April | 2012 | The Bible Nerd

Archive for April, 2012

Top Real Bible Questions: headship in marriage part 3

Posted: April 29, 2012 in Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies, women in ministry

It is always easier to discuss something in writing or discussion, than to actually work those things out in real life. Doctrine and theology can be like that. It is one thing for me to write all these posts on marriage, and quite another for my wife and I to figure out how that looks practically. My wife is a beautiful, intelligent, and compassionate woman who I am blessed to call my beloved. That doesn’t mean that we haven’t had our share of “discussions” over the years on marriage, and had to pray and process how to exemplify Christ in our marriage (or at least how not to kill each other…)

In discussing the “source” and “authority” views, it may be helpful to you to know that the two main views on women in ministry and authority in marriage are called the complementarian view and the egalitarian view. Complementarians are those who hold that women were created to “compliment” their husbands in the marriage going back to the Genesis passage describing Eve as Adam’s “helper”. This isn’t a slave like role at all, but a beautiful picture to them of how God created the genders to work together to full potential as a couple and family. Egalitarians believe in mutual submission in marriage, and see marriage as a mirror of the body of Christ in that there is complete equality through our identity in Christ and intended purposes. Wonderful men and women in Christ are on both sides of this argument, and both have published well thought out defenses of their views.

Let us address the various ways to explain the guidelines of Paul concerning headship and submission. 1) Paul commands them in 5:21 to “submit to one another”, and he does this to establish that all relationships should be mutual submission. Even if we say that the command toward mutual submission is the over-arching command, we would still be left with having to explain the command to “submit” and the definition of headship. This view would need to be combined with one of the below in my opinion to be a comprehensive view.

2) Paul is merely addressing what each one struggles with (women with submitting and men with love) but both are applicable for husband and wife (both need to love and submit). I will agree that there is truth in the studies showing that men often struggle to be loving and to express that love openly to their wives, while women struggle in the area of control and coming to agreement. Of course, both husband and wife need to show love and respect to one another, and are not exempt. This still doesn’t address the meaning of headship, nor does it do away with passages like 1 Peter 3:1 that include submission but not in the Ephesians 5 formula.

3) This was a temporal command (not timeless) based on the culture of their day and was intended to be phased out as they understood their identity in Christ (just like Paul never says “Don’t have slaves” in the New Testament). There are definitely examples of temporal commands in the Bible. The passage looked at for headship in 1 Corinthians 11 has one included in the command for women to cover their heads while praying or prophesying in church. Only a minority of Christians believe that is timeless, while most hold it to be temporal due to issues in Greco Roman culture. I agree that this can be a slipperly slope as a method of application, but we can’t dismiss it all together due to the fact that there are solid examples like slavery. I believe that if you apply Paul’s commands in Philemon, you don’t have slavery (viewing the slave as his brother), so he lays the foundation for the eradication of slavery within the church. The argument against this would be that it is linked with headship, and headship of Jesus to the church has not, and never will change.

4) Paul is establishing roles within marriage with the wife “submitting” to her husband’s authority. We will address this more later, but some feel that the issue of submission and headship should only be applied within marriage no matter our conclusion. This belief focuses on the fact that Paul is only addressing marriage and never meant for this to be applied to the discussion on women in ministry or women in leadership. The context of the passages begs for the translation of the Greek into “husband/wife” and not the other option of “man/woman” in a more general sense.

As regards the question on women in leadership, the two main views on headship in marriage affect how they answer this question. The complementarian view states that if there is authority of the husband in marriage, then that carries over into the decision on women in leadership in the church. For example, if the husband has the role of authority at home in marriage, how could his wife be the pastor of his church? How could she be his authority at church and he be her authority at home at the same time? Due to this conundrum, complementarians do not support women pastors, and have differing views on women being in any place of authority. Some feel that as long as a man is the “head” or top leader in the church, women can assume places of leadership under them (for example as a youth pastor, children’s minister, or even elder). Others feel that any position which would give a woman authority over a man in church (like a music minister for example) would not be Biblical.

Those that hold the egalitarian view of headship in marriage, in general are supportive of women in church leadership positions. There are no roles in the church which are reserved for male or female specifically, but men and women are equally capable of fulfilling any job. They view Paul’s command in 1 Timothy about women not being in authority as only applicable to the church of Ephesus at the that time, in the same way the command about women not teaching was not his universal rule.

In the end, both husband and wife are challenged by the comparison of their relationship to Jesus and the church. Can any of us say that we have attained the level of love and sacrifice that Jesus has? I can honestly say that I have a LOOOOOOONG way to go before I can say that I love my wife in the SAME way that Jesus loves the church, much less saying that I even love my wife as much as I “love myself”. In the end, both authority and relationships are completely different in Christ than they are out in the world. If we could as husbands and wives focus on that example of Christ and His humility (Philippians 2:5-8), I believe a lot of these arguments would fade away.

