our Lord Jesus Himself, portrayed a very different picture of Israel in the End Times, and warned that not all Israelis were automatically going to be saved and enter the kingdom

12. It's too late to get saved once Jesus comes. Because salvation is through faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Once He's seen, that's no more faith. So once He comes and they see His hands and feet, it will be too late to have a discussion leading to salvation. Even Jesus' parables warned of this. 

13. Getting back to Paul. When he talked about God being able to graft them back in again, he meant it was still possible right there and then for any Jew who turned from unbelief to be saved. God hadn't shut that door to them. Paul (Saul) himself had been an example of that very thing. 

And he said God was provoking Jews to respond, through Gentiles. That was a first-century reality.

And Paul said he himself was active in that task - making much of his ministry to Gentiles, in order to prompt some of his own countrymen to believe. So it was a process that wasn't about the future - it was going on already.

And Paul said this process - of Gentiles and Jews getting saved together at the same time - was to continue until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. God won't close the door to Jews or to anyone until then.

14. As Jesus said, This gospel of the kingdom would be preached among all nations and then the end will come. He didn't say, And then God will open the door to Jews again to get saved. 

15. And Paul wound it all up exulting in God's goodness and wisdom! He was praising God for what was now possible in the gospel. Not for having closed that door to Israel until the end of the End.

A Beautiful Story

God's plan from the foundation of the world was to save humanity, through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. 

He told His friend Abraham about this plan long ago. A son of Abraham's was going to become heir of the world; and people of all the world would become beneficiaries of His blessing. 

Abraham believed God, and as a result God declared him righteous - before he was circumcised; before Israel was even born.

Later Abraham got circumcised. And God chose one line of Abraham's descendants to be the custodians of the plan. He formed them into a nation, and in the meantime gave them a temporary Law which set them apart from all other nations. 

But the Law couldn't save them, because sin was too strong. The Jews were, after all descendants of fallen Adam, just as Gentiles were. 

In their sinfulness they handed Jesus over to Pilate to be crucified. But in the wisdom of God, Jesus' crucifixion became the means of salvation not only of Jewish people, but of all humanity. 

A new covenant was made in Jesus' precious blood. Eternal life was inaugurated by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. 

News of this good accomplishment was announced first to Jews, since they had been custodians of the plan - and also to Greeks. Many Jews believed, but some were still hard-hearted and were missing out. Then many Gentiles also believed. 

Some Jews said the Gentiles who believed had to become Jews - but the Apostles and elders said no: they were complete in Christ. In the Messiah Jews and Gentiles alike had now been made one new humanity, by faith. This was precisely what Abraham had foreseen! 

Incase any Gentiles, especially in the congregation at Rome, might have mistakenly thought that Jews could no longer get saved - Paul explained that any Jew who turned from unbelief to faith could still get saved. God was even using the fact that Gentiles were experiencing the very plan of salvation which Israel had been custodians of, in order to provoke some of them to that very response. And many who at first disbelieved, did eventually become believers. Saul (Paul) himself was an example of that happening.

That scenario - in which both Gentiles and Jews were continuing to come to the Lord at the same time - had been foreseen by the prophets, and was to continue for as long as the gospel is still being preached among the nations, because God hasn't closed the door to anyone - and then the end will come.

Jesus is the way, and the truth, and the life - no one comes to the Father except through Him.

The Real Meaning of Abraham's Promise

I'm still learning what all Abraham's promises meant. But in the process I'm finding it astounding to see the meaning which the New Testament seems to give to Abraham's ancient promises. 

To begin with, I notice that John the Baptist warned the Jews that physical descent from Abraham wasn't going to amount to anything: and that wouldn't mean God's promises failed, because God is able to raise up sons to Abraham from the very stones. That obviously reflected Malachi's warning: that the coming of the Lord wasn't all going to be roses for everyone in Israel.

Then Jesus astoundingly protested that Abraham had rejoiced to see His day, and that he saw it and was glad. So Jesus seems to have understood that Abraham's promise was really ultimately about Him and all that He fulfilled and inaugurated. But the Jewish leaders were missing it.

Paul also understood the promise to have meant that Abraham would be heir, not just of a tract of land in the Middle East - that would be too small - but heir of the world. Now that gives a whole 'nother tinge to its meaning. 

And Paul made a point of observing that the promise was said to be about Abraham's 'seed' singular, not 'seeds' plural - which Paul claimed was Christ. Not necessarily about an entire nationality. Interesting. 

