The area of apologetics concerning law keeping is rather large, but there is one important thing to note. Even Judaism does not believe that all the commandments can be kept. Therefore, Judaism is admitting that the Law cannot be kept in the form in which it was originally given. The fiction the Jewish people today perpetuate of keeping the whole Torah is one kept alive by the rabbis and asserted by some in Judaism. The existence of the Talmud clearly speaks against this particular idea.
A recent event and its chronological closeness to Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Yom Hashoah, prompted this specific blog. The recent event was a synagogue shooting that occurred in Poway, California. A young man went into a synagogue and started firing on the people inside, killing and injuring individual Jews who had come to worship. Now, this isn’t the first time that a synagogue shooting has occurred here in the United States. In fact, incidents of synagogue shootings are up statistically from previous years. What was significant about this shooting was the background of the young man who did it - so significant that the Washington Post noted it in their article. He was in the tender of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And he wrote a manifesto where he repeated elements of an anti-Semitic theology called “Replacement Theology.”
A few disclaimers need to be given here as many of my apologist friends are of a reformed theological persuasion and I believe to them to be godly proclaimers of the gospel of Jesus Christ and individuals with a love for the Bible. I also do not believe that every member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church desires to bomb synagogues or hurt Jewish people. In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that most of them would like to see Jewish people embrace Jesus.
However, to argue that there is no connection between Replacement Theology and the conduct of this young man is to ignore the fact that ideas in theology have consequences. I’m not sure that theologically or logically I can make the argument that there is no connection between theological ideas and the activity of individuals. So let us say that this is a moral act that had theological underpinnings which need to be discussed.
One of my concerns with some of the thinking that goes on in the reformed theology camp is its reliance upon systematic theology above and even against biblical theology. Biblical theology is very clear that the promises given to Israel were given specifically to Israel, not to the church, and it distinctly distinguishes between the Church and Israel. One way to look at this is that Israel and the Church are two aspects of the people of God; this view may give an option to my more reformed friends that will allow them to preserve a level of reformed thinking but still be biblically accurate.
Let me begin by illustrating a few of the distinctions made between Israel and the Church that indicate they cannot possibly be the same entity.
|Israel||Israel is a nation chosen by God and sustained by covenant promises (Deut. 7:6-9).2||In God’s program for Israel, His witnesses comprised a nation (Isaiah 43:10).|
|The Church||The Church is a called-out assembly of believers who have been baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).||In God’s program for the Church, His witnesses are among all nations (Acts 1:8).|
Since the composition of and programs for the Church and Israel are distinctly different, they cannot possibly be the same entity. My reformed friends need to come to grips with this basic reality in whatever way possible. I’m sure there must be a way that they can do this theological activity.
My second concern is an over-reliance upon the church fathers. My concern here is that the church fathers did carry with them the infection of anti-Antisemitism. An over-reliance upon their documents without critically applying biblical theology imports anti-Antisemitism into the church. Let’s look at a few quotes by some of the church fathers. One of the most influential church fathers was Augustine of Hippo. He states clearly, “How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you (Confessions 12.14)!” Of course, he’s not the only church father to make exceedingly anti-Semitic remarks.
John Chrysostom is noted for his flaming anti-Antisemitism. In his work, Against Jews, he writes, “The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition… I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason (Hay 28).”
You can see the problem with importing the theology of the church fathers wholesale without a critical ear. It would be an oversimplification to say that Replacement Theology in the anti-Semitic sentiments of the church fathers caused the synagogue shooting in Poway, California. But what we can say is that these anti-Semitic ideas are antithetical to a sound Biblical theology of Israel and the Church, and that some way must be found to steer clear of Replacement Theology. We must weigh the words of the church fathers on a different scale than the words of Scripture. I would urge all Christians, including my more reformed friends, to join me in this great enterprise.
Hay, Malcom. Thy brother’s blood: the roots of christian anti-semitism. Hart Publishing, 1975.
Rather than deal with a theological issue this time, I decided update you on some of the ministry that happened while I was on the road and since settling back in Phoenix. Sometimes it is a good idea to simply reflect on some of the opportunities I have had along the journey.
I had a marvelous tour up in the states of Washington, Idaho, and Montana. One of the interesting stories I remember happened while preaching at a church in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. They had a beautiful view of the mountain behind the pulpit. While I was facing the audience as I preached, a huge eagle came by and glided across the window right behind me. The folks in the audience said it was a beautiful thing to see.
The opportunity I had after a “Messiah in the Passover” at a different church was also a tremendous blessing. After the presentation three of the men from the church desired to come and have a second meeting with me which allowed us to converse about some questions that they had and about the word of God.
My time at home included the opportunity to teach a group from YWAM some apologetic material related to Islam and the Bible. This opportunity allowed me to spend at least an hour via Zoom teaching students in California while I was in my office in Phoenix, Arizona. Such opportunities for distance teaching present another avenue of ministry that does not require the complications involved in traveling to locations.
I hope to have musings of a more deeply reflective and theological nature in the upcoming blog. I trust that God will give me the ideas as they are needed.
I begin with a quote from the Screwtape letters by CS Lewis:
“He cannot ‘tempt’ to virtue as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there, He is pleased even with their stumbles.”
I’ve never been one who enjoys transitions and yet have been driven to one of the biggest transitions of my life. In some ways this is terribly exciting, but in other ways it can be terribly frightening. On the exciting side, as you can see from the pictures included with this blog, I have had the joy of being ordained under the Southern Baptists to gospel ministry. This meant leaving something behind and I am not one to let go of past loyalties easily. Beyond this, I’m not one who enjoys uncertainty, but rather who enjoys having everything planned. And so, as they say, “everything old is new again.” The Lord has brought me back to the first verse I ever memorized and the exchanged-life principle found therein. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:20, NKJV).”
This story we live, while filled with our choices, is never ours alone but part of a much larger story. And we, as characters in the story, are never fully in control of the storyline. Total freedom is a human illusion. This does not diminish us as image bearers but simply means that as His image bearers, we bear the image of one who is far greater than ourselves. Our choices are truly a part of our story but the landscape that we walk in, the scenes that we enter into, are guided by a hand which is not our own. Many of the changes and parts of my life story I did not plan but the great joy of the exchanged life principle - by which Christ lives in me and I live out my life in Him - is that there is a sensible story. The philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, stated that life must be lived forward but can only be understood backward. While I would not call myself a Christian Existentialist, I think Kierkegaard sees that which is vital for every believer. The question is not whether our lives turned out the way we planned but rather whether they turned out in a way that displayed the kingdom of God and the goodness of our God. Even more, did we end up living out our lives in a way that we became more and more the thing that God created us to be as we lived them?
