Oh LORD, little did I know when I made my vow, the tragedy that would befall my heart. Little did I know when I exclaimed in my piety that death would be the reward, death from my family. My heart burns, my mind has turned, anguish grips me like a mother her new born babe; like a sparrow the meat it craves. As a babe is plucked from the breast, and a sparrow taken from its rest, so now, my child, my life, torn from me. Little did I know when I made my vow.
It has been six weeks since my little girl arrived home. Six weeks since she tumbled through my door; hop, skip, jump, buoyant smile upon her face. My child, my only child. Radiant joy upon her face, lights within her eyes unlike anything this world has seen. She opened my world and rested my mind in the contentness of this galaxy, the momentum of time and space, of truth and peace. Mine. My own little girl. My only child.
Six weeks since my little girl appeared at my door; light in her eyes as always, two blinking cherishing reflective lights only for me. Its daddy! ‘Daddy, I’m home, I’m come. Daddy take me in your arms and hold me, Daddy. Daddy? Why do you stand there still? Why, you look so frail, Daddy, what’s wrong Daddy; aren’t you glad to see me daddy? Don’t taunt me Daddy, don’t forsake me Daddy, I’m home. I’m your little girl.’
So brave my little girl, so true, so open; so penetrable her gaze. Her eyes like daggers tore right through me. Her dance ceased, the tambourine died. ‘Speak to me daddy.’ I broke. ‘Oh my daughter, my little girl, see what famine you have bought upon my heart! See what fulfilment you have bought to my vow, oh death and pain and tearing loss! But I cannot shun my LORD, I cannot pronounce judgement upon Him. What can I do? My only child.’
So brave my little girl. ‘Daddy. Father. You must do as you vowed to do. You must pour this wrath upon my soul, I am a big girl. I am your only begotten child. I am. But give me leave Daddy, let me walk and wail, for I am untouched, unknown. I am as one barren, cursed by God and afflicted. Let me mourn, two months. I will return. I must return. I am your little girl. I am your only child. And little did you know when you made your vow.’ Six weeks now since my little girl arrived home.
Six weeks since she left, and she is to return in two. Little did I know when I made my vow that the LORD would take my little girl? Little did I know when the last Ammonite fell that I would be left alone. Oh LORD, my only child. My brave, willing, little girl. That she should prepare herself for sacrifice, so willingly, so brave my little girl. That I, that Daddy must give the last blow, see the last sparkle fade from her eyes, I wonder if it’s there now?
Daddy should not have to outlive his own child. Daddy must keep His vow, from it deliverance has come, from it we are saved, from it have we inherited. I must appease. But my only little girl, so much harder is her willingness. Her piety. Her trust for Daddy. My brave little girl. She opened my world and rested my mind in the contentness of this galaxy, the momentum of time and space, of truth and peace. Mine. My own little girl. My only child.
Oh LORD, little did I know when I made my vow, the tragedy that would befall my heart. Little did I know when I exclaimed in my piety that death would be the reward, death from my family. My heart burns, my mind has turned, anguish grips me like a mother her new born babe; like a sparrow the meat it craves. As a babe is plucked from the breast, and a sparrow taken from its rest, so now, my child, my life, torn from me. Little did I know when I made my vow.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Some Final Remarks about God Fearers
God-fearers covers a spectrum of Jewish-sympathizers who were attracted to Judaism, mainly for it’s morality and monotheism but were not willing to become a proselyte, who would be circumcised, would attend Jewish feasts, would have made a public statement of faith and for all intents and purposes were considered in the covenant. God-fearer faith is more of a pick-and-choose faith in that it is merged paganism with Judaism. For instance, Cornelius, being a centurion was probably a member of the imperial-cult. Some God-Fearers may have been more institutionalised, for instance the Aphrodisias inscription includes them as an official group of people, and traces of ‘rules’ can be found. However, these wouldn’t cover the whole spectrum of who God-Fearers were.
God-Fearers were invaluable to Judaism for two reasons: First, among God-Fearers were some very prominent members of the community who were encouraged to give financially and ‘have for a long time.’ Second, Judaism is an anti-Roman oppression religion. Jews stand against idolatry, polytheism, therefore against the imperial-cult, and worship one God who would free them. Some Jews believed that God would use men directly and stood in open hostility to Rome. Therefore, its my belief that God-fearers would act as a lens for Rome to view Judaism; members of the community who expressed a healthy interest in Judaism, but were not fanatical or anti-Rome. When the Gospel spread to the God-Fearers, not only was financial aid redirected from the synagogues to the Churches, but the lens was being removed from Judaism, leaving it more exposed.
--
In many ways the God-fearers were ideally ‘suited’ for the Gospel, being attracted by Jewish monotheism but not liking all the law. The Gospel Paul preached was justification by faith alone, and not by the law, so; ‘the Jews have been telling you that you’re not saved unless you’re circumcised and I’m telling you’re that your saved through believing in Jesus and not by the bondage of the law.’ ‘It was as natural for God-fearing Gentiles to embrace the blessings of the Gospel…as it was for the Jews to decline them.’
