Witnessing to Jews

[Thomas V]

I cannot agree that it is an irrelevant point. If we believe in the real, physical return of Jesus, the millennial kingdom, and Jesus’ promise to the apostles that they would reign with him judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28; 22:30), then race, in particular, the Jewishness of Jesus’ followers, has a special appropriateness in this established kingdom. Jesus himself will “sit on his glorious throne”, supposedly from Jerusalem, “the city of the great King” (Mt 5:35).


America is an earthly kingdom, true, but there is a culture and language for ours and every generation of believers that might somehow glorify God (Rev 7:9; 21:24) If the “great city of the King” and the “new Jerusalem” are the same, then the “nations” will be bringing glory and honor into it. What nations? No clear answer, but it might at least be supposed that race and culture or at least geography retain some identifiable importance.

America, an earthly kingdom, granted, perhaps might retain some form and function along with other nations. Think of Jesus prophesying that Sodom would rise up at the judgment and condemn those of Jesus' time. They somehow retain their earthly bonds even at the judgment. Might the saints also retain ties to earthly, if not allegiances, but affiliations?
That said, Jesus and his disciples, as Jews, will rule from Jerusalem and have much to do with the 12 tribes of Israel.

 

[Thomas V]

Where did you get the idea that it was not the practice of the early church to understand the viewpoints of those to whom they shared the gospel message? It only makes sense for Christians to understand the language and world view of those they try to reach.

For instance, it is clear that Paul studied the beliefs of the citizens of Athens before he addressed them in Acts 17:22-23:

So Paul stood before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.​

Paul took their religious practice and history (it's a fascinating story behind why there were altars to an unknown god) and used that as a gateway to open their minds that they have missed knowing the true God. He also quoted their pagan literature (Acts 17:28) to reveal truths hidden in plain sight.

And his message was received (contrary to the way some preachers try to spin this story), with some intrigued with the gospel (Acts 17:32) and others fully committed in faith (Acts 17:33).

"Shall we build bridges or demolish strongholds?" - Malcolm B. Yarnell III

Acts 17, Paul was not trying to understand the Athenians by sympathetically referencing their idols. His spirit, already “provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols”, resolutely crafted an inflammatory speech designed to lambast the foundations of their paradigms.

v. 24 - God doesn’t dwell in the Athenians’ man-made temples.
v. 25 - God doesn’t need the Athenians’ man-made sacrifices. God’s nature is not composed of the elements of the world. This is identified with the world-soul or with one of the beginning elements of the world, such as the “designing fire.” God’s nature may not be represented by human art (technes), the work of human hands.
v. 29: God’s nature may not be discerned or perceived by the human imagination (enthumeseos) (v. 29). The attempts of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, as well as similar attempts by Platonists and Aristotelians are thereby declared futile. The Epicurean philosophers equated truth with mentally derived images (eidola) of beauty. Paul contradicted both the Stoics and the Epicureans as he stood in their midst.

At least five other references of the speech to Greek philosophical religion are implicitly confrontational.

And Paul quoting pagan poets was not used to admit any truthfulness on their part, but to pit pagan thought against pagan. The pagan poets have no religious authority for Paul; only the Word, the gospel of Christ, has authority for Paul.

The entire speech to the Areogapus was like a jack-hammer, hammering away at each of the Athenians’ strongly held beliefs.

I close with v. 31 - against their view of time as cyclical and repeating, Paul insists on a final day. They would oppose the idea of universal judgment, especially by a mortal, and thought it ludicrous that a mortal would have been bodily raised from the dead.

Paul knew the Athenians’ philosophy so well, he was able to stand and deliver a supremely competent apologetic for the Christ while simultaneously dismantling their mythos.

A final word - Paul kept his own advice, and did not resort to quarreling, but in gentle humility confronted his opponents. Some street evangelists need the meekness of Paul’s Christ.
On the same token, Paul did not waste years doing nice deeds for the Athenians in order to win an audience. There must be a balance between earning the right to speak, whether in a Jewish synagogue or a philosopher’s stone, and speaking the evangel clearly, as we ought.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I cannot agree that it is an irrelevant point. If we believe in the real, physical return of Jesus, the millennial kingdom, and Jesus’ promise to the apostles that they would reign with him judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28; 22:30), then race, in particular, the Jewishness of Jesus’ followers, has a special appropriateness in this established kingdom. Jesus himself will “sit on his glorious throne”, supposedly from Jerusalem, “the city of the great King” (Mt 5:35).

If one holds a premillenial dispensationalist eschatology, then you are exactly right. If not, then those scriptures are interpreted another way.