This is a deeply personal blog filled with many musings during an incredible transition in our lives. But it’s in the day-to-day living, in the various connections, and in intersections that we face that the story gets told. Hopefully you will join me for the future blogs and watch this story unfold with me.
What’s It All About?
In just a few weeks I will be doing the valley’s Ministry 2 Muslims conference in conjunction with a dear friend of mine, George Saiag. This is a fun time for me as I get to teach on subjects I am familiar with and do outreach sessions, which I love. One of the issues that comes up a lot is the centrality of blood atonement, or substitutionary atonement, to the plot of God’s big story. This cannot be underestimated - one could call it the spine of the book, with the book being God’s big metanarrative. Both modern Judaism and Islam entirely miss this point. You can’t have the story without having a plot and the plot revolves around God redeeming His creation through an act of sacrifice on His own part. When the basic foundational truth of substitutionary atonement is removed from the story, it totally guts God’s big story. This omission takes away from God’s central desire to demonstrate His goodness and love. Judaism recognizes the 13 attributes of God’s mercy, as demonstrated in Scripture:
“And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, ‘The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation (Exodus 34:6–7, NKJV).’”
However, Judaism ignores the very way that God wants to demonstrate those truths in His universe and how His method of demonstrating His goodness solves the problem of evil.
Even before Sinai, vicarious atonement as God’s method of redemption is demonstrated as a key part of the Torah. The best example is contained in the passage known as the Akediah, or the Binding of Isaac:
“But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together. Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” So he said, “Here I am.” And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son (Genesis 22:7–13, NKJV).”
This passage clearly demonstrates that the ram substituted for Isaac, whose life was to be offered to God. Thus, Isaac’s life was spared by God who provided a substitute to take the place of Isaac. The rabbis connect this passage directly to the Exodus in the rabbinical writings. Exodus 12:13 states, “And when I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, a third-century midrash (commentary) on Exodus 12:13, reads, “‘And I shall see the blood’: I shall see the ‘blood’ of the binding of Isaac .”
Much like Isaac, these firstborn sons of Israel in the Exodus are also saved through an act of substitutionary atonement, this time by a male lamb. In Exodus 12:5-7 we read the instructions for the institution of the Passover:
“Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it.”
All of this culminates with the prophets stating that Messiah would be the ultimate lamb. Isaiah 53:6 announces, “All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” That the blood of the first Passover lamb (in place of the first children of Israel) points back to the blood of the sacrificial ram (in place of Isaac, the first promised seed of Israel), and that both point forward to promised Messiah, the final Passover lamb (in our place) proves just how central atonement is to God’s big story, from beginning to end.
Many objections are given against blood atonement by Rabbinic Judaism. But the fact that these objections must be made at all is an indication that a Judaism which is Rabbinical Judaism is not Torah or biblical Judaism. If something is not new then no changes need to be made. The irony is that while Rabbinical Judaism makes the claim that Christianity is a new religion, this charge is equally true of Rabbinical Judaism. Islam, using totally different means, ducks the same issue and does tremendous violence to God’s big story. But, unlike Judaism, Islam also does violence to God’s character in the way it has described Allah having different attributes than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
In conclusion, both Rabbinical Judaism and Islam miss the main plot of the story - and when I was a young man seeking to worship the God of my forefathers in ignorance and sin, I also did not understand the big story. I had snatches of it and saw some of the truths of it, but it was obscured because of Judaism; the way of truth was darkened by Judaism’s substitutions for the simple substitutionary atonement.
 Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael. Merged from Sefaria Community Translation, Mechilta, translated by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein. https://www.sefaria.org/Mekhilta_d'Rabbi_Yishmael.12.13?lang=bi
The anti-Semitic comments of Ilhan Omar have managed to embarrass even the Democratic Party. The reality is that the Democratic Party should be embarrassed by these comments, especially as they were made by someone who is on the Foreign Relations Committee. However, what the Democratic Party is missing is that, while democrats can through secular philosophy detach the moral ramifications of their personal worldviews from their official positions, Congresswoman Omar cannot separate her opinions from her Islam. This is the great ignorance and foolishness of the present Democratic Party. The wearing of a hijab indicates that Congresswoman Omar is more serious about Islam than the Democrats are about the moral ramifications of their own worldviews. Let’s examine whether Congresswoman Omar’s political positions are conditioned in any way by her Muslim beliefs.
To those who have been faithfully following my blog on zionsbanner, I am sorry for the lack of a post last week. I had an extremely important event - a meeting with pastors of the Southern Baptist Church to further work in cooperation with them. I was totally blessed by the outcome of this meeting and will give more details in an upcoming blog. In this blog, I thought I would discuss some issues related to an upcoming special show I am doing with my colleague, the Street Apologist, on a live YouTube video event.
My colleague had the opportunity on one of his live broadcasts to interview Rabbi Asher Meza. Now, the broadcast was supposed to be a discussion based on a past YouTube broadcast the Street Apologist did in which he asked Jews not to believe in Kabbalah. If the program had stayed on the topic of Kabbalah that would have been well and good. But Rabbi Asher made certain claims related to Christianity and Judaism that went beyond the pale of simply a discussion of Kabbalah and why it is best avoided. While I don’t doubt Rabbi Asher’s sincerity, the statements he made were ill-founded and inaccurate both from the standpoint of normative Orthodox Judaism, at least as my grandfather would have understood it, and Christianity as any sound student of theology who is conversant in Christianity could be certain. I will be dealing with these in the upcoming broadcast. Please tune in to listen at https://youtu.be/LaZfP81_dfQ or see below for embedded video linkon Saturday February 9th 2 PM Arizona time or Mountain Standard Time.
In the meantime, I would like to address the claim that Rabbi Asher makes. What he is proposing about Judaism is that it is a simple form of Torah Judaism. I look at Rabbi Asher’s Judaism as a minimalist Judaism, which is not Orthodox Judaism in the conventional sense. First, it must be noted that Rabbi Asher completely ignores the Oral Law and Talmud and their place in Judaism. The Talmud is considered authoritative and oral laws are believed to have been handed down when the written Law was handed down at Sinai. The term Torah does not simply refer to the Five Books of Moses, as Rabbi Asher would have us believe, but refers to the corpus of rabbinical literature (at least to the completion of both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds). Let’s look at a few comments that demonstrate this claim.