Geographically, in Pisidian Antioch, God-fearers greatly responded yet this was seemingly where God-fearers were most attached to the Jews, starting the persecution. In Philippi and Corinth, prominent God-fearers were converted allowing churches to be established. In Berea and Thessalonica, many God-fearers responded but possibly with the greatest hostility.
The significance of ‘God-fearers’ in the book of Acts is that they served as a dominant people for Paul to bring the Gospel to, being naturally affiliated with the Jews allowing sometimes a backdoor. They had a natural ideology that fit the gospel message, they sometimes provided rich resources and they redirected attention from Judaism. This makes them imperative in the spread of the Gospel and shows the sovereignty of God at work through the apostolic era. The God fearers were a legitimate people and we all too often minimalise their importance in the early church.
God-Fearers were invaluable to Judaism for two reasons: First, among God-Fearers were some very prominent members of the community who were encouraged to give financially and ‘have for a long time.’ Second, Judaism is an anti-Roman oppression religion. Jews stand against idolatry, polytheism, therefore against the imperial-cult, and worship one God who would free them. Some Jews believed that God would use men directly and stood in open hostility to Rome. Therefore, its my belief that God-fearers would act as a lens for Rome to view Judaism; members of the community who expressed a healthy interest in Judaism, but were not fanatical or anti-Rome. When the Gospel spread to the God-Fearers, not only was financial aid redirected from the synagogues to the Churches, but the lens was being removed from Judaism, leaving it more exposed.
--
In many ways the God-fearers were ideally ‘suited’ for the Gospel, being attracted by Jewish monotheism but not liking all the law. The Gospel Paul preached was justification by faith alone, and not by the law, so; ‘the Jews have been telling you that you’re not saved unless you’re circumcised and I’m telling you’re that your saved through believing in Jesus and not by the bondage of the law.’ ‘It was as natural for God-fearing Gentiles to embrace the blessings of the Gospel…as it was for the Jews to decline them.’
Geographically, in Pisidian Antioch, God-fearers greatly responded yet this was seemingly where God-fearers were most attached to the Jews, starting the persecution. In Philippi and Corinth, prominent God-fearers were converted allowing churches to be established. In Berea and Thessalonica, many God-fearers responded but possibly with the greatest hostility.
The significance of ‘God-fearers’ in the book of Acts is that they served as a dominant people for Paul to bring the Gospel to, being naturally affiliated with the Jews allowing sometimes a backdoor. They had a natural ideology that fit the gospel message, they sometimes provided rich resources and they redirected attention from Judaism. This makes them imperative in the spread of the Gospel and shows the sovereignty of God at work through the apostolic era. The God fearers were a legitimate people and we all too often minimalise their importance in the early church.
Extra-Biblical Evidence for God Fearers
‘Its important to remember that archaeology by its very nature is not able to produce a complete picture of cultural and religious life…Only the combination of the information received from the different sources, and the careful cross-checking of them, can produce reliable results’(Levinskaya, p.58). Inscriptions have been found around the Diaspora, which include the word θεοσεβης, many of these are identities. The most important, the ‘Aphrodisias’ inscription, contains lists of synagogue people. What’s interesting is the God-fearers are separate; making them different from the Jews, yet still members of the synagogue. Some of the inscriptions appear to give the title God-fearer’ to a Jew however the evidence to support this is minimal. Kraabel ‘suggests that the inscription from Aphrodisias refers simply to pious Gentiles who contributed to synagogues.’ This again doesn’t fit the evidence.
‘The Cult of the Most High God’ (ϋψιστος). Many believe that ϋψιστος is simply a name given to many pagan-deities. Trebilco argues that in Acts16:16-18, the girl was talking about a pagan-god, not the true God. However, ϋψιστος implies monotheism and its Jewish use is overwhelming, Jews addressed God as Theos Hypsistos (LXX). Acts 16, θεου του ύψιστου, when cross-referenced with the sayings of the demons in Marks Gospel, is the Jewish God, not Pagan. Its likely ϋψιστος is a mergence of Jewish and Pagan beliefs where some Gentiles would be a part of, a group of people within the pagan/proselyte spectrum: God-fearers.
Jewish Historian, Josephus also mentions persons attached to synagogues:
I therefore believe that we can legitimately speak of ‘God-fearers’ as a category of people in the first century AD.
‘The Cult of the Most High God’ (ϋψιστος). Many believe that ϋψιστος is simply a name given to many pagan-deities. Trebilco argues that in Acts16:16-18, the girl was talking about a pagan-god, not the true God. However, ϋψιστος implies monotheism and its Jewish use is overwhelming, Jews addressed God as Theos Hypsistos (LXX). Acts 16, θεου του ύψιστου, when cross-referenced with the sayings of the demons in Marks Gospel, is the Jewish God, not Pagan. Its likely ϋψιστος is a mergence of Jewish and Pagan beliefs where some Gentiles would be a part of, a group of people within the pagan/proselyte spectrum: God-fearers.