So the promise seems to have been about the fact that Jesus Messiah would inherit people from all over the world. It was ultimately going to be about Jesus, not just about all ethnic Jews; and it was about the world, not just about a tract of land in the Middle East; and really about the 'peoples' of the world, not just the physical lands. 

Paul claimed that all this had been fulfilled by Christ's inheritance in the saints - beginning in Jerusalem, yes - but even broader, among the Gentiles. Paul described this as the real riches of His inheritance. 

That was something he said spiritual enlightenment was required in order to fully grasp. He said that many readers of the Old Testament were reading with veiled eyes, and couldn't see it: but when a person turned to the Lord, the veil would be removed, and he'd see it. 

Paul claimed that the meaning of the promise of Abraham was really that God had preached the gospel in advance to Abraham. Thus the promised 'blessing', Paul explained, was the blessing of receiving the Spirit - the blessing of being justified - by faith - even among the Gentiles. 

Paul even claimed that the fact that only Isaac and not Ishmael had become custodians of the promise, even though Ishmael also was a child of Abraham, meant in principle that the promised blessing was always ultimately going to be received not on the basis of Jewish ethnicity, the people distinguished by Judaism, but by faith - even by Gentiles. Just as Abraham himself also had believed the promise and his faith was counted to him for righteousness before he was circumcised and before there ever was a nation named Israel. 

Paul asserted that the promise was not about the physical city of Jerusalem with her ethnic Jews which had become subject to Rome - but about the heavenly Jerusalem, which Paul said is the mother of us all, not only of ethnic Jews. 

So Paul understood Abraham's promise and blessing as something that was now being received among them, despite much of the physical Israel being in the opposite state.  

The Book of Joshua had said that not one thing which God had promised the children of Israel had failed: all had come to pass. Already. Yet hundreds of years later in the Psalms it was written that a rest still remained for God's people. So the promise was always really going to be about something bigger than Canaan land. And it was going to be for 'God's [true] people'. 

First century Jews were obviously therefore expecting something more too. The radical claim made by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews was that it is Jesus who has now brought His people into that true rest, and that it is by faith that they enter it, and warned that even ethnic Jews could miss out if they shrunk back from faith in Jesus. 

He explained that what Abraham had really been looking for all along, was really a city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God. In fact all the forefathers had really been looking for a heavenly country, he said, because God has made for them a city. 

Peter the Apostle also claimed the same thing: that God had now fulfilled the promises which Israel had been custodians of, by Jesus raising Jesus Christ from the dead, and that the inheritance is now reserved for us in heaven. 

The resurrection of the dead had become the hope of Israel, so those who had died would not miss out on the promise. Abraham's bosom was the place where the dead went in waiting for that Day. The claim of the New Testament is that 'resurrection' has now been inaugurated - through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Sin had been dealt with. That's the gospel.

These claims about Israel's promises seem so radical - on first glance I wondered "How did you get that out of Genesis, Paul?!" It's such a radically different reading of the Old Testament to some contemporary popular Dispensational or post second-temple Orthodox-Jewish readings of it. 

The New Testament's claim doesn't seem to me to be that this understanding of the scope and meaning of Abraham's promise was merely 'a' way of understanding it - nor that this was only some temporary, spiritual or allegorical way to apply the promise as if the real physical political ethnic meaning of the promise was yet to come. But this was 'the' meaning it was always going to have. So it's really about Jesus - the gospel.

When all this was written in the New Testament, Israel were in their land - they even had a functioning Temple with sacrificing - yet none of that was seen to be the essence or the apex of the promise. Even non-Christian Jews in the first century AD knew there had to be more to it than that. The claim of the New Testament was that the promise was really all about Jesus, about the gospel, and that the blessing was even being enjoyed among the Gentiles as Abraham had foreseen, while unbelievers, even Jews, could miss out, as all the prophets also had forewarned. 

But God was still saving Jews too - the New Testament was careful to remind Gentile believers, especially in the congregation at Rome. So, this took nothing away from ethnic Israelites.

Coming to Terms with the New Testament

Paul's message was not that Jesus died on the cross merely to take away our guilt before Moses' Law so that we could all then become or carry-on being better Observers of Moses' Law. 

No, Paul's message was that the cross brought Moses' Law to an end! Whether someone had been a circumcised Jew or an uncircumcised gentile was no longer of the essence.

Neither did Paul think that the gospel was merely something 'else' God was temporarily doing - mainly for Gentiles - while we wait for God to resume His real program for Israel at some time in the future.

No, Paul saw the gospel as the very fulfilment - the apex - the inauguration - of everything the Jewish Old Testament Scriptures had been anticipating. The real thing. 