The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible is more than clear on the understanding of the necessity of Talmud: “With cessation of the postexilic prophets and with the continual development of the complexity of life in Israel and its relationships to the outer world, there arose a need for further elaboration of the laws of the Pentateuch.” Of Course, one could level the complaint that this is a Gentile source of information, and thus already suspect. However, the authoritative nature of the Oral Law is testified to within the Talmud itself in Pirke Avot 1.1:
Moses received Torah from Sinai, And passed it on to Joshua, And Joshua to the elders, And the elders to the prophets, And the prophets passed it on to men of the Great Assembly. (1:1A). משֶׁה קִבֵּל תֹּורָה מִסִּינַי וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהֹושֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְביאִום, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה..THIS INTRODUCTORY sentence describes the chain of tradition leading up to the sayings in Avot. It has two messages. The first is that tradition is a vitally important source of wisdom. Avot itself represents the culmination of 1500 years of continuous reflection on the nature of the good life. Each generation has made decisions about what was worthy to preserve from previous generations. The second message is a bold claim for the divine authority of the post-biblical “Oral Torah”—the record of the discussions and legal decisions that went beyond the Written Torah, the Five Books of Moses. Acceptance of the religious authority of both the Written and Oral Torah defined the Jewish religion for 1600 years following the compilation of Avot.
Clearly Pirke Avot, which is a Talmud tractate, cannot be considered a mere biased Gentile source. The commentary which accompanies the English translation in Hebrew text is correct in pointing out that this chain of tradition is designed to establish the divine authority of the Oral Torah, or Oral Law. It is the very reason that the chain begins at Moses, indicating that both oral and written Torahs were received at Sinai.
Beyond this, Rabbi Asher Meza suggests that Judaism does not accept progressive revelation. What if by “progressive revelation,” he means outside of the canon? I would firmly agree with him in that case. However, Pirke Avot was written and codified with the rest of Talmud far after Sinai. Additionally, the prophets are mentioned as the receivers of Torah and the preservers of it, and they add additional revelation to what was already in Torah. There seems to be almost more progressive revelation in rabbinical Judaism - it allows continual information from God about His will up until the completion of the Babylonian Talmud - than in Christianity, which closes the canon at A.D. 90. Now, I know Judaism would claim that the entire Oral Law was given at Sinai, but there are real problems with this claim. It will take another blog to address those and to deal with his comments about Christianity. To sum up this blog: the idea of a simple Torah-only Judaism is not consistent with Judaism’s own theology within its classical literature. It has other serious problems which will be dealt with in subsequent blogs.
 Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Talmud,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 2032.
 William Berkson and Menachem Fisch, Pirke Avot: Timeless Wisdom for Modern Life, First edition. (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2010), 10.
I had the pleasure of reading a recent blog by Sean McDowell, a faculty member in the apologetics department of the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. Dr. McDowell made some observations related to his reading of John C. Peckham’s book, Theodicy of Love. He states, “Recently I was reading Theodicy of Love by John C. Peckham and he made the astute observation that the conflict between God and Satan is not over power, but over the character of God. According to Peckham the conflict ‘cannot be won by the mere exercise of power but is met by an extended demonstration of character in a cosmic courtroom drama’ (p. 88).” 1 Given his comments, Theodicy of Love is a book that I am adding to my reading list because it presents an argument that resonates with my heart and touches on something that I have taught before. Since both McDowell and Peckham are brilliant, I will assume that they came across this concept, and that it made an impression on their souls, long before it did mine.
Long ago, I had the pleasure of giving a message entitled, “Why I Am A Christian,” as a Jewish believer at a Calvary Bible Chapel. The observations which McDowell made in his analysis of Peckham’s book were in line with the point that I made in my sermon that day. In this, blog I will reflect on how these lines of thought apply to the worldviews presented by rabbinical Judaism and Islam.
Certainly, Islam presents God as winning the battle against evil by sheer force. However, as Peckham noted in Theodicy of Love, the cosmic battle between God and Satan, or good and evil, is not a battle that is to be won by strength alone. As I consider this point, a line from J.R.R.Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings springs to mind, which points out that the Ring cannot be destroyed just by force of arms.2 Islam’s solution to the problem of evil is no solution at all since it ignores the very nature of the cosmic battle which is raging around us. The Islamic mentality deals with evil only on the grounds of mere force and does not deal with the fact that evil is a corruption of character, not simply a group of beings.
Therefore the Muslim can be challenged in this way: how does Allah intend to remove evil from the world, and how does this method of eliminating evil demonstrate his goodness? The best the Muslim can do is say that Allah’s justice is demonstrated in the removal and punishment of evil beings. But the other attributes of God’s goodness, such as His love, mercy, and patience, are not demonstrated through this solution. Some might argue that His patience would be demonstrated by mere force in waiting until the last minute to use it - but, certainly, love and mercy cannot be demonstrated by using force alone.
Rabbinical Judaism, on the other hand, does show God illustrating His love and mercy by providing atonement. However, this system falls short since it leaves out the part where God Himself takes evil upon Himself and provides the ultimate atonement by which evil will be overthrown once and for all. The system of atonement shows God’s goodness - but in a very incomplete way. Without redemption, it still fails to effectively address the corruption of the human condition. Rabbinical Judaism provides that the ultimate answer to evil is God imposing His kingdom apart from redeeming His subjects through His own work. In all fairness, it must be noted that there are certain ancient strains of rabbinical writings that appear to be close to the biblical Judaic mentality of atonement, as opposed to the de-emphasis present in modern rabbinical Judaism.
Biblical Judaism, with the atonement system ultimately pointing to Messiah who will provide the ultimate atonement for Israel, stands in contrast to rabbinical Judaism (although rabbinical Judaism would not accept this distinction) and Islam. Biblical Judaism sees the work of redemption as the Lord’s alone, with the incredible need for atonement front and center and ultimately fulfilled in Messiah. By His work, instead of just meting out punishment or overlooking injustice, the problem of evil is indeed solved by a way being opened up for true change in the human condition.
1 Sean McDowell. (2019, January 8). How Can God and Satan Be in a Cosmic Struggle? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/how-can-god-and-satan-be-in-a-cosmic-struggle? 2Jackson, P. (Director). (2001). Lord of the Rings [Motion picture]. New Zealand, United States: New Line Cinema, WingNut Films.
One of the disciplines that I’ve been trying to be more consistent with has been the discipline of journaling combined with praying the scriptures. At Hillside Southern Baptist this past Sunday, the sermon covered Exodus 33: 12-22, which deals with God’s presence. While we don’t find ourselves in the same position as the individuals in that story, we can look at how God dealt with them and how they responded to Him.
