New wine and old wineskins

Who hasn't heard of the parable of the cloth and wineskins in Luke 5:36-39?  Usually this parable is distilled like so:  The old wine is the old religious order or Old Covenant and the new wine is the new religious order ushered in by Christ or the New Covenant.

However, most writers ignore the context of the parable set by the question, which elicited the parable in the first place.  In Luke 5:33 Jesus is asked, John the Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees have instituted a new set of fasts over and above the one's required by the Torah, why don't your disciples do the same?

Jesus puts forward two arguments:

1. While the Messiah (Bridegroom) is here, this is a time of celebration, there will be time enough to fast in the days to come when the Messiah is taken away.
2. These new fasts are like new wine.  The old wineskin is the established religious order.  These new fasts will damage the religious framework in place, so it shouldn't be done.  If new fasts are to be instituted then they need a new framework.  Having said that, one wouldn't carry out the new fasts when the established fasts are better.

This is quite a different story then the one traditionally taught.  Usually this parable is used to support the idea of leaving behind the old wineskin, Judaism and the Old Covenant, to embrace the new wineskin, Christianity and the New Covenant.  

Jesus isn't advocating a new religious order, in fact He appears to be endorsing the current one in place.  Thanks to Brad Young for pointing me in the right direction [1].

[1] Young B (1995).  Jesus the Jewish Theologian.  Hendrickson Publishers, MA, USA.  pp 155-160.

Biblical Governance

The Council of Nicea [Fresco in Sistine Salon, Vatican]

A few months ago, I was asked to draft a constitution for a new church for a group of people who had left a Baptist church. The constitution had the following provisions as checks and balances:

1. The Elders were to be elected by the Congregation.


2. One third of the Elders were to retire each year but they could put their names forward for re-election. This gave opportunity for fresh blood to be introduced but also gave Elders a reason to pause and reflect if they still had God's mandate for them to continue.


3. The Elders were responsible for annually reviewing the performance of the Minister.


4. The Minister was responsible for submitting an annual plan and budget for approval before the Elders.


5. Major Transactions: Any financial commitment valued at greater than half of the church's total assets or $100,000 (which ever was the lesser) would require an ordinary resolution at a Members' meeting.


6. The Elders were required to report back to the Congregation and to hold a forum to discuss the church's business every six months. Once at the Annual General Meeting and six months later at a Business Meeting.

Since they had recently worshipped at a Baptist church I assumed that voting would be an accepted practice amongst them. After reading the first draft, I was surprised that the new minister was strongly opposed to voting for Elders. I pointed out that the Greek word for "appoint" used in Acts, in the context of selecting Elders, was "Cheirotoneo" (G5500) could be translated as "a show of hands". Interestingly, I notice that in the ESV, Cheirotoneo is the only word translated as "appointed" in connection to Elders. He looked it up and said he felt it could be construed as a "laying on of hands."  Plato had used the word in the context of selecting Senators for the Athenian Parliament, and it would be difficult to imagine that they would tolerate anything but a vote. He replied that "God has gathered these people around me, and I will not allow anything that will put my ministry at risk. I'm not happy." 

Being a new church, I said the new members might be unfamiliar with each other, so interim Elders could be selected and then elections could be held, say, six months later. I spoke with another church member, who would later become one of the Elders about the matter and his reply was "we have been together for some weeks now, before you came along. If you do not like the way it is, then you don't have to come."

At the next church meeting, he proceeded to announce his selection of Elders based on "what God had told him."

Afterwards I approached one of the elders and advised him now that an eldership had been selected, it was appropriate for me to end my involvement in the development of the constitution.

Later I had the opportunity to review the final constitution and I see that they retained about half the text of the original document. However when it came to the checks and balances they replaced the before mentioned provisions with:

1. The Elders will be appointed by the Minister.


2. Their position as Elders will be for life and their tenure may only cease if they bring the church into disrepute, resign or die.


3. The Minister's relationship with the church is not one of employment but does not go on to define it further.


4. The requirement for an annual plan or budget was removed.


5. The requirement for member approval for major transactions was removed.


6. Business meetings could be requested by the congregation but must have the Elders' unanimous approval.


7. Special General Meetings could also be requested but must also have the Elders' unanimous approval.

Its interesting to note that Berakhot 55a, based on Exodus 35.30, also teaches that the consent of the governed is required in selecting communal leadership.