Jewish Historian, Josephus also mentions persons attached to synagogues:
‘[Jews] were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves.’
‘But no one need wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, for all the Jews throughout the habitable world, and fearers of God…had been contributing...’
I therefore believe that we can legitimately speak of ‘God-fearers’ as a category of people in the first century AD.
See
L.H. Feldman Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Yamamoto, Tokyo, 1987)
L.H. Feldman Josephus, the Bible and History (Yamamoto, Tokyo, 1988)
L.H. Feldman The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers (Biblical Archeological Review 12, no.5, 1986)
E. M. Smallwood The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1981)
Robert S. MacLennan and A. Thomas Kraabel, The God-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention,(BAR 12, no.5, September – October 1986)
I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vol 5, Diaspora Setting (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996)
God Fearers in Acts.
Within Acts we see the most explicit reference to God-fearers (Acts 10; 13:16; 13:26; 13:43; 13:50; 16:14; 17:4; 17:17; 18:6-7). Some say this is Luke writing as a theologian who needed God-fearers for his narrative. I believe the reason we have the most references to God-fearers within Acts is because it gives us historical details not necessary in the rest of the New-Testament narratives.
God Fearers in Acts depends much on the geography and situation in question (The references to God-fearers cover a large area, including Caesarea, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth). God-fearers are mentioned several times in Acts, sometimes they heartily welcome the gospel, whereas at otehr times they begin the persecution.
Acts 10
Cornelius is a ‘model God-fearer,’ with almsgiving, prayer (v.2) and a good reputation among Jews (v.22). Therefore, ‘he had some preparation for the Gospel he was soon to hear.’ He was not a Jew/proselyte (shown by the Jewish Christians who came with Peter who were amazed by the fact he had received the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, he was a Roman Centurion who would be expected to participate in the imperial-cult. ‘Because of his official duties and despite his beliefs in one God, has to demonstrate publicly his polytheism.’ Cornelius was not the first Gentile convert (See Acts 8), however from him the mission to the Gentiles began (Acts. 11:1), his household also becomes a Christian base as all his household were filled with the Spirit and baptised.
Acts 13:16-50
Here Paul is in Pisidian Antioch, and as was his custom he goes first to the synagogue where Jews and God-fearers responded. This ‘is the first time the mission to the Gentiles is proclaimed as a recognized aim.’ This is also the first step of persecution. Prominent women drove Paul and Barnabas out from their borders. These women are unlikely to be Jewish as it is unlikely that they possessed a higher status than the males or that they initiated the persecution before the males. They are very likely God-fearers, which makes sense when cross-referenced later in Luke’s narrative (Acts 17:4, 17).
From these passages we see the beginnings of the Gentile mission, which posed a serious problem for the Jews as their status quo was suddenly challenged. The Jews generally had better success because of the long relationship they had enjoyed with God-fearers, owing to the hostility to the Gospel in Ch13. This is an important development in the spread of the Gospel and the accompanying persecution, which as we see here and throughout Acts, God-fearers play an important role in this.
Acts 16:14
This passage is crucial in understanding the success of the Gospel. Paul goes to a ‘place of prayer,’ presumably the area didn’t have a synagogue and meets Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. This makes Lydia an extremely wealthy member of the community, and she is at the meeting; a God-fearer (v.14). This makes a base for Christians to meet in Philippi, the household of a God-fearer provides a huge resource for the spread of the Gospel.
Acts 17:4,17
Again Paul’s begins in the synagogue and God-fearers who are there respond. Here they are called ‘worshipping (σεβομενων) Greeks’ with prominent women. And again this leads to an uproar from the Jews and Paul and Silas are accused of ‘turning the world upside-down,’ which, for the Jews, by evangelising God-fearers, that is exactly what they are doing. This happens again after God-fearers respond in v12 and again in v17 the same way.
Acts 18:6-7
Much the same way as Lydia, prominent God-fearer; Titus Justus is converted with his whole household next door to the synagogue providing a base for the Gospel and a back door into the synagogue, as we see Crispus, the leader of the synagogue is converted.
These passages teach us not only of the persecution that follows the mission to the God-fearers but also of the God-fearers necessity to the Gospel’s spread, particularly the resources of Lydia and Titus. This gives us much insight into the nature of Paul’s missionary techniques in reaching the Gentiles, via Judaism and the sovereign plan of God.
• The Gentile mission was began and was made public through God-fearers
• The mission to the God-fearers was drenched with Jewish Persecution
• This persecution was sometimes started by the Jewish-faithful God-fearers
• The spread of the Gentile mission was made possible by the resources of God-fearers
God Fearers in Acts depends much on the geography and situation in question (The references to God-fearers cover a large area, including Caesarea, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth). God-fearers are mentioned several times in Acts, sometimes they heartily welcome the gospel, whereas at otehr times they begin the persecution.
