Articles:
Introduction to "Election as relationship and mission"
Eze 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the nations shall know that I am the LORD... (AV & NIV).
While God's action against Gog in Ezekiel 38-39 has the immediate effect of Ezekiel 39:7, it is but a step in getting to really 'know' God. This verse, out of its immediate context, pictures the themes of this article.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
God is known through 'covenant'. Covenant is a relationship with God that grows over time.
As a general observation, when there is an unsatisfactory outcome or failure of the covenant, the covenant is 'renewed' on "better promises" or provisions so that the mistakes made under the 'old' covenant are prevented or limited in the 'new'.
This article, then, looks at the mission of God - that He may be 'known', in its fullest sense, by Israel and the nations; with the theme that a better or 'renewed' relationship, comes about through transformation of the covenant; (so that it may be called a 'new' covenant).
The latter theme development is an introduction to a future article on transformed Israel of the Millennium:
Eze 40:1 In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.
Eze 40:2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.
"There is also another rhetorical response in this book. It is a strong antidote to nostalgia, to wishful thinking, to denial, to comforting memories of the good old days back home. If the Rhetor is harsh against Zedekiah and company [the last stage of the people to go into captivity], he is relentless against those who would take comfort in nostalgia. It has been common to use the language of "restoration" in writing about Ezekiel 40-48. Re-storation refers to re-vival, re-turn, re-building, re-making, re-newing, re-pairing, re-formation - to making something the way it was. However, what the Rhetor sees is not re-storation or re-formation but trans-formation. There is no trace of nostalgia in this Rhetor's vew of the world. The goal of the ideology of the Book of Ezekiel is not restoration to what was, but transformation to a new thing. The power of a book is that it can create a new world" (Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation - The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48, p.149).
The vision of transformed Israel, Ezekiel 40-48, was not only a message of hope for those of the southern Kingdom of Israel, who after defeat were languishing in captivity at the time of Ezekiel's vision, but much more so for those of modern Israel - the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and kindred people - languishing in a future captivity after their coming defeat. (Type and antitype fulfillment).
Ezekiel's "vision of transformation" will be seen in a new light by modern Israel especially through the commission of Elijah the prophet:
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers...
"... the leading sin of the nation at the time of our prophet was not family quarrels; but estrangement from God. The fathers are rather the ancestors of the Israelitish nation, the patriarchs, and generally the pious forefathers, such as David and the godly men of his time. The sons or children are the degenerate descendants of Malachi's own time and the succeeding ages. "The hearts of the godly fathers and the ungodly sons are estranged from one another. The bond of union, viz., common love of God is wanting..." (Hengstenberg). Turning the hearts of the fathers to the sons does not mean merely directing the love of the fathers to the sons once more, but also restoring the heart of the fathers, in the sons, or giving to the sons the fathers' disposition and affections..." (C.F. Keil, Minor Prophets, KD, Vol. 10, p.664).
"Elijah will appear to rejoin ancestors and posterity in the benefits and blessings of the covenant relationship..." (Peter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT, p.345).
Not only will there be a 'transformation' of Israel as a nation under God in the land, but there will be a 'transformation' or expansion of Israel's missional role of 'being' in the midst of the nations, under the 'Old' Covenant, to one that includes 'going' to the nations in the 'New', as this article will argue.
Human Geography - A spatial theology of holiness
Overview of Ezekiel 40:1-48:35 by Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, The Book of Ezekiel, NIB, Vol.6, pp.1532-34:
"In this, his fourth and final vision report, Ezekiel describes a perfectly ordered Israelite society living in a perfectly ordered homeland under the leadership of a perfectly ordered priesthood serving in a perfectly ordered Temple complex.
[The leadership of Israel will also involve a human 'Melchizedekic' priest/prince, of the line of David].
"Ambitious readers who determine to work through these chapters find themselves confronted with a morass of details and much confusion. I would venture that many an ancient reader would also have experienced a bewilderment and frustration at points. This is technical language - the argot of architecture and especially of ritual practice - and it undoubtedly was best understood by priests conversant with the structures, inner working, and rituals of cultic life.
"How can moderns lacking such information make sense of this vision and understand the theology undergirding it? [Kalinda Rose] Stevenson offers three keys to unlocking Ezekiel's "vision of transformation" that are apropos in the context of this Overview. First, she argues persuasively that the vision is best construed when approached from the perspective of human geography. "Human geography shows that every society is organized in space," she writes. "Changing the spatial organization of the society changes the society. Ezekiel 40-48 is a vision of a new society organized according to a new set of spatial rules. It is a temple society with controlled access to sacred space, based on a spatial theology of holiness."
"Second, Stevenson maintains that the genre of Ezekiel 40-48 is territorial rhetoric. Territoriality, she explains, is a technical term used within the discipline of human geography. Robert Sack defines territoriality as "the attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships, by delimiting and asserting control over a geographical area". According to Sack, space becomes territory when an attempt is made to control access to it by means of a boundary of some sort - a structure, or even a password. Territorially is "place specific " and "always involves issues of power."
"One way to assert territoriality, Stevenson maintains, is to describe areas, boundaries, and rules of access in a written text such as Ezekiel 40-48. Within the world of the vision, Yahweh asserts territoriality as the victorious divine king who returns from battle (chaps. 38-39) and is enthroned within his palace [Temple]. But the priests also assert territoriality by controlling access to sacred space and performing the most crucial religious rituals.