Sooner or later we have to face the magnitude of the claim Paul was really making. 

Once we've grasped and accepted the significance which Paul was claiming in the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus, in relation to Israel's story in the Old Testament, it will banish any thought that believers should now become Observant of modern Judaisms; or that God might have some other means at His disposal of saving modern-Israelis other than through believing the gospel before it's too late.

God's plan - for Israel, for everyone - was always ultimately going to be all about JESUS: and that promise has now come to pass. That message is called the gospel.

So that's what our sole focus should be too - as Paul's was - in order for us to be true to the message the New Testament is telling us. 

Focus only and always on the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus the Messiah - no matter where, no matter when, and no matter whom.

A History of the Contemporary Church Movement

Early Wesleyan evangelical movements; and the Welsh revival; and early Pentecostal outpourings and others, experienced the Word of God and the manifestation of the presence and power of God impacting the unsaved.

But second-generation organised Pentecostals soon were not quite demonstrating the power of God as their own earlier Pentecostal outpourings, or earlier revivals and evangelical movements had.

Some concerned Pentecostals therefore began to pray and fast, and the Latter Rain movement was birthed.

But the Assemblies of God (AoG) largely denounced the movement, because it felt the movement didn't comply with some of its essential truths and fundamental doctrines.

Then the Spirit began to be poured out among non-Pentecostal denominations instead - and the Latter Rain movement merged with it, from among the Pentecostals who had experienced it: so together it became a church-wide, worldwide movement known as the Charismatic Renewal.

But still the AoG denounced it, partly because it thought its music was shallow, and dancing in the spirit was thought to be worldly.

But for all who did embrace it, it brought much rejoicing and fruit. Souls were saved, missions were started, people were filled with the Spirit and the Word of God was taught.

Yet as great as it was, there was still a yearning in hearts and an expectation that even greater manifestations of the Spirit had to come and would come.

Youth in Latter Rain/Charismatic churches such as those were enjoying the presence of God and seeing the power of God drawing the lost (like earlier Holy Ghost movements had seen) - but second- and third-generation Pentecostal-church youth were hardly seeing it.

What they were often hearing instead in their churches, was what was wrong with everything (what was wrong with Latter Rain/Charismatic teaching and practices: what was considered wrong with personal-prophecy, for example; what was considered wrong with deliverance ministry; what was considered wrong with the five-fold ministry, and with body-ministry, and with impartation through the laying-on-of hands; they were hearing End-Times predictions, and why Dispensational Pre-Millennialism was considered to be so important [despite its implications of future Leviticalism]; they were hearing what was wrong with wearing make-up and trendy clothes; and what was considered wrong with Charismatic songs and dancing in the spirit; etc). Pentecostal youth weren't seeing that making too much impact on their unchurched peers.

So the most spectacular, influential thing many Pentecostal youth were seeing in their world at that time, so they thought, was secular Rock concerts. And one of their biggest fears as Pentecostal pastors' kids and church kids who weren't seeing much of the power of the Spirit, was that they might be thought of by their peers as nurds. Whereas Spirit-filled Charismatic/Latter Rain youth had a boldness that almost matched many of their adult forbears in earlier moves of God.

"If only we could have a Christian version of MTV!" That would be the answer, many Pentecostal-church kids thought. So some of them came up with Christian Rock n Roll. Contemporary Christian Music. They started organising novel, entertaining youth activities. And then big combined youth rallies, like concerts - Rock concerts.

Many Latter Rain/Charismatic churches were happy enough to send their youth along to those Pentecostal kids' Saturday night youth rallies too, despite the harder music-style. It was seen as just an extra outreach event, without taking anything away from all the good-spirituality they were already experiencing in the Renewal in their Latter Rain/Charismatic congregations. It was seen as an extension-of; not as a replacement-of.

There was a lot of prayer and outreach going on across cities in those days - some overlapping and co-operation at a lay-level between Charismatic and Pentecostal church-members - many were getting saved and filled with the Spirit and the Word was being taught. There was a rising tide of impact. Many could see the momentum gaining.

Meanwhile many of those Pentecostal youth leaders soon became youth pastors/assistant pastors in their churches - and then became senior pastors. Then, urged along by some radical pastors, some were accepted as members of denominational Executives.

There was a deliberate attempt by some - self-styled social architects - to radically change church. To make it 'relevant'. So the Saturday night youth concerts started visiting Sunday night church, during youth week. Then it happened every Sunday night. Then on Sunday mornings too. Very soon it came to be just how AoG church was. Every Sunday. Christian Rock n Roll soon became imposed on many AOG churches nearly everywhere. Pentecostal churches were 'contemporised'.