Acts 10
Cornelius is a ‘model God-fearer,’ with almsgiving, prayer (v.2) and a good reputation among Jews (v.22). Therefore, ‘he had some preparation for the Gospel he was soon to hear.’ He was not a Jew/proselyte (shown by the Jewish Christians who came with Peter who were amazed by the fact he had received the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, he was a Roman Centurion who would be expected to participate in the imperial-cult. ‘Because of his official duties and despite his beliefs in one God, has to demonstrate publicly his polytheism.’ Cornelius was not the first Gentile convert (See Acts 8), however from him the mission to the Gentiles began (Acts. 11:1), his household also becomes a Christian base as all his household were filled with the Spirit and baptised.
Acts 13:16-50
Here Paul is in Pisidian Antioch, and as was his custom he goes first to the synagogue where Jews and God-fearers responded. This ‘is the first time the mission to the Gentiles is proclaimed as a recognized aim.’ This is also the first step of persecution. Prominent women drove Paul and Barnabas out from their borders. These women are unlikely to be Jewish as it is unlikely that they possessed a higher status than the males or that they initiated the persecution before the males. They are very likely God-fearers, which makes sense when cross-referenced later in Luke’s narrative (Acts 17:4, 17).
From these passages we see the beginnings of the Gentile mission, which posed a serious problem for the Jews as their status quo was suddenly challenged. The Jews generally had better success because of the long relationship they had enjoyed with God-fearers, owing to the hostility to the Gospel in Ch13. This is an important development in the spread of the Gospel and the accompanying persecution, which as we see here and throughout Acts, God-fearers play an important role in this.
Acts 16:14
This passage is crucial in understanding the success of the Gospel. Paul goes to a ‘place of prayer,’ presumably the area didn’t have a synagogue and meets Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. This makes Lydia an extremely wealthy member of the community, and she is at the meeting; a God-fearer (v.14). This makes a base for Christians to meet in Philippi, the household of a God-fearer provides a huge resource for the spread of the Gospel.
Acts 17:4,17
Again Paul’s begins in the synagogue and God-fearers who are there respond. Here they are called ‘worshipping (σεβομενων) Greeks’ with prominent women. And again this leads to an uproar from the Jews and Paul and Silas are accused of ‘turning the world upside-down,’ which, for the Jews, by evangelising God-fearers, that is exactly what they are doing. This happens again after God-fearers respond in v12 and again in v17 the same way.
Acts 18:6-7
Much the same way as Lydia, prominent God-fearer; Titus Justus is converted with his whole household next door to the synagogue providing a base for the Gospel and a back door into the synagogue, as we see Crispus, the leader of the synagogue is converted.
These passages teach us not only of the persecution that follows the mission to the God-fearers but also of the God-fearers necessity to the Gospel’s spread, particularly the resources of Lydia and Titus. This gives us much insight into the nature of Paul’s missionary techniques in reaching the Gentiles, via Judaism and the sovereign plan of God.
• The Gentile mission was began and was made public through God-fearers
• The mission to the God-fearers was drenched with Jewish Persecution
• This persecution was sometimes started by the Jewish-faithful God-fearers
• The spread of the Gentile mission was made possible by the resources of God-fearers
See:
L.H. Feldman The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers (Biblical Archeological Review 12, no.5, 1986)
E. M. Smallwood The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1981)
Robert S. MacLennan and A. Thomas Kraabel, The God-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention,(BAR 12, no.5, September – October 1986)
**I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vol 5, Diaspora Setting (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996)
I. H. Marshall Acts (Tyndale Grand Rapids, 1992) p.183-184
J. B. Polhill The New American Commentary: Acts (Broadman Press, Nashville, 1992)
C. K. Barrett Acts, A Shorter Commentary (T & T Clark, New York, 2002)
C. Evans at al Dictionary of New Testament Background (IVP, Leicester, 2000)
G. Hawthorne et al Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (IVP, Leicester, 1993)
New Testament Evidence for God Fearers outside of Acts
My hypothesis begins with this conviction; that not only can we speak legitimately of the first century AD people known sometimes as ‘God-fearers’ but also that their role was invaluable, to the success or failure in the spread of the gospel as recorded in the book of Acts.
For the purpose of analysing the evidence, we can, for now be satisfied with the definition of God-fearers being members of the gentile-community who affiliate themselves to some degree with Jewish worship, who are interested in Jewish-morality and monotheism yet are not in obedience to some aspects of the Jewish Law (often circumcision) as a proselyte would be. I believe also that a God-fearer may still be involved with activities from paganism. The spectrum of ‘God-fearers’ would travel between polytheistic-paganism and proselyte-Judaism.