Top Real Questions: headship in marriage part 2

Posted: April 28, 2012 in headship and marriage, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies

I am not writing these series of posts in a vacuum. I don’t even own a vacuum. What I mean is that I have been married for 17 years and would really like for my “head” to stay attached to my body and don’t enjoy sleeping outdoors. In other words, my wife can and will be reading everything that I am saying about marriage and headship. She could even post her own comments about me, but thank goodness I can just not approve them and then no one will ever see them. Not that I would ever do that, and of course my wife and I agree on everything in life, like for example the beauty of country music.

There are several other passages of Paul in which he uses the concept of headship, but none give us more fits than 1 Corinthians 11. In a digression on woman’s head coverings in church, Paul gives such wonderful zingers such as 11:10, “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” Umm, thanks for that Paul… In addition to comparing Jesus and the church to husband and wife in Ephesians, Paul also compares Jesus’ relationship to God with the husband and wife relationship. 11:3 says, “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Not only does headship apply to Jesus and the church, but also Jesus and God!

With our two main options for the figurative meaning of “headship”, we must apply both to these comparisons to see if they fit contextually. Is Jesus in authority over the church? Yes, of course. Is Jesus the source of encouragement and nourishing of the church? Again, yes. Is God in authority over Jesus? Not so easy an answer, but you can read my post on subordination in the Trinity and see that my answer is that at the very least we have incarnational subordination of Jesus under God’s authority. Is God the source of encouragement for Jesus? Yes, we know that there is perfect unity of thought and love within the Father/Son relationship. I want to repeat here however, that just because Jesus is under the Father’s authority, it does not carry any connotation that the Father is better or more valuable than the Son. It is simply a differentiation of the roles that they have. God never abuses (or abused) that authority, and they still worked in perfect unity together as evidenced in Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of John 5:18-47.

Paul does use “headship” in talking of Jesus in several passages that do not pertain to husband/wife relationships. Our next goal is to decide whether these uses seem to denote “authority” or “source”. In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul says, “And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” When you look at the preceding verses, it would appear that Paul is talking about the authority of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 and 2:10, both uses of headship mean authority. However, in Colossians 2:19, Paul says, “and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” Paul uses “head” here to talk about the life that flows from Jesus to the believers, and in Ephesians 4:15 it also seems to carry the “source” aspect.

Since the uses for “head” to mean “source” and “authority” are both used by the same author in the same books, I find it hard to conclude that he means one to the exclusion of the other. Rather, it is more logical to conclude, that Paul uses “headship” to mean BOTH “source” and “authority”. Jesus is both the source of nourishing for the church, but He is also the authority over the church. If we combine this with our study on the guidance for wives to submit to their husbands, it becomes more difficult to remove the sense of authority of the husband in marriage. Though this same concept of headship is not used by other authors of the New Testament, we can observe that the use of “head” in Revelation carries the meaning of authority in describing the various characters. Also, Peter echoes Paul’s words on wives being subject to their husbands in 1 Peter 3:1.

The discussion is not over though, we have not analyzed the options I gave in discussing how to apply Paul’s commands on submission (progressive revelation or mutual submission). They would apply in the same way to the concept of headship. In the next post, we will discuss these, and also talk about how the conclusions impact people’s views on women in leadership. Let us not forget how far the church has come in the treatment of women, and we need to continue to pray and labor to see these freedoms come to those women still in bondage and suffering in their cultures. I know that many of us have these images in our minds as we discuss marriage and headship, and no matter our views, we should be united in the humane treatment of all genders.

Top Real Bible Question #4 : What is headship in marriage?

Posted: April 26, 2012 in headship and marriage, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies

I can’t think of many things more personal than digging into people’s relationship with their husband or wife. Seriously, people have very strong views on how marriage should work, and there is a truckload of emotion due to past experiences both good and bad. Everybody asking this question ultimately has to say who they think is the boss and calls the shots. We can make it sound more deep and thought provoking, but that is the bottom line. Even people who say, “no one is the boss”, are still saying that there are two co-bosses (that sounded much better in my head before I wrote it down). From Promise Keepers to stay at home dads, from women’s lib’ers to the Amish, you have to admit that the church has been all over the board on this one.

In the next few posts, we will attempt to look at the key Scriptures involved in this discussion, and see that it is intertwined into the discussion about female pastors and women in authority that we left unanswered from the 1 Timothy 2 passage. I am going to begin with the New Testament and work backwards on this one, and Ephesians 5:22-33 has to be one of the most debated New Testament passages on marriage. Paul begins by addressing the wives first in 22-24, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

In this passage, Paul compares the relationship of husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the church. In doing so, he creates a new term to describe this called “headship”. In the Greek, the word for head is the same one (kephale) that is used for people’s literal heads, but here it is clearly taking on a figurative meaning. The million dollar question is, “What is the figurative meaning of headship?” There are two main views in the church on the figurative meaning: 1) authority: in the same way we can say that a leader is the “head” of a group, this view maintains that the husband has been given the role of authority in the marriage; 2)source: in the same way that we can say a lake or underground water supply is the “source” of a river, this view sees headship as the responsibility of the husband to provide encouragement, nourishing, and care for the wife, and has nothing to do with authority.