That was ironic, because many Pentecostal churches hadn't embraced the Latter Rain/Charismatic Renewal but denounced it because they felt its doctrine and music and dancing was too worldly - but instead they ended-up with music and dancing in their churches that truly was even more worldly in its sound and look than Charismatic songs and services were - plus they ended-up with a lot of preaching that sounded even more 'worldly' (in comparison to the Charismatics' preaching at the time, and certainly their own old-time Pentecostal preaching). As a result of all that, many mature believers left Pentecostal churches, or felt sidelined.

Around that time some famous old-time Pentecostal stalwarts, and also some famous Charismatic ministers publicly experienced some personal difficulties. And some once-powerful, fruitful Charismatic churches also had the 'Seeker Friendly' approach of a non-Charismatic/non-Pentecostal organisation imposed on them by new leaders. Many mature-age believers therefore left Charismatic churches also, or felt sidelined - like what had now happened in many Pentecostal churches.

That series of events left many Latter Rain/Charismatic churches which had not too long before been enjoying the move of the Spirit, all the more open to embracing the growing influence of the newly contemporised Pentecostal churches and their youth ministries and music and concert-style worship.

More and more churches - both Pentecostal and Charismatic - started performing Contemporary Christian Music on Sundays, adopting the Rock Concert model in place of the Tabernacle of David or early Pentecostal concepts of praise and worship.

With that, the expression of spiritual gifts inevitably began to wane in Charismatic churches, as it had already in many Pentecostal churches. Much of the focus instead came to be on programs, and especially on the use of Contemporary Christian Music as a strategy.

The momentum that many had felt gaining, therefore seemed to come to a lull.

Then God graciously caused a cloud to blow-in and refresh the churches once again. This could be called the River movement. Both Charismatic and Pentecostal churches including Word of Faith churches rejoiced in it, for a season, worldwide. It brought manifestations of the Spirit such that believers had been yearning for and expecting to see since Charismatic Renewal days - and all so easily. Some new songs were birthed. New ministries were birthed. It was a dream come true.

It was so big a lot of Contemporary/Seeker-Sensitive pastors didn't quite know how to cope with the disruption it seemed to be causing to some of their new programs.

"We couldn't have been wrong," one leading Pentecostal-church pastor said.

So the new move of the Spirit soon became relegated mostly to poorly-attended midweek meetings. And then eventually the fresh move of the Spirit soon stopped almost completely, in many churches.

Many former Charismatic/Pentecostal churches then settled back into a fairly organised church-style which consisted mainly of Contemporary music without much manifestation of the Spirit. Almost all interest had been lost however in the so-called 'Seeker Friendly' style of service.

Then Y2K - and all the Dispensational End-Times predictions that accompanied it, outside of Latter Rain circles - fizzled into nothing.

Once again there came to be nearly an absence of spiritual manifestations - Charismatic/Pentecostal distinctives - in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. This meant that many non-Charismatic/non-Pentecostal denominations now felt that they could embrace the Contemporary music and service-style of Contemporary-style churches into their own youth events first, then into many of their church services too. The Contemporary Christian Music style of service was beginning to become fashionable.

Meanwhile some groups who had experienced the River movement did try to keep the manifestations of the Spirit alive. And they sought to keep using Contemporary Christian music, though often with 'soaking' or 'River' themes in their songs. As in Contemporary-style churches, music often still dominated services though, so the manifestations of the Spirit weren't able to be as prominent in their services as it had been during earlier movements. Because music dominated.

Some famous leaders among some of them also publicly experienced some personal problems. By that time many Contemporary Pentecostal churches had also begun promoting and accepting tattoos. Many of the 'River'-type churches also accepted and promoted that. Because of all that, many mainstream mature-age believers weren't comfortably drawn to such-churches despite such churches stating their interest in the things of the Spirit.

The result was that in much of present-day church-life - church-wide, worldwide - in denominational, Charismatic, Pentecostal and River churches alike - Contemporary Christian Music came to dominate. The Rock Concert model became a dominant feature in services, where once there had been a broader more community/family-friendly style of music and the move and manifestation of the Spirit had been more prominent. 

The Contemporary Church movement came to be distinguishable among earlier River/Charismatic/Latter Rain/Pentecostal/revival/evangelical movements.    
  