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
The difficulty in finding passages which mention ‘God-fearers’ is one of terminology. Luke in his two-volume narrative gives us at least five terms (φοβουμενοι τον θεον (Acts 10:1-2; 10:22; 13:16; 13:26), σεβομενοι τον θεον (Acts 13:50; 16:14; 18:6-7), σεβομενοι προσηλυτοι (13:43), σεβομενοι Έλληνες (17:17)). It’s my belief however, that they are one and the same people and that we can find peoples, not necessarily under the name ‘God-fearers,’ who can be categorised as God-fearers. Because of terminological issues, some believe that ‘God-fearers’ are ‘pious’ or ‘devout’ Jews. Its my aim through examining the texts, to show why this is an incorrect understanding. Some from this will give them too vague a description; others would go to the other extreme and over-institutionalise them.
Throughout the Old-Testament we see ‘God-fearer’ types; strangers who dwell with you. These dwelt with the Israelites and were given some basic laws to follow. Such as in Leviticus 17:12-13, Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
The Gospels give no explicit mentions of ‘God-fearers’ however there are places we might infer this, the most obvious is John 12:20ff
The Greeks were not Jews as they were among Jews. They’re still known by their Hellenistic name and they were worshipping at a Jewish feast, so could be God-fearers. But what makes this more likely is by cross-referencing this with Acts 17:4,12
The Greeks in Thessalonica and Berea are God-fearers, making it likely that the Greeks at Jerusalem were also God-fearers.
J.D.Crossam believes that Paul in his epistles was writing to God-fearers. Paul writes to Churches he founded, comprising many God-fearers. We also know that the Jews placed a lot of emphasis on the God-fearers , which might explain the constant difficulty with Judaizers trying to bring converts under the Law, and possibly the synagogues. God-fearers would be taught in the synagogues that circumcision was the way into the covenant, yet Paul taught it by faith alone. (Which was, by its very nature, more attractive to God-fearers who were suspicious of commitment to the Law.) This seems to be the specific debate in Galatians 2:16ff
It could be that Paul, when dealing with the Jewish law was addressing God-fearers who were susceptible to the Jewish mission to keep God-fearers in their circles.
For the purpose of analysing the evidence, we can, for now be satisfied with the definition of God-fearers being members of the gentile-community who affiliate themselves to some degree with Jewish worship, who are interested in Jewish-morality and monotheism yet are not in obedience to some aspects of the Jewish Law (often circumcision) as a proselyte would be. I believe also that a God-fearer may still be involved with activities from paganism. The spectrum of ‘God-fearers’ would travel between polytheistic-paganism and proselyte-Judaism.
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
The difficulty in finding passages which mention ‘God-fearers’ is one of terminology. Luke in his two-volume narrative gives us at least five terms (φοβουμενοι τον θεον (Acts 10:1-2; 10:22; 13:16; 13:26), σεβομενοι τον θεον (Acts 13:50; 16:14; 18:6-7), σεβομενοι προσηλυτοι (13:43), σεβομενοι Έλληνες (17:17)). It’s my belief however, that they are one and the same people and that we can find peoples, not necessarily under the name ‘God-fearers,’ who can be categorised as God-fearers. Because of terminological issues, some believe that ‘God-fearers’ are ‘pious’ or ‘devout’ Jews. Its my aim through examining the texts, to show why this is an incorrect understanding. Some from this will give them too vague a description; others would go to the other extreme and over-institutionalise them.
Throughout the Old-Testament we see ‘God-fearer’ types; strangers who dwell with you. These dwelt with the Israelites and were given some basic laws to follow. Such as in Leviticus 17:12-13, Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
The Gospels give no explicit mentions of ‘God-fearers’ however there are places we might infer this, the most obvious is John 12:20ff
The Greeks were not Jews as they were among Jews. They’re still known by their Hellenistic name and they were worshipping at a Jewish feast, so could be God-fearers. But what makes this more likely is by cross-referencing this with Acts 17:4,12
The Greeks in Thessalonica and Berea are God-fearers, making it likely that the Greeks at Jerusalem were also God-fearers.
J.D.Crossam believes that Paul in his epistles was writing to God-fearers. Paul writes to Churches he founded, comprising many God-fearers. We also know that the Jews placed a lot of emphasis on the God-fearers , which might explain the constant difficulty with Judaizers trying to bring converts under the Law, and possibly the synagogues. God-fearers would be taught in the synagogues that circumcision was the way into the covenant, yet Paul taught it by faith alone. (Which was, by its very nature, more attractive to God-fearers who were suspicious of commitment to the Law.) This seems to be the specific debate in Galatians 2:16ff
It could be that Paul, when dealing with the Jewish law was addressing God-fearers who were susceptible to the Jewish mission to keep God-fearers in their circles.
>>>God Fearers<<<
If you haven't already heard me rant at length about modern scholarships underestimating/botching the first centaury AD people known as God-fearers then these next posts are for you! Namely, if you see me begin to talk about it you can simply say 'I've read your blog' and I'll shut up. All this began with some research for a New Testament essay in my second year at Theological College, and has since grown into somewhat of an obsession.
My basic beliefs are:
> God Fearers were a much more clearly defined people in the first centaury than we often give them credit for.
