Christmas and Chanukkah

Christmas is looming quickly which means so is Chanukkah. Time to review its background. 

Ramos reports that during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Mattathias and his sons were prominent figures in a revolt against anti-Jewish persecution. Antiochus IV had compelled the Jews to keep infants uncircumcised and sacrifice pig’s flesh on the altar—acts probably meant to encourage Jews into assimilation with the Seleucid realm (Josephus, J.W. 1.34). Mattathias, a priest in Modein, refused Antiochus’ order to make an unlawful sacrifice and killed a priest who was willing to obey. He also killed the king’s official who was sent to execute the decree. Mattathias then fled to the hill country with his sons—Johannan, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan—and others who disobeyed the decrees (1 Macc 2:23–25, 28). They engaged in guerilla warfare, slaying Seleucids and their collaborators and destroying their altars (1 Macc 2:43–45).

Judas, nicknamed “Maccabeus” (הׇמַּכָּבִי, hmakkaviy; Μακκαβαίος, Makkabaios)—meaning “the hammer”—became the leader of the uprising. Unlike the later generations, there was no fighting between the brothers over authority (Dabrowa, The Hasmoneans, 117). Antiochus seems to have paid no attention to the revolt until he felt the diminished amount of tribute he was receiving (Bickerman, The Maccabees, 36). He then gathered forces to subdue the rebels (1 Macc 3:27–29). Meanwhile, Judas recaptured the temple and repaired it—he installed a new sacrificial altar, incense altar, sacred vessels, and showbread table. He also rededicated the temple with a celebration of eight days—the institution of Hanukkah (חֲנֻכָּה, chanukkah; “dedication”) (1 Macc 4:42–51, 56). ^[i]

Stern says that on the 25th of Kislev they rededicated the Temple and consecrated a new altar. The ner tamid (“eternal light”) was relit, but there was only enough consecrated olive oil to keep it burning for one day, and it would take a week to prepare more. By a miracle of God reported in the book of 2 Maccabees the light burned for eight days, by which time a new supply had been prepared. For this reason Jews celebrate Chanukkah for eight days, starting on Kislev 25, which can fall between November 27 and December 27.

The Bible does not state when Jesus was born, perhaps as a prophylactic against our worshipping the day instead of the One who is worthy. But it is interesting that the early believers in the Messiah apparently saw a link between Chanukkah and the birth day of the Messiah: the one is concerned with an earthly building, the other with the living Temple of God who came down from Heaven—for Jesus himself made the comparison when he said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again” (John 2:19). So, since the end of the third century December 25, the Roman calendar date corresponding to Kislev 25, has been the generally accepted date for Christmas in the Western churches (the Greek Orthodox observe January 6, the Armenians January 19).

In secular America both Christmas and Chanukkah become distorted. Christmas turns into a commercial extravaganza, thereby expressing the “American civil religion” of pious platitudes and meaningless customs, such as trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, and obligatory exchanges of cards and presents. At best it becomes a time for family togetherness (although a byproduct is that the suicide rate is highest then, for that is when people who miss their families or have none become most despairing), but little thought is given to God or Jesus.

Likewise Chanukkah has become a Jewish refuge and defense against absorption into and assimilation by the Gentile majority: “We don’t celebrate Christmas; we celebrate Chanukkah, because we’re Jewish.” Gift-giving at Chanukkah (one gift each night) is a relatively modern Jewish tradition, obviously developed in response to the older tradition of gift-giving at Christmas. Messianic Jews use Chanukkah as an occasion for rededication to God and his Messiah.

Chanukkah is celebrated using a special Chanukkah menorah with nine lights. One uses a match to light the shammash (“servant”), and it is then employed to light one candle the first night, two the second, and so on until on the eighth night all eight lights and the shammash are burning brightly. For Messianic Jews the imagery is rich: Jesus, the “light of the world” (John 8:12), came as a servant (Mk 10:45) to give light to everyone (John 1:4–5), so that we might be lights to others (Mt 5:14).

But Christmas itself is not a biblical holiday at all. If it is to be celebrated, it should be observed as a Jewish holiday; for what is more worthy of voluntary celebration than the coming of the Jewish Messiah into the world, by whom all may have the light of life? ^[ii]

---

^[i] Ramos, A. (2012). Hasmonean Dynasty. In The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^[ii] Stern, D. H. (1996). Jewish New Testament Commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed.) (Jn 10:22). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.