As the pastor was preaching, I followed along and noticed a salient feature in the passage - Moses has no trouble pointing out to the Lord the impossibility of the task given to him. For instance, in verse 12 in the NKJV, we see the word ‘see.’ In the Hebrew, this is in the imperative form with a particle of entreaty. Moses is asking God to see the impossibility of attempting the task he has been given without God’s presence being there. Moses uses the phrase, “If I have found grace in your sight,” which in the Hebrew is really, “If I have found grace in your eyes.” I believe Moses has ample reasons for trusting that he’s found grace in God’s sight, but he’s still asking his request to be granted based on the grace he has before God.
Moses gives one of the specific reasons for his request in the second half of verse 13. When he says, “That I may know You and that I may find grace in Your sight,” he uses the Hebrew word לְמַ֥עַן, which has the idea of ‘for the sake of’ or ‘in order that.’ The rest of the verse says, “And consider that this nation is Your people.” Moses requests God’s presence go with them in order that he may know God better and because the nation is God’s people. Moses ties in his desire to know God with his desire that God be made known in verse 16 when he states, “For how then will it be known that Your people and I have found grace in Your sight, except You go with us? So we shall be separate, Your people and I, from all the people who are upon the face of the earth.”
Let’s put this into perspective in terms of Christian leadership - are we really leading like Moses, in a way that touches lives to make Christ known? Or are we seeking only to succeed by some external measurement placed upon us by taskmasters that we answer to (be they internal or external)? Any missionary, church planter, or pastor should not measure his ministry against the number of people saved or even the number of churches planted, but rather by the lives touched and by whether God has been made known. A church leader leads not by getting his parishioners to do stuff but by encouraging them to do the stuff God has given them to do, while making Him known and encouraging them in the doing. If the church leader can say that he is furthering the callings, ministries, and gifts of those who have been entrusted to him and equipping them to use their God-given resources, then he can say that he is doing his ministry.
Perhaps if we could tone down the voices of those internal and external taskmasters and know that God indeed is being made known to others and known to us, and that He indeed knows what He wants to accomplish, we may find peace in the task.
Both my broadcasts and my blogs of late have been late in being posted, or Friday is the new Wednesday. I’ve been taking more time with the broadcasts lately as there have been some great questions which are being asked online during the broadcast. In fact, you are welcome to join in and join us for an incredible time of study of the Bible in relationship to apologetics on YouTube or our Facebook page Facebook/zionsbanner.
I was having a discussion with the dear fellow apologist and brother this morning. We got on the subject of the misuse of systematic theology. Before I go any further, let me state clearly that I am extremely sympathetic to several points under Calvinism. In fact I’ve been asked and teased about being less than the strict five-point Calvinist. I thought to be interesting this blog to discuss systematic theology and biblical theology and their relationship, however briefly. While I love the organization and structure that comes with systematic theology, both as an individual and as a Jew I have a great love for the story of Scripture and biblical theology resonates with my heart. I grew up with the context of the big story of the Old Testament, the story of my people Israel, being front and center. The receiving of God’s covenant of under Moses was replayed in synagogue every Shabbat morning as the Torah scroll was taken down and opened. I remember going out by a tree in our front yard and asking why God did not speak to people today because throughout the story that I knew God was always active in communicating with people his will and desire.
So, one might ask how does love of the great story of Scripture keep me from being a Calvinist, I mean an official card-carrying five-point Calvinist. Well let’s look at a verse that used a lot for proof texting briefly and examine this verse as an example as to why I have trouble with letting a mere system overshadow the rich story of Scripture. The background of Romans 9 is not about individuals and their position before God in isolation. The background is Paul demonstrating the position of the believer is not affected by Israel’s corporate rejection of the gospel even though Israel is elect of God. This is the passages place in the big story. However, we read in Romans 9:13, “As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”” Often this is used by those dear brothers in the Calvinistic camp as a proof of the unconditional election of the individual. While I agree with the doctrine of unconditional election. Is that the purpose that the author intends within the big story? Let us go back to the original intent of the passage where it is first stated, ““I have loved you,” says the LORD. “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the LORD. “Yet Jacob I have loved;” (Malachi 1:2, NKJV) the you in this passage is in the plural and refers to corporate Israel, and the term Jacob refers to corporate Israel as a people. The original text is not about individuals and where this falls in Romans 9 is not simply about individuals but the relationship between God’s unconditional love and election and corporate Israel. Do I believe in unconditional election? Yes, however, am I willing to sacrifice the authorial intent of passages in order to prove a point. My answer has to be no. My love of the big story will not permit me to use passages in order to make a point if the point is not the authorial intent of the passage. Are there other places where I can find unconditional election without Romans 9? Ephesians 1 and other passages point to the election of believers. I am not required to proof text in order to prove a doctrine in a way that the author was not originally using the text to begin with. Can I say that Romans 9:13 can be applied to the individual believer? Certainly, I believe that. But I do not believe that this is a proper proof text to use. Buying into a strict five-point Calvinistic system might cause me to read the Scriptures through the system instead of through the authorial intent, this is a danger I simply do not want to face. For those dear brothers and sisters to feel that they can face this danger and avoid its pitfalls I welcome them to try.
With the start of the new year comes the start of a whole new set of blogs. This one will be the first of many. I’ve been busy writing on my dissertation as well as keeping our weekly Facebook and YouTube Live teaching broadcasts going. I’m excited by what the Lord did with the reach of the last two teachings. I hope that you will consider joining us either on YouTube or by visiting our Facebook page at Facebook.com/zionsbanner. I’m grateful to those loyal folks who have been tuning in to our live broadcasts and viewing our videos.
In today’s blog I’d like to discuss Messianic prophecy in terms of the Biblical worldview and contrasted with something that has been lost in the transition from ancient Judaism to modern rabbinical Judaism. “In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jeremiah 23:6, NKJV).” The background of this passage is the promise of a future Davidic king that will restore and redeem Israel. As a side note, it is interesting that the prophecies of Jesus’ coming were connected on some level with the redemption of Israel so that replacement theology actually guts the authorial intent of Messianic prophecy. But this is not our focus here. What I want to focus on are the nature of the Messiah and His salvation.
Jeremiah 23:6 clearly shows Messiah being called by a title of God, “The LORD our Righteousness.” What is absolutely vital here is that this prophecy, as well as prophecies, like Isaiah 9:6, teach the fact that God must be the one to redeem, save, and restore. This was a clear part of God’s teaching in the Torah when He provided blood atonement as the only system of atonement that He would accept. The biblical view recognizes that man cannot, through any action of his own, save or restore himself. This idea is not some Christian gloss on the Scriptures, but rather a keystone in the biblical worldview. We see this clearly in the Hebrew Scriptures: “But I will sacrifice to You with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay what I have vowed. Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9, NKJV).”