Paul gives this same advice to married couples in his letter to the Colossian church in Colossians 3:18-19, “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.” Before even dealing with the concept of headship, we need to observe that in both passages Paul starts with the command for “wives, submit to your husbands”. He never gives this command for husbands to submit to wives, so the term “submit” must be defined. You can do a fancy Greek word study and come up with the astounding conclusion that “submit” means to “submit” Mind blowing, I know. To submit is to voluntarily place yourself under the authority of another, and was originally used in Greek as a military term of placement under a leader. Often, this word is translated as “be subject” and has connotations of “yield, subordinate, and arrange under” (the Greek word is actually in 5:21 of Ephesians for submit).

No matter what we say about “headship” in our next post, there is still going to be this command about submission. I have heard the following thoughts on this: 1) Paul commands them in 5:21 to “submit to one another”, and he does this to establish that all relationships should be mutual submission; 2) Paul is merely addressing what each one struggles with (women with submitting and men with love) but both are applicable for husband and wife (both need to love and submit). 3) this was a temporal command (not timeless) based on the culture of their day and was intended to be phased out as they understood their identity in Christ (just like Paul never says “Don’t have slaves” in the New Testament); and finally 4) Paul is establishing roles within marriage with the wife “submitting” to her husband’s authority.

I have to be honest here and say that the fourth option seems the most straight forward and requires the least amount of “explanation”, but that doesn’t mean that it is the correct option. Once we cover headship next, we must bring these two concepts together, and see how they fit together contextually. Ultimately we are all submitted to God and under His “headship”, but we shouldn’t use that as a cheesy way to get out of addressing the practical question of roles within marriage. Until I start having babies, God has clearly made man and woman different and has different roles for each. Whether that involves authority or not remains to be firmly established as we continue. Would it be really tasteless of me now to insert a husband/wife joke here? On second thought…

Top Questions: Should women be teachers- part 2

Posted: April 24, 2012 in Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies, women in ministry

If we only had 1 Timothy and not Paul’s letters or Acts, we would have a very different view of whether women should be teachers or not. As you read 1 Timothy, Paul doesn’t mix his words or seem unclear when he talks about women not teaching or having authority. I have heard some fancy explanations to try to take the force of the words away, but to be honest, they are pretty lame. You have to stretch and contort so much to explain it away, that Ockham’s razor cuts you to pieces. Luckily, Paul wrote quite a few other letters, and we know more about his life from Acts.

To answer the question on women teachers, we must begin by looking at these other passages first. Did Paul have female coworkers in missions? Absolutely. In Romans 16:1-2, Paul introduces the Romans to a woman named Phoebe, as she is likely the one who carried the letter from Paul to Rome. Once there, Paul urges them to “welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well”. In verse 1, he calls her a “deaconess”, although a few male dominated translations try to just use the Greek definition of the title and call her merely a “servant”. This sounds like more than just a dish washer or letter carrier, but a coworker of Paul’s who was active in ministry. A few verses down in 16:3, Paul greets “Prisca and Aquila” (known elsewhere as Priscilla) and says “all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks for them”. In Acts 18:26, BOTH Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos aside and TEACH him more about Christianity.

We haven’t even exhausted the examples of Romans yet as in verse 7, Paul mentions “Adronicus and Junia” and then seems to imply they are both known as “apostles” (wording is unclear, but their ministry is not). I think you get the point of where I am going, that Paul’s letters and Acts show women in ministry and teaching, even though this was unheard of in Judaism, and rare outside of goddess worship among the Gentiles. True, many of the women he mentions are married, and some might argue they are doing ministry under the covering of their husbands, but that doesn’t explain Phoebe, Euodia and Syntyche (Philip. 4:2), or Nympha (Col. 4:15). We have no listing of their husband’s names or whether they even had one. Whatever we say about 1 Timothy, it must fit with all these other examples somehow.

The easiest way to bring these passage in line with Paul’s other writings is to say that Paul’s rule on women not teaching was only for this specific church that Timothy was working at (there may have been other churches he gave this rule to, but this is the only one we know about). Why would Paul do that to this one church? Timothy was over the church of Ephesus when Paul writes to him (1 Timothy 1:3). The main divinity of the city was the goddess of fertility and love known as Artemis (a mother earth goddess). Women were the primary ones working as priestesses in this temple, and their beliefs about religion and women were skewed because of this. Women were seen as a way to connect to the gods through having sex with them or hearing them speak in tongues while in an ecstatic state. Therefore, women were the source of revelation and knowledge from the goddess. Recall also that women were not educated, and we begin to understand why Paul is barring them from teaching at this point.