Sukkot: An introduction

The Festival of Sukkot recently passed. My children had great fun sleeping in the Sukkah. Sukkot has many names in Scripture:

·         The Feast of Tabernacles.[i]

·         The Feast of Ingathering.[ii]

·         The Feast.[iii]

·         Feast of the Lord.[iv]

‎Scripture supplies nearly all of the pertinent facts of Sukkot, the feast of booths of tabernacles in Leviticus 23:33-43. Numbers 29:12-38 specifies the offerings on the occasion of the festival of Sukkot, and Deuteronomy 16:13-15 specifies the use of the booth. [v]

According to the passage in Leviticus, the festival was set to be celebrated on the 15th day of Seventh month. It is celebrated over seven days. The first is a Sabbath and no work is allowed.  On that day, boughs from beautiful trees, willows are to be used to celebrate a memorial of when God made Israel dwell in Sukkot during their journey from Egypt.  On each day of the feast, an offering made by fire is to be offered to God.  The eighth day is also a Sabbath and work is also prohibited on that day.  The commandment to observe this feast is everlasting.

The sacrifices in Numbers 29:12-38 are unique in three ways[vi]:

a)      They include offerings to invoker protection for the gentile nations

b)      The offerings are slightly different for each day of the festival.

c)      There in a special water libation.

Deuteronomy 16:13-15 lists all that should take part in the feast of Tabernacles. Everyone is to take part. It is a celebration of God's provision at harvest time.

The Artscroll Chumash says that the Sukkot are taken by some (the Sadducees and Karaites) quite literally as the tents that sheltered Israel for forty years [vii]. Others say they figuratively refer to the Clouds of Glory that protected Israel then (see Numbers 10:34). The festival is a time of joy because it celebrates the Summer harvest and it is the culmination of a spiritual process; which begins with redemption (Pesach), followed by the purpose of the redemption (receiving the Torah on Shavuot) and finally these lessons are brought into everyday life when worshippers find their joy in observing the commandments (Sukkot).

The citron resembles the heart; the lulav (palm branch), the spine; the hasidim (myrtle leaves), the eyes; and the anabas, (willow branches), the lips. By holding all four together, they symbolise the need for a person to use all one's faculties in the service of God.  A lulav has a pleasant taste, but no aroma. It symbolises a scholar deficient in good deeds. The myrtle has no taste but has a pleasant aroma and symbolises who is deficientin Torah but possesses good deeds. The willow lacks both and symbolists a person with neither. The four Species are held together because all sorts of people must be united in the community of Israel. [viii]

The festival is prophetically connected with the fate of all Gentiles, for Zechariah writes:

‎“It shall come about that everyone left of all the nations who came against Yerushalayim shall go up from year to year to worship the King, Adonai of Heaven’s Armies, and to keep the festival of Sukkot. For whoever does not come up from all the families of the earth to worship the King, Adonai of Heaven’s Armies, there will be no rain. If the family of Egypt does not go up, if it does not come, then they will have no overflow [from the Nile River]. This will be the plague with which Adonai will smite the nations that do not come up to keep the festival of Sukkot. This will be the punishment of Egypt and of all nations that do not come up to keep the festival of Sukkot.” (Zechariah 14:16-19)

This refers to the Messianic Age, after the whole world has come against Jerusalem and been defeated; in the light of the New Testament it should be understood as taking place after the second coming of Jesus the Messiah. The rabbis of the Talmud recognized the connection of this festival with the Gentiles: speaking of the seventy bulls required by Numbers 29:12-34 to be sacrificed during the seven days of the festival, “Rabbi El‛azar said, ‘To what do these seventy bulls correspond? To the seventy nations’ ” (Sukkah 55b). In rabbinic tradition, the traditional number of Gentile nations is seventy; the seventy bulls are to make atonement for them. [ix] This is based on the seventy grandsons of Noah.

‎The seventh, last day of Sukkot was its climax. Throughout the seven days of the festival a special priest had carried water in a gold pitcher from the Pool of Shiloach (Siloam) to be poured into a basin at the foot of the altar by the High Priest. It symbolized prayer for rain, which begins the next day, on Sh’mini Atzeret; and it also pointed toward the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the people of Israel. The rabbis associated the custom with Isaiah 12:3, “With joy shall you draw water from the wells of salvation.” (In a suggestive reflection of how the holiday used to be celebrated, today’s Moroccan Jews pour water on each other at Sukkot.) On the seventh day the water pouring was accompanied by Priests blowing gold trumpets, the Levites singing sacred songs, and ordinary people waving their lulavs and chanting the Hallel (Psalms 113–118), which includes in its closing verses:

‎“Adonai, please save us! [Hebrew Hoshia’na or Hoshana]

‎Adonai, please prosper us!

‎Blessed is he who comes in the name of Adonai!

‎We have blessed you out of the house of Adonai.

‎God is Adonai, and he has given us light.”

