Theologians, eminent for their piety and position in the church, are now entertaining crude ideas and contradictory conceptions of the kingdom. For many centuries under the interpretation given by men who have, probably unconsciously, largely imbibed the spirit of the Alexandrian school, the kingdom has been made to mean a variety of things have the option of the writer. Modern authors, with but few exceptions, instead of discarding this looseness, seem to revel in it, making the kingdom to denote almost everything that fancy connects with religion or the Church or even with humanity. - George N. H. Peters

“For persecution never kills the church. But a compromised Gospel will” — Dr. Patrick Fung

But redeemed humanity gathers in two families: Israel, those twelve tribes descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and everyone else, all seventy nations, descended from Noah’s three sons. If, for this vision to be realized, gentiles in the Christ movement had to remain gentiles, so too then did Jews have to remain Jews—that people constituted by the family connections and God-given privileges and promises that Paul in Romans chapters 9 through 11, and again in chapter 15, so proudly pronounced. “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable!” The day of that realization verged on arriving, this earliest community was convinced, because their messiah, slain and resurrected, was about to return. -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.162

Paul fought with Peter in Antioch after men from James arrived there. Oceans of ink have been spilled trying to account for the causes of their fight. Because of one prominent scholarly tradition of interpretation, James and Peter have long been cast as conservative, Law-observant apostles, “Jewish  Christians” who wanted Christ-following gentiles to be circumcised. Paul, by contrast, is the “Law-free” radical who insists that gentiles (and, in some readings, Jews too) be unencumbered by Law-observance. And this reconstruction presupposes that Paul, too, had stopped living a Jewish life. He thereby transmutes from being a “Jewish” Christian into a sort of honorary gentile one, as well as the premier defender of and spokesman for a “Law-free” gentile Christianity. 

This interpretation misreads all parties. From the beginning—before Paul was even involved—the movement had admitted gentiles without requiring them to be circumcised. James, Peter, and John all affirmed that position, back in Jerusalem. But these gentiles were responsible for maintaining some specifically Jewish behaviors, such as worshiping only Israel’s god (sic), and renouncing sacrifices made to idols. All the apostles, Paul included, were agreed on this, and in this sense no form of the gospel, for gentiles, was “Law-free.” And finally, Paul, as we have seen, worked in concert with James about the collection for the Jerusalem community throughout the rest of his missions. No ideological breach yawned between the two men. -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.160-161

All of these New Testament texts are often read as antagonistic to Jews and to Judaism. I think that this is due, again, to the long shadow of later Christian anti-Judaism, cast backward. We simply assume that “Judaism” and “Christianity” are two incompatible traditions because that is the way that, in large part, things eventually worked out. So too when reading Paul. He says terrible things about the Law—but he says them with reference to his gentiles, who are listening to other apostles urging them to accept proselyte circumcision. (And Paul says really terrible things about these other apostolic colleagues!) Elsewhere, Paul affirms the Law, quoting from the Ten Commandments, urging its observance on his gentile assemblies. “The Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.” And as late as the late 50s, Paul is still praising the cult of sacrifices offered in Jerusalem’s temple. The Paul of history stands entirely within Judaism. -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.159-160

For this reason, throughout this study, I have avoided using the terms “Christian” and “church.” These words too readily conjure the later realities of organized institutions, and of a religion separate from, different from, and hostile to Judaism. But in its founding generation—which was committed to the belief that it was history’s final generation—members of this movement were traditionally observant Jews, Paul included. (And for that matter, reaching back to the period before his crucifixion, so was Jesus.) These people all studied Jewish scriptures. They honored the god (sic) of Israel through offering sacrifices at the temple. They came together on the Sabbath. They imagined final redemption, inclusive of eschatological gentiles, as a natural extension of the history of Israel. -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.158

So powerful is Paul’s toxic rhetoric in Galatians that it still effects, and even distorts, modern critical reconstructions of the beginning decades of what will eventually be Christianity. Freedom, grace, Spirit, life: these describe Paul’s “law-free” mission and message, and Christianity in general. Slavery, works, flesh, death, the Law: these describe the “Judaizing” message of Paul’s circumcising opponents and, by extension, Judaism in general. But, as we have already seen, the outreach to gentiles had never required circumcision. In this regard, it was “Law-free” from the beginning. And, again as we have already seen, the outreach to gentiles had always required exclusive worship of the god (sic) of Israel, and foregoing sacrifices before images of other divinities. In this regard, it was a “Judaizing” gospel from the beginning, insisting on a public behavior that Paul himself demands of his gentiles as well. No other gods and no images—the first two of Judaism’s Ten Commandments—were always the sine qua non for any and all gentiles joining this movement. In this regard, even Paul’s own gospel was never “Law-free.” -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.136-137