"Third, Stevenson emphasizes "the shape of the holy." In Ezekiel's vision, the square is of primary symbolic significance. "In the landscape of Temple and land in Ezekiel," she writes, "the square is not simply an accident of design. It is rhetorically meaningful and is intended to be the material representation of a theology of holiness... the command to measure the proportion in 43:10 is part of a rhetorical strategy to restructure a society according to a theology of holiness." In the course of the temple tour, Ezekiel learns through the measurements of his guide that the outer court, inner court, Temple, binyan ("building," "structure"), holy of holies, and altar are all square in shape. Careful readers will discover that many of the measurements provided for these and other features of the Temple complex are multiples of five - five, twenty-five, fifty, etc...
"This theology of holiness is much illuminated by Jacob Milgrom's extensive analysis of Israel's priestly cultic system. Like other ancient near Eastern theologies, this cultic system conceives of people, places, and things as holy or common, pure or impure. Milgrom insists that holiness is not, as many moderns might think, an abstract ethical quality. It is a "thing" a dynamic and contagious substance emanating from deities. Its antagonist is impurity, also a dynamic and contagious physical substance which emanates, in Israelite thought, from human beings. Because holiness and impurity are dynamic and contagious, contact with them renders persons or objects either holy or impure. (By contrast, the common and pure are stative, i.e., stating a condition or state, and non-contagious substances.)
"Some moderns might view the concept of contagious holiness positively, but in the thought world of ancient Israel, illicit contact with the holy could have deadly consequences. One thinks, for example, of the hapless Uzzah, who reached out his hand to steady the ark as it was being carted to Jerusalem and died as a consequence (2 Sam 6:6-7). Or one thinks of Korah and his cohorts, Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16), who believed that they should be able to offer incense to Yahweh and who confronted Moses and Aaron on the issue. Korah made a theological argument for his position: "All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourself above the assembly of the Lord?" (Num 16:3). But as they stood with their censers and incense at the entrance of the tent of meeting, Yahweh threatened to destroy the entire "congregation of Israel." Moses intervened, and the congregation was permitted to distance itself from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. But Yahweh is said to have caused the earth to "open its mouth"; and the men together with their families and possessions, "went down to Sheol."
"Impurity has the power to pollute a temple. This potential is exceeding dangerous because, as Ezekiel's second vision report (chaps 8-11) makes perfectly clear, Yahweh's glory will not reside in a grossly impure temple. Ezekiel 5:11 warned of the consequences of temple defilement: "Therefore, as I live, says the Lord God, surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations - therefore I will cut you down; my eye will not spare, and I will have no pity." When God abandons the Temple, the land, its people, indeed, the Temple itself, are doomed to destruction at the hands of Yahweh's punitive instruments. Such, from Ezekiel's perspective, was the hard lesson of 586 BCE, when the Babylonian army broke through Jerusalem's walls, burned every large structure, including the Solomonic Temple, and either killed or exiled the majority of the city inhabitants. The sins of the past must not be repeated. And, Stevenson writes, one corrects the sins of the past by controlling access to space in the future. The concern for measurements, which the modern reader may find bothersome and irrelevant, is consistent with a "worldview in which the cultic abuses of the past were perceived as boundary violations of sacred space."
"Although impurity is dangerous and unacceptable to God, temple impurity is inevitable. In his commentary on Leviticus 1-16, Milgrom notes that, from the perspective of the priestly pentateuchal authors, impurity pollutes the priestly tabernacle in three stages: (1) an individual's inadvertent misdeed or severe physical impurity pollutes the courtyard altar, which must be purged by daubing its horn with blood from the purification sacrifice... (Ezekiel diminishes this possibility by placing the altar in the inner court, an area accessible only to priests); (2) an inadvertent misdeed committed by priests or people pollutes the Temple, which must be then purged by the high priest, again by blood from the purification sacrifice; (3) "wanton unrepented sin not only pollutes the outer altar and penetrates into the shrine but it pierces the veil and enters the adytum [innermost sanctuary], housing the holy Ark and ... the very throne of God." Purifying the Temple by means of the ongoing sacrificial system is the task of the priests.
"The issues here addressed - human geography, territoriality, the shape of the holy, and the theology of holiness - enables modern readers more fully to understand Eekiel's vision of a perfectly ordered and temple-centered Israelite society in the midst of which Yahweh's glory dwells. The devil is not in the details! The details make possible God's abiding presence."
The Principle of Relative Negation
* Christopher J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, BST, p.291:
"c. Defending God's holiness (36:22-23)
"God, then, moves to clear his name. The exile had been a moral necessity. But paradoxically it had also produced an intolerable situation. Israel had been created in order to bring glory to Yahweh and to be the agent of the knowledge and blessing of God among the nations. Now they were scattered among the nations, but the effect was the precise opposite. Yet Yahweh's ultimate purpose remained - to be glorified among the nations. As the God and Lord of all the earth, all people must eventually come to recognize him for who he truly is. Accordingly, he must act to reverse the dishonour being caused to his name by the outworking of own just judgment. He would indeed restore his people.
"But what would be the primary motivation of the restoration? Other prophets would make the point, movingly and often, that this restoration would indeed be for Israel's benefit, and out of God's loving care and compassion. But through Ezekiel, Yahweh corrects any expectation that his action would be based on mere sentiment. 'It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name' (22).
"(Footnote to verse 22):
"Probably we should take the form of this sentence as an example of what is sometimes called Hebrew 'relative negation'. In order to indicate the relative priority of one thing over another, you would affirm one and deny the other: e.g., 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hos. 6:6; the second line indicates the comparison).
[Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings].
