Monday 31 July 2017

Right Dividing the Word

When we identify Old Covenant (Levitical) themes in Old Testament Prophecy as already-fulfilled, that doesn't reduce Bible Prophecy to a mere history-book. Because there are themes in Bible-Prophecy which are still-future - like the Second Coming.

But reading fulfilled-prophecy has value, because the fact that it's been fulfilled makes it the charter of the church. The fact that it's fulfilled, is the Articles of Association of the church. The church is built on the historical fact of fulfilled prophecy.

The prophecy - and the fact that it's been fulfilled - locates us. It tells us what's been set up for us, by virtue of the fulfilment of the prophecy in history.

Identifying a prophecy as fulfilled - rather than turning it into lifeless pages, is the very reason why the pages breath life for us today. We're on this side of the benefit, not still waiting for it!

The timeline on which Bible Prophecy was fulfilled, gives us a historical basis for our claim about Jesus. According to Prophecy, certain things had to be fulfilled in Israel first, and then Messiah would come in that setting. By identifying that those things indeed happened in Israel first, and that those things were realities in Israel at the time of Jesus, we can demonstrate that Jesus was on-time to be Israel's Messiah. But if we instead relegate those details in Prophecy to the future, it implies Jesus was too early in history to be Messiah. It would also wrongly imply the necessity of Judaism in future.

All of the Bible still speaks - but it needs to be rightly divided. Anything God promised - and did - for Israel in the past, is a pretty good indication of the goodwill He still has towards them - and also towards all nations, since He is now grafting Gentiles in to Israel's promises, through the Gospel. But some details are meant to stay in the past, especially Levitical, Old Covenant details - they're history.

That takes nothing away from us - rather, it tells the story of how, and proves, that we are now on a higher and better platform!

Saturday 29 July 2017

Get This

To the Apostles, the mission of Jesus wasn't just to start the Church - but to continue and to complete the story of Israel and of Abraham, and in so doing create the Church. 

Friday 28 July 2017

Romans 11

Have you ever read Romans through in a single sitting? Romans 11 wasn't written like a separate label to tie to a pole and let it swing there - it's part of the flow of the whole Book. Romans is going somewhere. 

As his Epistle progresses, Paul addresses specific issues along the way. He tells us what those questions are. Part of Romans 11 was an appeal to Roman believers not to think more lowly of Jews than they should: not to think Jews probably didn't have the opportunity any more to get saved; not to despise Jewish church-members because of their conscientiousness about sabbaths and diets, etc. All of that was an especially Roman tendency, exacerbated when Claudius expelled all Jews from the city (which the books of Acts mentions).

So Paul's reponse, always aiming for unity between Gentile and Jew in the Church, is to explain that God hadn't closed the door to Jews - many Jews had been saved, and any who hadn't still could - Paul himself was an example of that happening. In fact God was using the Gentiles' experience of salvation to provoke Jews to jealousy, to become what they were always intended to be. 

Paul explained that that outcome had been a mystery in OT times. But that was the very outcome which fulfilled Israel's promised salvation. Quoting two OT verses, which had in fact already seen their fulfilment, and still were - or else no-one has ever yet been saved!

And "so all Israel shall be saved", he concluded. Not," and then..." But, "and so..." Manner, not sequence. Paul wasn't saying what will happen next after the fulness of the Gentiles has come in - or else he'd have said "And then...". He was explaining the scheme that existed. "And so..." In this manner. What he was most likely meaning is that the scenario he'd just described, even though it's an outcome that had been a bit of a mystery up until now, is the very scheme by which all Israel must be saved: God hasn't closed the door to them.

But even if Paul meant there's going to come a time of nationwide responsiveness in Israel, it can only be on the platform of the Gospel, not on the old scheme of Judaism - and not 'after' the Second Coming! And a future 'Millennium' (if that's what Revelation means) can't be a Judaistic one. Spiritualising the significance of sacrifices in Prophecy from atonement offerings to 'memorial' offerings like some claim, is to depart from literalism. Thus the Dispensational model of the Millennium unravels by the very literalism on which it claims to be constructed, doesn't it? Or at least, the idea should probably be put in the non-fundamental truth category, the inessential doctrine category - not something we demand a thorough understanding of and agreement with as a condition for not jeopardising one's credentials and severely affecting one's standing in the fellowship? 

What Paul Was Doing

When Paul spoke about predestination and election, in Romans, he wasn't sitting at the table with Calvinists when they debated Arminians in the 16th century - he was using the terms in a polemical way against the ideas of the Judaizers, and in an assuring way to the Church - and all as a basis for his appeal to unity in the Church across the Gentile/Jew 'barrier'. 

Wednesday 26 July 2017

Twitter

Did I Tweet 55 times today??
Each one exulting in the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge and mercy of God! 

