Quote:
Originally Posted by countmeworthy
VERY WELL WRITTEN AND EXPRESSED
|
Thanks for the affirmation and kindness. I have a problem with overstatement, so will try to limit this to 2 points. The first is from Revelation 22:
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Why did Jesus send his angel to testify to John for the churches? Where's the processed Triune God indwelling John to be his life and his everything? It seems the Jesus of John's revelation was not the one extracted by the gentile (European, Protestant) church from Paul's epistles.
Second, from John 1:
"Now this was John's testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, 'I am not the Messiah.' They asked him, 'Then who are you? Are you Elijah?' He said, 'I am not.' 'Are you the Prophet?' He answered, 'No.'" (NIV)
My point here is that there was already a conversation on the ground as the gospel narrative began to unfold, and its context was an entirely Jewish one. There was already assumed and shared meaning, to both the writers and readers of the initial texts. And the context was of an occupied Judea, under Roman (gentile) rule. Where was the promised (Jewish) Messiah?
By the time of the Reformation, of course, all that assumed meaning, not clearly delineated in text, was long gone. So Luther and Calvin were able to extract salvation through faith, but not much more (but hallelujah for that). Likewise the Brethren with "types and figures". Each generation finds the Christ it needs. Guyon and Fenelon with their "spiritual torrents"; the Pentecostals &c. The Protestants rightly rejected the RCC clutter, but in its place was a gaping hole in which they were free to place all their culturally-derived meanings. Lee laughed at Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but he did the same exact thing. He just disguised it better, and most of us didn't notice, immersed and enthralled as we were.
Again, Paul wasn't wrong; no far from it. But to extract a Hellenist or European or Chinese or American "Christ" from Paul, and miss the thoroughly and completely Jewish man Jesus (I mean this in a literal sense) from the NT/OT/Second Temple backdrop is to miss half the story. You're trying to run the race on one leg.
The only problem Paul had with the Jerusalem church is that they tried to impose their 'Jewishness' on gentile converts. (I'm being vague, as the record is scanty - think, say, circumcision). Other than that their experiences were entirely genuine, and proper, and normal (to crib Witness Lee's phraseology) and were foundational for ours which were to follow. Think about it - the first gentiles didn't show up until Acts 11! What does that tell you?