"Thus Ezekiel here does not literally deny that the restoration was for Israel sake, but affirms that it was much more important to realize that it was primarily for the sake of Yahweh's name."
Application:
This principle of "relative negation" should be employed in explaining these two verses in blue below:
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
There has not been a literal change in the priesthood. The author of Hebrews was establishing the "relative priority" of the Melchisedec priesthood over the Levitical priesthood - one is in heaven and one is on the earth.
One scripture that illustrates that there has been no change in the priesthood, is from what is often called Jeremiah's 'Book of Consolation' - Jeremiah 30-33.
Two chapters away from the promise of a future new/renewed covenant between God and the houses of Israel is another millennial prophecy:
Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD;...
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken ... with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
Jer 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply ... the Levites that minister unto me.
There was no end to the institutions of sacrifices and an officiating Levitical priesthood at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans anymore than there was an end to them at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
The author of Hebrews once again employing 'relative negation' was establishing the "relative priority" of Christ's once and for all sacrifice over animal sacrifices.
Or using Hobart Freeman's terms, the author of Hebrews, was establishing the "relative priority" of "objective efficacy" over "subjective efficacy".
The "subjective efficacy" in the Renewed Covenant, as it was in the Old, is revealed by God through Ezekiel:
Eze 45:15 Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign LORD.
"The majority of dispensationalists have argued that the sacrifices are memorials to the sacrifice of Christ, with no atoning character. However, the idea that these are memorial sacrifices is no where apparent in Ezekiel, and it is specifically claimed by Ezekiel that these offerings will make atonement (45:15, 17, 20)" (Ian M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, Muck, Terry, Gen. Editor, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), p.521).
Eze 43:20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it.
Eze 45:19 The priest is to take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the inner court.
Eze 45:20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple.
"In vv 15 and 17 the expiatory significance of the sacrifice is emphatically expressed. In 43:20 and 45:19f it can be seen that the expiatory power is especially attributed to the blood" (Walter Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 - A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). p.479).
Two Calendars for Passover at the time of Christ?
Mk 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
Mk 14:13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
Mk 14:14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
Mk 14:15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
Mk 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mk 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. (AV).
"12 ... "And on the first day of Unleavened Bread." This reference is to the Passover day itself... By introducing in this way the story of securing the upper room and the meal that follows, the evangelist presents the last Supper as a Passover meal...
"...when they were slaughtering the Passover lamb." Casey ... argues that the subject of the verb ... "they were slaughtering," refers not to the crowd in general ... but to Jesus and his disciples, who are depicted as having slaughtered the "Passover lamb"... Given the meaning of the question that the disciples will shortly ask Jesus, Casey is probably correct. According to Jewish convention, Jesus would have slit the animal's throat, its blood would have drained into a silver or gold basin held by the priest, and the priest would have taken the basin to the altar where he would have sprinkled the blood at the base of the altar (cf. Tg. Onq. Exod 24:8: "Moses took the blood and sprinkled the blood at he base of the altar to atone for the people'). Throughout the course of the day thousands of lambs would have been slaughtered in this fashion...
"Having finished the flaying of the lamb, the disciples ask Jesus ... "Where do you wish that we go to prepare, so that you may eat the Passover?" In ancient times, if biblical legislation was observed literally, the Passover lamb would have been cooked and eaten within the temple precincts themselves (inferred from Deut 16:7, "the place which the LORD you God will choose"). In late antiquity, the much larger population made this impossible. After the slaughter and the sprinkling of blood on the altar, the celebrant and his family would retire to a private setting within the city of Jerusalem to cook and eat the Passover lamb... The implication of the disciples' question is that the Passover lamb has just been slaughter, so there is now a need to retire to suitable quarters. They are asking where those quarters are.
"13 Jesus had made prior arrangements... Jesus sends his disciples ahead to take care of the Passover meal preparation..." (Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, WBC, p.373).
"16 ... "and they prepared the Passover". From this it is clear that the evangelist understands the Last Supper as a Passover meal... Preparation for the Passover meal entailed roasting the lamb and providing unleavened biscuits, bitter herbs, sauce, water, and wine...
"17 ... "and when it was evening, he comes with the Twelve." If the Last Supper was a Passover meal, then the ... "evening," begins 15 Nisan the night of the Passover (cf. Exod 12)..." (Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, WBC, p.375).
Mk 14:12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" (NIV).
Jn 18:28 Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
"A problem is posed by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels appear to record the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g. Mark 14:12ff.), while John seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified at the time when the Passover victims were being slain, so that the Last Supper preceded the Passover (John 13:1,29; 18:29; 19:31)" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.684).
"The evidence is thus confusing, and it is in the least surprising that scholars have come to very different conclusions. I do not see how we can be dogmatic in our present state of knowledge. The most natural reading of the Synoptists shows that the Last Supper there to be the Passover. The most natural reading of John shows that Jesus was crucified at the very time the Passover victims were slain in the Temple. While it is undoubtedly possible to interpret the accounts in such a way that we make them tell the same story, it seems best to see them as the result of following different calendars. According to the calendar Jesus was following the meal was the Passover. But the Temple authorities followed another, according to which the sacrificial victims were slain the next day. John appears to make use of this to bring out the truth that Christ was slain as our Passover" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, pp.694-695).
"140. Cf. Bruce, "while John times his passion narrative with references to the official temple date of the Passover, our Lord and his disciples, following (it may be) another calendar. Observing the festival earlier" (p.279). So also I. H. Marshall, "Our conclusion, then, is that Jesus held a Passover meal earlier than the official Jewish date, and that he was able to do so as the result of calendar differences among the Jews" (Last Supper and Lord's Supper [Exter, 1980], p.75" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.695).