Sunday 23 July 2017

Joint-Heirs of the Kingdom

The main thing I'm asserting about Old Testament Prophecy, is that God isn't planning any regression back to Levitical worship - not for anyone, anywhere, ever. To me, that's New Testament theology 1.0.1

And of course, Jesus is Israel's prophesied Messiah. (Orthodox Jews argue about that point, but believers in Jesus don't.)

Those two truths might not easily answer every question about Bible Prophecy, but it does eliminate a lot of out-there ideas about the future. When we re-read Old Testament prophecies in light of those two truths, it means we can divide certain themes in the prophecies into their right time in history: either the past, present or maybe the future. So that helps unpack a lot of it quite well. 

A main problem with the idea that God has a people outside of His bride; and that people will be admitted into the Kingdom of God who weren't saved; and that some of them can get saved once they've already seen the Kingdom (especially if they're Jews), is that that idea is not in the Bible - not in the Epistles, Gospels, not even in the Old Testament. The whole Bible always warned of the importance of being prepared in advance of His coming.

The nature of a parable is that not every detail in it is meant to establish a doctrine. Unlike prophetic visions, in which every symbol has a meaning. Parables are not visions. Most of Jesus' parables were told to drive home some simple points. Some details were there to reinforce a single point, not to make a point of their own.

Like the parable of the unjust judge and the persistent widow. The detail that the judge happened to be unjust, was not meant to make a point that God is somehow unjust. It just reinforced the point that persistent prayer can really win-out in the end - if towards an unjust judge, how much more towards our just God. 

A simple point of the parables of the kingdom, is that only those who are prepared in advance of Messiah's coming will be able to see it and enter it. 
And far from Jews having some special concession in that regard, the parables were first of all warnings to Jews. 

Jesus' warning that unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God, was a warning to a Jewish ruler. 

A problem with making a doctrine out of the fourth cup of some Jewish ceremony, is that the Bible says nothing about any fourth cup. If Jews have such a custom, it didn't originate in the Torah, because the Torah didn't even mention it. So we can't very well establish a doctrine on something the Bible doesn't even say.

As for God's covenant faithfulness to Israel, the Apostles didn't teach that God had made the Church the object of His faithfulness instead of ever faithfully carrying out His promise to Israel; nor did they teach that God had delayed performing His faithfulness to Israel until some future time and that the Gospel is something else which doesn't really have much to do with it. No, they proclaimed that the Gospel 'is' God's covenant faithfulness to Israel. Jesus indeed is Israel's promised Messiah. They explained that the Gospel is the very manner in which Prophecy and Promise was always going to see its fulfilment. 

Certainly there are themes in Bible Prophecy which are still future. The Apostles said so themselves: like the Second Coming. But the whole purpose of Messiah's first coming, was to prepare the Jews for that day, and also all nations. 

So any plans God has for modern Israelis, can only be with full regard to the fact that He has already performed His covenant faithfulness to them, in the Person of His Son Messiah. To require anything else would be regression, not progress. Regressing to a system which could only disqualify them.

The Gospel didn't lower Israel to the same low-level of the Gentiles - rather, it raised Israel up to a higher level than their previous covenant could - and then it invited Gentiles up onto the same platform. 

In other words the covenant faithfulness which God had demonstrated to Israel, is now a blessing which even Gentiles get to be part of.

That didn't take anything away from Israel. It lifted them up - and then offered a hand up to Gentiles as well. 

Now together we await what's left to be fulfilled of Prophecy - which is His coming and Kingdom, of which we all are coheirs.

That's the Gospel.

Saturday 22 July 2017

Covenant Blinkers

By strict Covenant Theology, I mean certain people in the Reformed tradition who are so strictly into Covenant Theology that if you ask them the following question, they can't or won't answer:

"Which Old Testament Bible verse is the best verse you know which meant Messiah would minister in the land of Israel".

(As opposed to any random place, like Spain for example.)

It stumps them. The reason they can't or won't answer it, is because as soon as they do, it would mean they're committing that most loathsome of all mistakes in their strict view: assigning an identity to 'Israel' (or related names) other than a strictly spiritual, covenantal (non geographical, physical, or ethnic) meaning. They won't do it. 

And that means they lose the interaction between prophecy and physical facts of history, as examples of the faithfulness of God, and as cases for the Messiahship of Jesus, and as a basis for our Christian faith.

Ask the same question of Dispensationalists, and if they aren't taken aback by why anyone would ask such an obvious question, your screen will light up within seconds with any number of Scriptural examples. 

Dispensationalists are correct in seeing that some details in Old Testament prophecy required a literal, physical, geographical and ethnic fulfilment in Israel. Some strict Reformed Covenant Theology adherents miss that point, or think it's not important, or can't admit it. 

Unfortunately though many Dispensationalists can't see or don't want to see that many other prophecies about Israel have also had their fulfilment and don't require a future fulfilment. Prophecies like the rebuilding of their Temple after captivity, and the reinstatement of Levitical sacrifices which occurred then. 