> God Fearers still however cover a spectrum of people who were sensitive to Jewish morality and monotheism but had not/were not able to for social confliction, been circumcised. (Social - such as being in the Roman army, or socially upper class, etc).
> God Fearers presented a diluted version/bridge/lens/stepping stone between the Jewish and the Roman communities. This gave Judaism a nuanced approach and allowed their continuance as an official religion within the Roman world.
> The Christian mission to the God Fearers (after the Jews) meant this lens was taken away exposing Judaism for what it really was; doctrinally anti-Rome. (N.b. this accounts for the evidence we see for the Jewish mission to the 'fringe believers' in the 1st centaury.
> As God Fearers became fewer (through becoming Christian) and the lens was further taken away, the Roman authorities got more suspicious about the Jewish continuance.
> This (+ a host of other factors) led to the open conflict between the Jews and the Romans, and the inevitable destruction of the temple in AD70.
-
> God Fearers exist today, we may call them sensitive agnostics, and they may be in our churches as 'fringe believers.' This again may be one of the reasons that the Church appears nuanced. God Fearers form a lens and dilute the true essence of the Church. We must seek to have their hearts convicted from being on the edge to into the fold.
I.e. I believe God Fearers were much more important to the success of the Christian mission, the judgement on the Jews, and the social-economic make-up of 1st century palatine. Further, we can learn from Acts etc, the effective ways to minister to such a spectrum of people who still exist today.
My basic beliefs are:
> God Fearers were a much more clearly defined people in the first centaury than we often give them credit for.
> God Fearers still however cover a spectrum of people who were sensitive to Jewish morality and monotheism but had not/were not able to for social confliction, been circumcised. (Social - such as being in the Roman army, or socially upper class, etc).
> God Fearers presented a diluted version/bridge/lens/stepping stone between the Jewish and the Roman communities. This gave Judaism a nuanced approach and allowed their continuance as an official religion within the Roman world.
> The Christian mission to the God Fearers (after the Jews) meant this lens was taken away exposing Judaism for what it really was; doctrinally anti-Rome. (N.b. this accounts for the evidence we see for the Jewish mission to the 'fringe believers' in the 1st centaury.
> As God Fearers became fewer (through becoming Christian) and the lens was further taken away, the Roman authorities got more suspicious about the Jewish continuance.
> This (+ a host of other factors) led to the open conflict between the Jews and the Romans, and the inevitable destruction of the temple in AD70.
-
> God Fearers exist today, we may call them sensitive agnostics, and they may be in our churches as 'fringe believers.' This again may be one of the reasons that the Church appears nuanced. God Fearers form a lens and dilute the true essence of the Church. We must seek to have their hearts convicted from being on the edge to into the fold.
I.e. I believe God Fearers were much more important to the success of the Christian mission, the judgement on the Jews, and the social-economic make-up of 1st century palatine. Further, we can learn from Acts etc, the effective ways to minister to such a spectrum of people who still exist today.
Some random exegetical thoughts from Gal. 2:15-21
V15, Paul using ‘we’ refers to birthright Jews, including Peter. He places a distinction between Jews and Gentiles who are ‘sinners’ because they didn’t have the Jewish law to ‘earn’ their righteousness as the Jews had. However the Law’s no–longer a legal claim for Jews, as all can be made righteous in Christ alone. It’s seen here that God takes Jewish sinfulness just as seriously as gentile sinfulness, both must be justified with Christ.
V16a, the general statement. Paul claims this as common-knowledge among Jewish Christians, even though it was taken for granted by Peter that no human being, whether Jew or Gentile will be saved apart from faith in Christ This is ‘the denial of the orthodox Jewish doctrine of Salvation.’ . Jesus Christ has been incorrectly translated, by some, as subjective-genitive instead of objective, this makes a huge difference as it could then read the ‘faith of Christ’, which would be irreconcilable with the next clause ‘believed in Jesus.’
V16b, the personal statement. Faith in Christ is the only way to be justified – as ‘we’ have believed, addressing the same group directly as v15.
V16c, the universal statement. In order to add religious weight to this claim, Paul cites Ps.143:2 to show that ‘no-one living is righteous,’ this is to Jews and Gentiles, no-one will be justified apart from Christ. Fung believes that ‘the knowledge…is grounded in [Paul’s] encounter with Christ’, which would fit with the narrative flow establishing his apostleship. Note that this verse grounds much of Paul’s argument. Note that ‘in view of the controversy in Galatia [this does not imply] that the “works of the Torah” do not need to be done…only that they produce justification before God.’
V17, does this make Christ the author of Sin? Paul does not encourage sin in denying the law but as a ‘counterformula’ to be justified ‘in Christ’. Making Christ the ‘minister’ of sin is either a logical conclusion under false premises or an illogical conclusion under correct premises. Although its true that to be justified in Christ makes it necessary to abandon the Law as a means of justification, Christ as the fulfilment of that law makes it logical and necessary.