Seeing Moses is Read in Every Place

The Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem decreed that churches among the Gentiles need not and should not become places which basically required Gentiles to become Proselytes to Judaism. Rather, the churches were to be places where everyone could belong, regardless of ethnicity, and eat together at the same table, without any one particular ethnic group's peculiar cultural practices being allowed to bar others. Specifically, churches didn't need to become especially Jewish in identity and practice, seeing any Jewish members of the churches could readily avail themselves of all things Jewish by attending their local synagogues which were everywhere. So the Jewish culture didn't need to be imposed on Gentiles and insisted on in the churches. But there was something to be said to Gentiles too, in order to keep the peace and unity in the churches across the potential divide of cultural backgrounds. And the Apostles and Elders listed those. 
Obviously those few things weren't the only things which believers in Jesus were to avoid. Of course there were others. There were new moral standards for believers to express, but those were not so much a matter of adopting cultural markers. The issue in the Apostles and Elders' statement wasn't just about what is the comprehensive list of moral rights and wrongs and where to find it. It was largely about cultural identity. It was a question of, Did Gentiles need to become Jews. And their answer was, No. But churches were taught about morals, beyond just the cultural markers listed. Like not stealing, for example. But churches weren't to teach that Gentiles needed to become Jewish. That's altogether a different issue and question - and answer. 

Any Jewish members of the churches could readily satisfy their cultural needs at their local synagogues. Neither becoming Jewish, nor offending Jews - nor offending Gentiles - wasn't what church needed to be about. Church was to be for everyone.

On Circumcision, Sprinkling and Washings (Immersion).

In the first century AD, Rome was occupying Judea, so the threat of national annihilation always seemed looming. There was a sense among Judeans therefore that the 'kingdom' promised to Israel had to come and come soon.

There was little separation of religion and politics in those days. So there were various religious/political groups within Israel, each claiming to know the right way to please God, the right way to respond to the political crisis, and how best to facilitate the coming of the kingdom of God. Each of these groups were vying for the support of the Jewish public.

There were the Herodians, who thought the way to go was to make a deal with Rome, and build the emblems of kingdom.

The Pharisees felt the Herodians were compromising on standards. Only the pious could enter the kingdom of God, they felt. So they went around policing behaviours, thinking a more pious Israel could help speed-up the arrival of God's kingdom.

Many of the Zealots believed that armed-struggle was the way to go.

But it was the temple priests who seemed to be holding the sway.

They had Scribes and lawyers, each with their own opinions, to contend with though.

And some people, such as the community at Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found), felt the Temple-system had become too corrupt. They saw themselves as a true Israel within Israel, and were striving to qualify to enter Messiah's kingdom when He would come. They practised a ceremonial washing (immersion in water) which initiated a person into their community. They had regulations about how pure and how deep the water had to be. They may have been Sadducees, but that's not certain.

They weren't the only group practising 'washings' (immersing in water). Excavations show the Jerusalem Temple itself had an immersion pool. Ancient synagogues also had immersion pools. And modern synagogues still have them too: it's called Mikveh. (The Surfers Paradise Synagogue recently had a new one built.) Each first-century religious/political group within Judea claimed to have the right slant on the 'kingdom' - what it might look like; how it should come about; and who in Israel might qualify to enter it - and they 'washed' (immersed) recruits.

Jewish Mikveh

(The question of 'free will' versus 'sovereignty', for first century Jews, was about whether God would bring about Israel's kingdom all on His own when He's good and ready, or whether they had to do something about it - such as be more pious; and if so, in what way; and even about should they take up arms.)

The practise of washing (immersing) was considered by Jews to be what Moses meant in the Torah by 'washings'. In the Torah, 'washings' was distinct from 'sprinkling'; and distinct also from circumcision - each of which were prescribed for different people at different times and for different purposes, not for the same purpose. They weren't interchangeable or replaceable.

So John's baptism fit right into that. John (the Baptist) was one who practised 'washing' (immersing, baptising). Like many in his day, John gave his own unique slant on the issues of 'kingdom'. He demanded repentance. It was a baptism of repentance. He warned that not all ethnic Jews would qualify to enter the kingdom. John even identified the Messiah for Israel: Jesus of Nazareth. John's ministry and impact had been prophesied (by Isaiah and Malachi).

John wasn't presenting his 'washing' (baptism) as an optional alternative to circumcision. Messing with the Torah like that would not have done, for any of his Jewish audience. Circumcision was circumcision, while 'washing' (immersing) was washing (and sprinkling was sprinkling). Circumcision was for eight-day old boys - sprinkling in the Torah was for set-purposes also (and never for babies) - washings were for another purpose, and John's baptism came in the vogue of washings. It wasn't a new circumcision for babies. It was about repentance. Repentance was a conscious decision.