‎(Psalm 118:25-27)

‎The words, “Please save us!” led to the day’s being called Hoshana Rabbah, the Great Hosanna. This prayer had Messianic overtones, as is seen from its use when Jesus made his triumphal entry into Yerushalayim a few days before his execution (Matthew 21:9, Mark 11:9–10). It was also a prayer for salvation from sin, for Hoshana Rabbah was understood to be the absolutely final chance to have one’s sins for the year forgiven. On Rosh-Hashanah one asks to “be inscribed in the Book of Life”, and on Yom-Kippur one hopes to have that inscription “sealed”; yet in Jewish tradition there remained opportunity for forgiveness up to Hoshana Rabbah.

‎In addition, ‎“A connection between the possession of the Holy Spirit and ecstasy, or religious joy, is found in the ceremony of water drawing, Simchat Beit-HaShoevah [“feast of water-drawing”], on the festival of Sukkot. The Mishnah said that he who had never seen this ceremony, which was accompanied by dancing, singing and music (Sukkot 5:4), had never seen true joy (Sukkot 5:1). Yet this was also considered a ceremony in which the participants, as it were, drew inspiration from the Holy Spirit itself, which can only be possessed by those whose hearts are full of religious joy (Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkot 5:1, 55a).” (Encyclopedia Judaica 14:365)

‎From this passage we also learn that Jesus and his disciples, like other Jews, observed at least portions of the Oral Torah and did not utterly reject it as “traditions of men”—since the water-drawing ceremony is specified not in the Tanakh but in the Mishna.

‎‎It was in the midst of this water pouring, trumpet blasting, palm waving, psalm chanting and ecstatic joy on the part of people seeking forgiveness—and in the presence of all 24 divisions of the priesthood—that Jesus cried out in the Temple courts, “If anyone is thirsty, let him keep coming to me and drinking! Whoever trusts in me, as the Tanakh says, rivers of living water will flow from his inmost being!” Compare Isaiah 44:3, 55:1, 58:11; also the woman at the well, above, 4:6–15; and the ultimate fulfillment at Revelation 22:17. In effect Jesus was declaring, “I am the answer to your prayers.” His dramatic cry, supported by the full panoply of Temple ritual, was not misunderstood, as vv. 40–43 make abundantly clear. His subsequent proclamation, “I am the light of the world,” also based on the passage of Psalm 118 quoted above, provoked an even more agitated reaction. [x]

‎In John 8:12, Jesus says, “I am the light of the world: whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light which gives life.”  It brings to mind a passage from Isaiah 9:1 “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light,” from Malachi 4:2, “But to you who fear my name the sun of righteousness will arise with healing in his wings”; both are alluded to at Luke 1: 78-79. There are many texts that refer metaphorically to light and Christian’s have understood them as referring to Jesus as the light or in connection with light.

‎‎His remark was specifically suited to the feast of Sukkot; for, according to the Mishna, at the Temple

‎“there were four golden menorahs with four golden bowls at the top of each, and four ladders each leading to a bowl. Four strong young cohanim would climb up with pitchers each holding 9 liters of oil which they would pour into the bowls. From the worn-out drawers and girdles of the cohanim they made wicks, and with them they lit the menorahs; and there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not lit up by the light of the Beit-HaSho’evah [festivities]. Pious men and men of good deeds would dance around [the menorahs] with lit torches in their hands, singing songs and praises, while the Levites played harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets and innumerable other musical instruments ….” (Sukkah 5:2–4)

‎Stern says the Gemara on this passage says the menorahs were 75 feet high (Sukkah 52b). Thus, the water-drawing festival was accompanied by bright lights and dancing—for Sukkot is specifically a festival of rejoicing. As before, when the water from Shiloach was being poured and Jesus used the occasion to invite people to come to him and drink, now he uses the fact that the feast is accompanied by a blaze of light to announce, “I am the light of the world,” adding a promise with implications for both this life and eternity. [xi]

‎Neusner places Sukkot into context:  Passover places Israel’s freedom into the context of the affirmation of life beyond sin while Sukkot returns Israel to the fragility of abiding in the wilderness. Sukkot, as sages portray the Festival, is to be seen only in the context of the penitential season that begins with the month of Elul, reaches its climactic moment with the judgment of the New Year and atonement of the Day of Atonement, and then works its way to an elegant conclusion in Sukkot. In the rhythm of the Torah’s time, Sukkot forms a meditation, performed by deeds, upon the uncertain life that is still open to judgment even beyond the penitential season. Israel recapitulates the life of the wilderness wanderings, beyond death yet before eternal life, by taking up residence in the fragile present and not yet in the perfected life that will take place in the Land when Israel regains Eden.[xii]

---

[i] Leviticus 23:34; Deuteronomy 16:13, 16:16; 31:10; Zechariah 14:16; 14:18;

[ii] Exodus 23:16; 34:22;

[iii] 1 Kings 8:2; Ezekiel 45:23; 2 Chronicles 7:8

[iv] Leviticus 23:39; Judges 21:19.