Against this idea [circumcising Gentile believers], however, stood centuries of prophetic traditions. In the End, as Isaiah had foreseen, the gentiles were to join with Israel, but they would not join Israel. Their place in the Kingdom was to be as gentiles, now free from their enchainment to idol worship. “The root of Jesse shall come,” prophesied Isaiah, “he who rises to rule the gentiles. In him shall the gentiles hope.” Paul repeated this verse from Isaiah when summarizing his own view of final redemption in his letter to the Romans. Gentile Endtime inclusion did not mean an Endtime “conversion.” A policy of circumcision, of turning these gentiles “into” Jews, would undermine the very same positive sign of the times that they themselves embodied. -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.134-135

Into this carefully maintained urban religious ecosystem, working their way via the network of diaspora synagogue communities, walked the apostles of the early Jesus movement. What these apostles urged on their Jewish hearers would have required no huge adjustment religiously so much as an altered perspective. The god (sic) of Israel, they proclaimed, was about to end history. Some of the behaviors that they consequently encouraged—focused repentance, immersion for sin in Jesus’ name, reception of divine spirit— were indeed new. But diaspora Jews attracted to the Jesus movement still prayed to the same god as before; they still read the same scriptures as before; they still kept the same calendar as before; and their traditional practices, domestic and liturgical, were all the same as before. Jews joining the Jesus movement, in short, did not “convert” so much as make a lateral move within Judaism, similar to a decision to move from being a Sadducee to becoming a Pharisee, as Josephus, in his own life, had done. To an outside observer, it would all have seemed like some version of Jewish business as usual.  -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.131

Jerusalem’s destiny in the age to come informs our prayers in this age. - John P. Harrigan

My teaching on Paul's cruciform apocalyptic discipleship model in the book of 1st Corinthians. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

The Judaized pagans of these urban synagogues thus presented the apostles with a startling new opportunity. Once the apostles brought their testimony to the synagogue, they not only persuaded some of its Jews to repent and to immerse in Jesus’ name in preparation for the coming of the Kingdom. They also persuaded some of its associated pagans, who likewise wanted to commit to this charismatic assembly. But how should these gentiles be integrated into the movement? Jesus himself had left no teachings on this matter. 

The apostles needed to improvise, and that is what they did. They drew upon that same prophetic paradigm within which the movement had always functioned: the expectation that, in the End, the nations too would renounce their false gods and worship the one true god alongside of Israel. Thus, apostles welcomed these pagans into their new assemblies too.

But there was one major proviso: these gentiles absolutely could not worship their own gods or sacrifice before their images anymore. By immersing in Jesus’ name, by receiving holy spirit, by being empowered to prophesy, to receive visions, to exorcise demons, to heal, these ex-pagan pagans had to shut the door on the old age and step into the new. Just as the original community back in Jerusalem represented a beachhead of the Kingdom, so too did these new non-Jewish members. By committing to Israel’s god alone, they were no longer pagans—and, thus, no longer godfearers: they were eschatological gentiles. What greater confirmation that the times were fulfilled, that the Kingdom of God truly was at hand?  

These ex-pagan pagans were walking into absolutely uncharted social territory. Like proselytes, they made an exclusive commitment to Israel’s god; unlike proselytes, they did not assume the bulk of Jewish tradition. Gentile men were not required to circumcise. They remained gentiles, which was precisely the point: God’s Kingdom was to encompass all humanity, Israel and the nations. Like god-fearers, these gentiles were still gentiles, that is, they retained their native ethnic status as non-Jews. Unlike god-fearers, they could no longer worship their native gods.  -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.123-124

Jesus said that "many who are first [in this age] will be last [in the age to come], and the last [in this age] first [in the age to come].” (Mark 10:31)

Disciple of Jesus, don't fear. Though the wicked seem to prosper today, it won't always be this way. - Joshua Hawkins

Paul’s premier sense of self was as “apostle to the pagans.” Only his letters from midcentury survive. By that time, he would have had to explain to his own ex-pagan congregations, as well as to himself, why the Kingdom was already “late”—some twenty-five years after Jesus’ resurrection—and why many other Jews were not persuaded by this messianic reading of their ancient scriptures. In Romans, Paul lays out his two-phase explanation. Israel would have received the gospel, had God wanted them to. But instead, God was currently and deliberately preventing most of Israel from so doing, for strategic reasons: to give Paul (and other apostles) more time to reach out to the pagan nations. Once the “full number” of gentiles came over, God would cease this strategic hardening of Israel, and then history’s finale could begin. At that point, “a Deliverer will come from Zion / he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.” It was the outreach to the gentiles—the time it was taking to turn pagans from their gods to Paul’s god (sic) —that was holding things up. -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.118-119

Loving and longing for the appearing of our Lord is not cowardly escapism, but the triumphant expression of our sure and blessed hope. -BA Purtle

Jesus’ followers in the year 30, however, innocent of the future—of this future—were not burdened by the need to explain the temple’s destruction in 70. They never saw it coming. The trauma that compelled them, rather, was the crucifixion of their beloved leader. Their experiences of Jesus raised— which eventually blended into their evolving expectations for Jesus’ second, public debut as the eschatological warrior-messiah—was their response. They too scoured scriptures, as would the evangelists long after them. They modified Jesus’ prophecy of the coming Kingdom by linking its arrival to his second coming. That revamped message provided the core of the good news that they began to proclaim to holiday crowds in Jerusalem: the Kingdom was coming, and Jesus was coming back.  -Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.113

“Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood

  Shall never lose its power,

Till all the ransomed Church of God

  Be saved, to sin no more.”