America is an earthly kingdom, true, but there is a culture and language for ours and every generation of believers that might somehow glorify God (Rev 7:9; 21:24) If the “great city of the King” and the “new Jerusalem” are the same, then the “nations” will be bringing glory and honor into it. What nations? No clear answer, but it might at least be supposed that race and culture or at least geography retain some identifiable importance

I think I will retain my ethnic background since we will be recognizable in our resurrected bodies, but I think all nationalism will be done away with.

America, an earthly kingdom, granted, perhaps might retain some form and function along with other nations. Think of Jesus prophesying that Sodom would rise up at the judgment and condemn those of Jesus' time. They somehow retain their earthly bonds even at the judgment. Might the saints also retain ties to earthly, if not allegiances, but affiliations?
That said, Jesus and his disciples, as Jews, will rule from Jerusalem and have much to do with the 12 tribes of Israel.

I completely disagree that there will be any other governmental kingdom other than the kingdom of God. It is the only eternal kingdom.

 

[Baptist Believer]

"Shall we build bridges or demolish strongholds?" - Malcolm B. Yarnell III

With all respect to Dr. Yarnell, it's not an either/or proposition. When we witness of Christ in word and deed, we are both building bridges and casting down strongholds. When I re-familiarize myself with Mormon texts and current Mormon thinking (as I am doing now in preparation for talking to a practicing Mormon), I am preparing myself to understand his thinking (build bridges) and then demonstrate that Joseph Smith, Jr. is a false prophet and his teaching, and the teaching of the organization that succeeded him, is false (demolishing strongholds). At the same time, it is relatively easy to make a Mormon an atheist, but much more difficult to build a theological safety net so that when you convince a Mormon that their religion is false, that they are on a path to discovering the biblical Jesus.

Acts 17, Paul was not trying to understand the Athenians by sympathetically referencing their idols. His spirit, already “provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols”, resolutely crafted an inflammatory speech designed to lambast the foundations of their paradigms

Paul already understood much of Hellenistic culture (he was born a Roman citizen), but I'm sure he specifically learned why the city had altars to an Unknown God. He was referencing a time hundreds of years before when there had been a plague in Athens and they ended up sacrificing to the Unknown God and they were spared. He knew he could identify that God for them.

His address was designed to both build bridges (using reason, their history with the Unknown God, and their literature) to speak to them on their own terms. He also used those same elements (reason, history, literature) to demonstrate that they were deceiving themselves.

v. 24 - God doesn’t dwell in the Athenians’ man-made temples[/uqote]
Or any other temple, even in Jerusalem.

v. 25 - God doesn’t need the Athenians’ man-made sacrifices. God’s nature is not composed of the elements of the world. This is identified with the world-soul or with one of the beginning elements of the world, such as the “designing fire.” God’s nature may not be represented by human art (technes), the work of human hands.

Sure.

v. 29: God’s nature may not be discerned or perceived by the human imagination (enthumeseos) (v. 29).

Actually, that's NOT what he is saying. He is not making an epistemological claim. He is saying that they cannot credibly invent a god according to their own terms. They have to accept the reality of whatever God is truly there.

The attempts of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, as well as similar attempts by Platonists and Aristotelians are thereby declared futile.

This sounds like you (or the person who has interpreted this for you) has a bias against philosophy and reason.

The Epicurean philosophers equated truth with mentally derived images (eidola) of beauty.

Yes. That's the point made in verse 29. It is not a blanket condemnation of reason as a help to knowing God.

Paul contradicted both the Stoics and the Epicureans as he stood in their midst.

Yes. But he did that by building a bridge to speak to them in terms that they understood.

At least five other references of the speech to Greek philosophical religion are implicitly confrontational.

And Paul quoting pagan poets was not used to admit any truthfulness on their part, but to pit pagan thought against pagan.

I disagree. Even though the main thrust of the pagan poets was is serious error, no system is completely wrong all the time. For a belief system to have an credibility, it has to connect with reality in at least a few places. Paul is simply pulling out places where they can agree, so that he could build bring more revelation.

The pagan poets have no religious authority for Paul; only the Word, the gospel of Christ, has authority for Paul.

Of course. Just because one of us quotes something from the culture does not necessarily mean that we endorse everything the person who originally said it believed and said, nor does it mean that we are giving it an equal level of authority with scripture.

The entire speech to the Areogapus was like a jack-hammer, hammering away at each of the Athenians’ strongly held beliefs

Yes, but it did not feel like a jackhammer to them because Paul had already built a bridge to their culture by interacting with those ideas. He's not just telling them they are wrong, he is SHOWING them that they are in error and giving them a path toward faith in the true God.