[v] Neusner, J. (2008). The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

[vi] Sherman, R. N. (1998). The Chumash, Stone Edition'. New York: Mesorah Publications Ltd. Page 895.

[vii] The Feast of Sukkot. The Jewish Encyclopedia. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14103-sukkot-feast-of. Retrieved 21 October 2012.

[viii]Sherman, R. N. (1998). The Chumash, Stone Edition'. New York: Mesorah Publications Ltd. Page 688-689.

[ix] Stern, D. H. (1996). Jewish New Testament Commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed.) (Jn 7:2). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.

[x] Stern, D. H. (1996). Jewish New Testament Commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed.) (Jn 7:37). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.

[xi] Stern, D. H. (1996). Jewish New Testament Commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed.) (Jn 8:12). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.

[xii] Neusner, J. (2008). The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Join the dots...

Here are some dots, join them up and what do they indicate?

1. My preschooler's managing teacher is shopping for a church. She visited six different churches on consecutive Sabbaths before hearing a sermon that quotes a passage from the bible.
2. When I suggested that our church should establish a night school so that our lay people should have economic access to a bible education, the response from our minister responsible for teaching was: "What would we teach?" The youth pastor said that in 10 years of ministry he had never seen young people want to do bible study. 
3. I gave a presentation to a group of young business people, mentioning the importance of bible study and an environment that encouraged discussion and debate.Afterward, many of them came to see me asking how they could find such an environment.
4. Both my son and another girl from his school both refuse to attend Sunday School because they said they weren't learning anything. After attending a couple of classes I find that they are watching "The Incredibles" a secular cartoon movie in one session and hearing the stony of some obscure 19th century missionary. They never opened their bibles throughout.
5. My mother-in-law took excerpts from a bible study that went through the bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse to her church woman's group. They were amazed and wanted more, wondering why they have never come across anything like this in their church.

"Who is a Jew?" Revisited

My home group has been studying the Book of Galatians for over a year and a half now. Its a book that can be easily misunderstood. Most misunderstand the question that Paul is trying to answer. He isn't trying to answer a dilemma between Law and Grace. Paul is trying to answer the question: Who is a Jew?

I've finally found a succinct summary of the position I have been developing on Christian Identity. It turns out that Spurlock from Bereans Online has already beaten me to it and saved me a lot of time:

• Eph 2:1-10 Gentiles become a part of Israel by grace and faith.
• Eph 2:11-12 Are no longer Gentiles. Not "commonwealth" but citizenship enjoying the full rights and benefits of any other member of Israel.
• Eph 2:13 Ex-Gentiles have been brought near
• Eph 2:14-16 The dividing well having been removed by Christ. Spurlock refers to the "18 measures." What are they?
• Eph 2:17-21 Peace not just between God and Mankind but also peace within the house of God.
• Eph 3:1-6 Thus the ex-Gentiles are part of the same body, fellow heirs with the incumbent members and partakers of the same promises.

One king, One people, One Torah: Echad. The fulfilment of John 17:16-22.

If this is true, then even more questions arise, here's one or two:

1. If all believers are to obey the Torah, then what are we to do with 1 Corinthians 7:17-24?
2. Should all Christians be making Aliyah?
3. Where should Christians then stand on the Middle Eastern peace process?

For further reading:  who_is_a_jew.pdf (bethimmanuel.org)

Stephen Sizer in Christchurch

Stephen Sizer

I attended a "dialogue" between Richard Neville and Stephen Sizer at Laidlaw College in Christchurch New Zealand last night.

They were brought together to debate what the future of Israel might be in the "Last Days" from a biblical perspective.

Stephen Sizer is the Vicar of Christ Church Anglican Church in England.  He is well-known as a proponent of peace in the Middle East and his stiff criticism of Israeli treatment of Arabs has positioned him in many eyes as an enemy of the Israeli people.

Richard Neville is a linguist and an expert on biblical Hebrew and Greek.  He is a senior lecturer at Laidlaw.  Although not an expert in Biblical Eschatology, he was asked to bring an opposing view in this dialog.  The dialog had been held a few days before in Auckland.