The "Unclean food" Controversy in Mark 7
Mk 7:18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
|
NIV
|
KJV
|
Mk 7:19 (a)
|
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."
|
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught,
|
Mk 7: 19 (b)
|
(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.')
|
purging all meats?
|
Mk 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'
"7:19 ... In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean": Most modern translations and commentators understand the Greek phrase this way. In Greek, the phrase is a participial clause, reading literally after the preceding sentence "cleansing all foods." The phrase here is taken as Mark's comment and the particle is taken as dependent on "he asked" in v.18. The phrase could also be understood as dependent on the immediately preceding clause thus: "and then goes on out of the body, cleansing all foods," meaning that all foods wind up in the same place! The KJV renders the phrase quite literally..." (Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, NIBC, pp.113-14).
Mk 7:18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
|
Mk 7:19 (a) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught,
|
Mk 7: 19 (b) (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
|
Mk 7: 19 (b) purging all meats?
|
""(Thus he cleansed all foods)"... This comment raises two issues: to what does it refer and from whom does it come? Grammatically, this participle construction hangs awkwardly without obvious syntactical connection. Several, exemplified by Black ... have sought to link it more directly to what immediately precedes as done by the Sinaitic Syriac. By taking "foods" ... as singular and the particle as a passive, the sentence read, "... for it enters not his heart but his belly, all the food being cast out and purged away... Others view this as a possible anacoluthon ["want of syntactical sequence, when the latter part of a sentence does not grammatically fit the earlier" (Chambers English Dictionary)] drawing an obvious, if sarcastic, conclusion that the digestive process "cleanses all foods"...
"The awkward construction has led some to suggest that its presence might reflect a later incorporation into the text of a scribal gloss... But most attribute it to he evangelist.
"... But did Mark add it?
"... Mark's interest in 7:1-23 appears to focus more on what defiles than on the narrower concern about food laws. Furthermore, this awkward participial construction not only uses a hapax legmenon ["a word or phrase that is found only once" (Chambers English Dictionary)] for "foods" but it fails to follow the normal pattern of the evangelist's parenthetical comments, generally a statement introduced by a conjunction..." (Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, WBC, pp.378-79).
"Jesus does not disown his dense disciples but follows his pattern of providing them with a further explanation when they do not understand. He illustrates his point by reminding them of what happens to food when it is consumed. It passes through the digestive tract and winds up in the latrine.
"Many take 7:19b as the narrator's aside that crowns the argument. The NIV reflects this interpretation: "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.'" The phrase "In saying this, Jesus declared," however, is not to be found in the text. Literally the words used here translate, "cleansing all foods." The masculine nominative participle,"cleansing" (katharizon, with an omega), would modify the verb "he says" in 7:18. A well-attested variant reading, however, has a nominative neuter participle (katharizon, with an omicron).
["The distinction in the pronunciation of the long o and short o has disappeared in modern Greek, and it is likely that the two words would have been pronounced the sane when the texts of the Bible were being copied. Scribes could have easily made an accidental mistake if they were copying texts as someone read aloud from the master copy].
"It is the hardest reading and may be the best. It would affirm that the food has somehow become clean in the process of its elimination. This reading has two things to commend it. It would help explain why such a dramatic pronouncement from Jesus that declared all foods to be clean was not cited to settle the later debate over this issue in the churches.
["An appeal to Jesus' authoritative word would have been a knock-down argument in Acts 15; Gal. 2:11-14, and Rom. 14-15...].
"Jesus' explanation does not explicitly declare that all foods are clean, only that they somehow come out clean.
"Furthermore, the statement fits the rabbinic perspective on defected food. According to the Mishnah, excrement it not ritually impure though it may be offensive. This surprising judgment may be the key to Jesus' argument. With a droll twist Jesus argued that if food defiles a person, why is it not regarded as impure when it winds up in the latrine - at least according to the tradition of the Pharisees? Defilement must come from some other source than food. Jesus' logic derives from the Pharisees' own rules regarding clean and unclean, which sets up his concluding words on the real source of defilement. The only defilement that the disciples need worry about has to do with the heart, not the hands, with evil thoughts that leak out from within a person, not food that ends up in the latrine. What does not enter the heart does not make a person unclean. The heart is the core of motivation, deliberation, and intention..." (David E. Garland, Mark, NIVAC, pp.275-76).
Judaism and Armstrongism (Laodiceanism?)
"A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head" (Revelation 12:1).
The woman of Revelation 12 is a 'telescopic' woman. What appears, at first sight, to be 'one woman, turns out to be 'two' women. (The woman of Revelation 17-18 is also a 'telescopic' woman - the Antichrist 'kills' one while Christ 'kills' the other).
The 'telescopic' concept is a component of 'typology'.
"Type; Typology. A hermeneutical concept in which a biblical place (Jerusalem, Zion), person (Adam, Melchizedek), event (flood, brazen serpent), institution (feasts, covenant) office (prophet, priest, king), or object (tabernacle, altar, incense) becomes a pattern by which later persons or places are interpreted due to the unity of events within salvation-history... The "type" is the original person of event and the "anti-type" (Gk. antitypes; cf. 1 Pet 3:21) the later "copy" that fulfills the former..." (G. R. Osborne, "Typology", ISBE, Vol.4, pp.930-31).
The above quote is a general description of typology. Osborne in his article went on to note that:
"... (in an interesting reversal of the usual order) the heavenly sanctuary prefigures the early tabernacle (8:5,9,24)...