He does start the process of moving them away from this by allowing them to “learn at home”, studying the Scriptures to erase these wrong concepts of their place in religion. This background also explains why Paul bring up the story of the Fall. Women and the mother earth goddess are NOT the sources of all wisdom and spiritual revelation. Paul reminds them that the true story of the Fall began with Eve listening to the serpent and then attempting to persuade Adam to eat. This is NOT absolving Adam of guilt, as Romans 5 uses Adam, not Eve, as the one to contrast with Jesus. BOTH are guilty, but Paul had to correct the notion that women were the to “righteous” ones who gave out knowledge. The ugly truth is that Eve craved knowledge for herself and ate of the fruit, as did Adam. (a Gnostic writing has been discovered dating to the 2nd century in which Eve is described as the hero who gave Adam knowledge and freed him from the ignorance of the creator God)

In verse 15, when Paul says that women are “saved through childbirth”, we again interpret the difficult passage with other clear ones. Paul maintains that we are all saved by FAITH alone (Galatians 3:26-29) and you don’t have to have faith and crank out a baby just because you are female. Paul instead is continuing with the story of the Fall and God’s redemptive plan in Genesis 3:15, as the “offspring” of the woman will “crush the head of the serpent”. In Galatians 3:16, Paul explains that the offspring is Jesus, and that means His death crushed the serpent (Satan, sin, and death).

Where does this leave us with the authority issue then? Are there other passages where Paul allows a woman to have authority over a man? what about women pastors? I think we have had enough excitement for one post. I also can’t really answer that question without answering the next Top Real Bible Question: is there headship in marriage? what is headship anyway???

Top Real Bible Questions: Should women be teachers?

Posted: April 21, 2012 in Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies, women in ministry

You just have to love Paul sometimes. In the middle of a letter to Timothy, he just lays down a seriously difficult passage to interpret. It isn’t even the main point of that part of the letter. He wants to give Timothy qualifications for church leaders, and so he begins to describe the type of man Timothy should be looking for. As almost an aside, he says, “By the way, I don’t allow women to teach or have authority over men.” (Sean Ellis paraphrase version) As if that weren’t enough fun, he throws in “Adam was not deceived but Eve was”. What??!! That’s right, for Top Real Bible Questions, we have two doozies: should women be allowed to teach in the church, followed up by headship in marriage.

I would rather talk about Israel, end times, or perhaps gnaw my hand off to escape a bear trap rather than address women’s issues on a public blog. However, these are top issues, so to avoid them would only be preparing me to run for president of the United States (I can explain that later). As always, I will try to present main views and at least expose you to key Scriptures used to support them. Let me say this first though, that throughout church history, the treatment of women has been overall a seriously poor example of the life and teachings of Jesus. Many of the advances and revolutionary ideas put forth by Jesus and carried out by the early church, were reversed by church leaders (aka men) over the following centuries. Only in modern times have we seen the reversal of this in western culture, and hopefully a global trend toward equal rights and treatment for all women. In other words, I know I am not speaking into a vacuum, but there is much emotion attached to these issues.

What we must be careful of is not swinging to far to the other side of the issue because of this pathetic past. It isn’t that I am looking for “balance” in women’s issues, but rather for Biblical truth. There such a thing as radical feminism, that shouldn’t be a shock to you, and it isn’t always Biblically based. In trying to correct the doctrine of the church, some denominations have overshot the Biblical foundations all the way to stating that there are absolutely no difference in the way God has made man and woman (physiology excluded obviously!).

We will start by looking at 1 Timothy 2:8-15, where Paul begins by encouraging men to pray and for women to be modest and focused on good works instead of good looks. So far, we are with Paul. Then, Paul says in verse 11, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” All the men said, “Amen”, until their wives or girlfriends slapped them in the head, and then they said, “Uh, hey Paul, what do you mean by that?” To us in modern times, we debate on the “how” women are to learn, “quietly with all submissiveness” and miss the cultural context. In New Testament times, most women weren’t educated. Men saw that as a waste of time and effort. Women were to produce children, care for children, or worse were seen as merely possessions to show off or have sex with. This was not just the view in Gentile culture, but in Jewish culture as well.

A famous Rabbinical quote of this time is a prayer that Jewish men would say each morning. “Thank you God that I am not a dog, a Gentile, or a woman.” As to educating woman in the Torah, another Rabbi stated, “Better that the law be burned than to be taught to a woman.” Romans and Greeks weren’t any different in their mindset. Socrates stated that women were halfway between men and animals. Lucius Valerius said, “Why should men grudge women their ornaments and dress? Women cannot hold positions of office or priesthood, or gain triumphs; they have no public occupations. What can they do but devote their time to adornment and dress?” From this understanding, Paul’s view was radical, and the part of his sentence they would have been stuck on was “Let a woman learn”, not the “how” part. Paul is bringing the revolution of the Gospel into their views on educating women AT ALL.