I close with v. 31 - against their view of time as cyclical and repeating, Paul insists on a final day. They would oppose the idea of universal judgment, especially by a mortal, and thought it ludicrous that a mortal would have been bodily raised from the dead.

Yes. Paul is also confronting the Gnosticism that comes through Plato's thinking.

Paul knew the Athenians’ philosophy so well, he was able to stand and deliver a supremely competent apologetic for the Christ while simultaneously dismantling their mythos

Yes. He built a bridge and tore down strongholds in an effective and respectful manner. He was also so successful (contrary to the way many anti-intellectual people paint this passage) in that Dionysius (an Areopagite!), a number of men and women, and a woman named Damaris (who was probably known to Luke's audience) came to faith.

A final word - Paul kept his own advice, and did not resort to quarreling, but in gentle humility confronted his opponents. Some street evangelists need the meekness of Paul’s Christ

I agree.

On the same token, Paul did not waste years doing nice deeds for the Athenians in order to win an audience.

Doing good works is never a "waste" of time. Paul did good works wherever he went, so I doubt it was a conscious thing. True disciples of Jesus do good without thinking much of it (Matthew 25:37-39). Paul was simply faithful where he was. He was only in Athens a short time while he was waiting for others to arrive (17:16), so he spent his time "reasoning" in the synagogue and the marketplace each day and was so interesting (and worrying) that he was taken to the Aeropagus to be questioned. So, in effect, Paul spent his time doing good deeds until the audience found him.

There must be a balance between earning the right to speak, whether in a Jewish synagogue or a philosopher’s stone, and speaking the evangel clearly, as we ought.

Absolutely. All of this begins in discipleship. If we are being a faithful disciple, we don't have to scheme for opportunities. Opportunities come to us.

 

[Thomas V]

I completely disagree that there will be any other governmental kingdom other than the kingdom of God. It is the only eternal kingdom.

Baptist Believer,

Not to be a bugbear, but I think there will be other kingdoms, certainly not in opposition, but in cooperation. Certainly not eternal, as only God is eternal (1 Tim 6:15, 16; Daniel 4:34; 6:26).

My argument will seem lopsided, focusing on redeemed earthly rulership, but I do basically agree that there is but one eternal kingdom. Other kingdoms come and go, most especially so among Adam’s race, but that there must surely be separate kingdoms established when Jesus comes bodily to reign on the earth. Those kingdoms are the focus of my inquiry.

1. In God’s economy, there are currently hierarchies; thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities (Col 1:16); cosmic powers (Eph 6:12).

2. God is called “sovereign”, meaning “rule over”, as well as King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim 6:15), insinuating that under him are other rulers who might be labeled “kings” and “lords”. The same concept is found in Daniel 2:47 and Revelation 19:16). Granted, Daniel and Revelation were written during times of governmental oppression where Christians had no kingly presence. Other “kings” in Revelation are mostly viewed negatively. However, it is written of the New Jerusalem “by its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it”. Earthly rulership itself seems to have been recovered and renewed. Another hint in Revelation is at 2:26, “The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.” Surely Jesus here is promising co-rulership over the nations to those saints who remain steadfast in faith under extreme duress.

3. God has ransomed his people to make them a kingdom… to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” Rev 5:10.

4. These kings are certainly not to be in opposition to God, but it does seem a continuous concept that God expects sub-rulers under him to take charge of certain jurisdictions (Gen 1:26,28; Luke 19:17,19). Paul says that we will judge angels, and

5. Our behavior in this life determines the rewards of the next. If we are faithful in a very little we will be faithful in much, and if we have been dishonest in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to us the true riches?” (Luke 16:10,10). Granted, Luke might be addressing concurrent economic situations, and the kingdom of heaven might just be a name for an idealized human society, but human depravity will not allow for a utopia. God alone is able to govern such a society, having subdued his enemies (sin, Satan, and death), and imbued his citizens with His Spirit.

6. Lastly, on race, the Lamb has acquired citizens for his kingdom “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages,” (Rev 5:10; 7:9). Diversity seems to also be God’s cup of tea. He rejoices in order, but an order of monotony is unappealing. He rather enjoys harmony, the more the merrier. That said, surely race might be something we retain, along with some kind of geographical preference. We will rule over the whole earth, not just all clamber into the New Jerusalem, as lustrous as it might be.

Even language is one thing we can retain from our sojourn down here, even if we also learn new languages.
TV