Covenant Theology is right that there was a group within Israel who have become the true Israel, for spiritual reasons. And they're right that Gentiles later became part of that same group, also for spiritual reasons. But some miss the importance that that had to come about in Israel first, among Israelis first, in order to fulfil Covenant. 

(The Church couldn't have started in Ethiopia first, for example. Or even in Galilee. Jesus was adamant that the disciples must go to Jerusalem to wait for the promise of the Father.)

Friday 21 July 2017

Something to Laugh About

Seeing that Abraham's larger Promise (which mainly was about the Messiah, and Messiah's program) was always going to, and did, embrace all the world (into the church, which is His body) not only Israel (Jacob's descendants), it was therefore not necessary for Gentile believers in Jesus to put on the Jews' cultural markers. Things like circumcision, the dietary laws, sabbaths and feast-days. The Jewish label. They didn't need to become proselytes to Judaism. Jesus was everything - they were made completely complete in Him. 

That is what Abraham foresaw! The promise spoken before Israel was even born, before the Law was ever given. All nations just BLEST - in Him - in JESUS! Regardless of ethnicity, and without the deeds of the Law. No wonder the prospect of it inspired Abraham and Sarah to name their firstborn son Isaac (meaning, he shall laugh)! 

Tom Wright

Tom Wright tells the story of God, with Enid Blyton type delight!

Abraham's Story Was Always Going to Go Somewhere

Abraham's story was a story that was always going to go somewhere.
To where - to Israel?
Well yes, but - from the beginning it was always going to be about "all nations of the earth". That was promised before Israel was even born!
The promise centred on the Seed, singular - which was Messiah. A couple of generations down the line, Israel did become the custodians of that promise (and in the meantime were given a Law). So when the promised Seed came, the good news was proclaimed to the Jew first alright, but also to the Greek and to all the world.
Abraham's fatherhood was from the beginning always going to extend to becoming the father of many nations.
Abraham's promised land-inheritance was from the beginning always going to make him "heir of the world". Including of the world to come, with its heavenly characteristics.
The number of his children like the stars of heaven!
All this, through his promised Seed. What a lovely promise spoken to a man who was at first childless!
Abraham saw in advance the justification of the heathen through faith, Paul explained. God had preached the Gospel in advance to Abraham.
Abraham foresaw beyond Jacob's descendants, wider than Canaan land - to all families of the earth, the world. Abraham revelled in what would be procured to Abraham after that Seed would come, which is JESUS.
Therefore the good news - the Gospel - of Jesus Christ - the Messiah - and the Messianic body - the church - 'is' the very story of Abraham, fully unfurled. It's not just something else inserted temporarily while we wait for God to resume Abraham's and Israel's story at some time in the future.
The river was always going to overflow its banks like this, and flood the whole plain. And once it did, the river became indistinguishable within the floodwaters. Not because the river lost anything to the flood, but because the river had become the flood, and watered the whole earth - like it was always going to.
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad," Jesus said.

Abraham's Story Was Bigger than we Thought

The fact that the Apostles might at first have not clearly understood their mission to Gentiles, didn't change the fact that Abraham's story (and hence, Israel's story) was a story which from its beginning was always going to go somewhere - not just to Israel (who hadn't even been born yet when the promise was given): the promise was from the beginning going to be about "all nations"! 

So, the Church, the Gospel, isn't just some other story inserted in the interim while we wait for God to get back to continuing His real story with Judaism. No, the Church 'is' the very story of Abraham unfurled - because the centre of the promise was the Seed, which is Christ - and the Church is the Messianic body, in which there was neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, bond nor free. Since Israel had become the custodians of Abraham's promise, once the Seed came this good news was proclaimed to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

So Abraham's story was like a river that was always meant to overflow its banks and flood the whole land - and once that happened the river became indistinguishable within the flooded plain. Not because the river is now inferior to the flood, but because the river has become a flood.


Or like a dam's spillway, athough its construction included channels in which the water could at first flow, it was also from the outset designed with preparations for the event that the sheer volume of water would overflow those channels - and when that's happening, the channels are all but invisible and useless - the water inside the channels is all but indistinguishable from what's outside - it's now just one wide torrent of water flowing!

We in Messiah Embody the Abrahamic Hope

God was in Christ, come to do what He'd promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - set them free. And He does it by the cross.

"That we might become the righteousness of God in Christ," means that the Church embodies God's performed-faithfulness to His promise to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

Christ is "made unto us wisdom..." That means Christ through the Gospel has revealed the mystery that was kept hidden. He's unlocked the true meaning of Old Testament prophecy. And He did it by Himself - because He didn't just bring wisdom, He is wisdom. God's wisdom. The manifold wisdom of God - because God revealed His plan in stages. From Abraham, through Israel and the Law, to the Church, God's story was going somewhere. The Gospel is the fellowship of the mystery.

And in being made unto us wisdom, Christ was also made unto us "righteousness" (because that righteousness which was imputed to Abraham by faith before he was circumcised, has been imputed to us who walk in the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham, by which we have been made his children, fulfilling God's promise [covenant] to him); and "sanctification and redemption".