Now, how does this concept of salvation compare with that held by rabbinical Judaism? It is important to note that rabbinical Judaism preserves a great deal of the truth and beauty of the Scriptures, but modern rabbinical Judaism still leaves one in the position of providing on some level for one’s own salvation and restoration. While the biblical view acknowledges the need for repentance, rabbinical Judaism sees the individual repenting as part of the process for one’s own restoration instead of repentance being the way one acknowledges that one cannot restore him or herself. More liberal reforms of rabbinical Judaism, such as Reform Judaism or even Reconstructionist Judaism, fail far worse in this area by literally making man his own savior or ignoring the need for personal salvation before a personal God.
If man cannot save himself then salvation must be provided by God, and the only way that this can really be accomplished fully is if God Himself comes and redeems man. In this new year as we face new challenges, which will be different for each of us, we must remember that the one who can restore and redeem this new year is none other than God Himself and we dare not look to ourselves. For more discussion of this prophecy, visit the broadcast that will be aired on Wednesday January 10th and hear more.
Without going into a lot of details, I have been having an interesting exchange with an Israeli about his objections to Jesus’ genealogy. I thought it might be wise to reflect upon the way doctrine in Scripture is always tied to divine purpose.
His specific objection to Jesus’ genealogy is that Jesus is not a physical son of Joseph and therefore cannot end up being counted within the lineage of David or of the tribe of Judah. There’s a lot to this objection, and it is a common one among more sophisticated anti-missionaries (those who officially oppose the gospel and engage in Jewish polemics). While it has left me a few nights pondering his arguments in my mind and losing a little sleep, it has been good training for me not only in terms of apologetics but also in terms of the intersection of apologetics and theology in general.
One of the questions I posed to him is: how can a child born to human parents be preexistent? One of them has to be more than human. You see, we know that Jesus’ mother was indeed human, so by process of elimination this means that for Jesus to be preexistent, His father must be more than human. After making such a statement I might be asked where I got the idea that Jesus was preexistent. I refer to the following Scriptures: “Now gather yourself in troops, O daughter of troops; He has laid siege against us; they will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek. ‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting (Micah 5:1–2, NKJV).’”
Yes, there is sometimes disagreement over the phrase miqedem mi-yemey ʿolam (מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃) 1. Yes, sometimes the term olam; does refer to an indefinite period of time and proper scholarship requires that we acknowledge this fact. However, the use of olam as eternity is well documented and unless the context dictates otherwise, olam should be translated as eternity. There are reasons for this fact. First, this term is used of God about His eternality, as in Psalm 90:2 where God’s existence is described as me ʿolam weʿadʿolam, “from eternity to eternity” (cf. NJPSV).2 Second, the phrase mi-yemey ʿolam (מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃) is preceded by the term מִקֶּ֖דֶם (miqedem), best translated as “from of old.” This means a natural rending of olam in this particular section would be eternity, with “days of old” already indicated by miqedem.
With that argument out of the way, let’s return to the key issue. If Jesus cannot have a physical father, because the father must be more than human and thus not merely a man, it follows that the virgin birth is the best explanation for how this unique exception could occur. Now, I realize that there are many other reasons why the virgin birth is necessary within the plan of God for salvation. However, my point here is that doctrine exists for a purpose, and in the case at hand, the doctrine of the virgin birth served the purpose of answering one of my Israeli friend’s objections to the gospel. God does not tell us truths with no reason, and there is always a purpose, or many, behind each doctrine. Doctrine is both logical and practical.
1 Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003),
2 all Hebrew text taken from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit Morphology; Bible. O.T. Hebrew. Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Universiteit. (Logos Bible Software, 2006), Mic 5:1.
First, I need to begin with the admission that this indeed is one of my favorite times of the year. I love the beautiful contrast of the light piercing and penetrating the darkness which occurs during this time, through the combination of holiday lights and the decreased sunlight. It is also a time to recontact people with whom we have become disconnected within our stories. It is also a time when songs related to Messiah Jesus can be freely sung, and even the secular society allows for this expression of praise.
However, in the midst of the joyous season there is a darker side. It is easy for American
Christians to make the mistake of believing that the acceptance of Christmas carols and crèches, or nativity scenes, indicates a greater acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah and Lord. It must be remembered that while it is culturally cute and acceptable to acknowledge Jesus as a baby, it remains equally unacceptable to present him as the Savior of the world and the risen Lord. The spirituality of Christmas, for many, is just a superficial veneer for practicing the politeness that should be practiced all year, and merely about getting gifts of both food and material possessions. Don’t get me wrong - I enjoy seeing the spirit of kindness and receiving a few packages of my own during the Christmas season. But this is a far cry from the true glory that Jesus indeed deserves. Come January 1, the same dislike which existed before Christmas for those who take Jesus seriously and believe the worldview which the Bible presents will return to its normal level - which means that in our secular society, those who seek to follow Jesus and promote His worldview will still be considered: homophobic, anti-women, bigoted, and narrow minded. Society’s pause from its angst against biblical Christianity is just that; it’s “a pause” that will evaporate with the new year. Followers of Jesus must be prepared for and understand that this is a beautiful exhale during a beautiful season.
On another note, we must also remember that for some, this time of year is not as bright and cheery as is often expected. For those who are facing struggles in their lives the holiday can highlight the things lost during the year or the stresses that they experience. Some people enter this particular season with pain and scars and it behooves us to practice some of that Christmas cheer by being sensitive to those individuals, not by managing a “Ho Ho Ho” in the midst of their struggles. Better yet, maybe we could best serve Jesus by being a help in some small way to someone who is facing struggles during this happy holiday season. What we must not do is leave these people to face the struggles alone. We must find a practical way by which some of the joy of the season can spill over into their lives. Those who are heavenly minded are truly of earthly good. It is a fake spirituality that pontificates great concepts but does not practice their ethical content.
This season, let us remember that the baby Jesus is truly Lord and did not stay in that manger. Along with remembering Jesus is our Lord during this holiday season, let us remember to be a blessing to others by being his hands and feet.
This blog will be shorter than usual since it is such a busy week in the ministry. Despite the busyness of the holidays, I could not help but write a blog related to Hanukkah and the Advent season. Sunday I was reflecting upon the lines that I will be reciting in an upcoming Advent play. I hope the irony of that sentence is not lost upon you - a Jewish kid playing a part in an advent play. I will be playing the role of Simeon. Hanukkah celebrates the dedication of the second temple in Jerusalem, and so it’s this repaired, renewed, and expanded version of the temple to which Simeon comes so many years later. He does not come without a purpose, but rather because he is awaiting a great and glorious event. Luke tells us of the incident: “And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said: ‘Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel (Luke 2:25–32, NKJV).’”
