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.
At first I thought about making this blog contain some aspect of the recent video teaching I have been doing, but thought it might be better and more edifying if I relayed the effect of that video teaching and some practical lesson that could be learned from it. In a recent video dealing with the use of Amos 9:11-12 I discussed the importance of authorial intent as the basis for interpretation even when God had a wider meaning in terms of the implications of a prophecy than even the prophet understood. Now when I share this I did not necessarily have Islam as the main system in mind. But this is the beauty of our God, he can use truth and the sound defense of the faith to impact an argument against the gospel when that group is not even being directly addressed. There are several reasons why God can so effectively do this aside from his total sovereignty and wisdom. His sovereignty and wisdom are of course reasons by which he can so elegantly use arguments in one area to deal with error in another area. One of the reasons God can so effectively do this, is because our enemy has a limited number of tactics which he can use given his own limited nature and the structure of the universe that he is intending to corrupt. Secondly, man as a created image bearer made according to a specific design of God tends to have certain patterns of thought. Third, God is a rational God created a rational universe and therefore the universe has built with in its logic. A word to pastors here, when you violate the laws of clear logic you insult the God of logic who is the author of logic. Too many clergy feel that the rules and study of logic and philosophy is somehow beneath them and unspiritual. But we are told to love God with all our mind and it is supremely spiritual to understand the laws of rationality that he built into the universe. Well now we see reasons why God can so elegantly use a line of reasoning against the specific objection to the gospel in varied ways.
I would like to share the beautiful encouragement from a sister in the Lord that I received. She is a moderator with the Acts 17 apologetics Facebook group. I am so blessed that she tuned into our Monday broadcast and listened. Here is the story she relayed to me,” I wanted to tell you that I took what I learned Monday night about Authorial intent and used it in talking with a Muslim who was trying to say that Hebrews 5:8,9 prove that Jesus was Muslim. It worked very well. Thank you!”
The Feast of Tabernacles has begun and it is celebrated for seven days. This is the time Jews spend eating and sometimes sleeping in outdoor booths. In a recent Zionsbanner broadcast that can be found on our website and YouTube channel (just search for the name Jeff Kran), I discussed Acts 15 as it pertains to the inclusion of the Gentiles and the tabernacle of David. In this account, James referred to Amos 9:11-12 as he announced a verdict during the deliberation of the vital Jerusalem Council. Interestingly enough, the Hebrew word for the tabernacle in Amos 9 [סֻכַּ֥ת] was the very same word used, although in a different form, in Leviticus 23 in reference to the Feast of Tabernacles. I do not believe this is an accident but has to do with the very structure of God’s word being a great story, with each book of the Bible serving a special purpose within that story or Canon.
The Jerusalem Council debate in the book of Acts provides us with some important principles. God’s word is to be applied in terms of God’s great plan for the ages, and while it must be understood in its authorial intent, it must also be recognized that the authorial intent of the passage connects to the larger narrative of Scripture. As we read our Bibles we need to understand that it is not all about us, but about God’s kingdom, and we must read the verses in light of something greater than ourselves. This does not mean that we should not garner personal encouragement and apply the Word to our lives personally, but it is all too easy to make ourselves the only frame of reference for understanding the application of Scripture.
Such misapplications can happen on an individual or national scale. I have heard this Old Testament verse used in reference to America: “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14, NKJV).” While I believe that God does chastise nations and honor His Word when it is followed, the larger picture of this verse is God’s promise to restore the people of Israel if they turn again to Him. Therefore, within the original context of restoring Israel, the better application would be God’s willingness to heal His people from the devastations of sin and to heal churches and revive them, if they will seek Him through the person of Jesus Christ. This ties God’s work among the body of Messiah to His loving nature, and to the original authorial intent in a way that is consistent with the great narrative of Scripture.
Now, those who deliberated in the Jerusalem Council looked at what God was doing and then looked for Scriptural verification. Paul, the cross-cultural evangelist, testified of God’s work among the Gentiles to the Council. The appeal to Scripture was to see whether their perception of God working could be verified in His Word as according to His overall plan and whether it was indeed the confirmation of God’s promise to call people from among the Gentiles and include them among His people.
Preceding this reference to Amos 9, James stated that the prophets agree with the apostles’ conclusion. This means he had other Scriptures dealing with the inclusion of the Gentiles in mind, among them possibly Isaiah 45 and Jeremiah 12. It was not uncommon in Jewish thinking to see a theme and to connect several verses together in one idea. The basis for doing this was the notion that common themes in Scripture could be discerned as one looked at the authorial intent of individual passages and saw a common element to them. We can see from these examples that they understood the connection between God’s Word and His overall purposes, and how each informs the other.