V18, returning to speak metaphorically in first-person, Paul uses a well-known Jewish example of building. What is the thing torn down? The obvious answer is the Law, which ‘I have destroyed…by the preaching of the Gospel.’ See Pauls earlier elusion to this in ch1:13-14.
V19-20, here ‘Paul presents the basic elements for his theological position.’ I died to the Law, marks the end of the Law. Cause and effect this sheds light on the purpose of Justification, ‘to give glory to God’ to live not to ourselves but to him. Died to the law is specified in the next clause, ‘crucified with Christ,’ ‘Which refers not…to a subjective experiences…but to the believer’s objective position in Christ.’ Paul dying with Christ means that the Law can’t be used as a claim over God and it can’t be used as a claim over Paul either. The result of dying to the law is freedom from it, to enable them to live for God, which again links to later in the Epistle.
V21 . ‘The Christian gospel is the gospel of the grace of God. The Christian faith is the faith of Christ crucified. So if anybody insists that justification is by works…is undermining the foundations of the Christian religion.’
See:
V16a, the general statement. Paul claims this as common-knowledge among Jewish Christians, even though it was taken for granted by Peter that no human being, whether Jew or Gentile will be saved apart from faith in Christ This is ‘the denial of the orthodox Jewish doctrine of Salvation.’ . Jesus Christ has been incorrectly translated, by some, as subjective-genitive instead of objective, this makes a huge difference as it could then read the ‘faith of Christ’, which would be irreconcilable with the next clause ‘believed in Jesus.’
V16b, the personal statement. Faith in Christ is the only way to be justified – as ‘we’ have believed, addressing the same group directly as v15.
V16c, the universal statement. In order to add religious weight to this claim, Paul cites Ps.143:2 to show that ‘no-one living is righteous,’ this is to Jews and Gentiles, no-one will be justified apart from Christ. Fung believes that ‘the knowledge…is grounded in [Paul’s] encounter with Christ’, which would fit with the narrative flow establishing his apostleship. Note that this verse grounds much of Paul’s argument. Note that ‘in view of the controversy in Galatia [this does not imply] that the “works of the Torah” do not need to be done…only that they produce justification before God.’
V17, does this make Christ the author of Sin? Paul does not encourage sin in denying the law but as a ‘counterformula’ to be justified ‘in Christ’. Making Christ the ‘minister’ of sin is either a logical conclusion under false premises or an illogical conclusion under correct premises. Although its true that to be justified in Christ makes it necessary to abandon the Law as a means of justification, Christ as the fulfilment of that law makes it logical and necessary.
V18, returning to speak metaphorically in first-person, Paul uses a well-known Jewish example of building. What is the thing torn down? The obvious answer is the Law, which ‘I have destroyed…by the preaching of the Gospel.’ See Pauls earlier elusion to this in ch1:13-14.
V19-20, here ‘Paul presents the basic elements for his theological position.’ I died to the Law, marks the end of the Law. Cause and effect this sheds light on the purpose of Justification, ‘to give glory to God’ to live not to ourselves but to him. Died to the law is specified in the next clause, ‘crucified with Christ,’ ‘Which refers not…to a subjective experiences…but to the believer’s objective position in Christ.’ Paul dying with Christ means that the Law can’t be used as a claim over God and it can’t be used as a claim over Paul either. The result of dying to the law is freedom from it, to enable them to live for God, which again links to later in the Epistle.
V21 . ‘The Christian gospel is the gospel of the grace of God. The Christian faith is the faith of Christ crucified. So if anybody insists that justification is by works…is undermining the foundations of the Christian religion.’
See:
M. Luther A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (James Clarke & Co. Ltd, London, 1535)
R. Y. K. Fung. The Epistle to the Galatians (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1988)
J. Brown The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians (Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1853)
B. Witherington III. Grace in Galatia (T & T Clark, London, 1998)
H. D. Betz. A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1979.)
J. Stott The Message of Galatians, (IVP, Leicester, 1968
Some Possible Psalm Christology
How are the Psalms fulfilled in Christ?
Directive predictive prophecy – or indirect typological prefiguring
- Psalms cannot be fully applied/fulfilled/interpreted without Christ
- Could be for an Israelic King, yet a foreshadowing of Christ
Forward looking prophecy – or – backward looking analogy/application
- Could have fulfilment and application for Israelic King, yet unfulfilled potential for Christ
- Not unfulfilled potential, but used in NT as analogy, particularly in reference to His human experience
Meaning plain and intended by human author – or – deeper meaning not intended by human author
- There is nothing in NT interpretation that the OT author would not have affirmed
- Sensus Plenior
(Sensus Plenior – deeper meaning meant by God, but not known to the human author.)
Directive predictive prophecy – or indirect typological prefiguring
- Psalms cannot be fully applied/fulfilled/interpreted without Christ
- Could be for an Israelic King, yet a foreshadowing of Christ
Forward looking prophecy – or – backward looking analogy/application
- Could have fulfilment and application for Israelic King, yet unfulfilled potential for Christ
- Not unfulfilled potential, but used in NT as analogy, particularly in reference to His human experience
Meaning plain and intended by human author – or – deeper meaning not intended by human author
- There is nothing in NT interpretation that the OT author would not have affirmed
- Sensus Plenior
(Sensus Plenior – deeper meaning meant by God, but not known to the human author.)