"In fact we may speak of horizontal (historical) and vertical (earthly-heavenly) types, with the latter predominately in the Epistles to the Hebrews".
Typology, therefore, is a rich and varied subject.
Two prophetic concepts lead into the relationship of "Judaism and Armstrongism".
(1) "Telescoping - The leaping of a prophecy from a near to a far horizon without the notice of intervening matter" (J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p.xviii).
In "Who and What is the Beast of Revelation?" it was pointed out that:
"... [a] telescopic prophecy may therefore be historical, subsequential, contemporaneous or a combination of the aforementioned)".
That is, a prophecy is telescopic when it 'leaps' from one type to another without "notice of intervening matter" so that the types have linkages that may be historical, subsequential and contemporaneous or a combination of the aforementioned.
(2) "The relationship between type and antitype is real and historical, based on an analogous correspondence that exists between them" (Osborne, ibid.,).
The relationship between two subjects may not necessarily be described as type and antitype as suggested in the relationship of the two woman of Revelation 12. It may be said that they are types of each other.
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church." (Ephesian 5:31, 32).
"Woe to the bloody city! It is full of lies and robbery. Its victims never departs... the multitude of harlotries of the seductive harlot, The mistress of sorceries, who sells nations through her harlotries, and families through her sorceries" (Nahum 3:1,4).
In the Bible a woman is a symbol of both a church and a city, and for the latter, by extension to a kingdom.
In Revelation 12 we have a telescopic prophecy involving Israel the Kingdom and Israel the Church.
Paul brings out "an analogous correspondence that exists between them":
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;... [and they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor 10:1,3, 5-6,11).
The examples of the people of God under the leadership of the Rock, Jesus Christ, provides examples of admonition for God's people today. It may then follow that the examples of the people of God during Jesus Christ's first advent ministry, (the first half of Daniel seventy week telescopic prophecy, as it applies to the 'true' Messiah', as oppose to the "false Messiah's first half), provide lessons for God's people today.
(The Daniel 9 prophecy of the "seventieth week" has Christ and the Antichrist 'telescoped' together - if you want to know what the Antichrist does see what Christ does and if you want to know what Christ does see what the Antichrist does).
Typology suggest that Israel the Church may be 'blind' in regard to the Kingdom of God close to, or even at, the time of Christ's second coming just as Israel the Kingdom was 'blind' in regard to the Kingdom at Christ's first coming.
This is the argument:
Judaism is based on the Old Testament while Armstrongism is based on the Old and New Testament.
Judaism has truth and error and Armstrongism has truth and error.
From the Old Testament, Israel the Kingdom was looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and His Kingdom. Israel the Kingdom was expecting to be ruling in an earthly Kingdom.
From the Old and New Testament, Israel the Church, is looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom. Israel the Church is expecting to be ruling in an earthly Kingdom.
Unfortunately the churches of God have adopted a "premillenial" doctrine of the Kingdom of God - the churches' of God version has elements of "dispensational" and "historical" premillennialism.
Andrew Fausset pointed out, at least 20 years before Herbert W. Armstrong [HWA], 1892-1986, [the founder of the Radio/Worldwide Church of God], was born, that chialism, now known as premillenialism, was wrong about the reward of the saints.
"I have often said it is much more difficult to unlearn an erroneous supposed truth than it is to learn a new truth" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages, p.xiii).
"The biggest obstacle to embracing this relatively new science called socionomics is our preconceived bias, which is based on a life time of conditioning by academia and the media. It is like being told for the first time that the earth is round, when all of your life you have been taught and have believed that the earth is flat. It is not that a round earth is such a difficult concept. The problem is dislodging the preconceived belief that it is flat.
""Everyone" knows it [the earth] is flat. Suggesting that it is round sounds like lunacy or heresy... They have been taught that it is flat from day one, and have always believed that. They never question it. That belief system now stands as the greatest barrier to learning the truth" (Graham Dyer, Short Term Update, June 23, 2008, depression2007.com).
"The Greek word ... to slander, originally meant to deceive, literally "to throw across," that is, to take something out of its proper context and put it somewhere else where it did not belong, but would appear to belong" (George Bailey, Germans, p.426).
"The Bible ... is like a jigsaw puzzle, with thousands of various pieces of different forms and shapes that can be fitted together in only one precise pattern" (HWA, The Mystery of Ages, p.5).
The 'premillennialists' puts together Scriptures (pieces of a jigsaw) such as these:
"... God had sworn with an oath to him [David], that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:30, AV).
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28, AV).
"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Revelation 5:10, AV).
and then come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ and the saints will literally be dwelling and reigning on the earth during the Millennium.
This conclusion "would appear to belong" but it is taken out of its proper context.
Sometimes when putting together a jigsaw some pieces seem to go together but it is later found that they are mismatched.
The 'premillennial' doctrine also appears to fit together but it has taken Scriptures out of the proper context of "one precise pattern".
(See the "Kingdom of God - What, Where and When?" where it explains that the above Scriptures are to be understood in the 'absolute' sense not in the 'dynamic').
I appreciate that for those who have believed in 'premillennialism' all their lives, adult lives, or their religious lives it is a challenge, but challenge has always been the case for God's people.
In the apostles day it was the challenge of accepting the Gentiles. But that was a 'new' beginning challenge. But there are more challenging challenges.
The end of the 'tabernacle' and 'temple' dispensations of the Old Covenant provide a template to view the end of the 'tabernacle' dispensation of the New Covenant.
Era-Ending Covenant Challenges
"Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spew you not out" (Leviticus 20:22).