Sizer alleged that Christian Zionists such as John Hagee and Tim La Haye were expecting an Armageddon and their warmongering was likely to bring it about. He argued that Christian Zionism treated the Jews as God's special, chosen people.  Financial and miltary support for Israel was fueled by this misguided idea.  This support allowed Israel to build an apartheid state, maintain its Wall which was "officially" built for security reasons and to continue its occupation of Palestine.  In Sizer's view, God intended only to build one People of God and that entry into this People was by faith and not by physical birth.  The Church is Israel.  Consequently the Jews were no longer relevant as a special people and should be treated the same as any other (heathen) nation or people group.  Although the land had been given to Abraham, possession of it was dependent on their faithfulness to God.  Their lack of faithfulness meant that they had forfeited their right to it.  The geo-political land of Israel on this earth had served its purpose and was no longer relevant.  For Christians, their home was heaven above, not an earthly one.  Since the Jews are just another heathen people group then Christians should treat the Jews and the Palestinians even-handedly, expecting them to adhere to standards of justice and respect human rights just as much as any other race or nation.

Neville reviewed Ezekiel's oracles relating to a glorious and triumphant restoration of Israel.  This had fuelled Israel's expectation of a Messiah who would restore Israel to autonomy as a Nation belonging to God.  It was difficult to maintain from the passage that this restoration was merely allegorical or spiritual in nature.  A physical restoration was what was in Ezekiel's view.  These prophecies have not been physically fulfilled.  What Ezekiel had in mind has yet to come into being.  Some authors have claimed that such a view was held by only a small extremist minority of scholars and theologians.  Neville produced a lengthy list of respected evangelical and Catholic scholars who endorsed the idea that a physical restoration of Israel had been prophecied.  He quoted N T Wright who admitted that his opinion that only a spiritual restoration of Israel was described, is a minority one. 

Sizer felt that Ezekiel's prophecy had already been fulfilled in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah but Neville pointed out that this restoration was hardly the glorious and triumphant restoration described by Ezekiel.  In fact, those who were old enough to recall the original Temple wept when they saw the comparatively humble second temple.  Sizer admitted that as far as whether or not the modern state of Israel was a fulfilment of biblical prophecy, he was "agnostic", which I guess is a high-brow way of saying "I don't know."  In his view, a genuine fulfilment would result in an Israel with a much higher set of ethics and more compassionate behaviour in respect of its neighbours.  Sizer then pointed out that Ezekiel also foretold that sacrifices would be carried out at the restored temple. Do we really want to restore temple sacrifices? Hebrews clearly says that they had ended with Jesus' sacrifice.

Neville thought that if Sizer's issue was his objection to Israel's alleged unjust behaviour toward Palestinians, then he should focus on the question of how one people should treat another rather than debating Christian identity.  I agree.

I also agree with Sizer's view that Christians are citizens of Israel.  However, Sizer then concludes that the Jews are irrelevant.  Yet in the book of Romans, Paul clearly says that this is not so (Romans 11:1).  Paul says though their part of the branch has been broken from the Olive Tree, their calling and gifting is irrevocable (Romans 11:29).  The branch can be grafted back in (Romans 11:23-24). 

Sizer's claim that Israel has built an apartheid state undermines his credibility.  Arabs willingly serve in the Israeli armed forces, Arabs take part in all strata of Israeli society, even serving in parliament and the judiciary.  When an Arab family was evicted from their home in East Jerusalem because a returning Jewish refugee could show bona fide ownership papers for the house, she made a commitment on camera that she would attend an Israeli university, train as a lawyer to seek redress.  She could never hope to do this in a real apartheid state. 

He doubts that the Security Wall was indeed built to maintain security.  Again he need merely look at the numbers of people dying because of suicide bombings before and after the wall had been completed to see how effective the Wall was in preserving life.  Yes, the Wall creates hardship.  But better to be alive and facing difficulty than mourning another death.

He concedes that there is a small minority comprised of extremists that wish to end the occupation by terrorism.  Unfortunately that position doesn't stand scrutiny with the majority of Arabs living on the West Bank and Gaza approving the use of deadly force to destroy Israel.  In 2010, a terrorist machine-gunned 19 teenagers in a Jewish school, 8 were killed.  The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 84% of Gaza and West Bank inhabitants approved of the attack.  In the same poll 64% approved of Hamas' random rocket attacks and 75% agreed that their leaders should cease negotiating with the Israelis. 

Although billed as a biblical and theology dialogue I was disappointed that Sizer was able to use it as an opportunity to make his political allegations against Israel without anyone having the opportunity to rebut them.  To his credit, Neville restricted his material to the biblical and theological issue.  I suppose the Q&A session was an opportunity for someone in the audience to rebut Sizer's political points but the process chosen by Stephen Graham prevented this from occurring.  The audience were invited to submit questions during an intermission and then they were to be summarised and representative questions were going to be addressed by Sizer and Neville.  No questions relating to Sizer's allegations against Israel were addressed.