This broadcast further went into the concept of sensus plenior, or a fuller sense to the Scriptures, which we will not cover in this blog, but I will leave you with some of the distilled principles: the individual interpretation of verses connect to the greater plan of God, and there is such a thing as biblical theology; the working of God is always consistent with the Scriptures; and, finally, God is into building His kingdom and it is not all about us as individuals all the time.
A little joke to think about, what is the number one use for cow hide is in the United States? The answer is holding cows together. So often when it comes to the Jewish holidays there is either an emphasis on doing them in the Jewish believing community or an emphasis on ignoring them within the larger church. I do not want to get into the ins and outs of the value of the Jewish holidays, they are part of the Bible, and we are told that all Scripture is useful and inspired by God. I personally celebrate them, but I think there is a bigger problem we need to focus on. I think we forget what the Jewish holidays were designed for or get so involved with either the doing or not doing that we lose the being. While the Torah or Pentateuch is one it does have different aspects to it. If you are going to have a nation ruled by God you would have to have certain civil laws that would govern the way the society interacted within itself and where the societal boundaries were corporately, we could refer to this as civil laws or the civil aspect of the Torah. Obviously the way individuals conduct themselves in order to reflect God ethically and morally would also be important and so there are moral laws based on God’s character which formed the moral aspect of the Torah. And obviously since Israel was to be a worshiping community with God actually dwelling in the midst of that in his glory and holiness there would have to be certain laws related to worship. Now the laws related to ceremony and worship would provide valuable truth pictures of who God is and how he relates to human, and that is exactly what the ceremonial aspect of Torah does.
Now if the Jewish holidays or moedim provide truth pictures related to who God is and how he relates to human beings then of course they have purpose! But are they more important to learn from and do or more important to learn from and be. By the way, one could be them without necessarily doing the holidays. We know that Passover pictures the sacrifice of the Lamb and the application of the blood so that God’s judgment will not be upon us. Then we must live under the blood of Messiah both coming to him and relying upon his atonement to provide our view of ourselves and give us a true picture of our worth. In the case of the feast of Tabernacles there may be more than one picture there, but one obvious picture is God dwelling amongst his people and being there source of protection and security. Was God not the source of blessing when he visited Adam and Eve regularly in the 1st Tabernacle being the garden of Eden. Was he not the source and protection for his people Israel as he dwelt in the tabernacle of old is a tabernacle alongside him relying upon him for their protection and security — of course he was! Is that Jesus or Yeshua not the place in which God meets man and provides blessing, security, and forgiveness. Is the answer not obvious, of course he is! So, the proper response to the feast of Tabernacles is to remain in Christ and to come to him as your dwelling place where you can meet God if you have not already done so. Just as knowing the proper purpose for cow Hide helps us understand it, so understanding the purpose of the high holy days helps us live out their lessons.
For my dear Jewish brothers and sisters who follow Messiah let us exemplify by being not just doing in this holiday season. For my dear Gentile brothers and sisters I encourage you to be blessed by the pictures of truth contained in the Jewish holidays. Above all, let us remember that we dwell together in Yeshua and receive one another as Jesus received us!
We recently returned from a wonderful time of ministry in California where I again had the opportunity to have an “Isaiah 53” table on Venice Beach. Open tables of this sort are allowed on Venice Beach for free, which is one of the things I appreciate as someone involved in a nonprofit venture (or faith missions, in other words). For those who are unaware, an “Isaiah 53” table is a table on which I place literature pertaining to Isaiah 53, other Gospel tracts, and a laminated copy of Isaiah 53 written in both Hebrew and English. One fun part of this Venice Beach outreach is that we actually get some interesting camera footage of me talking with people and answering their questions. This means that the edifying conversations we have in outreach can further edify viewers on the internet. Sometimes, we might also capture and share some funny moments, as was the case at this past outreach.
Last Saturday morning while we were there talking to folks and generally enjoying ourselves, a band composed mostly of homeless people beating all kinds of drums and percussion instruments was playing near us. They had a propensity for loudly overusing a cowbell as a main instrument. They were making a good deal of noise, which finally drew the negative attention of one of the beach bungalow owners nearby. Needless to say, this concerned citizen decided to call the police. The policeman that came over to talk to them was extremely cordial and polite. He decided to tell them one of the major uses for the cowbell (any of my friends reading this who live in farm country or in Vermont will get a real chuckle): the officer explained that the purpose of a cowbell is for people to ring it in order to call cows to come into the barn. In other words, he wanted the band to think of a cowbell as a sort of doorbell for cows. I grew up as a city boy in the suburbs of Chicago, but even I know that this is not the correct use of a cowbell. A cowbell is put around the neck of a cow so that the farmer can find the cow, not so that the cow can answer the door. None of the band members had ever been involved in the agricultural sector nor lived in a rural environment (at least not from what I could tell), so they simply believed what the policeman was telling them. We who knew the truth stood there staring at him with looks of disbelief on our faces, trying not to laugh. Life is full of sermon and blog illustrations, and sometimes God just drops one into your lap that is too good not to share. You may ask what the point of this story is other than giving us all a good laugh, but this particular story contains a little nugget of truth about the value of apologetics.