"In Lev 18:25, 28; 20:22, the expression "to vomit" out of the land is used of the fate of the Canaanites upon Israel's entry into Palestine, and the potential fate of the Israelites themselves" (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, p.258, comment on Revelation 3:16).
When God's people have not lived up to the requirements of Covenant then God can no longer 'fellowship' with them and so He has to withdraws His presence.
(The principle above highlights a central reason for the need of a sacrificial system in the Millennium).
But God gives His people a chance through a warning to change their ways so that they may not suffer the covenant 'curse'.
For God's people in Jeremiah's day:
"Do not trust in deceptive words and say, "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!"" (Jeremiah 7:4).
"7:4 deceptive words. Spoken by false prophets. The idea that God would not destroy Jerusalem simply because his dwelling, the temple, was located there was a delusion, fostered in part by the miraculous deliverance of the city during the reign of Hezekiah..." (NIVSB).
"'Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. While you were doing all these things, declares the LORD, I spoke to you again and again, but you did not listen; I called you, but you did not answer. Therefore, what I did to Shiloh I will now do to the house that bears my Name, the temple you trust in, the place I gave to you and your fathers. I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim'" Jeremiah 7:12-15).
For God's people today:
"Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place" (Revelation 2:5).
The removal of the lampstand is the warning to the church at Ephesus, that begins the messages to the churches. The removal of God's presence (the lampstand) would be the outcome of covenant infidelity. Another outcome for covenant infidelity, expressed in a different metaphor, is behind the warning to the church at Laodicea, that ends the messages to the churches.
"...These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent" (Revelation 3:14-17,19).
The challenge for God's people today is to recognize their spiritual state. Christ's statement about being a "faithful and true witness" suggests that part of the problem is that because of the belief in premillennialism God's end time people are not faithful and true witnesses.
Though many do not realize it "Armstrongism" has become their God; and we all have our different gods that get in the way of our worshipping the true God.
An extreme example of this is this statement on a Church of God website:
"We Remember... Herbert W. Armstrong NO Departures from Any of the Doctrinal Teachings!"
Speaking with authority type
"When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law" (Matthew 7:28-29).
"For the scribes claimed no authority of their own. They conceived their duty in terms of the faithfulness to the tradition they had achieved. So they were antiquarians, delving into commentaries, searching for precedents, claiming the support of famous names among the rabbis. Their only authority lay in the authorities they were constantly quoting...
"Not that he was contradicting Moses... but rather the scribal corruptions of Moses. Yet in doing this he was challenging the inherited traditions of the centuries..." (John R.W. Stott, The Message of The Sermon on the Mount, BST, pp.214-215).
(The critics of this article may accuse me of "delving into commentaries". But I have to because I am unlearned and, typological, I didn't go to Ambassador College [founded by HWA] - a far-future type of the Rabbinical school of Hillel).
"In his authority Jesus differs from the "teachers of the law". Many of them limited their teaching to the authorities they cited, and a great part of their training centered on memorizing the received traditions... They spoke of the authority of others... Yet many teachers of the law did indeed offer new ruling and interpretations..." (D.A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, Vol.8, p.195).
To provide the far-future type, here are a couple of partial quotes from one Church of God website for August 2008:
"This is something Herbert W. Armstrong warned about for years... he wrote in 1980".
"For years, Mr. Armstrong warned..."
"As Herbert W. Armstrong wrote back in March 1982..."
More quotes could be given from other websites and different aspects of keeping the 'tradition' alive expressed.
It is not suggested that HWA was wrong in what he "wrote" and "warned" about, in the context from where the quotes are taken; but that it suggests, in relation to those quoting, a symptom of covenant infidelity. The issue is not with HWA but with those who follow him.
The typological argument above suggests that the Churches of God have some challenges ahead.
"Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'" (Luke 3:8).
Perhaps the reason why God did not reveal the full jigsaw to HWA was to test His people, after his death, if they would follow a man or God.
The teachings of the Church of God Seventh Day were stepping stones for HWA to his deeper understanding of God and His Word. The teachings and doctrines of HWA are stepping stones for God's people today to a deeper understanding of God and His Word.
The biggest stumbling block for God's people today is the false doctrine of premillennialism and all the misunderstanding that comes with it.
This is not an attack on HWA. I would not be here writing this if it were not for the teachings of Herbert Armstrong and those who supported his work.
It is not a 'belittling' of HWA to say that he did not understand certain Scriptures and doctrines just as it is not a denigration of David to say he was wrong to commit adultery and murder. We all make mistakes.
Having brought together David and HWA it is of note that a rich "analogous correspondence ... exists between them".
Perhaps the most obvious one is put well by Stanley Rader (Ahithophel) in his book "Against the Gates of Hell". In the chapter entitled "Conspiracy" there is a sub-heading entitled O Absalom!. Here Rader writes:
"A startling parallel to the Garner Ted-Herbert Armstrong tragedy - no softer word will do - can be found in the biblical story of King David and his son Absalom..." (p.107).
Perhaps a lesser type is in their 'first' wives. David is promised to an elder sister but ends up marrying the younger sister. In the account in 1 Samuel the elder sister is introduced first.
In HWA's autobiography the chapter entitled "How I Met My Wife" there is a subheading I Meet Two Pretty Girls. In this account he meets first the younger of two sisters but ends up marrying the older.
After HWA death Joseph Tkach Jr. rises to prominence, later to become the second pastor-general to follow HWA. Like Rehoboam, the second king after David's death, before him Tkach Jr., and his father, rejected the 'elders'.