-William Cowper (1731-1800)

Unlike Christoplatonism, which generally interprets “seen” and “unseen” in metaphysical terms (material vs. immaterial), the Scriptures primarily refer to “seen” and “unseen” in historical terms (this age vs. the age to come). Such an approach is based upon the day of the Lord and the “appearing” of God (cf. Ps. 21:9; 102:16; Zech. 9:14; Mal. 3:2), when humanity will “see” him in his glory (cf. Ps. 97:6; Isa. 33:17; 52:8). Such language is assumed in the New Testament and applied to Jesus’ own “appearing” (Col. 3:4; 1 Tim. 6:14; Titus 2:13; 1 Peter 5:4; 1 John 2:28). Thus, “when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2), for “he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him” (Rev. 1:7; cf. Matt. 5:8). -John P Harrigan

The double appropriation of this aspect of the David-traditions happened quickly, within two-plus decades of Jesus’ death. Already by the late 50s of the first century, on the evidence of Paul’s letter to Rome, the association of Jesus with David, both past and future, was firm. Paul uses it as the springboard for his own self-introduction:   

Paul, slave of Jesus Christ, called to be his messenger, set apart for God’s good news— 2 promised beforehand through his prophets in the sacred scriptures— 3 the good news concerning his son, from the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead: Jesus Christ our lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship in order to bring the obedience of faithfulness on behalf of his name to all the nations/gentiles/pagans, 6 including to you. (Romans 1.1–6; my translation)   

Paul simply asserts Jesus’ Davidic lineage here. He does not argue it, but ties it immediately to Jesus’ impending apocalyptic reappearance, when the dead would be raised. The claim of Jesus’ past Davidic descent, in other words (and for all the interest that Paul shows in it here), seems “caused” by expectations about Jesus’ future eschatological performance. - Paula Fredricksen, When Christians Were Jews, p.102-103

“Israel is the carnal anchor that God has sunk into the soil of creation.” - Wyschogrod, Body of Faith

Christian Bible teaching and preaching is primarily based on the writings of the Apostle Paul. No exaggeration to say that Protestant churches especially stand upon a Pauline foundation. That means that, if we got Paul wrong, then we've got everything wrong. - Daniel Thomas Lancaster

"For if you live according to the flesh [in this age] you will die [on the Day of the Lord], but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body [in this age], you will live [on the Day of the Lord]." (Romans 8:13)

“We sing not because the present is enjoyable, but because the future is glorious.” - Christopher Ash

Theology 101: As in textual criticism, so in the history of doctrine—an earlier, well-established theological position is to be preferred to a later majority position. It is not those who hand down the teaching that made the error, but those who failed to receive it. -Dr. Michael Svigel 

My teaching on fasting from Luke 5. Notes. Audio 1. Audio 2. 

Theology 101: “That’s just a symbol” is a lazy hermeneutical cop-out. Literally every word on your page is a symbol. That’s the nature of written language. The interpreter’s burden is to determine the meaning of the term; and if a figure of speech or symbolic vision, the referent of the image. Too often I feel people say “that’s just a symbol” to dodge the implications of the likely interpretation or to relieve themselves of the burden of thinking. -Dr. Michael Svigel 

“Christ . . . will appear a second time . . . to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Hebrews 9:28

The fact that we *have been* saved (Eph. 2:8) and *are being* saved (1 Cor. 1:18) means that we are irrevocably united to the One who *will save* us from coming judgment. - John Piper

“It is a general methodological assumption of the early church fathers, as well as those modern renewalists, that John’s vision of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21 must be read in light of Isaiah 65–66. To read this as annihilation and re-creation ex nihilo is to read into it meanings for “pass away” and “new heavens and new earth” that are foreign to the sum of biblical teaching.” -Dr. Michael Svigel, The Fathers on the Future, p.164

Leonard Ravenhill: The devil is not afraid of a busy church, but he trembles at a praying church.

"The Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion." Isaiah 34:8

In an age of theological self aggrandizement and ministry clout farming, choose Christ instead.

Reject the clamorous dove sellers for the quiet service of, to, and for, Christ. - Aaron in Writing

I get the impression when reading some commentaries on Romans 9-11 that the authors have given more time to reading other scholars than they have to reading the Hebrew Bible (or rest of the NT for that matter). They seem likewise to think that Paul has forgotten about it as well. - BA Purtle