"Because of Jesus the Messiah, the worldview has shifted dramatically. From one point of view, the story has been fulfilled - from another point of view, the symbols have been relativised. It is the same story - the story of how the one God is fulfilling His promises to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and doing so for the benefit of the whole world - that's where the story was going. But precisely because it is now for the benefit of the whole world, it cannot be defined in terms of the ethnic symbols of second-Temple Judaism" - Tom Wright.

"The Torah is both fulfilled, and in its very fulfilment, set aside" - Tom Wright.

Those who confess with their mouth, Jesus is Lord - and who believe in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead (similarly to how the Law was meant to be very nigh Israel, in their heart and in their mouth) - discover that their very existence as a body of people, fulfils the Torah in the very way which God intended the Torah would ultimately be fulfilled. And all of the things in the Torah which God intended should continue to be lived-out, are lived-out by them, through the power of the guiding Spirit of Messiah within them.

"...just to be itself in Christ, is the standing power" (- Tom Wright) of the Church to the powers that be.

Thursday 20 July 2017

The Gospel Fulfilled, not Replaced, Israel's Promises

The Gospel actually was a very Jewish thing.
I don't mean that the Gospel was something which required everyone to adopt the ancient Jewish cultural labels, such as the ancient Jewish feasts, food laws, circumcision, sabbaths, sacrifices and all that - the Gospel didn't say that at all: it said the opposite.
What I mean is that the Gospel was proclaimed not as something other than the fulfilment of Israel's promises, but as precisely that.
That's what John the Baptist said; and it's what Jesus said - so it's how the Apostles understood it too. God had fulfilled His promises for Israel: they were eyewitnesses.
The first people who believed it - that is, the 'church' - were all Jews.
Then, after Jews had been enjoying it first, they (Jewish believers) then spread the blessing to Gentiles, and it went to all nations.
So, the Church, which was Jewish, came to include former Gentiles, who then became part of the body of Messiah, Who of course was Jewish - but without the Gentiles needing to become proselytes to Judaism.
And there you have the good news!
"...the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to ALL PEOPLE. For unto you is born this day in the CITY OF DAVID a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:10,11).

Reading Old Testament Prophecy

Old Testament prophecies often contained a jumble of themes: some of which applied directly to the immediate audience, some of which the Apostles said were fulfilled in their time, and some of which might be about the future still. Sometimes written in straight prose - other times written in the apocalytptic genre with visions and symbols. 

Not even the prophets themselves thoroughly understood what it all meant, or who it was all about, when it would all happen, or why. 

How to decipher it then? 

Answer: in the light of the New Testament! 

Jesus opened the eyes of the disciples' understanding, after His resurrection. He expounded the whole Old Testament to them. Their hearts burned within them! What He shared with them then became the foundation of the Apostles' doctrine: the Gospel. 

We can find their understanding of it, in their sermons in Acts, and in their plain teaching in their Epistles - which explains and applies all that Jesus said, and applies the Old Testament for us. 

New Testament teaching is the framework within which we are to "rightly divide" the Scripture (Old Testament). 

So, if the New Testament shows that something had already happened (like Israel's regathering, and the rebuilding of their Temple and the reinstatement of Levitical worship, after the captivity), it had.

If the New Testament said that something was being fulfilled in front of their eyes (like Messiah's birth, ministry, and His salvation and the inauguration of His kingdom), it was. 

If it teaches that some things are therefore now in the past (such as anything related to the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices), it is. 

If they said something is still to happen (like the Second Coming and the culmination of Messiah's Kingdom), it is. 

When they explained the manner in which Old Testament prophecy was really seeing it's outworking, then that's how we're to understand the Old Testament prophecies, etc.

When we re-read the Old Testament prophecies in this light, some of the difficult passages and questions seem to fall into place a little better. Not that it's all easy. 

But one thing we find, is that God's program - for everyone - really is all about JESUS.

Understanding Micah

Old Testament prophecies sometimes contained a jumble of themes, some of which seemed to apply directly to their immediate audience, other things the Apostles took as applying to their own time, other things which even the Apostles spoke of as still-future - sometimes written in straight prose, other times written in the apocalyptic genre with visions and symbols. How are we to sort it all out? In the light of New Testament truth! Consider the Book of Micah, for example. Micah was a prophet who ministered in Judah prior to Israel and Judah going into captivity. We notice certain themes in his text, like:
  • Israel going into captivity;
  • promises of restoration;
  • Gentiles becoming involved;
  • a ruler coming from the little town of Bethlehem;
  • saving - but also ultimately judging
So far a lot of that is sounding really grandiose! But then we find it also mentions things like this:

  • a man's foes shall be they of his own household

And that doesn't paint such a grandiose picture. So what's really happening, we wonder.