There is, however, another aspect which modernity assigns to legitimate leadership, particularly in Western democracies -- that is, leaders can only govern with the consent of the governed. This very principle is found in the Talmud:

"Rabbi Issac said: 'We do not appoint a communal leader unless the community is consulted,' as it is said, 'See the Lord has called by name, Betzalel.' (Exo 35.30) The Holy One said to Moses: 'Moses is Betzalel acceptable to you?' Moses said: 'Master of the Universe, if he is acceptable to You, he is certainly acceptable to me.' God said to Moses: 'Even so, go and ask them (i.e. Bnei Yisrael,... to get their consent)' Moses went and asked them: 'Is Betzalel acceptable to you?' They said to him, 'If he is acceptable to the Holy One and to you, he is acceptable to us.' (Berakhot 55a).

Obviously, the people's consent, if it is to be meaningful, must be both voluntary and knowing. Both Moses and Betzalel had to make full disclosure of their activities to obtain and maintain the people's consent -- even the approval of God is not sufficient. [Source: Goldrich, K S (2004). Parashat
Vayakhel-Pekudei Ha Hodesh.]




In the Mishnah, Peah 8.7, more than one person must handle public funds and distribution must be handled by a minimum of three. Yuma 38a suggests that transparency is a key factor in handling public funds and teaches that any appearance of impropriety should be avoided.

It is naive in the extreme to establish Christian churches and organisations without adequate provisions against the Evil Inclination.

Why is church governance relevant at all to the congregation, one may ask? Isn't it enough for the congregation to feel that they are being well shepherded and taught?

Divine Invitation v One Law

FFOZ has published a paper on their latest position on Torah Observance and Gentiles [1]. They have stepped back from their "One Law" stance and adopted a new theory which they have named "Divine Invitation". In their view Divine Invitation is more scripturally defensible than the One Law Doctrine.

Their arguments against the One-Law are built around Paul's opposition to circumcision, Jewish identity theft and disunity.

The question of the status of Gentile believers in the kingdom of God is a common thread to all the arguments. Addressing this question may present a way around the difficulty.

Paul seemed reluctant for Gentile Believers to undergo physical circumcision (see Galatians 5.3) , but did that mean they were not to be circumcised at all? In Colossians 2.11-12 Paul declares that Gentile believers have indeed been circumcised and baptised thus fulfilling the two requisite Rituals required for becoming a proselyte.

If all Gentile Believers are Proselytes then Numbers 15.15-16 applies and One Law is thereby established.

If then a Gentile Believer becomes Torah Observant, wouldn't they outwardly begin to bear some resemblance to Jewish culture which traditionally has had the same goal?

FFOZ have been repelled by One Law because of the disunity it creates between believers. There is no doubt that the Torah itself has a sanctifying effect. It is a sword that divides. Rather than discarding One Law perhaps the problem is an inappropriate application of Galatians 6.1.

[1] Michael, B and Lancaster D T (2009). Messiah Journal. Issue 101. pp 46-70

Were Gentile believers meant to observe the Torah?

Bereans Online has a really good discussion about the relationship between ethnically Jewish believers and Gentile believers within the kingdom of God. The discussion is within the context of an examination of a new theory called "Divine Invitation Theology."

This new teaching reasons that because the Apostles would have seen the issue through the lens of the LXX, they would have not considered the believing Gentile in the same category as the ger as mentioned in the Torah. Hence, this new teaching claims that none of the Torah passages that refer to gerim apply to today’s believing Gentiles.

Key texts used by this new teaching:

As for the assembly of, there shall be one statute for Jews and for the proselyte, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as a Jew is, so shall the proselyte be before HaShem. There is to be one Torah and one ordinance for Jews and for the proselyte who sojourns with you. Numbers 15:15-16 (paraphrased)

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1 NKJV

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:5

Bereans Online responds:

This new teaching introduces several anachronisms into the discussion. It also pretends to know the way that the Apostles “read” the Scriptures – denying the power of the Holy Spirit to clearly communicate through His eternal word in their native language: Hebrew. If the Apostles were biased to accept what this new teaching contends was the First Century practice of proselytism by the LXX, then that very position undermines their subsequent rulings as extra-biblical, and having no authority for the believer then or now.