This is a classic example of the power of historical background in understanding Scripture. What could be seen as offensive by women in modern times, was seen as a huge blessing and revolution to women in Paul’s day. By adding “quietly in submission”, I believe Paul was encouraging women not to “go crazy” with their new freedoms, but to use them within their marital relationship as set forth in other passages (which we will look at in the headship posts). You can imagine that with increased freedom, Christian women could be tempted to go in the direction that we saw in the 1970’s radical feminism, which part of eventually brought harm into marriage and the family structure.

In our next post, we will get into the meat of the passage and deal with Paul’s statement on teaching, authority, and his interesting take on the Fall. Our first Biblical principle is now clear, women have the right and should be educated in Christianity, immediately creating a contrast with Islam and other religions. Maybe I should stop here where I am relatively safe? Nah.

Top Real bible Questions: Israel part 5

Posted: April 15, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies

One of the most beautiful reports that I have heard about is that there is a church in Israel where both Jewish and Palestinian Christians come together to worship God in one place. I am sure that there might be more, but my home church has supported and visited this church of rare brotherhood (I won’t mention its name or location for security reasons). It lets me know what is possible in Christ and in this world, and gives me hope for the future.

There are two issues that I am asked about that didn’t fit into the previous posts. Are all Gentile Christians called to support the Jews and Israel? In missions and life, we usually talk about each Christian being called to a specific people group (often their own) or sub group in society (like businessmen). But, in addition, are we all called to the Jews as Gentiles? The most often quoted passage in support of this is Psalms 122:6 “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!”. When David writes this, Jerusalem has just become the capital of Israel, God’s theocracy. The other passage is Romans 15:27, “For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings.” Here Paul was trying to raise funds from the Gentile church to help the Jews of Palestine and Jerusalem afflicted by a famine. He saw the offering as a crown on his theology of the olive tree (Rom. 11), Gentiles grafted into one tree with the Jews.

There is a difference however between praying for the peace of Jerusalem, giving to help the poor, and giving money to a secular government or to a lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. I am not making a value statement here, but I am saying that you should be careful before saying that what you are doing has a “Biblical mandate” behind it.

The other issue is will Israel be the place of the final battle and return of Jesus? This question can only be answered by a larger look at eschatology that we will do later in this series on top Bible questions. In a short answer, people who hold a view called premillenial dispensationalism believe that the end times predictions are speaking about literal Israel, and so 1948 and the formation of modern Israel was key to end times prophecies. Another view called amillenialism believes that the end times predictions are speaking of spiritual or figurative Israel, and so Jesus’ return to Earth will be all at once and global in nature. The posts on the millenium quetion will go more into detail.

I would like to finish this series of posts with three warnings. First, let’s not simply write off the Jews as being irrelevant to the future of the church. Paul makes it clear in 11:12 of Romans what their salvation would mean for the world, and it sounds pretty good to me (especially since I am one :). There is a reason that Paul would go first to the synagogue and then switch to the Gentiles when he entered a new city. He knew the foundation of theology and the Old Testament that the Jews already had, propelling them forward much faster in their Christianity once they accepted Jesus.

Second, let’s not ignore what is ACTUALLY happening in the modern nation of Israel, giving any of the parties involved a “free pass” to commit crimes and atrocities. No matter what view you end up with, we can not excuse the violation, torture, or killing of any people group. God is love (1 John 1), and we as Christians should be known for our love. I have seen too many Christians turn a blind eye to sins committed by a people group due to their eschatology or views on Israel.

Third, we must not forget that a key focus of the New Testament when it comes to the church is the unity of the people. Ephesians 4:1ff grind this into the heads of the believers with the repetition of “one”, “one”, “one”. Not only is this a call to see the reconciliation of Jews and Palestinians, but also among Christians who have differing views on Israel. What is happening in Israel is difficult and sad, but what is happening with division in the church is inexcusable. We are one body, one new man, and one church of Jesus Christ. He is the God of Jews, but also of the Gentiles. And He is one, right?

Top Real Bible Questions: Israel part 4

Posted: April 13, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies

Being in Israel was a odd mix of experiences and learning opportunities. On one level, there was the connection with Biblical history and archeology. On another level, there was the modern political situation with the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians. One moment, I would be looking at various layers of destruction in the ruins of Jericho, and the next moment I was being shown a checkpoint where someone blew themselves up last year. All of it served to complicate my views on Israel and God’s plan. Things were much simpler sitting in a classroom in the United States, far removed from the pain and suffering of the land.

So, when people ask me about my views on Israel, I have my views from political science, my views from the Bible, and then I have my personal feelings as an ethnic Jew who has visited the modern nation. Even though I can discuss passages that pertain to Israel, like we have done the last two posts, in the end, my view of Israel comes from looking at the whole of God’s redemptive plan. From Genesis to Deuteronomy, God unfolds His plan to create a holy nation bound to Him in covenant and love. That theocracy was to be guided by priests, prophets, and elders to serve a holy, loving God. Under civil, ceremonial, and moral law, Israel was given the blessing of being a witness to the surrounding nations by being set apart.