On top of that, although much of the language seems to be intended quite literally, we also notice that at least some of the language seems to be employing word-pictures for effect.
Now, taken on its own, it wouldn't have been easy for Micah's immediate audience to conclude exactly what it all meant, who it was about, or when it was all going to happen. Obviously part of it was meant for them - but all of it? Those were the kinds of questions even the prophets themselves were asking. So how are we to "rightly divide" it all? Well, we know from elsewhere in the Old Testament that the Jews did indeed end up going into captivity, as Micah had said; and we know they were afterwards restored, also as Micah said; and their Temple, which Micah mentioned, was also rebuilt afterwards. Then, we turn to the New Testament, and what else do we find. We find that Peter, Stephen, and Paul in their sermons in Acts, regarded the promises concerning Israel's restoration to their land, and the rebuilding of their Temple, etc. as already-fulfilled, just like the Old Testament had mentioned that it had been. And we find that Jews, proselytes and Gentiles were indeed flowing annually into Jerusalem to the house of the Lord on the mountain of the Lord (multitudes on the day of Pentecost, and the like of the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading the book of Isaiah) to keep the Feasts. That sounds a bit like what Micah was describing. We find that the Apostles labelled their day as "the last days", a term Micah also used. And yet there were other themes in Micah which the Jews of New Testament times regarded as not-yet fulfilled. Like, they were still expecting the 'ruler' which Micah mentioned, to come and to be born in Bethlehem. But we notice that the Apostles were claiming that He had come, and was born in Bethlehem, and that it was actually Jesus. We notice the Apostles proclaiming that this Jesus was the king of Israel, language used by Micah. But we find that not all the Jews believed their claim. It puts them in some hot water. But we see Jesus said something that sounds a lot like something Micah said: that a man's foes would be those of his own household. So maybe that was to be expected. We find that even Messiah's own foes were those of his own household - the Jews themselves! Micah is all starting to make a lot more sense now! Jesus really was Micah's ruler Who was to come, even though many of His own people didn't receive him. Then we notice in the New Testament that the Apostles still spoke about some future things, like the final judgment and visible coming of the Kingdom. And that completes the picture portrayed by Micah. Now we've "rightly divided" Micah - into things past, present and future. How? By reading it in the light of the New Testament - New Testament history and theology - by understanding it within the framework which the Apostles derived from their understanding of the Old Testament - by taking note of the way they applied the words and deeds and history of Messiah (as recorded in the four Gospels), as they proclaimed it in their sermons (in Acts) and taught it plainly (in their Epistles). The New Testament interpretation of Old Testament prophecy! When we do that, we find it's all about JESUS.

How to Understand Old Testament Prophecy

The thing about Old Testament prophecy, was that no-one who read it was able to fully understand what to make of it all - not even the prophets themselves - until after Jesus' resurrection. Even the disciples, who'd been raised on the Old Testament, and despite spending three years with Messiah Himself, didn't understand that Messiah had to die - until after His resurrection. Until then, no-one seemed to fully understand that there was to be two comings of Messiah, not one. No-one seemed to fully grasp how the Gentiles would come to be included along with the Jews as the people of God. Many didn't grasp what it would mean that there would be a "remnant" of Jews who would experience God's promises. They didn't have a clear understanding of what the "new covenant" would look like, or how it would come to be made, or what impact it would have on their then-current covenant. It was only after Jesus' resurrection that anyone started to be able to piece Old Testament prophecy together the way it's meant to be. Even John the Baptist, although Jesus said he was the greatest of the prophets, at one point had to ask, "Art thou he that should come, or look we for another". So even the greatest prophet's understanding left him unsure. Jesus of course, was the only One who adequately grasped Old Testament Prophecy. After His resurrection, He opened the eyes of His disciples' understanding, and He expounded all things in the entire Old Testament concerning Himself. Their hearts burned within them! What He shared with them then became the basis of the whole New Testament - the foundation of the Apostles' doctrine. The Gospel. So put it this way: the only way for us to correctly understand and apply the Old Testament, is to do so in the light of New Testament teaching. That teaching is based on the words and deeds and history of Jesus, as recorded in the four Gospels, proclaimed in the sermons in Acts, and taught plainly in the Epistles. Otherwise, if we approach Old Testament prophecy on its own, without using New Testament teaching to piece it all together, we'd be approaching the text blindly, in a way. We'd be approaching it no smarter than they were in Old Testament times. No smarter than the disciples were during their three years with Messiah before the eyes of their understanding were opened after His resurrection. Yet that's precisely what many Christians today seem to be doing: approaching Old Testament prophecy, reading the text on its own, trying to deduce what might be going to happen where and when and to whom and why - without due regard for what the New Testament already explained about the same themes! Paul said Scripture (the Old Testament) must be "rightly divided". The first thing that means is that Scripture does need to be "divided". One way it needs to be divided, is between past, present and future. But many don't divide it up - rather, they tend to want to lump it all together and place it all in one timeframe, usually in the future. The second thing that means, is that it needs to be divided "rightly". That means it can be divided wrongly! So how can we divide it rightly? By heeding what the Apostles said about it all, of course! There's no more authoritative and reliable way - since the Apostles sourced their understanding of it from Jesus Messiah Himself.