While the Septuagint (LXX) is invaluable to our understanding of ancient Hebrew as well as First Century Greek, using it the way that this new teaching does is anachronistic. It takes the usage of the word “proselutos” as it was used in a time after the First Century and projects it back into the days of the Apostles – and then even further back to the time of the translating of the LXX (270 BCE). This ignores the history and etymology of the Greek word “proselutos.”

During the reign of the King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (of Selucid Egypt), around 270 BCE, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. Traditionally, this translation was made by seventy [LXX] Jewish scholars.

The translators of the Septuagint considered the context of each usage of the word ger [stranger, sojourner] to consider if it was referring to a covenant member or a pagan. When the context dictated that the reference was to a Gentile covenant member, they translated ger into the Greek word proselutos. It is from this word that we get the English word “proselyte.” Much
confusion has arisen because of the character that this word acquired after the translating of the Septuagint. When the Septuagint was written, this Greek word was found nowhere else. The word seems to have come into existence solely for the purposes of the Septuagint translators – and its usage is not divinely inspired. It was the translators’ paraphrase.

The Greek adjective proselutos comes from pros [toward] and erxomai [to come or go]. In other words, “to come over toward.” This usage started as a way to describe those covenant members who were not members of the covenant community of Israel by birth. This usage eventually redefined the word. It started off as a way to identify those Gentiles who “crossed over” to side with the God of Israel and to live with Israel in the covenant community (to “come near” is Temple language).

It was only later that the word came to mean “those who formally converted” to another religion. The important distinction is that the word was not used in the Septuagint because it implied formal conversion, but rather because it described the actual way that such people could be distinguished: namely, that they had drawn near to Israel to participate in the worship of the One True God. It is anachronistic to read the Septuagint usage of the word proselutos and the present meaning of “proselyte” back into the usage at the time of the translating of the Septuagint. To assume that the Apostles did not correctly read and use the Hebrew text is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in helping them rule correctly regarding Gentiles.

Normative Judaism has this same usage of the word “ger.” Many English translations that are used in normative Judaism translate the word “ger” as “proselyte.” For instance, the Stone Chumash translates Leviticus 19:34 in this way:

The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a – Stone Chumash

If the word ger was translated consistently, it would read:

The proselyte who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were a proselyte in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34a

This is obviously a case of writing a theology into the text as opposed to allowing the text to frame our teaching. This is a fundamental principle in Bible study: the text informs us, we do not inform the text. The Bereans of Acts 17 practiced exegesis (meaning from the text), not eisegesis (meaning into the text). Eisegesis is something used by experimental theologies.

There is no Scriptural basis for “ritual conversion” or to become a proselyte. The Scriptures speak against those who would seek to gain some sort of “Jewish identity” by undergoing this man-made ritual. Beloved, it is a man-made tradition that says that a man or woman can become a Jew by undergoing a ceremony – it is not the Torah.

When this new teaching promotes the idea that the Apostles fell into the trap of allowing the practice of ritual conversion to twist their understanding of Scripture, it is a great concern. If, as this new teaching asserts, the Apostles read the passages pertaining to gerim and their covenant obligations and were influenced by a much later understanding of the Greek word “proselutos” then it is proof that their teaching of Acts 15 and 21 is in error, and is only included in the Apostolic Scriptures to give us an account of how they made that error. While we do not consider this to be the case, we are steadfast in our understanding that G-d’s Word is immutable. It does not change meaning as the culture or language around it changes. It means precisely today, what it meant in the ancient past – and it will mean the same for all of eternity.

This idea of ritual conversion through circumcision to become a Jew has created considerable confusion for Christians. To become an ethnic Jew is unnecessary for Salvation, for Salvation is by faith alone. As part of that faith, one should become faithful to God's commandments, and if one is moved by the Spirit to do so, the Gentile believer may undergo circumcision.

Sometimes circumcision is mentioned in the bible as part of the commandments, at other times, the writer intends the ritual conversion to become a Jew. How can the reader tell the difference?