A Simple Narrative Structure of 1 and 2 Chronicles
• 1Chron.1-9:34 – Collection of genealogies from Adam to returned exiles.
• 1Chron.9:35-29 – The reign of King David.
• 2Chron..1-9 – The reign of King Solomon.
• 2Chron.10-36 – Destruction of Northern Kingdom and restoration under Cyrus.
• 1Chron.9:35-29 – The reign of King David.
• 2Chron..1-9 – The reign of King Solomon.
• 2Chron.10-36 – Destruction of Northern Kingdom and restoration under Cyrus.
The Purpose of 1 and 2 Chronicles
The dominant purpose and message of Chronicles, I believe, is to typologically present a template for the people of Yahweh, particularly in terms of their lives, worship, and monarchy. Note, I don’t believe it’s primarily eschatological or messianic, but is shows an idealistic template for God’s people against non-working models, this however gives messianic expectations. This is shown chiefly through the Davidic kingdom as the benchmark, then historiographically through factual events told with a contextual angle.
Throughout Chronicles, this purpose is shown through several recurring independent themes. Some make the error of isolating a theme as dominant and pivoting message upon said theme. To avoid the same error, this essay will take several of what I believe are key themes as case studies, each theme containing key texts from Chronicles, to show how each theme adds to our understanding of the overarching message of this work.
I don’t believe that the Chronicler is primarily trying to present us with a neutral historical account, or even an accurate overview of its events. However Chronicles does contain facts, which have been inclined for the Chronicler’s theological agenda. Or, ‘whereas the main facts may remain the same, what the readers learn from them changes substantially.’ The recontexualised facts of Israel’s history has led some to question the historicity of Chronicles and its place in the cannon as a ‘history book’ following Samuel-Kings. However, the facts within Chronicles rhetoric, although biased, generally parry with other socio-historical sources, the main difference being, ‘the narrative context gives meaning to the facts, rather than vice versa.’ ,
On the other hand, much of Chronicles leads us to assume its desired historicity; the original title is translated ‘The Events of the Times’ and our word ‘Chronicles’ comes from ‘The Chronicle of the Entire Sacred History.’ Further, the Chronicler carefully handles several secondary sources, such as Samuel-Kings, the Pentateuch, royal annals, and unknown prophetic writings (such as those of Nathan and Samuel ). These lead some commentators to say that Chronicles is primarily a historical book which theological agenda is brought out within its historical framework. Some see Chronicles as a supplement to other sources, the ‘omitted things,’ omitted particularly from Samuel-Kings, note Jewish Historian, Josephus holds this view. My opinion is that Chronicles is primarily theological; the history has been thereby recontexualised for this agenda.
Quotes from: Ehud Ben Zvi, cit. M. P. Graham, The Chronicler as Theologian, (T & T Clark International, London, 2003) p. 63
For Josephus reference see; Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae VIII 246,
Throughout Chronicles, this purpose is shown through several recurring independent themes. Some make the error of isolating a theme as dominant and pivoting message upon said theme. To avoid the same error, this essay will take several of what I believe are key themes as case studies, each theme containing key texts from Chronicles, to show how each theme adds to our understanding of the overarching message of this work.
I don’t believe that the Chronicler is primarily trying to present us with a neutral historical account, or even an accurate overview of its events. However Chronicles does contain facts, which have been inclined for the Chronicler’s theological agenda. Or, ‘whereas the main facts may remain the same, what the readers learn from them changes substantially.’ The recontexualised facts of Israel’s history has led some to question the historicity of Chronicles and its place in the cannon as a ‘history book’ following Samuel-Kings. However, the facts within Chronicles rhetoric, although biased, generally parry with other socio-historical sources, the main difference being, ‘the narrative context gives meaning to the facts, rather than vice versa.’ ,
On the other hand, much of Chronicles leads us to assume its desired historicity; the original title is translated ‘The Events of the Times’ and our word ‘Chronicles’ comes from ‘The Chronicle of the Entire Sacred History.’ Further, the Chronicler carefully handles several secondary sources, such as Samuel-Kings, the Pentateuch, royal annals, and unknown prophetic writings (such as those of Nathan and Samuel ). These lead some commentators to say that Chronicles is primarily a historical book which theological agenda is brought out within its historical framework. Some see Chronicles as a supplement to other sources, the ‘omitted things,’ omitted particularly from Samuel-Kings, note Jewish Historian, Josephus holds this view. My opinion is that Chronicles is primarily theological; the history has been thereby recontexualised for this agenda.
Quotes from: Ehud Ben Zvi, cit. M. P. Graham, The Chronicler as Theologian, (T & T Clark International, London, 2003) p. 63
For Josephus reference see; Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae VIII 246,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)