Quote About "Fulfilment Theology"

By D.M.
I think that "replacement theology" is a misnomer and an unfortunate term ... the "Church" has not replaced the nation of Israel as the heir of the promises. Instead, I like the term "fulfilment theology". All the promises are fulfilled, and will be fulfilled, in Christ and the new covenant. It is that the promises of the OT were always for the TRUE children of Abraham, "those who through faith and patience inherit the promises". Being a true Jew is a matter of the heart, "a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter."

Not all physical children of Abraham were his spiritual seed - Isaac and Ismael case in point - and only the spiritual seed are the "children of promise" and will inherit all the promises. "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel". 

So, ethnic Jews and Gentiles who are the spiritual children of Abraham form one organic body in Christ, are fellow citizens of the household of faith (Heb 3) and are the "Israel of God" Gal 6:16. Gentiles who believe "are no longer strangers and aliens" but "are fellow citizens" (Eph 2). So that, in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. 

Paul asks the question" "I ask, then, has God rejected his people [ethnic Jews]? By no means!" Why? Paul, himself, was a Jew (Rom 11:1). The early church in Acts was made up entirely of ethnic Jews, and so Paul says, "So too at the present time there is a [Jewish] remnant, chosen by grace" (Rom 11:5) - TRUE Jews by faith.

All of God's people, individuals (not nations), called out of every nation, tongue and tribe, will inherit all the promises in the new heavens and earth by virtue of being in Christ by faith, and hence, being the children of Abraham. Thus "all the promises are Yea and Amen in Christ".

Such is "fulfilment" (as opposed to "replacement") "theology" in bare outline.

Consistent with the Great Commission, we surely need to be praying for revival among all ethnic groups, Jews, Arabs, Chinese. And, I look for a time when ethnic Jews repent in great numbers and join the company of the elect and redeemed.

Not all physical children of Abraham were his spiritual seed - Isaac and Ismael case in point - and only the spiritual seed are the "children of promise" and will inherit all the promises. "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel". 

So, ethnic Jews and Gentiles who are the spiritual children of Abraham form one organic body in Christ, are fellow citizens of the household of faith (Heb 3) and are the "Israel of God" Gal 6:16. Gentiles who believe "are no longer strangers and aliens" but "are fellow citizens" (Eph 2). So that, in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. 

Paul asks the question" "I ask, then, has God rejected his people [ethnic Jews]? By no means!" Why? Paul, himself, was a Jew (Rom 11:1). The early church in Acts was made up entirely of ethnic Jews, and so Paul says, "So too at the present time there is a [Jewish] remnant, chosen by grace" (Rom 11:5) - TRUE Jews by faith.

All of God's people, individuals (not nations), called out of every nation, tongue and tribe, will inherit all the promises in the new heavens and earth by virtue of being in Christ by faith, and hence, being the children of Abraham. Thus "all the promises are Yea and Amen in Christ".

Such is "fulfilment" (as opposed to "replacement") "theology" in bare outline.

Consistent with the Great Commission, we surely need to be praying for revival among all ethnic groups, Jews, Arabs, Chinese. And, I look for a time when ethnic Jews repent in great numbers and join the company of the elect and redeemed.

Wednesday 19 July 2017

What's Your View of the Gospel?

Three views of the Gospel (there are others):

1. DISPENSATIONALISM

Made popular in America in the 19th century...
This view of the Gospel holds that the Gospel was hardly mentioned at all in OT prophecy; even Jesus' first coming was only mentioned occasionally in Prophecy - that the main theme of OT Prophecy is really Israel, and the fulfilment has mostly been postponed until the future. The Gospel is just something else that's going on in the meantime - and Prophecy never really said much about it.
A bit of a mention about Jesus was thrown in - but the big chunks of prophecy are really about Israel's future.
Sure, Gentiles are becoming God's 'people' through the Gospel, in a sense - but ethnic Israel remains the main theme of Prophecy and the real people of God.
Israel's future will involve another Temple, Levitical sacrifices sabbaths and feasts - even Gentiles will have to begin observing the Feasts too, in future.
Jews who haven't believed in Jesus will have ample opportunity to get saved after He returns. In fact, the whole nation will get saved then. Even today, good followers of Judaism probably are saved, even if they don't believe in Jesus.
God blinded most of the Jews to the Gospel, because if they'd accepted the Gospel, He wouldn't have saved the Gentiles; but one day, in future, He'll decide He's got enough Gentiles, and then finally He'll start fulfilling the main theme of Bible Prophecy, and save the whole nation of Israel, even if they hadn't believed in Jesus before His return. Then the whole world will have to start making annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts too, or be cursed.
Some take it a step further and say that since we'll all be keeping the Feasts after Jesus comes, we may as well start now. Even start observing the Sabbaths now too.
And the dietary rules.
In fact, the whole Torah.
Maybe that's why Jesus came anyway, they say - to make us all Torah-keepers. But not all Dispensationalists take their own view to that logical conclusion.