Unfortunately, as the story goes on from Judges to Esther, it is one long, sad tale of their disobedience, idolatry, and social injustice. This covenant breaking was met with stiff justice as they were taken out of the land and exiled, stripped of the temple, kingship, and their homes. It is abundantly clear that man can’t obtain his own righteousness through the law. As a physical nation, Israel “blasphemed the name of God among the nations” (Romans 2:24, Isaiah 52:5), and God spoke through the prophets that a new covenant would be needed (Jeremiah 31:31-34). In this “New” covenant, the law would be on their hearts (Jer. 31), God’s Spirit would be in them (Joel 2:28), and the Suffering Servant would die so that they might have forgiveness from sins (Isaiah 53).

When Jesus did come to earth, He made it clear that He was not there to be king nor to establish a physical kingdom (John 6:15). The disciples and Jews struggled with this as their messianic expectations were for Israel to be restored and the Romans expelled. Instead of staying in Jerusalem, Jesus commanded the early church to go out to the “ends of Earth” (Acts 1:8). Paul’s definition of the “body of Christ”, the church, is one that is spiritual and made up of all ethnicities all over the world (Ephesians 2:14-22). The old covenant, law, was seen by Paul and the author of Hebrews as a “shadow” of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:1). Hebrews 1 – 10 is a consistent argument to not look back to the old covenant, as something much better is here now in Christ.

The question then is, does it fit with this plan to go back to a physical kingdom? Why would God reestablish Israel as a nation in our modern times, almost two thousand years after it fell to the Romans? I have heard two different arguments about this, and neither necessitate you being a believer in replacement theology or Christian Zionism.

First, many believe that God is not “going back” to a physical kingdom, but He is merely adding the physical kingdom to the already existing spiritual one in the church. They point to numerous Scriptures that they feel support their view. In Acts 1:6, the disciples ask Jesus if He is now going to restore the kingdom of Israel. Jesus’ reply in Acts 1:7 says, “It is not for you to know the times”. Jesus doesn’t say, “I am never going to do that”, but instead just tells them that it isn’t their place to know when this will occur. In Romans 11:11-32, Paul talks about God’s plan to bring the Jews to Him through jealousy of the Gentile believers. “All Israel being saved” in 11:26 is interpreted to be a huge wave of Jews that will turn back to God shortly before the return of Jesus. Obviously, this view then interprets most of the Old Testament predictions about the Jews return and Israel in a literal fashion.

Second, some believe that God has concrete plans for the Jews and Israel, but that they are not fulfillments of Biblical prophecy. This view states that the old covenant is dead, and with it was His focus on a physical nation. Jesus came to reveal the spiritual kingdom, and it would make no sense to go back to a physical nation anymore. God does love the Jews and has given them special blessings and gifts, but their existence as a political nation is not necessary for the return of Jesus. Fitting with this view, they interpret most Old Testament predictions about the future of Israel as pertaining to the church (spiritual fulfillment). They don’t view the church as replacing Israel at all, but rather they have been “grafted in” to true Israel alongside their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters. There was never a “replacement”, only an “addition”.

In the next post, I will wrap up this question by addressing a few passages that didn’t fit yet with our previous posts. Again, there is no way to do full justice to this issue on a blog, but my prayer is that these posts help you and spur you to press into the word of God. There are so many books and sermons out there on this subject, but we should build our foundation from the Bible alone. No matter what our view ends up being, let us not grow weary in praying for peace in this situation. Jews and Palestinians have suffered for so long, and much of our world has given up on the peace process all together. One new man in Christ.

Top Real Bible Questions: Israel part 3

Posted: April 12, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies

You have to love those “Ah ha” moments in life. Like when you figure out that you have to push the bottle cap DOWN as you twist it off (stupid child proof caps). Or when you realize that the speed limit on that road wasn’t 65 mph, but actually 45 mph, and the police don’t seem to care about your ignorance. Maybe it is when you finally figure out how to start a new roll of toilet paper without ripping off three layers (seriously, you couldn’t design this any easier???). For me, I love those “ah ha” moments when you are reading the Bible. One of my biggest ones came while reading Romans 9.

In Romans 9:6 says, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” What??? What does that mean that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”??? That seems to be a completely illogical statement from Paul. As you read the rest of the chapter, you begin to understand what Paul is doing. He creates two different Israels in this chapter: one is the literal nation made up of the physical Jewish people group; the other is a figurative Israel, or spiritual Israel, that has nothing to do with bloodlines and heritage, but has everything to do with faith in Jesus. He describes how to be in this spiritual Israel in verse 8, “In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” He makes this same point in Galatians 3:7-9, “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”

Paul had been building up to this point in the whole book of Romans. The church of Rome had split into groups of both Jewish and Gentile home churches. There was much fighting and ethnic issues between the two groups (Rom. 14:1-15:13). Paul needed to show them how they are now one body, both Jew and Gentile, in the church of Christ. He starts with creating a figurative circumcision and Jew in Rom. 2:28-29, “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.” This would have been radical enough if Paul stopped there, but he didn’t. He went on in chapter 4 to declare that there are figurative descendants of Abraham. As we saw from Galatians, these spiritual descendants are both Jew and Gentile, and are only Abraham’s children due to their faith in Jesus.