Objections to Torah Observance: Andre Strom letter

Simone Martini, ca.1285-1344.

Last week I was sent this newsletter and after writing a response I thought it would be useful to store it here.  Scroll down to the bottom first to read the newsletter and then come back up to the top to read my response:

Dear Andrew
Introductory remarks

Thanks for your thoughts on Torah Observance. I'm sorry to read of the woman who almost lost sight of Christ as she focused on observing the Law. As with many things it is possible to misapply something good and end up with a corrupted result.

Response

Here are some alternative perspectives to the points you make:

Acts 15

At first sight, Acts 15 does appear to relieve Gentiles of the obligation to obey the Torah commandments. If you read a little further in the passage you quoted, quite a different interpretation can be drawn:

(15:20)...but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

(15:21) For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues."

"Moses" here is a euphemism for the Laws of Moses contained in the first five books or the Bible. What does the passage mean when verse 21 is added to the quotation? The Jerusalem Council met to consider what to do with Gentiles as evidently God was also granting them Salvation. The council came up with a list of reduced requirements which are also Torah laws in themselves. How could James, a scrupulously Torah observant Jew recommend to anyone, to only observe a subset of the Torah Commandments? He could do so because he knew that they would be taught the rest of the law in the synagogues (v 21). How do we know that James was observant? James was so well known for being Torah Observant that he was called "James the Righteous." It was so well known that the High Priest was deposed after he had Jamie murdered out of jealousy. Christians have misinterpreted Acts 15 as the Apostles letting them off the hook from having to observe anything but a subset of the Torah listed above. This is not a robust conclusion. Most Christians would agree that they should obey the Ten Commandments. Yet not all of them are listed in Acts 15. Does that mean Christians should just ignore the Commandment not to murder as it is not listed in Acts 15? Even Acts 15 requires that Christians should observe some of the food laws.

  Colossians 2.14

Traditionally Christians have read this to mean that the Torah was nailed to the Cross. It was customary during Roman crucifixions for a list of the crimes for which the criminal was being condemned for, was nailed above his head (Keener, p 576). This is what happened to Jesus (John 19.19-22).

It isn't the Torah that is nailed to the cross but a list of our sins which demand, a price (Romans 6.23).

  Colossians 2.16-17

Verse 16 can be looked at quite differently. At first sight this verse is interpreted in a pejorative sense against Torah observance because many translators have inserted the word "only" in verse 17. The equivalent Greek word is not in the original passage.

Verse 16 can be read in this way: you Gentiles, as you learn more of the Torah and observe it, don't be deterred by those who judge you for doing so.

Verse 17, freed from its pejorative sense by removing the word "only" can also be interpreted differently. Just as a shadow projects the shape of the casting object, so too do the Torah commandments which are a projection of Jesus, the Word (Torah) made flesh. Observing the commandments allows society to see a projection of Jesus.

  Romans 14

This passage could equally be applied as a criticism of any believer judging another for observing Torah.

  "Works of the Law"

The Dead Sea Scrolls show that this phrase meant a particular sect's view of what needs to be done to earn righteousness, not all the actions required by the entire Torah (Young, p78). This supports the view that some were teaching that ceremonially becoming a Jew through circumcision and baptism was necessary for salvation. The question of whether or not one should be Torah observant once saved is not addressed.

An alternative view

Jesus was unequivocal in setting out his position regarding Torah observance: The Torah was enduring and obedience to its commandments must be taught. Anyone who taught that the commandments ought not to be obeyed would suffer serious consequences (Matthew 5.17-20).

The Mosaic laws are an integral part of Logos, the Word, which became flesh i.e. Jesus. Thus the Mosaic Laws form part of the very essence of Jesus himself. How can He then go against his very nature to advocate the abrogation of Torah? If they are an integral part of Jesus, then how can the Torah bring oppressive bondage?

Many Christians are keen to distance themselves from the commandments of the Pentateuch because they think that it is impossible to fulfill God's commandments. This belief ignores the Scripture's position on this issue. For example, Moses anticipates these thoughts and explicitly exhorts Israel not to accept it (Deuteronomy 30.10-14).