It was the counsel of God. It was to be submitted to. Being baptised fulfilled all righteousness.

The Epistle to the Hebrews spoke about the foundational doctrine of baptisms (washings). Christian baptism, after Jesus' death and resurrection, in the Name of Jesus - in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - was in the same style as John's (which had been a 'washing', an immersion, for conscious deciders - not a new infant-circumcision). Baptism into Christ was for both the circumcised, and the uncircumcised.

And uncircumcised believers didn't need to become circumcised - because they'd been 'circumcised' with the true circumcision without hands - by putting away their old identity and taking on their new identity in Christ. Baptism in water is involved with that.

But the provision for babies was that Paul said they were 'sanctified' by a believing parent. So was an unbelieving spouse. Without baptism. And without circumcision. So was an unbelieving spouse. So it wasn't about salvation one way or the other. It was just meaning that the relationship was okay.

Moses asked God not to wipe out his name from the book of life. A person's name is in the book, to begin with. Children's angels always behold the face of the Father.  

And although there had been a number of different Jewish groups practising 'washings' (immersing) there was only one Christian baptism (washing, immersion) - irrespective of who had done the baptising, whether Peter, Paul or Apollos or whoever. The Church wasn't divided. Just as there was only one Holy Spirit, even though each member of the body had different gifts. Jesus is Lord of all.

In the early Church it was unthinkable that anyone who had come to believe in Jesus would not also get baptised in water. It was also expected that everyone would also receive the Spirit. All three experiences were considered as a package deal. However, the three were also distinguishable, and didn't always happen in the same order, or even on the same day.

The Samaritans for example, believed and were baptised by Philip first, and received the Spirit later when the Apostles laid hands on them. Cornelius' household on the other hand heard the Word and the Spirit fell on them while Peter was still speaking, before they'd even been baptised. Peter knew they'd received the Spirit, because he heard them speaking with tongues. So Peter knew there was no reason to withhold baptism from them (seeing they were obviously acceptable to God despite not being circumcised, because God only gives His Spirit to those who obey Him). Luke mentioning the Samaritans and the Gentiles receiving the Spirit, made the point that God had accepted them just as He had accepted Jewish believers in Jesus.

Since it was common practise for everyone who believed, to also get baptised, and to also receive the Spirit, when Paul was tackling other important issues of his day, he could refer to each of those experiences almost as a unit, even somewhat interchangeably - because almost everyone he was writing to had had all three experiences. Everyone he was writing to, who had had one of the experiences, had also had all three experiences. That's how it was meant to be: and it's just how it was, in the early Church. Anything else would have been unthinkable. Paul wasn't in the first instance directly addressing the question of whether or not they're interchangeable or always happen together. So he didn't need to use terms which expressed that distinction. Although if you asked him - or asked Peter - of course they would say both that they are distinct experiences and also that all three experiences ideally were meant to be received as a package.

Paul asking the disciples at Ephesus whether they received the Spirit when they believed, showed that Paul detected there was something lacking in them; and he expected it was normative for disciples to receive the Spirit. When they said they hadn't even heard about a Holy Spirit, Paul then asked what baptism they'd been baptised with. That shows that Paul expected the Holy Spirit to normally be mentioned during Christian Baptism. That shows that Paul didn't expect the name of Jesus only to be used. It also shows that mentioning the Holy Spirit at baptism was meant to include actually receiving the Spirit, if believers hadn't already received Him.

Even the term 'born of the Spirit' is like this. We are also born 'of water'. It doesn't mean we get born again twice. It just means that the initial moment of believing; and getting baptised, were considered part and parcel - and in the early Church believers always had both experiences.

Same with washing away sins. Our sins are washed away when we believe - yet Ananias also told Saul to be baptised, washing away his sins.

The word 'baptism' in Paul's letters, always would have evoked thoughts of water-baptism, in Paul's readers. Yet some of what Paul said, must also be true to some extent at least of believers who haven't been baptised in water yet (like Cornelius' household, because they'd received the Spirit before being baptised in water).

The book of Acts describes the baptism with the Holy Spirit as 'receiving' the Spirit. That's not to deny that believers who haven't received the Spirit yet, don't already have the Spirit with them in some way. Jesus breathed on the disciples after His resurrection and said "Receive the Spirit" - yet there was still a sense in which the Spirit was "not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified".