Sizer has in some way become embittered by what he has observed of Israeli conduct.  It has jaundiced his view of Israel and he seems no longer able to objectively evaluate Middle Eastern events.

Laidlaw should be applauded for bringing Sizer to New Zealand but they could do better by allowing a more open Q&A discussion period that allowed questions to be taken directly from the floor.  If they had, justice would have been a bit more apparent.

Logos won't be coming to Windows Phone 7 any time soon

I've recently heard that Logos won't be making a mobile app for the Windows Phone 7 platform any time soon because they don't have the resources to port their code.  Unfortunately most of their code is in C++ but Windows Phone 7 requires C#.  Ughh, the disappointment.

The Trinity: A historical perspective

While reading Shelley's  Church History in plain language and came across this piece on the Trinity.

But if God is eternally one; and God is eternally three persons, how are we to understand this? Since God is personal, any example we use to think or speak of God ought to be personal.

When we search for personal analogies, we find that there are only two options. We may think of God as three persons or we may think of God as one person.

If we think of God as three persons, then God’s threeness is clear, and we have to account for God’s unity. Theologians usually point out that three persons can become so close they may be said to share a common life. They may be bound together so closely that it is actually a distortion to speak of them separately.

Because this analogy rests on a society of three persons, theologians call it the social analogy. Its strength lies in its clarity regarding the threeness of God. Its problem is to account clearly for God’s unity.

If we think of God as one person, we have to try to account for his threeness. One way of doing this is to say that a person may have several distinct functions such as mind, emotions, and will.

Because this analogy draws on psychological functions, theologians call it the psychological analogy. Its strength is its clarity about God’s unity: He is one person. Its problem is its vagueness about God’s threeness.

Both of these analogies were used in the early church, just as modern theologians like Leonard Hodgson and Karl Barth use them.

As the decades passed between 325 and 381, when the second general council of the church met, leaders in the Arian debate slowly clarified their use of “person.” Three so-called Cappadocian Fathers—Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great—led in this achievement. The Cappadocians used the social analogy, but they saw that the distinctions between the three divine “persons” were solely in their inner divine relations. There are not three gods. God is one divine Being with three carriers: one Godhead in three “persons.”

The word “person,” however, did not mean to the early Christians what it means today. To us, a person means someone like Tom, Dick, or Harry. But the Latin word persona originally meant a mask worn by an actor on the stage. In Trinitarian thought the “mask” is not worn by God to hide but to reveal his true character. It is clear that when we think of the Trinity, we should not try to think of three persons in our sense of the term, but three personal disclosures of God that correspond to what he is really like.

Source: Shelley, BL. (1995). Church history in plain language. (Updated 2nd ed.)) lo5-106).Dallas, Texas: Word Pub.

 Now doesn't that throw some insight on what the Nicene Creed means?  It's also a way better analogy than any we used in Sunday School. It's also a possible defence against Jewish and Muslim accusations of Polytheism..

Charity and giving extends the Kingdom of God

Julian the Apostate, the Emperor of Rome

Free markets, individual enterprise, personal responsibility are all good things. Capitalism is a great system that has served mankind well. We owe a considerable amount of our progress to its ability to allocate resources efficiently. In God's economy, there is a fail-safe against Capitalism's principal systemic weakness: wealth tends to concentrate amongst an elite minority. That failsafe is giving. When we give and lend to others in need, with no judgement  attached (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35) then we bless our neighbours and its power reveals an aspect of the kingdom of God and indeed an aspect of his heart that Capitalism cannot. Mercy has a magnetic quality that draws people to God.

Psalm 116:5–7 (NKJV)
Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; Yes, our God is merciful.
The LORD preserves the simple; I was brought low, and He saved me.
Return to your rest, O my soul, For the LORD has dealt bountifully with you.

When it applied to those yet to profess their allegiance to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,  it was a major influence on Roman society as it encountered the Early church at a time when it was indistinguishable from Judaism:

The impact of this ministry of mercy upon pagans is revealed in the observation of one of Christianity’s worst enemies, the apostate Emperor Julian (332–63). In his day Julian was finding it more difficult than he had expected to put new life into the traditional Roman religion. He wanted to set aside Christianity and bring back the ancient faith, but he saw clearly the drawing power of Christian love in practice: “Atheism (i.e. Christian faith) has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them.”

Shelley, B. L. (1995). Church history in plain language (Updated 2nd ed.) (35–36). Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub.

Logos 4 on a XP Tablet PC

I've started using Logos 4  Bible Study software on a Tablet PC. Its an impressive way to interact with the program. The stylus works essentially in two modes.