Jesus' sacrifice and work of atonement has no meaning unless God's commandments or laws endure.  There can be no grace with no judgment.

Anyone can go wrong with Torah observance when observance becomes an idol in itself. However there is nothing wrong with obedience to God's commandments arising out of a spirit-led love for God. Jesus says that if we love Him we will carry out His commandments. What commandments are these? If Jesus and God are One, then Jesus' commandments are God's commandments. What are God's commandments? His Torah.

Concluding remarks

The idea of Torah observance is a difficult concept to accept for Christians after nearly 1,800 years of contrary teaching. These teachings are largely based on Gentile translations and interpretations of scriptures originally written by Jewish writers. Yet language is not just a function of dictionary translations of words and an understanding of grammar. It also includes idioms, figures of speech and abbreviated references to widely held understandings that form a significant part of any culture. After so many centuries of separation between Jewish and Gentile societies, most Gentiles are unaware of them. Under these circumstances misunderstandings are inevitable. The answer is to re-engage with Jewish scholars familiar with 1st Century Jewish history to uncover the Bible's cultural and societal context so that we can rightly translate and interpret the Bible.

The concept of "Judaizing" is an interesting one. What makes a Jew, a Jew?  But for the commandments of God, they would just be another Semitic race, indistinguishable from the others that populated the Middle East and Asia. It is God and His commandments that differentiate them and make them "Jewish." To the extent that anyone obeys God's commandments, is the extent that they too will be "Jewish." Since Christians are also "Seed of Abraham" and "grafted in," it can be argued that Christians through the Spirit of Adoption are part of an enlarged Israel. This gives another sense whereby Christians may be considered "Jewish."

Observing Torah to the exclusion of a one-to-one relationship with God through the Holy Spirit is a wrong. Equally, trying to cultivate a one-to-one relationship with God through the Holy Spirit while holding to a theology that abrogates the Torah is just as flawed.

Bibliography

Keener, Craig (1993). The Bible Background Commentary. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois.

Young, B H (1997) Paul, The Jewish Theologian. Hendricksen Publishers, Peabody, MA.

Cheers


-------
Sent from an Apple Newton 2100 PDA



From: "REVIVAL List"
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:11 AM
To:
Subject: [revival] RETURN of THE JUDAIZERS?? - Andrew Strom