Rehoboam's policy led to a divided Israel, the Kingdom. The Tkachs' policy led to a divided Israel, the Church.
Israel the Church, from a typological view, is now in the time of the 'divided Kingdom. It was during the earlier 'divided' kingdom that God mightily used the prophets.
"my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children... And it will be: Like people, like priests. I will punish both of them for their ways
and repay them for their deeds" (Hosea 4:6 & 9)
"The blame for Israel's spiritual decline is put at the feet of her spiritual leaders, specifically her priests, although the prophets are also mentioned (4:4-10). It is always dangerous to generalize or oversimplify the complexities of life, but the failure of spiritual leadership is one of the top reasons why people in the church fail to acknowledge God, to have a steadfast devotion for God, and be faithful and true to him (4:1)" (Gary V. Smith, Hosea/Amos/Micah, NIVAC, pp.92-93).
(The warning to the Laodiceans is given by "the faithful and true witness").
The failure of the accepted/acknowledged spiritual leadership of the people in the earlier 'divided' Kingdom is a type for today. Typology suggest that Israel the Church is near their time of the prophets.
In the time of the 'Divided' Kingdom Ahab and Jezebel provide the typological types for the Beast and the false prophet. The true Jehovah-worshippers, of this time in the northern kingdom of Israel, picture God's true church while the pseudo-Jehovah-worshippers (Jeroboam's instituted worship) pictures traditional Christianity. The introduction of Baal-worship by Ahab and Jezebel types the new religious system of the Beast and false prophet, which is to supplant the true- and pseudo- church/es during the tribulation. The house and altar of Baal picture the temple of the Beast, and Ahab's "wooden image" (1 Kings 16:33) pictures the 'literal' image of the Beast - the image of the beast is a dual concept.
Some one hundred years after David's death, Elijah appears on the scene to confront the typological "beast and false prophet" of his day.
From this typology presentation of Israel the Kingdom and Israel the Church above, HWA cannot be the Elijah to come. The Elijah comes sometime after HWA's death, just as Elijah the Tishbite came some time after David's death.
(Elijah 'long' sojourn, in Zarephath of Sidon is a type for the two witnesses in Jerusalem - "the heart" of the Beast's kingdom - "Elijah is commanded to go and reside in the heart of the very land from which the Baal worship now being promoted in Israel had come" (NIVSB, note on 1 Kings 17:9)).
Not Knowing God
"Paul Newman has said of him [Robert Redford], "I have known the man for over 40 years and I don't know him, not really""(Suzie Mackenzie, American dreamer, guardian.co.uk, August 14, 2004).
"Indeed, part of the problem with the book is that we do not seem to know very much about [Richard] Gatling's internal life. "We know him, but we don't know him," the author says at the end, which is probably the sort of thing that a biographer should admit at the beginning of a book" (The Economist, A little Gatling music, economist.com, June 12, 2008).
The misunderstanding of the Kingdom, not only concerning the reward of the saints and other aspects of the kingdom, but it is also includes misunderstandings about God. This suggests that the people of God don't really know Him as well as they should.
Alternative scenario
And he [John] shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Luke 1:17).
The 'typology' of the coming of Elijah the prophet (Malachi 4:5) has warnings for Israel the Church which may be divided into two scenarios - events leading up to Elijah the Tisbite and the events leading up to John the Baptist.
Two scenarios of eras, from what is erroneously called the Old Testament, have been suggested as a parallel of the Seven Eras of the Churches of Revelation.
In both these schemes "Elijah" appears on the scene in the "Laodicean era".
The first scenario of eras has:
Ephesus = Patriarchs
Smynra = Israel in Egypt
Thyatira = Leadership of Joshua and the former Judges
Sardis = Leadership of the latter Judges and Saul
Philadelphia = King David
Laodicea = Solomon and the divided Kingdom
The second, using Mike Blumes parallel, has:
And the seven churches and their letters show a parallel to the entire Old Testament period. So we see how the Old was a shadow of the New.
EPHESUS
This is the GARDEN PICTURE.
Jesus is in the midst of the candlesticks as in the Garden trees. And The angel is commended for guarding the church against error, as Adam was to guard or keep the Garden. But the angel left his first love, as Adam had fallen. And the candlestick would be removed, as Adam was removed from the Garden, if they did not repent. And the Garden remains open to the overcomer, as Jesus tells the overcomers that they may eat of the fruit of life.
SMYRNA
This is the period following the Garden when the Patriarchs lived. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph up to Moses.
Isaac and Joseph both experienced a sort of death come to life again. Isaac was resurrected in a sense from the altar, since Abraham fully intended to slay him and have God resurrect him to fulfill the promise of having seed from Isaac. Joseph was left as dead, in Jacob's mind, when the boys sold him, and he "arose" to rule in Egypt. Smyrna's church was poor yet rich, like the "fathers' who lived as strangers in the land. They would be imprisoned as Joseph was. And in Moses' day Aaron wore a crown of life as high priest. And the tribulation paralleled the plagues in Egypt they endured.
PERGAMOS
Wilderness journey from Egypt.
The wilderness is likened to an abode of devils, just as Pergamos' believers were where satan's seat was. During the Exodus, Balaam and Balak were resisting, just as is mentioned to this church. The angel of the Lord stood ready to smite Balaam with a sword. Balaam was slain with the sword by Phinehas the priest in Numbers 31. The enemies of this church would be smitten with the sword of God's mouth. And the overcomers are the ones who go into the most holy place to eat the hidden manna from the ark inside there!!
THYATIRA
This corresponds to the age after the exodus when Israel had a monarchy and brings in David's kingdom.