2. The Church has instead REPLACED Israel - or some put it this way: Israel always only meant something other than Israel.

Either the prophecies which mentioned Israel, once meant natural Israel, but because Israel failed to believe, the Church has now replaced Israel, so it's the Church not Israel which now receives the promises - in a spiritual way...
Or, maybe the prophecies which said Israel never really meant Israel in the first place - maybe it really meant something spiritual, and never really had anything to do with Israel in the first place - nor their land, their temple, or anything physical: it was all spiritual, or a figure of spiritual things.
Either way, in this view, all the prophecies about Israel are meant to be reinterpreted spiritually as applying to the Church directly, without there having ever been any fulfilment of any of the physical details of the prophecies in Israel itself.
Except for a few obvious physical details maybe, like Messiah being born in Bethlehem, etc. But the rest was really all about the Church, not about Israel - or at least that it's now become about the Church because of Israel's failure.
But here's a third proposal:


3. The Gospel is the very scheme which completed the very FULFILMENT of Israel's promises - on the ground in Israel, and for Israelis, first. Only now, after that fulfilment in Israel, are all nations also coming to share in it, which also was prophesied.

So in this view there was a natural timeline of prophetic fulfilment in history:
First, God faithfully restored Judah and Israel from captivity to their land; their Temple was rebuilt as prophesied; Levitical worship was reinstated as prophesied - while the Old Covenant still stood. This was already history by the time of the New Testament.
But the restoration story was not yet complete, because then in that historical setting, their Messiah came - also as prophesied. He really is their Messiah. He came to fulfil their promises!
Many Jews believed that Jesus was the prophesied Saviour of Israel and that He was fulfilling Prophecy for Israel - as such the first Church was all-Jewish. The Messianic community were all Jewish. They were "in Messiah"; the "body of Messiah". Experiencing exactly what the Law and Prophets foretold. This was the "good news".
But as awesome as that was, God's restoration plan was to extend to all mankind - to Gentiles - and it's even meant for the physical creation too, in some sense - it wasn't meant to be for Israel only. God had always planned for more.
So, Gentiles later came to belong. This was something Abraham and the prophets had foreseen. All nations blessed - in Messiah.
This later inclusion of Gentiles into the all-Jewish 'Church' didn't mean however that God had closed the door to a Jew. A Jew could still get saved. There was no revocation of their gift and calling: only their Old Covenant worship-style was made obsolete by the bringing-in of the actual fulfilment of their hoped-for salvation - something better, not worse.
Messiah's second coming, according to the Gospel, will complete the promised restoration - for all believers - even for the physical creation, in a sense - not only for Jews, not only for Jerusalem, it's not only spiritual. There shall be a resurrection, and a new earth and heavens! And all who believe in Messiah will share in it.
The promises which were about Israel and for Israel first, have a worldwide character and also a heavenly and eternal character - not just a temporary physical Israeli character - even though the Gospel-scheme was experienced in Israel by Jews first before all nations also did.
And all of this fulfils the original promise to Abraham, which was always for all nations, and was about the physical too, even about the new earth - not just about Israel under the Law, which only came later. Although the promise certainly about them too, and about them first - and for them still, if they believe, before it's too late.
So in the Gospel there's a natural historical timeline of prophetic fulfilment: from Abraham→Israel→Israeli believers (Church)→Gentile believers (Church)→physical creation (resurrection, new earth, new heaven, heavenly Jerusalem). Without replacing anything, and without delaying anything.
This view isn't antisemitic, rather it offers a hand up to fallen Jews who have not yet believed - helps them to their feet, to stand in the potential of their already-fulfilled promises, like Gentiles and other Jews before them have done. While together we all await the glorious second coming. "In Messiah". "The body of Messiah". "In one hope of His calling".
I would suggest that this view which I'm proposing, is more Apostolic.

And it's easy to imagine the many ways in which the differences matter.

N T Wright Quote

"...My desire this evening has been to spread out on a larger canvas the many ways in which the things which defined and demarkated Israel are seen by Paul to have been taken up and reworked in Messiah and Spirit. From that perspective the many remaining exegetical questions and puzzles can I think in principle be solved.

That's not easy - there are many ongoing problems - not least, when people who glimpse only part of the picture think that we're saying that Paul has then 'replaced' Israel, and then they proceed to do the same in a theological move which does away with history altogether in favour of a pure vertical interception or revelation or something.

No! Paul remains a deeply Jewish thinker, conscious that what the world needs is the Jewish message that has been funnelled down onto and expressed decisively and shockingly in Messiah and Spirit, and the Messiah's death and resurrection particularly.

The world needs the message about the One creator-God; and the equally Jewish message about His Son who died and was raised to deal with sin and to launch God's new creation; and the equally Jewish message and indeed reality about the Divine Spirit Who has come to dwell in the midst of God's people as the sign and foretaste that one day the earth shall be full of the knowledge and glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea!