That's why Peter could say that baptism "saves us". Peter could say that, because all believers also got baptised. And baptism is part of it. But if you asked Peter whether a person who hadn't been baptised yet could be 'saved' - he probably would have answered Yes - because he'd seen God give the Spirit to Cornelius's believing but as-yet unbaptised household. But that question wasn't an issue of Peter's in his Epistle.

The New Testament can speak broadly like this, because they wren't answering the questions we have today. They were addressing different concerns. But the evidence is also there in Acts and elsewhere, that the three different components can be identified separately. The Apostles weren't immediately concerned with whether or not a believer has attained to this or that experience in the Christian life without yet having experienced one or another of the three components - because everyone just did. Yet we can still answer our question - our issue - based on information they gave (in the New Testament).

Everything we will ever need, has already been provided for us by God, through the substitutionary death, burial, and victorious resurrection (the ascension, glorification and seating - and the fact of the soon-coming) of Jesus Christ. Jesus' death and resurrection was our real Passover - Israel's real exodus from exile (from sin and death).

That's already been achieved - repenting and believing the announcement of that, makes a person just in the sight of God, a child of God, born of the Spirit, receiving the Spirit in some sense, destined for glory. Receiving the Spirit in the greater sense of being baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit is possible because of that. And getting baptised in water, either before or after being baptised with the Spirit, fulfils the righteousness that came through believing: it's all part of washing away our sins and being born of water; identifying with the true Passover and Exodus and coming into resurrection and our eternal inheritance.  

Early CLC Ipswich (Catalyst Church) History - Remarks by Evan Heading

Asked about the Friday night meeting that was held at Percy and June Mole's home in Coal Street at Bundamba; and about the timing of Christian Life Centre Ipswich beginning above the UFS Dispensary, Evan wrote:

"Actually it was a prayer meeting and sometimes Bible study to begin with. John Van Kempen took me along one time and that's how I got to become a part of it. A fellow named Bob Knight, Laury Carsons, John Van Kempen, Percy and myself were the members. It was from this prayer meeting that the desire to have something more came from and that was what a lot of prayer went into. A cell group then started at Percy's place from memory and that's around the time your dad came on the scene and a second cell group started with your dad as the leader. It was after probably a year or so that we started the Sunday service above the UFS dispensary."

But the meeting at my dad's place - Bruce and Lynette Edwards's place - wasn't officially a cell group of Christian Life Centre Brisbane. My parents were still attending their evangelical, mainline denominational home-church when they started their home-meetings - it was just a home-meeting for anyone seeking deeper fellowship in the Spirit.

When the decision was made to launch CLC Ipswich, in rented premises above the UFS Dispensary however, a number of those who were attending Bruce and Lynette Edwards's home-meeting did soon start attending CLC Ipswich and made it their home-church - just as a number of those who had been attending the home-meeting at Percy and June Mole's home-meeting were part of the new church.

Letter from Percy Mole

I once asked Percy Mole to write a history of CLC Ipswich as he saw it. This was his reply, written several years ago now.

To John Beloved:

Greetings in the grace and love of Him whom God hath made both Lord and Christ, "Our Lord Jesus Christ".

I am somewhat in fear and trembling re your request concerning CLC Ipswich - as there is so much background as expected in God's dealings with us individually, as you have also experienced - so I must condense as much as possible and endeavour to leave out the I's and me's and concentrate on the He's and Him's - our Saviour.

Saved in my early teens (Eudlo) near Nambour - never had any real fellowship until after the War discharge 1946.  Two years of severe dermatitis from Army life in the tropics - unable to work, and with a young wife and two boys - through circumstances - we housed in mum's garage, Holmes Street North Ipswich - entered Q.G.R. North Ipswich shops - March 1948 - eventually moving upstairs after Mum's boarder moved out - next door was brother Frank Martin - who I could hear playing piano and singing hymns and choruses to the dislike of his family but he was unstoppable!   He by bike went each Sunday into Ipswich and went by train to the Apostolic Assembly - Valley, Brisbane established by my life-changing and dearest friend and a spiritual father - Pastor Bill Hawkins - this is the foundation of all that was to be laid in my life, that eventuated with the intro to CLC later on.  Pastor Bill gave me my first platform/ministry opportunities - as I also went weekly by train (sometimes walking to the station - no buses) in company with Tom Morris (Dave's father), Frank Martin and Percy Spall when we prayed and sang our way to and fro - glory days.  I had by God's grace, been accepted as an elder apt to teach - after Pastor Hawkings was transferred to Burnie Tasmania - my acceptance by the people as to ministry was more honoured than the new Pastor and of course - no-one benefits from such a situation.  I and my two young boys went to Burnie, where I was speaker at the Christmas convention 1955.  After being redundant in Brisbane Pastor Herschell who began an AOG work Ipswich post-war - begged of me to gather with him at Ipswich - after similar experience with this pastor and some who followed - I refused to lead a breakaway group on two occasions - one at what was to become the AOG Robertson Road.  Outcome = the 60s I had a wilderness experience for a decade - until God dealt with a heavy hand upon me - a lot of consequences of my lapse needed correction (excuse my non-detailing of events) - but I knew God was giving me a final call in His mercy and based on the Scripture - Ephesians 3 - in particular verses 8-10.