Jesus calls himself Son of God, as is parallel in David (Read Psalm 2:7, and many more Psalms, where David speaks of himself in foreshadow of Son of God). The church tolerated Jezebel, a wicked queen in the time of the monarchs of Israel. 3.5 years of tribulation occurred in her day due to backsliding, and this is parallel, of course, with the 3.5 years mentioned throughout Revelation. Then it ends with ruling with a rod of iron, which is a Psalm of David (2:9).
SARDIS
End of the monarchy in Israel.
The people of God were defeated and taken captive into Babylon. Church thinks its alive but really dead. A few people are faithful. Like a remnant that would come out of Babylon.
PHILADELPHIA
Return from Exile in Babylon with Ezra and Nehemiah.
They rebuilt the temple, which is noted in this letter to this church. But there is a synagogue of Satan. False Jews fought Ezra and Nehemiah in Ezra 4 and Neh. 4, 6 and 13. An hour of testing would come paralleled by Antiochus Epiphanes who came after the old testament period as prophesied in Dan 8 and 11, witnessed by the historical, but uninspired, book called Maccabees. New Jerusalem was the reward of the overcomers... a new temple!
LAODICAEA
Last Days from time of Jesus when Pharisees and scribes ruled. They bragged of self-sufficiency. They were naked and poor! Jesus said they would be spewed out, just as God would mash Jerusalem 40 years after killing Jesus. They must repent and sup with Jesus, as in the communion supper of bread and wine... (The Symbolism in the Book of Revelation, mikeblume.com).
In the argument above David and HWA have been typed. Solomon's and Rehoboam's reigns have been typed by Joseph Tkach Snr and Jnr. The divided Kingdom essentially pictures the Church after the death of HWA.
Using Mike Blume's scenario Ezra parallels HWA and Antiochus Ephiphanes types the Tkachs.
Antichous wanted to 'Hellenise' the Jews - the Greek culture being the dominant culture of the times - while the Tkachs wanted to traditionalize the Church - traditional Christianity being the dominant religion of the times.
Both conversion attempts were rejected by the people.
"The Pharisee ("separatist") party emerged largely out of the group of scribes and sages who harked back to Ezra and the Great Assembly. The meaning of the name is unclear; it may refer to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power. It is difficult to state at what time the Pharisees, as a party, arose. Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus ("Ant." xiii. 5, § 9). One of the factors that distinguished the Pharisees from other groups prior to the destruction of the Temple was their belief that all Jews had to observe the purity laws (which applied to the Temple service) outside the Temple. The major difference, however, was the continued adherence of the Pharisees to the laws and traditions of the Jewish people in the face of assimilation. As Josephus noted, the Pharisees were considered the most expert and accurate expositors of Jewish law" (Pharisees, wikipedia).
The Hasmonian and Roman periods pictures the Church after the death of HWA. The Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees picture the divided Churches.
The harking back to "Ezra and the Great Assembly" types the Churches harking back to HWA and the heyday of the Worldwide Church of God.
After the rejection of Antiochus and the rejection of the Tkachs, through a misguided zeal, the Jews and the Churches of God got off on the wrong foot. This provides an introduction to the last section.
The world that Jesus Christ arrived in, a type for the future
"Two features of this inter-testamental period are worth noting in view of their influence on the world into which Jesus arrived. The first was the increasing devotion to the law, the torah. This became the supreme mark of the faithful Jew. It eventually developed into a somewhat fanatical cause, supported by a systematic building of a whole structure of theology and exposition and application around the law itself. There were professional experts, scribes, involved in this, and there also emerged lay movements devoted to the wholehearted obedience to the law - the Pharisees. We may be tempted to dismiss all this as legalism. Doubtless it tended in that direction, and we shall hear Jesus with his unique insight and authority exposing some of the failure and misguidedness of his contemporary devotees of the law and tradition. But we should also be aware of the positive and worthy motives that lay behind it. Had not the exile, the greatest catastrophe in their history, been the direct judgment of God on the failure of his people precisely to keep the law? Was that not the message of the great prophets? Surely then they should learn the lesson of history and make every effort to live as God required, thus not only avoiding a repetition of such judgment, but also hastening the day of his final deliverance from their present enemies. The pursuit of holiness was serious and purposeful. It was a total social programme - not just a fringe of hyper-religious piety.
"The second feature was the upsurge of apocalyptic, messianic hope. As persecution continued and as the nation experienced martyrdoms and great suffering, there developed hopes of a final climatic intervention by God himself, as the prophets had foretold. He would establish his kingdom for ever by God himself, as the prophets had foretold. He would establish his kingdom for ever by destroying his (and Israel's) enemies, vindicating and lifting up the righteous oppressed, and put an end to their suffering. In varied ways these hopes included the expectation of a coming figure who would realize this intervention of God and lead the people. These expectations were not all linked together, or attached to one single figure. They included terms like messiah (anointed one), son of man, a new David, Elijah, or the Prophet, the branch, etc.... The coming of such a figure would herald the end of the present age, the arrival of the Kingdom of God, the restoration of Israel and the judgment of the wicked.
"One can the imagine the stirrings of hearts and quickening of pulses in Jewish homes and communities when, into this mixture of aspirations and hopes dropped the message of John the Baptist, and then of Jesus himself -
"The time is fulfilled! (what you have been waiting for as something future is now here and present); the kingdom of God is at hand! (God is now acting to establish his reign in the midst of you); so repent and believe the good news (urgent action is required of you now)" (Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, (Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2005, pp.25-26).