As I consider these words which Simeon uttered I think about the particular consolation toward which he was looking. What consolation was on Simeon’s heart and mind which drove him to the temple in the first place that morning, in obedience to the promise that God given him - that he would not die until he saw the Lord’s anointed? Israel was suffering under foreign oppression because of their own wandering from the ideals that God had for them as a people, but the consolation of Israel was not just simply a change in Israel’s condition. Rather, it was tied to a person. Yes, the comfort which Simeon so long waited for was the coming of a person. But what person could provide such a great consolation? This person was both a servant and a king.
Clearly the Scriptures teach that this person would be a servant and would offer himself or Israel. Is this not fitting, since the very candle by which the other candles of the menorah are lit is called the shamus, or servant? But one might ask where the Scriptures teach that the coming one must be a servant. One does not have to look far, for Isaiah 52:13 declares, “Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and very high.” But a great paradox exists, for this servant shall also be a king. Micah 5:2 states, “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” So this servant is to be king over Israel and, based on other prophecies, the whole world to establish God’s kingdom again upon the earth.
In my final ponderings, the question arises - why a servant AND a king? A servant because we needed something done for us which we could not do for ourselves. Hence Isaiah’s words, “All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned, everyone, to his own way; and the Lord is laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6).” We needed someone to serve us by providing something which we could never attain for ourselves. But if a servant, why a king? A king because we needed somebody to lead us. A life without purpose leads nowhere and is aimless, and that is not the life we were created to live. Our purposeful God made us for a purpose, and He is the only one that can make clear that purpose. So we needed someone to lead us in that purpose, and thus we needed a king.
Yes, the servant represented by the shamus candle of the menorah is the king who leads us forward towards a life full of meaning and purpose. May your holiday be filled with blessing and purpose this year as you contemplate the One who is the servant and the king!
Making much of Messiah and season’s greetings,
Rev. Jeffrey Kran
In recent conversations with a dear friend and pastor, we discussed how theology is a conversation. Now I’m not saying that doctrine is a conversation. Doctrine is clearly taught in the Scriptures - but that doctrine has to be understood by real people in real situations, and that causes certain truths of Scripture to be highlighted in certain ways at certain times by certain individuals. For example, very few of the reformers honestly studied the doctrine of Israel during the Reformation because their battle and main concern were with the Catholic Church over the doctrines of grace. That concern molded their theology, and different circumstances may have altered what the reformers decided to focus on and ultimately hand down to us. So we see that theology is a continuous conversation between God’s people and the challenges of the world.
Often rabbinical Judaism and Christian belief are both treated as if they are static as opposed to being formed by an elongated dialogue throughout history. Most Jews assume that the Judaism of the rabbis which exists today is the same Judaism that has existed since the Torah was given at Sinai. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to being molded by the rabbis in general, the Judaism of today was also deeply influenced by a Jewish thinker named Moses Maimonides. Several articles in his systematic statement of Orthodox Jewish belief are very contrary to the thinking of Christianity, yet they also do not even represent the consensus of Judaism in general, much less rabbinical Judaism throughout history.
In an excellent book by Marc Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, he points out through a reappraisal of Maimonides’ Thirteen Articles of Faith that there are distinct differences between the articles of Maimonides and historic Jewish thought. These same areas of differentiation also exist between Christianity and modern Judaism. In other words, the doctrines of Christian belief are far closer to some ways of Jewish thinking then are acknowledged today. In addressing the main disagreement, Shapiro says, “The third principle teaches God’s incorporeality — that God is without image or form (Shapiro, 45).” This would, of course, preclude the possibility of the incarnation of Messiah Jesus.
However, it has not always been a Jewish belief that God could not take on a form. As Shapiro notes, “Returning to the principal, it must be stressed that, contrary to popular belief, the notion that God is incorporeal was not always a unanimously accepted Jewish (or Christian or Muslim) view (Shapiro, 47).” He goes on further to point out, “Maimonides is correct in asserting that the targumim often shy away from anthropomorphism, but this is hardly the case with Talmud and Midrashic literature. In this literature, there are numerous descriptions of God as a corporeal being, one of the most famous being the Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 6A, which describes God is wearing a tefillin (Shapiro 49).” There is much in Jewish thought and Scripture which allows for the incarnation of Messiah, so modern Jewish objections to the incarnation of Messiah are based more on Maimonides’ understanding of Judaism than on Jewish thought throughout history.
The shoe also fits on the other foot. Christianity has had to define its doctrines through an understanding of biblical doctrine in real time and space as expounded by people. The Replacement Theology which widely exists in Christianity today is a historic result of the Anti-semitism held by many of the church fathers. To act as though replacement theology within the reformed camp is a result of biblical doctrine would be an utter farce. In Acts 1:6-7 the disciples asked when the Lord would return the kingdom to Israel. Jesus responded that it was not for them to know the times or seasons in which the Father would do so. This conversation between modern Christian belief and historic Antisemitism is certainly worth reexamining. While I don’t have time in this specific blog to trace replacement theology, I may take it up in another blog post. But for now, I feel a brief mention here fits in well with Hanukkah and Advent. And with this, I conclude that whether Jew or Christian, those who treat theology as if it were a static thing, unmolded by the times, neither truly understand history nor theology.
Until the next blog “Making Much of Messiah”,
Shapiro, Marc B, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised. The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), 47-49.
In my last blog I discussed the debate between David Wood and Mohammed Hijab. I pointed out that Hijab’s knowledge of the Hebrew language and history was flawed and focused on the language foible that he committed during the debate - a language foible which, incidentally, any first-year Hebrew student could spot. I also discussed the fact that he had no shame as an Islamic polemicist in pulling out Jewish objections. This showed the commonality between certain objections shared by both the Jewish and Islamic communities.
Now I’d like to examine in more depth the glaring error Mohammed Hijab committed in relation to Jewish history and the Second Temple era. This particular tactic is very common among Islamic polemicists. They attempt to make trinitarian belief the odd man out by pointing to rabbinical Jewish objections against the doctrine of the Trinity. However, these objections ignore both the Old Testament foundations of the Trinity and the allowance for a mysterious plurality in the Godhead which existed in Jewish thought prior to the 12th-century Jewish thinker, Moses Maimonides.
Dr. Michael Brown points out one example of such thought, the important concept of the Memra of God, which certainly allows for plurality within the Godhead. This Memra theology has a direct connection to John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.” He even lines up the Targums (the Aramaic translations of the Bible used at the time of Jesus) with the Hebrew text in a chart to demonstrate the Memra being discussed as a distinct person apart from God.