In the early 70s I renewed fellowship with the AOG Pastor Alcorn this time June my wife supported me - for the first time.  Pastor Alcorn, I honour as one who never showed any envy to me of the acceptability of my ministry and wanted me to be his assistant - giving me a free hand with all bible studies and most of the morning meetings.  It was around this time that Pastor Hawkins returned to Queensland and joined with Pastor Chandler - CLC. 

I am unsure of the exact sequences - but through Friday night prayer meetings in our home Bundamba - I came into contact with John van Kempen and some others who went to CLC Brisbane from Ipswich.  This laid the seed thought of why not a local fellowship for the Ipswich folk - what stands out in my memory very clearly as a very important event at that time - it was meeting your Dad and Mum at the CLC Brisbane - I still hold that, that was an encouragement to me, that a fellowship would begin in Ipswich, by His grace and enablement. 

After Pastor Alcorn invited me into partnership I had told him I'd pray about it - end result in the back room no 5 Coal Street Bundamba - an inner voice said - you will not fulfill your calling in the place - hence I have never accepted any of the pastoral ministries offer me, as I understood that office was not for me.  Pastor Chandler never had a vision for Ipswich and did not want any draining of Ipswich folk from Brisbane - but God has prevailed - I attended monthly meets in Brisbane and though holding no "office", was accepted there by such as Pastor Klimionoch - Taylor - Lewis - etc, which was good grounding for me and kept me in touch - with Pastor Hawkings - John McEwen - Sid Bunny etc.  Home meetings begun no 5 Coal Street and the Carsons, van Kempens - Hilton Ireland and other - eventually a visit from Pastor Chandler and Hawkings agree to start fellowship in Ipswich resulted.  Pastor Chandler was concerned with the finance side and it was when Brother Ron Edwards and others promised some $4000 the Pastor Chandler - said - "It looks like Ipswich is a goer".

John - in 1974 I was declared unemployable with back and other problems being boarded out in 1976 - but this gave me time and opportunity to seek the Lord for the help and support needed to establish a work for Him - this is where the Edwards families and others - step up as the Joshuas of the time to lead the pilgrims into God's promised and provided provisions.

I feel I have said too much from "me" and how can I say enough about Him - Later Pastor Alcorn said, "Percy - I was against you doing what you did - but now I say - I could not have accomplished what has been accomplished at Brassall."  Your dad played a major role in what was the foundation - now others are responsible before God of building upon it - may all the lives touched in those time stand steadfast - enduring to the end - built up and growing ever in His grace and knowledge.

John I know not how to start and where and when and how to end this attempt to reply to your request.

I am settled in my spirit and assured from what I understand of the prophetic Scriptures - that the time zone for Christ's return is near 2028.  Regardless, the key to holding fast is in personal daily prayer/reading and seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit - Charlotte and I have almost seven years up (end September).  And since 1974 - via Pastor Bill's daily Bible reading programme, has enabled me - with June - now Charlotte to read through the Old Testament once a year and the New Testament twice and being the words of Living Word - ever new - fresh - inspiring and precious.  I have had attacks of pancreas trouble since 2004 and have just been in hospital again and scheduled for a gall operation September 24 St Andrews - at 84 I am not relishing it.  I will write out a couple of items which - are relevant both to me personally as well as in general - I treasure your letter and its blessed encouragement to me - as dew upon the mown grass and as the balm of Gilead and ointment poured forth.

Stand fast dear brother and still be standing when the final bell of the end round sounds and He will raise your hand in sharing the victory and the blessedness of the unborn ages to come - what a privilege what a joy divine - partakers of the Divine Nature to be of His Body - His Church - there is no excelling - for those who in His image rise -

Love in Christ Jesus.

Percy

(August 11th Charlotte is in UK 'till 16th, with family)