So, if we have figurative circumcision, Jews, and Abraham’s children, the next step was just a logical progression: we can have a figurative (or spiritual) Israel. This does NOT mean that there is no longer a physical Israel, or that it isn’t important. In chapters 9 – 11, Paul continues to go back and forth from the physical Jews to spiritual Israel. I believe that this teaching of Paul’s is one reason that replacement theologians went in the direction that they did. They had solid Biblical truth in the concept of spiritual Israel. The real questions however are: 1) how does the teaching of spiritual Israel affect God’s current plans for the Jewish people?; and 2) how does the concept of spiritual Israel affect our interpretation of the fulifillment of Old Testament predictions? As we saw already, replacement theology sees spiritual Israel as completely replacing physical Israel, therefore God is only focusing on the spiritual Israel in New Testament times, and all Old Testament predictions not fulfilled already in history or Jesus, should be applied to the church.

Let’s tackle the question on Old Testament predictions first, and then we can deal with God’s overall redemptive plan in the next post. If all Old Testament predictions were fulfilled either in a literal or figurative way, we would have an easy job. Unfortunately, the Bible just doesn’t do that. Some predictions have a very literal fulfillment, which is exactly what we would expect to happen. For example, Micah 5:2 predicts that the Messiah, Jesus, would be born in Bethlehem, and in Matthew 2:1-6, that is exactly what happened. However, in Amos 9:11-12, Amos predicts that “David’s shelter” will be rebuilt, Jerusalem will be restored, and that they will possess the surrounding nations. We would expect this to be fulfilled in a literal way. In Acts 15:12-21, James, the brother of Jesus, stands up and declares that Amos’s prediction has been fulfilled through the Gentile inclusion in the church. This means that there is a figurative or spiritual fulifillment of Amos in that God is buidling up the spiritual Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26).

The dilemma then is how do we know if an Old Testament prediction will have a literal or a figurative/spiritual fulfillment? The real answer is that unless the New Testament specifically gives us the fulfillment, we can’t be 100% sure. Remember how sure the disciples and Jews were about how they thought the predictions about the Messiah would be fulfilled. They were all looking to a physical king who would come and kick out the Romans and reestablish Israel, and so they missed Jesus and his true mission often. Hindsight is always 20/20 when it comes to Biblical predictions. Isaiah 11:11 could have a literal fulfillment in God regathering the Jews, or it could have a figurative one. We will have to find another way to make our decision on which one is right. Don’t you love cliffhangers? Tune in next time, when we tackle that issue. It will take us to the ultimate big picture question: how does Israel fit into the overall redemptive plan of God for all time? Easy, right?

Top Real Bible Question: Israel part 2

Posted: April 11, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies

At the time I thought, “This conversation is getting too strange for me.” I was talking with a (Gentile) woman from Pennsylvania who was wearing a Jewish prayer shawl (that’s not the strange part). She had started by telling me that she followed all the Old Testament laws, including the dietary laws of Leviticus. Then, she threw the big one on me by telling me that Jews today aren’t saved by faith, but are still under the law. God has two ways for people to gain righteousness and entrance to heaven. One for Jews and one for Gentiles. I am not sure what disturbed me more, this American, suburban woman who was basically converting to Judaism, or the fact that she believed Jews are still under the old covenant.

The first thing we need to establish as we discuss the Jews is what Paul clearly states in the book of Romans. Romans 10:11-13 says, “For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” I don’t think it can be any clearer than that! Whatever we say about modern Israel, we can’t hold any thoughts that would mean that God’s eternal salvation plan for the Jews is any different than the Gentiles. The author of Hebrews also leaves little doubt that the whole old covenant is no longer binding. Hebrews 8:13 states, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

What is clear to me from Scripture is that though God doesn’t save the Jews in a different way, He still has a unique plan for them. The problem with full blown replacement theology is that it leaves no place for this in the New Testament or God’s plan. Paul states in Romans 11:28-29, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” Yes, irrevocable means irrevocable. We can’t “un-Jew” the Jews or “un-choose” them. God has created this people group and given them special blessings, and no whining from Gentiles is going to change that.

The issue that is less clear in Scripture is what has become of the Abrahamic Covenant as regards the land of Israel. Spiritually, Paul explains that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the promises made to Abram and the Jews in Genesis 12:1-4. Galatians 3:16, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one,“And to your offspring,” who is Christ.” Jesus is the “seed/offspring” that “all the families of the earth” are blessed in. Through faith, we are all “children of Abraham”, both Jews and Gentiles. What does this mean for the physical promises then? We can’t quickly dismiss this covenant, because the New Testament never states that it has ended as we saw with the old covenant.