Now, faith in the ideas of others can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing. Apologetics fits into this in the sense that many unbelievers have misconceptions about the Christian faith and the theology of the Scriptures, much like the policeman and the band did about the cowbell. Often they go to places like the web, which contains both valid and invalid information. One of the jobs of the apologist in making the Christian worldview winsome is to deal with some of these misconceptions (or shall we say misused cowbells). There are those that question the value of apologetics, but often before you can share the gospel you have to remove the false impressions so that they can hear the genuine gospel. So, as I continue in the ministry I realize that I will be dealing often with people’s false understandings. As you read this, please consider that those of us who are involved with teaching the Scriptures, apologetics and sharing the gospel are reliant upon the rest of the body of Christ for support. Your faithfulness in partnering with them is what allows them to remove the false cowbells from the ears of others so that the gospel might truly be heard.
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ". (Matthew 28:18–19, NKJV)
As we get closer to our time in California, which will include taping some of my teachings and some street witnessing on Venice Beach (and maybe a few other beaches), I cannot help but reflect on the Great Commission and how it is typically understood by the church. First, it must be noted that this commission was given to an entirely Jewish audience. This means that Jewish evangelism was assumed by the receivers of the commission. This is usually not understood by the church today. Rarely does the church consider Jewish evangelism a given in their missions program - in that sense, they are ignoring the background of the Great Commission. Let me be clear that there are many churches who are Jewish-hearted and involved in Jewish evangelism - but overall, can we say that the church considers Jewish missions a starting point in their missions program? I think the answer would certainly be no.
Second, the Greek word for “nations” in our Scripture reference is ethnos, which does not mean countries at all, but rather people groups. As it is given here, the Great Commission implies that we need to reach not only distinct people groups in other countries, but also the ethnic groups living among us. What this means for the American church is that to fulfill the Great Commission, it needs to include, for example, Muslim outreach in the United States. Since Jewish evangelism was a given when Jesus laid the commission upon the disciples, we can only assume that Jewish evangelism must be a given for us also if the Great Commission is to be completely followed. Some fellowships of churches have caught on to this idea, among them the Southern Baptists, but too many have not.
Third, although the single word “go” in English carries the force of the command, the original language uses what is called a participial phrase, which includes words that modify the subject, to put it simply. A more literal translation of the Greek word is “as you go.” Of course, the going is assumed in this rendering and carries the force of the command also, but the point is that the disciples were to move around and encounter the people in the areas where God led them, and by so doing reach all the ethnic groups.
Fourth, and I know this may step on some toes, but the command is to “make disciples,” not necessarily to plant churches. Planting churches is a result of making disciples, but making disciples perfunctorily does not always lead to planting churches. This is a major error that the modern church makes, thinking that if you make the disciples, the church will follow, or that if you plant the church, the disciples will follow. If you try to plant the churches without the emphasis on making disciples, you get neither the disciples nor the churches. So, churches often end up fighting over individuals to draw to their church instead of focusing on preaching the Word to all within earshot and proclaiming the Gospel.
Fifth, while there are individuals called to give their full time to this effort, no person sitting in the pews is exempt from playing a part in the Great Commission. Part of that responsibility is supporting those who are called to give full time to the effort, but this is only part of a greater responsibility. Messianic congregations are notorious for not supporting Jewish missions or workers in Jewish missions, much less getting out of their own comfort so and interacting with unsaved people. Kudos to those exceptions I see out there that are doing their best in these areas (I can think of some individuals and some congregations). The evangelical church does have a heart for this sort of thing - but often its people are very uncomfortable with interacting with others who are very different than themselves. While that may work well for the smooth functioning of a local church, it works horribly for the big picture of the Great Commission.
In conclusion, many ideas about the Great Commission simply reduce it to church planting or overseas missions. While these are important parts of the greater picture, local ethnic ministries must be considered a part of the mix, and the evangelistic teaching and preaching of the Word apart from church planting must be considered a legitimate kingdom activity. These are my thoughts, as I prepare to go to California to do what seems to me to be very much kingdom work.