Outside of the Tablet Input Panel, the stylus works as a mouse. Tapping on something is the same as a left mouse click. Dragging the stylus across text highlight it. Holding the stylus down for a moment  until a graphic is activated is the equivalent of a night mouse click. , lifting the mouse.

The Tablet Input Panel

Inside the Tablet Input Panel, the stylus becomes a writing instrument. Somehow the Tablet is able to sense that the stylus is near the surface of the screen. The nib retracts a little when pressed. When the two events coincide the Tablet registers a contact.The nib effect together with just the right amount of friction between the stylus and the screen gives a feeling of writing on high quality paper resting on a leather top desk. Nice.

The HWR accuracy is impressively good. I was able to achieve around 99.5% accuracy and around 20 words per minute with no pauses to make corrections.

If you have a touch tablet Logos 4 allows all the screen elements to be expanded. Just tap Tools ->Program Settings-> Accessibility -> Program Scaling. I've got it set to 140%. If the fonts are too large then you can adjust that separately without changing anything else.

This afternoon I did our home bible study on Galatians 4.3-4. I found using the Command input line easier to open specific resources."Open Dunn" and Dunn's commentary on Galatians started right up. OK, so what does Stern have to say? "Open NTJC" Hmmm.... His thinking heavily depends on his interpretation of "upo nomou".  Lets start doing a word study on this... How have others looked at this phrase? Hmmm....

The whole experience seems so much more natural.

Baptism and the Priesthood

Last week I had coffee with an Egyptian Copt and the conversation turned toward the differences between Coptic Christianity and Protestant Christianity.  One of the differences he pointed out was that Protestants had lost the concept of the Priesthood.

This week whilst studying Galatians we got to talking about Baptism and how various kinds of baptism could be found in the bible, that various historical cultures prior to the First Century had also practiced ceremonial washings.

The conversation eventually turned to the meaning behind Jesus' baptism at the hands of John (Matt 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11); Luke 3:21-23).  At first John objected to carrying it out but Jesus convinced him, arguing that it would "fulfill all righteousness." (NKJV). What did he mean?

One school of thought is that Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah's Servant prophecies by identifying himself with the plight of Israel and its sin through the ritual.

Hebraically, righteousness conveyed the idea of someone who was in good standing with God.  This meant that they must have been compliant with God's teachings or Torah.

My conversation with the Copt made me think of another reason why Jesus needed to be baptised.  Perhaps baptism was a requisite part of the process for entering the office of a Priest.  In the book of Hebrews, the concept of Jesus as a High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek is set out (Hebrews 4:14-5:11).  I also note that the Levitical and Aaronic priests were required to be baptised as part of their ordination process (Exodus 40:12).  What if it was customary for all priests to be ritually washed as part of their ordination?  Could this be the "righteousness" that Jesus was referring?

If this was true, then one would expect Jesus' baptism would occurred very early in his ministry, before he had carried out anything publicly significant.  A review of Matthew, Mark and John confirm this to be true.

For Christians, most consider baptism to be a symbolic identification with Jesus' death and resurrection.  Christians therefore die to the old self and its sinful past to arise in newness of life, free to walk in the ways of God, led and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

What if there was a deeper meaning to baptism.  Peter says that the People of God are "a Royal Priesthood." (1 Peter 2:9)  What if baptism was a necessary part of the ordination of Christians as Royal Priests in the order of Melchizedek?  If so, then perhaps Christians do not enter into the fullness of their spiritual authority and responsibility until they are baptised.

The idea that all the people of God were meant to be Priests was not conceived by Peter.  According to Moses, this was intended by God as far back as Sinai (Exodus 19:6).  Prior to ascending Sinai to meet God, they were required to undergo a baptism.  Unfortunately overcome by their fear of God, Israel declined the role (Exodus 20:18-21) and asked Moses to be their intermediary instead.  An opportunity lost.

In many ways, the concept of congregational members as Priests and Priestesses in Protestant Christianity has largely been forgotten.  Today, there is a clear distinction between Clergy and Laity.  In many senses we have regressed back to the Mosaic Priesthood in our practice of Church life.

Unfortunately it also means that we, the Laity, have abrogated our duties and responsibilities as Priests,  as Priests to our families, our friends, our communities, to our societies and to our nations.  In fact, there is a case for all to be trained and qualified to carry out services, act as marriage celebrants and hold funerals.

Based on the bible, Priests had several roles to fulfill:

1. Administer the sacrifices and other ceremonies required by God.
2. Administer justice in civil and criminal cases base on the Biblical Code.
3. Administer quarantine laws in relation to infectious diseases.
4. Teach the scriptures and train people on how to carry out their duties and responsibilities under the Torah.
5. Intercede for sinners in prayer.