I have seen two answers to this issue. First, some say that God ALREADY fulfilled the promise to give them the land as seen in 1 Kings 4:20-21, and no longer needs to do that today. The problem with this view is that God keeps using the word “forever” to describe how long He has given the land to the Jews (Genesis 13:15, Exodus 32:13). While it is true that we can pull out passages where God uses the word “forever” in regards to the old covenant (Exodus 28:42, Leviticus 3:17), and that is clearly over, we still don’t have God declaring that about the Abrahamic Covenant in the New Testament. The second answer that I have heard is that the land is “spiritual” now and not physical. Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he came to bring a spiritual kingdom and not an earthly one. God wouldn’t be going back to the physical anymore (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 10:1).

The bottom line is that as inductive students of the Bible, I don’t believe there is enough evidence to say that the land doesn’t still belong to the Jews as promised by God. This still leaves many questions however, such as: who is a Jew? do we use the Biblical test or modern Israel’s? does Israel have to be following God to receive this promise, or is it unconditional? Most Jews today in Israel are not Christians, nor are they even following the laws of Judaism.

In the end, I believe both the verses from Paul about “irrevocable gifts” combined with the Abrahamic Covenant, make replacement theology hard to justify. Though it leaves us still with many questions about whether modern Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy or not, it is fitting more with what we see in Scripture. Next, we will examine the whole teaching on “spiritual Israel” and see what impact it has on our remaining questions. I realize that fitting stuff like this into a post is ridiculous sometimes. Any chance you guys would like to read a 50 page post? I didn’t think so.

Top 10 Real Bible Question #6: Israel

Posted: April 8, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies

There I was in Israel, having a picnic lunch next to the ancient ruins of Megiddo. We had just finished hiking around the sites and listening to explanations of the different levels of destruction. Suddenly, a massive armada of tour buses pulled up, and scores of tour guides poured out of the buses with their extremely American looking passengers. The main leader of the tour was a famous Christian television personality who shall remain nameless (you’ll see why in a minute). After a gospel quartet performed (bizarre place to do that), the TV guy preceded to give a teaching on how Megiddo figured into his end times views. Then he dropped the bomb, “The antichrist is most likely here on Earth already, and I believe he is probably Jewish.”

Seriously??? Right there at the Israeli National Park of Megiddo, with Jews all around, this American Christian says that the antichrist is a Jew. My point here is that people’s views on Israel and the Jews is all over the board. From replacement theology to Christian Zionism, the church today has all kinds of “interesting” views on what God is doing with Israel. For most of church history up until 1948 A.D., this discussion was moot since Israel didn’t exist as a nation. Something then happened that seemed impossible and against all odds, the Jews reclaimed the promised land and Christians around the world scrambled to explain what was happening.

Replacement theologians explained that all we are witnessing is a modern historical event without Biblical significance. They believe that in the New Covenant, the church has “replaced” Israel (physical) as God’s people. All the Old Testament and New Testament predictions that were yet to be fulfilled will all be fulfilled in the church, not the physical nation of Israel. Of course, saved Jews are part of the church, so God has not rejected the Jews at all. Merely, the kingdom of Jesus was a spiritual one, not a physical one, where there is no more, “Jew or Greek (Galatians 3:28)”. The view is not anti-Semitic, but sees no necessity for Israel to be a nation now for end times events to occur.

Christian Zionism falls at the exact opposite side of the spectrum. They believe that the events happening now in modern Israel are a direct fulfillment of Old Testament predictions that God will “gather His people” and “restore them to the land (Isaiah 11:11-12)”. Israel will be the site of the final battle in Revelation, and it is the church’s role to support Israel however it can. This can include giving funds for Jews to return to Israel, lobbying their own governments to support Israel, and praying daily for the “peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6)”. Most still believe Jews are saved by faith just like Gentiles, but still hold a special calling or status still in God’s eyes (the chosen people).

I have an interesting personal twist to my journey to explore the Bible on this topic. I am Jewish. Ok, ok, I am ethnically Jewish, but was raised as a Christian, and never even realized I was Jewish until I was in my 20’s. I never thought through the care packages we got from my Mom’s family that included those flat, tasteless crackers (Matzah bread- unleavened bread for Passover). Since it comes from my mother’s side, I could have applied to become an Israeli citizen, as they consider you 100% Jewish if it comes from your mother’s side. I have gotten some interesting responses from people when I have shared this with them. The most unusual was that in some Asian countries, they had this starry kind of look in their eye, like I was suddenly seen as being more “special”.

Starting in the next post, I will attempt to do what we have always done on this blog, digging into the Bible and trying to see what it says about this issue. Don’t try to skip ahead to the end of this series and just look for “what Sean really thinks about all this”. I will be presenting views and passages, not making absolute conclusions. Honestly, there are godly, brilliant people on all sides of this issue, and the goal is to challenge us to ponder and pray. Remember that the church has done everything from killing Jews in the Crusades to giving millions of dollars to support modern Israel. That is an extreme difference.