The translation of the Hebrew text is followed immediately by the translation of the Aramaic Targum. Keep in mind when reading that these Targums were the official translations used in the synagogues. Therefore, the Targums took on great significance in the religious life of the people, just as English versions of the Bible take on great significance for English speakers today. Here are several examples:¹
Genesis 1:27 God created man.
The Word of the Lord created man. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)
And it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth. Genesis 6:6–7
And it repented the Lord through his Word that he made man on the earth. Targum of Gen 1:27
And God said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between me and you.” Genesis 9:12
And the Lord said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between my Word and you.” Targum of Genesis 9:12
And Abraham believed in the Lord. Genesis 15:6
And Abraham believed in the Word of the Lord. Targum of Genesis 15:6
And God came to Abimelech. Genesis 20:3
And the Word from before the Lord came to Abimelech. Targum of Genesis 20:3
May the Lord keep watch between you and me. Genesis 31:49
May the Word of the Lord keep watch between you and me. Targum of above verse
And they believed in the Lord. Exodus 14:31
And they believed in the Word of the Lord. Targum of above verse
And the Lord spoke all these words. Exodus 20:1
And the Word of the Lord spoke all these words. Targum of above verse
Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 19.
While the Memra is different than the Trinity, an allowance for distinctions within the Godhead is further made in a Judaic doctrine called the Sefirot. As Isidore Singer explains, “These emanations, or intelligences as they are called, are the intermediary agents between the intellectual and the material worlds.”² I included discussion of the Sefirot only to demonstrate that within Jewish thought there has been an allowance for distinctions within the Godhead from early on: during the second Temple era, and even during the medieval era before post-Maimonides rabbinical Judaism. The concepts of the Memra and Sefirot do not even include the Shekinah of God, which the Scriptures clearly indicate as separate from God while being deity.
With all of these concepts in mind, Mohammed Hijab’s analysis of the Jewishness (or non) of the Trinity clearly ignores Jewish history and oversimplifies Jewish thought in a way that may be consistent with modern rabbinical thought, but does not capture Jewish thought with historical accuracy. In doing so, Hijab proved he can hardly be considered a scholar - he merely dished out some convenient Jewish polemics against faith in Messiah Jesus. While he may get points from those encamped in rabbinical Judaism, he cannot get points for an accurate picture of Jewish thought. His picture is clearly skewed, borrowing only from those who slant Jewish history to avoid trinitarian conclusions. To make a long story short, his reasoning is circular and full of confirmation bias: there is no Trinity, therefore I will pick only those elements of Jewish thought which deny the Trinity, and therefore prove my case against the Trinity.
¹ Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 19.
² Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 154.
I had the chance to both watch and participate in a live broadcast commenting on the debate between David Wood and Mohammed Hijab. One of the things I was waiting to see was whether Mohammed would try to use the Old Testament, or Jewish Scriptures, as a foil against the Trinity - perhaps remarking upon how rabbinical Judaism is non-Trinitarian and how the Old Testament (in his mind) does not support the Trinity. In this, he did not disappoint me.
What did disappoint me was his lack of understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Hebrew language, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Why can someone like Mohammed get away with blatant errors such as the ones he fell into during the debate? One reason he and other Muslims are able to do is that many Christians are woefully ignorant in the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Old Testament support for plurality in the Godhead. which falls under understanding the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. We Christians must fully understand what we believe before we can properly teach the tenets of our faith to the outside world.
To the uneducated Christian, it might well look like the early Jewish followers of Jesus went from a monotheism that disallowed any sort of distinctions within the Godhead to a full-blown Nicaean trinitarianism without any problem. This blatantly ignores the allowance within Jewish thought in the Second Temple era for plurality within the Godhead. I have found it rare in any church to find any teaching on the Hebrew Scriptural evidence for plurality in the Godhead or the Jewish roots of the Trinity.
Mohammed Hijab also made assertions about the Hebrew language which can not be supported by someone who has actual knowledge of the Hebrew language. He attacked one of the common ways that Christians try to affirm the Trinity (from the word Elohim in Genesis 1), and by doing so fell into an untenable situation. It is not as though the argument cannot be used - if further substantiated by some additional facts from the first three chapters of Genesis - but Christians often do not know how to use or state the argument correctly.
In order to defuse the argument from Genesis 1, Mohammed made use of an argument from circles of Judaism that the plural in Elohim is related to the majestic plural, like Queen Victoria saying, “We are not amused.” To buttress this argument, he made the absurd claim that only singular pronouns are used with Elohim. However, within the same chapter of Genesis, it is clearly stated: “Let us make man in our image.” What Mohammed ignores is that in this passage, the noun for image carries the pronoun attached to it, which often happens in Hebrew. Furthermore the pronoun attached to the word image is first person plural. So, his assertion that plural pronouns are not used with Elohim demonstrates a distinct lack of knowledge as far as the Hebrew goes, but it is something that many Christians would not pick up on either.
If the church is going to be prepared to take on the challenge that Islam presents to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is necessary that we understand proper apologetics to defend against Islam’s attacks against the Trinity. It is also critical that we better understand the Jewish roots of our own doctrines so we can defend the continuity between the New Testament and the Old. It is for purposes like this that I am called and that Zionsbanner exists.
The way in which the Bible was written and has come down to mankind both helps us understand how to properly interpret it while simultaneously producing some of the strongest objections to its validity. How often have you heard the liberal argument that since the Bible is written by men, and men are not perfect, we cannot trust the Bible? There is an Islamic version of this objection which, although is not exactly the same, touches on this very point of the Bible’s composition. The claim of this argument is that the Qur’an contains only the words of Allah, not the speech of men and angels. Since the Bible’s composition includes the words of men and angels, it cannot be considered the word of God. In an article which was included in the Journal of Biblical Apologetics, Sam Shamoun notes:
As we had indicated earlier, Muslims claim that the Quran is the pure word of Allah, containing nothing but the speech of Allah alone. One will not find the words of either humans or angels mixed in with the words of Allah. 1
This argument is ridiculous because the Qur’an itself confirms the authority of the Scriptures in Sura 5:68.
Say: “O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelations that has come to you from your Lord, that increases in most of them their obstinacy rebellion and blasphemy. But you do not grieve over (these) people without faith.” 2
It must be remembered that Mohammed did not come onto the scene until after the completion of the synoptic Gospels and long after the completion of the Hebrew Scriptures, which means this Sura refers to Scriptures that include stories written down by human penmen under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the words of prophets declaring the word of God, and direct proclamations by God. In other words, the Qur’an affirms Scriptures which contain the word of God directly, the words of angels, and the words of men as God directed.