>
> RETURN of THE JUDAIZERS??
> -by Andrew Strom.
>
> I have friends who call Jesus "Yeshua". I don't mind it at all. I have
> other friends who keep the Saturday Sabbath. It doesn't bother
> me too much, unless there is a kind-of "aggressive attitude" about
> it. But in recent years I have witnessed a worrying trend - that in
> my opinion is growing worse - and we need to address it.
>
> Today when a Christian tells me that they are "Torah-observant"
> then all kinds of alarms go off. It may be that they are just into
> 'Hebrew roots' - but usually it is a lot more than that. We all know
> that in the early church, the biggest problem they had was with
> the "Judaizers" who went around trying to convince the Gentile
> Christians that they must obey the letter of the Old Testament
> Law. This shipwrecked the faith of many. It was the biggest
> problem they had. The book of Galatians is all about it - and many
> other sections of the New Testament. It was a battle between the
> old Law - with its subtle bondages - and the new walk of the Spirit
> and of grace.
>
> A few months back, we published the testimony of a Christian
> woman who got involved with a Messianic group that slowly under-
> mined her faith in Jesus - and basically converted her gradually
> into a practicing Jew - even though they all thought of themselves
> as "Messianic Christians"! She realized later that in almost every
> way she had slowly had her faith in Jesus and the New Testament
> replaced with the keeping of the Torah. She had been "Judaized"!
> And I fear this is happening to a great many Christians today - in
> all kinds of subtle ways.
>
> This is exactly what the Bible warns against - losing the "simplicity"
> of the faith. And that is why Paul was so strong against the Juda-
> izers. He saw that Christians were being tempted - not to place
> their faith in Christ alone - but rather in Christ PLUS the keeping of
> the Law. It was no longer a simple trust in JESUS to be their
> righteousness. They now started to feel they had to keep the letter
> of the Old Law too - in order to be truly "holy". And so they became
> "Judaized". This is the worst trap possible. And so subtle!
>
> Let us look at a few vital Scriptures. Please open your Bible to
> Acts 15:1-29. This whole passage is about a great meeting of the
> apostles to decide whether - with the new Gentile Christians - it
> was "necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to
> keep the law of Moses" (v 5). So what did the apostles conclude
> about this? As Peter declared during the debate about it, "Why
> do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples
> which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (v 10).
>
> At the end of the great meeting, the apostles put out a letter to
> the Gentile Christians that declared: "For it seemed good to the
> Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than
> these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to
> idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual
> immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."
> (v. 28-29). And as far as the Old Law went, that was it!
>
> In other words, no "Torah observance", no Sabbath, no circumcision,
> no Old Law apart from these few things. This brief list only. That
> was the pronouncement of the apostles. If they wanted to tell the
> Gentiles, "You must keep the Jewish Sabbath," then this was the
> place to do it. But it is definitely not included. And neither are a
> thousand-and-one other things from the Old Testament.
>
> Of course, this should be no surprise to us. In Colossians 2, Paul
> tells us very clearly that Christ has "wiped out the handwriting of
> requirements that was against us" by nailing it to the cross (v. 14).
> He then goes on to say: "So let no one judge you in food or in
> drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which
> are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."
> (v. 16-17).
>
> So all these Old Testament practices are only a "shadow" of the
> New. In fact, as Hebrews makes clear, the entire Old Covenant
> was only a 'type' or shadow of that which was to come. It was not
> the real thing! It does not make us more "holy"! The substance is
> found in Christ - and Him alone. The Old Torah "requirements"
> were nailed to the cross with Jesus. We don't need them any more.
> If anybody ever tells you that the New Testament is simply a
> "continuation" of the Old, run a mile from that person. They simply
> do not know what they are talking about. In fact, what they are
> spouting is dangerous heresy.
>
> Thus, as Paul tells us in Romans, observing the Sabbath is only
> necessary if our conscience is weak in this area - and we feel we
> have to:- "One person esteems one day above another; another
> esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own
> mind. He who observes the day observes it to the Lord; and he
> who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it"
> (Rom 14:1-6).
>
> So we do not "have" to observe the Sabbath. It does not make us
> more 'holy' or righteous to do so. It is simply a matter of conscience.
> This runs against a lot of the teaching that is doing the rounds
> right now. There is a lot of dangerous "Back to the Torah"-type
> emphasis that is bringing a lot of harm to a lot of people. Many
> of them don't even realize what is happening to them.
>
> Paul clearly tells us in Galatians that you can lose your salvation
> by beginning to rely on the Law in your Christian walk: "You
> observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for
> you, lest I have labored for you in vain" (Gal 4:10-11). He then
> goes on to say, "You have become estranged from Christ, you
> who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."
> (Gal 5:4). Alarming statements, are they not?
>
> You see, it is a direct insult to the work of Christ and to God for
> us to go back to the "works of the Law" to try and make us more
> 'righteous' in His sight. It is placing our trust in something other
> than just Jesus. We are "adding works" for our salvation. And it
> will not do.
>
> I believe that just like the Galatians, a lot of people today need to
> repent of trying to add the Old Law to their salvation - sometimes
> in subtle ways - sometimes major. This is not the kind of thing to
> toy around with. It can be utterly deadly. If you are someone who
> is adding "Torah observance" to your faith, I urge you to repent.
>
> The testimony of the woman who slowly lost her faith in Jesus
> through Messianic Torah-observance can be found at the top of
> our website. Here is the link-
>
> http://www.revivalschool.com
>
> Please send feedback to- prophetic@revivalschool.com
>
> God bless you all.
>
> Andrew Strom.
>
> --
> YES! - You have permission to post these emails
> to friends or other groups, blogs, boards, etc. Go for it!
>
> To subscribe, please send a 'subscribe' email to-
> prophetic@revivalschool.com
>
> See our website and discussion board-
> http://www.revivalschool.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: anzac-unsubscribe@welovegod.org
>
> To send material for consideration for publication, send to-
> prophetic@revivalschool.com
>
> MODERATOR:
> Andrew Strom,
> 32 Coleridge Cres,
> Killay,
> Swansea, SA2 7DJ,
> UK.