Evidently, the Priestly role was an integral part of how God's community was intended to function.  If the Priestly role were to regain its former meaning and prominence then Christian life might be quite different.

Since all have a Priestly role then all have the responsibility to intercede for their families, their church communities, their societies, their nations and the world.  You don't have to have a "gift of intercession" before you may intercede in prayer for others.  As Priests all are responsible for teaching others the scriptures and showing them how to walk in God's way.  You don't have to have a gift of teaching to be able to teach from the scriptures.  Each should teach to their level of competency.  As Priests we should be observing and teaching others to observe God's commandments with respect to what is spiritually clean and unclean.  As priests we should be pressing for and advocating for justice.  None of these duties and responsibilities are meant to be carried out to the exclusion of the others.  Collectively they define the role of the Priesthood.

I've just started reading Heschel's "God in Search of Man" and came across a really great discussion about rationalism and religion.  The emphasis is mine and reflect the thoughts that caused me to ponder:

It is impossible to define philosophy of religion as an attempt to support a rational basis for religion, because such a definition implicitly identifies philosophy with rationalism.  If rationalism were the sign of a philosopher, Plato, Schelling, William James, and Bergson would have to be disqualified as philosophers. Rationalism, according to Dewey, "precludes religious faith in any distinctive sense.  It allows only for a belief that is unimpeachable rational inference from what we absolutely know."

Extreme rationalism may be defined as the failure of reason to understand itself, its alogical essence, and its meta-logical objects.  We must distinguish between ignorance and the sense of mystery, between the subrational and the super-rational.  The way to truth is an act of reason; the love of truth is an act of the spirit.  Every act of reasoning has a transcendent reference to spirit.  We think thorugh reason becasue we strive for spirit.  We think through reason because we are certain of meaning.  Reason withers without spirit, without the truth about all of life.

Reason has often been identified with scientism, but science is unable to give us all the truth about all of life.  We are in need of spirit in order to know what to do with science.  Science deals with relations among things within the universe, but man is endowed with the concern of the spirit, and spirit deals with the relation between the universe and God.  Science seeks the truth about the universe; the spirit seeks the truth that is greater than the universe.  Reason's goal is the exploration of objective relations; religion's goal is the exploration and verification of ultimate personal relations.  

A challenge is not the same as a clash, and divergence does not mean a conflict.  It is part of the human condition to live in polarities.  It is an implication of our belief in one God to be certain that ultimately reason and revelation are both derived from the same source. Yet what is one in creation is not always one in our historic situation.  It is an act of redemption when it is granted to us to discover the higher unity of reason and revelation.

The widely preached equation of Judaism and rationalism is an intellectual evasion of the profound difficulties and paradoxes of Jewish faith, belief and observance.  Man's understanding of what is reasonable is subject to change.  To the Roman philosophers, it did not seem reasonable to abstain from labor, one day a week.  Nor did it seem unreasonable to certain plantation owners to import slaves from Africa into the New World.  With what stage in the development of reason should the Bible be compatible?

For all the appreciation of reason and our thankfulness for it, man's intelligence was never regarded in Jewish tradition as being self-sufficient.  "Trust in the Lord with all thy heart and do not rely on thine own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5).  "And thou has felt secure in thy wickedness, thou has said: no one seeth me; thy wisdom and thy knowledge led thee astray, and thou has said in thy heart:  I am, and there is no one else beside me"  (Isaiah 47:10).

Some of the basic presuppositions of Judaism cannot be completely justified in terms of human reason.  Its conception of the nature of man as having been created in the likeness of God, its conception of God and history, of the election of Israel, of prayer and even of morality, defy some of the realizations at which we have honestly arrived at the end of our analysis and scrutiny.  The demands of piety are a mystery before which man is reduced to reverence and silence.  Reverence, love, prayer, faith, go beyond the acts of shallow reasoning.

We must therefore not judge religion exclusively from the viewpoint of reason.  Religion is not within but beyond the limits of mere reason.  Its task is not to compete with reason but to aid us where reason gives only partial aid.  Its meaning must be understood in terms compatible with the sense of the ineffable.

The sense of the ineffable is an intellectual endeavor out of the depth of reason; it is a source of cognitive insight.  There is, therefore, no rivalry between religion and reason as long as we are aware of their respective tasks and areas.  The employment of reason is indispensable to the understanding and worship of God, and religion withers without it.  The insights of faith are general, vague and to the mind, integrated and brought to consistency.  Without reason faith becomes blind.  Without reason we would not know how to apply the insights of faith to the concrete issues of living.  The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence.  The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.

Herschel, A J (1955).  God in Search of Man.  Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  Pages 18-20.