Of course, there are other reasons why this specific argument is foolish. However, let’s look at the secular version. This argument has its problems also. Considering the claim that the Bible cannot be trusted because it was written by men, what would happen if we applied this reasoning to other written documents, even a scientific theory? Einstein was a man and he wrote down his theory of relativity. Can we assume that his theory is wrong simply because it was written by a man? The answer is obviously no! The fact that God used human penmen does not invalidate that an Almighty God could ensure the accuracy of what was transmitted. Put another way, which is harder: to create the universe or to oversee a human penman whom you yourself have chosen, under the exact circumstances you have chosen, to transcribe what you desire to be recorded?
Clearly, it would not be too hard for God to accurately transmit His word to us through human writers - but, it also makes sense for Him to do it that way. The Bible is written to specific human beings in a specific situation, so it would be logical for God to use human beings and human language to make his revelation understandable to them.
What the Islamic and secular arguments ignore about the Bible is key. The Bible was never intended to be a list of commands or a textbook on God. It was meant to be an incredibly beautiful story interwoven with commands, history, poetry, and letters to convey the nature of God and his wondrous plan of love toward humans. This is the heart of why such objections are totally flawed (and also the reason why the Bible must never be reduced to simple systematic theology).
1 Sam Shamoun, “The Message of the Quran: Worship of Allah Alone?,” Journal of Biblical Apologetics 7 (2003): 19.
2 Sayed A. A. Razwy, ed., The Qur'an: Translation, 20th ed. (Elmhurst, N.Y.: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, 2007),5:68 .
Some of the blogs that I’ve written have been theological and apologetic. Some have been encouraging anecdotes from the ministry. This blog, however, will be intensely personal and reflective, as I will be sharing some things that my present situation has forced me to revisit. As my family and I have been going through a difficult period in our ministry and life, I have recently been reminded of several things. I have had to go back to the Scriptures for guidance, but I was often quoting and praying them expecting an immediate answer of deliverance, rather than realizing that I needed to reckon them to be true, which is faith, knowing the Holy Spirit was applying them even before I would ever see the deliverance that I desired.
I had the opportunity to look again at some good guidance in a book called The Red Sea Rules. It reminded me that often when circumstances seem to be going against us, it is easy to believe that we are doing the wrong thing. This is especially true if you grew up in a highly legalistic environment in which little or no grace was shown. One of the most helpful things I have been reminded of is how faith can often be doing the next logical thing while trusting God. In addition, it is helpful to remember that even though we make mistakes, if we believe in the sovereignty of God then we are where He wants us now. That is not to say we bear no responsibility in the decisions that got us to a certain place, but He is certainly guiding our lives and choices. This does not mean He leads us into sinful actions. What it does mean is that our present geographic location, especially if we were seeking and following Him leading up to the moment we now find ourselves in, is of God. I say this because, as a missionary who ended up in Arizona and is facing some tough times in the ministry, I can believe that God brought me to Arizona even if it did not work out exactly as I had planned.
Another thing that I needed to realize is those bad situations aren’t always forever, or even ultimately bad. I continue to struggle with my sleep situation but that does not mean that I will always have a sleep situation to struggle with, or that the struggle is abnormal or wrong. This applies to many struggles Christians face - in particular, I am thinking of those who struggle with depression. The struggle with depression is not evil. It is more likely what you do within that struggle that determines where the struggle ultimately leads you (whether into evil and sin or somewhere else).
Finally, it is good to remember that small encouragements are not necessarily to be ignored; neither are they small. They are sometimes God’s way of letting us know that He is with us through the struggle and has plans for us beyond the struggle.
In a recent Zionsbanner broadcast, I used a quote by Sir Isaac Newton, who did theology as well as science. It goes: “In nonessentials straw, in essentials iron.” I went on to explain that I do not think that any doctrine is nonessential. So, how do we reconcile the fact that believers will disagree on doctrine, yet there are areas of doctrine in which we cannot afford to disagree? How can we consider all doctrine to be equally important in light of the fact that some doctrines seem to have greater significance than others? I think if we bear in mind that doctrines do not stand in isolation, but touch other doctrines, an analogy which might help us to understand is a jigsaw puzzle.
Like puzzle pieces, because doctrines touch other doctrines, they have weight, and some doctrines may be weightier than others. Before we take this analogy any further, you may be saying, “But Jeff, how do you support this idea that doctrines have weight scripturally?” Let me turn to two passages. The first of these passages is 1 Corinthians 15:3. It reads, “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” The Greek word here for “first of all” is πρωτος which carries the meaning of prṓtos, as exampled here:
1. From Homer, prṓtos signifies the “first” in space, time, number, or rank.
2. The word occurs in the LXX some 240 times, half in Genesis to Nehemiah, and mostly with reference to number, though also at times rank.
3. Philo uses the term in various connections (e.g., ho prṓtos is the only true God for the sage); in Josephus the term is used for leaders in the tribe, people, or priesthood (e.g., Ezra), as well as for the first in time.
We can see that the idea of rank was certainly an allowed meaning for this particular Greek word, and this is the sense used in our Bible reference. It is reasonable to believe Paul is saying that the things listed in that passage are of prime importance, or that they are extremely weighty doctrines.
Jesus also hinted about a hierarchy among Scriptures when He spoke of weightier things in the Law. Our second Scripture passage says,“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone (Matthew 23:23, NKJV).” Since all of the Law was Scripture, Jesus here seems to be indicating a hierarchy within the Law, with some teachings or doctrines being of greater weight than others.
How can these things be? Let’s now go back to the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle. In a jigsaw puzzle some pieces touch more pieces than others. For instance, a corner piece may only touch one or two pieces while a piece in the center may touch as many as five or six. Therefore, some doctrines within the body of truth may impact other doctrines more extremely than others. Beyond this, some doctrines may touch on matters far more central to salvation than other doctrines do. While all doctrine is equally important, not all doctrine is equally weighty. One must ask how central the doctrine in question is to other key doctrines related to the Christian worldview and salvation, and on that basis give the doctrine a level of weight. So, while all doctrine is important, I may disagree with my brothers and sisters on less weighty doctrines while still regarding them as important. At the same time I can find some doctrines more central where there is little room for disagreement, thus allowing us both to disagree in love, remain unified, and preserve the message of salvation. I hope this analogy is useful to many who read it (and I hope many read it), and that it might help you as you wrestle with the balance between cooperation and integrity in your faith.
 Bromiley, G.W., Friedrich, G., Kittel, G. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (pp. 965-966). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.