The Shack

With 8 million copies already sold and still more still flying off the shelves, William Young's novel "The Shack" has clearly captured the imagination of a significant proportion of the Christian community.

The Shack is a novel about a man whose daughter was abducted by a serial killer at a holiday camping ground. As time draws on and the crime remains unsolved the man descends into depression. He receives a note inviting him to meet at the Shack with "Papa."  Aware that this is his wife's nickname for God, he wonders whether or not this is someone's idea of a sick joke.  

Yet still intrigued, he takes advantage of his wife's weekend away to investigate. There, at the Shack, he meets three apparitions who represent themselves as God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son.

The novel sets up what every Christian must secretly desire, the opportunity for a one-on-one interview with God, to ask any question that has ever puzzled the believer. It's in the answers to these questions that the book has its power.  

The book conveys a sense of God's all-encompassing and heartwarming love for mankind and leaves the reader with a greater sense of love for community and acceptance of diversity. Both are important things to consider in the Western world as society adapts to new technological modes of interaction which reduce face to face engagement and relaxed immigration policies have allowed new ethnic groups to grow in different societies. In this sense, the book goes some way towards breaking down racial and religious intolerance.

The Shack has fuelled considerable controversy because of its positions regarding the nature of God, Humanity, Sin, Salvation and the Bible.  

On God and Humanity, it takes an egalitarian view of the Trinity and rejects the hierarchical order of authority traditionally held by Orthodox Christians. In Young's Trinity, God the Father has no authority over God the Son. He goes further to say that the believer is meant to join the circle of relationship as an equal partner. The reader has to put aside the idea that "no one can see God, and live."  Some of the ideas seem very similar to the now discredited Agnostic teachings.

On Sin, he rejects the concept of God's punishment (p119). He likens sin to a disease which needs to be cured. Certainly sin brings its own calamity but that does not mean that God himself does not inflict punishment. The image of God as a judge who passes sentence for certain is a prominent concept.

On Salvation, Young gives the impression that everyone has already been saved through the work of Christ and God is but waiting for everyone to accept it.  A form of universalism.

On the Bible, Young rejects the idea that God has stopped overtly communicating with His people, leaving the Bible (p63) as the sole source of contemporary revelation. He is correct but does not then go on to add that the bible disciplines these communications by providing a standard by which they can be authenticated (1Th 5.7, 1Jn 4.1).  

There is a lot more in the book but this should be sufficient to suggest that The Shack should be read guardedly.  Few things or people are wholly good or bad.  This is one book that needs some sifting.

Don't let anyone try to deflect serious discussion of this book by saying its  a work of fiction.  Using a dialogue between fictional characters as a means to convey a treatise on philosophy or some other subject of academic study is an age-old format.  Plato, Aquinas and Abelard all used it.  The Shack deserves to be treated seriously.

In the end the Shack is a great book to challenge modern readers to check if the concepts conveyed in the Shack are authenticated by the Bible and open up a new way for Christians to engage with one another in discussion and debate.

Prov 18.17

A piece of the puzzle

"GETHSEMANE, The Hour Is Near" by Anthony Falbo

This recently came in from a friend of mine; I post it here for future reference:

I came across this free PDF file study on Galatians on the www.bereansonline.org So far I have just looked at the initial chapters which set the historical context of the letter to the Galatians. These chapters are particularly insightful with respect to the "18 Articles" which were issues of contention between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, prior to the incarnation of Christ but carrying on into 1 Century Judaism even up to the destruction of the temple. I think that a re-reading the gospels/apostolic scriptures against the backdrop of the debate around these 18 Articles, regarding Gentile/Jew relationships, will clarify many of the passages that are used to support anti-nominism and could be a helpful piece in the puzzle of reconstructing faith. It seems to me that many 1st Century Jewish believers needed a paradigm shift, away from the influence of these 18 articles. Hence the thrust of Paul's letters was against the 18 articles and not against the Torah. (Paul talks in Romans 14 about 'disputable matters'. He wouldn't have seen the Biblical kosher standards, and festivals as disputable matters.) You might want a look-see into it.  

She also subsequently sent me this link with additional discussion regarding the 18 articles.