Paul's deeply Jewish theology, radically reconceived around Jesus and the Spirit, is a bigger and more dynamic thing than many schemes have begun to realise. By asking the question about Israel, and by exploring Paul's thought with that in the middle, I hope that tonight we've been able at least to glimpse that size and to sense that power.

There are many areas in today's Church and world, where even a small dose of genuinely Pauline theology really would go quite a long way..." - N T Wright

Join it

Any Jews who haven't already done so, need to join the multitudes and multitudes of Jews throughout history who already have done so - and get with God's new program for them, instead of keeping on trying to raise a corpse.
Their new program is way better than their old one anyway, which is no longer extant:
JESUS

Temple

'News' about a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem reminds me a bit of End Times predictions - always coming, but never quite happens. 

As for men qualifying to serve as Levitical priests today - no-one today (nor ever again in the future) can qualify, applying the Tenakh's (the Hebrew Old Testament's) own criteria. (A would-be priest had to be able to present written genealogies proving his direct descent all the way back to Levi - or else he was rejected from serving as priest, as if he was polluted.) 

Some Christians get excited by such 'news', based on a certain take on Old Testament prophecy - but I'm not convinced it was the Apostles' take on the prophecies. The Apostles asserted that Messiah has already made the Levitical priesthood obsolete. 

Some people answer that the Jews will rebuild the Temple in unbelief. But that's not what the Old Testament prophecies said. The prophecies said God was commissioning its rebuilding; it was God who was urging it; God Himself was reinstating the Levitical priesthood, after the captivity - complete with sacrifices, to atone for sin (not just for 'memorial'). 

God was urging the Jews of the captivity to believe the prophecies of Zechariah and Haggai and Ezekiel, and get to it. And they did - the Jews carried out all that. And it was all entirely appropriate at that time, seeing the Old Covenant still stood. But it's no longer appropriate, now that the real thing has come.

And there's another problem with placing its fulfilment in the future. In the historical context of those things having been fulfilled, Messiah was to come, according to Zechariah. So, if we place the fulfilment of those things in the future (as many today are saying), it means Jesus was too early in history to be Messiah. That's the Orthodox-Jewish take on prophecy - but it wasn't the Apostles'! They quoted parts of Zechariah and claimed those parts were fulfilled in front of their very eyes. That was part of the basis of the claim of the Gospel.

Other parts of Zechariah quite possibly might be about the future still. Remember though that Zechariah was partly describing vision, and sometimes writing in the apocalyptic genre, not in straight prose - so parts of what he wrote required interpretation. Even the Jews understood that. 

So according to the Apostles, there was past, present and future in prophecies such as Zechariah's. So Old Testament Scripture needs to be "rightly divided", Paul said. I'm just not sure that we always do so the way the Apostles did. 

As a rule of thumb: if the way we interpret it tends to keep the focus clearly on JESUS, then we're probably dividing it right - but if it instead takes us back to shadowy things (like the Law, the Old Covenant, Levitical worship, etc) then we're probably not dividing it right, the way the Apostles did.

Some Jews may very well build a replica temple in Jerusalem - but if they do, it wouldn't necessarily fulfil any specific Bible Prophecy that had been about the rebuilding of the previous temple. 


This doesn't take any thing away from modern Israelis by the way - the new covenant God has made with Israel was based on better promises, not worse promises!

Many Israelis have already believed - the thing for the rest to do, is to get with the plan! Nothing else will do. 

Is Sunday the New Sabbath

Imagine the scenario: 

Jews attended their synagogues every Sabbath; some Gentile proselytes to Judaism also attended, with limited privileges. Women also had limited privileges. But most pagan Gentiles didn't attend of course. 

Then Paul and Barnabas, new arrivals in town, turn up one Sabbath, and preach a new message, the Gospel. Paul gets invited to speak again, the following Sabbath. Some believe, both Jews and Gentiles, others don't.

Some rulers of the synagogue start getting upset, and start inciting the Gentiles against Paul. It's so bad many of the believers can't keep meeting at their synagogue any more. 

So the believers have to meet elsewhere. They don't want their meeting to clash with the synagogue's gathering on the Sabbath, because some Jewish believers who might still be welcome at their synagogue might still feel obligated to observe their Sabbath.

So in order not to clash with the conscience of Jewish believers, they pick a different day to meet. And what better day than the first day of the week, seeing that's the day our Lord rose again! A day when Jew and Gentile - and women - could all attend, with equal rights, and no-one's conscience being troubled. 

Not that they were making a rule to meet on the first day. And not that they were calling the first day the 'Sabbath'. No - it's just that that's what they did - because it seemed appropriate.

If Constantine or anyone else hundreds of years later called the first day of the week the 'Sabbath', that's not something we hear of the early Churches doing. But the early Churches did often meet on the first day of the week. And they didn't require Gentiles to begin observing a seventh-day Sabbath.