Was it Jesus’ mission to deny and abolish the Torah (Pentateuch)?

		Jesus, a radical leap (into? . . . whereunto?) VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL

In my previous post, “Who murdered Jesus of Nazareth,”  the first comment in my critique on Stephan Joubert’s prizewinning book “Jesus, a Radical Leap, Kingdom, Church and World: Where do you fit in?” I refuted his claim that Jesus came to abolish the Jewish religious and ethical text known as the Torah (Pentateuch) or the Law. To substantiate his own assertion he quotes Wolfgang Schrage, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at the University of Bonn, who said:

Beyond all doubt, Jesus denied the Torah the central place it had for Judaism. ⁽¹⁾ (Emphasis added).

Professor E P Sanders, Dean Ireland’s Professor of Exegesis in the University of Oxford and Fellow of The Queen’s College had this to say about Ernst Käsemann’s and Wolfgang Schrage’s assertion that Jesus denied the Torah in one of his lectures in London in 1990. ⁽²⁾

While many scholars have recognized that the so-called ‘antitheses’ are not antithetical, numerous others have regarded them as giving the very essence of Jesus’ supposed demolition of Judaism. I shall offer only a few examples. Käsemann focused attention on the opening words, ‘but I say’, and emphasized both the ‘but’ and the ‘I’―but on the contrary I―as being a unique claim to authority.

The words egō de legō embody a claim to an authority which rivals and challenges that of Moses. But anyone who claims an authority rivalling and challenging Moses has ipso facto set himself above Moses. . . . Rabbis may oppose each other in debate by the use of the formula ‘But I say’; but this is only a formal parallel, because, in the case we are discussing, it is not another rabbi but the Scriptures and Moses himself who constitute the other party. To this there are no Jewish parallels, nor indeed can there be. For the Jew who does what is done here has cut himself off from the community of Judaism―or else he brings the Messianic Torah and is therefore the Messiah. (3)

This packs an awful lot of misinformation into a few lines. “Brings the Messianic Torah” implies that it was generally thought that the Messiah would bring a new law hich would replace that of Moses, but there is no evidence in favour of such a view. More importantly, Käsemann supposes that the so-called antitheses are against the law of Moses, but they are not.

Schrage, though noting that Matthew did not understand the ‘antitheses’ as antithetical, agreed with Käsemann in holding that in these verses the historical Jesus opposed Moses and Scripture itself. This was unique. “In Judaism we never find a doctrine proposed that is counter to the Torah.” ⁽⁴⁾

These dogmatic views (“In Judaism we never find…”, “there are no Jewish parallels, nor indeed can there be”) are in error. Let me start with the simplest point, whether or not the sayings attributed to Jesus can be read as being contrary to the law. They cannot. They supplement it and heighten it. The person who follows Jesus’ commands in these passages will never transgress the law itself. If Jesus’ followers never desire to commit adultery, they will not commit it; if they never become angry, they will not murder; if they do not divorce (the third antithesis), they will never transgress the law which prohibits a man from remarrying his first spouse after divorce and marriage to a different person. It is not against the law to be stricter than the law requires. . . .

Käsemann and Schrage did not assess all the Jewish material available to them on the topic of a claim to authority, nor on the question of modifying the law by heightening it.
They failed to do their homework. In Käsemann’s case, the Scroll which makes the boldest claim to authority (11QT) had not been published when he wrote. The historian must never forget his or her limits and should moderate his or her claims accordingly. As a theologian, Käsemann wished to tie a substantive question of Christianity―whether Jesus was ‘Messiah’―directly to what he (Käsemann) regarded as unique. This is an extremely strange way of doing Christology, though a large number, perhaps a majority of New Testament scholars engage in it. (Emphasis added throughout)

In imitation Of Ernst Käsemann and Wolfgang Schrage, Stephan Joubert interprets Jesus’ words “But I say unto you” as a categorical denial of the Law and that He had replaced it with his own. On page 87 of his book he says:

According to Jesus the antiquated view of the Law was fraught with the physical performance of these religious rules. In other words, if the law says: “Do not commit adultery,” or “Do not commit murder,” and people adhered to these laws to the letter by not physically committing adultery and murder, they were obedient to the law according to the Pharisees. Jesus disagreed with this.

Jesus places a radical new understanding of the law in verses 21-48 on the table which He introduced every time with the words: “but I say unto you.”  For Jesus the law is the expression of a living relationship with God. The law for Jesus is all about relationships. It is the first radical difference between Him and the religionists. (Emphasis added)

OK! Let’s talk about relationships. If the law is all about relationships and the ultimate expression of a living relationship with God, it would mean that not the “antiquated” view but Jesus’ radical new understanding of the law is capable of bringing you into a right relationship with God and your fellowmen. If no mortal, except Jesus Christ, was able to keep the “antiquated” law of God 100%, 24/7, year in and year out, could there be anyone else who has kept or will ever be able to keep Jesus’ radical new understanding of the law? Let’s just take one of these radically new renditions of the law: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Mathew 5:27-28). You may argue that you have never committed a single act of adultery in your entire life and that you have skillfully avoided lustful thoughts. Well, if you are bold enough to boast in such a great and heroic feat then you must at least admit that you are a liar (1 John 1:8). As such, you have placed yourself squarely in Satan’s playing field, simply because he is the father of all lies since the beginning (John 8:44) and that alone disqualifies you from God’s extremely high standard of holiness. Let’s assume that you have broken this command only once in your entire life. Does it have any detrimental effect on your relationship with God and other people in any way? If not, then you don’t need a Savior. Therefore neither the “antiquated” Law nor Jesus’ enhancement of the Law is able to spawn an “expression of a living relationship with God.” It rather demonstrates a complete lack of such a relationship. Since it is true that only one act of disobedience warrants God’s righteous judgment to cast you into the lake of fire, you will remain doomed to destruction until you come to Jesus for your salvation. It is not your sins that will eventually be the determining factor for your suffering in hell, but your refusal to come to the ONLY Person who is able to forgive you and cleanse you of all your sins. That is why Jesus said:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:39-40).

Jesus’ stricter application of the “antiquated” law was not a denial of that law but an enhancement of that law, proving that no man could ever boast that he is able to procure or sustain a relationship with God through the law or even Jesus’ stricter enhancement of the law in his Sermon on the Mount. A single transgression of the law is enough to shatter that relationship (Isaiah 59:1 and 2). I must admit, I cannot disagree with Stephan Joubert on his third point with regard to Jesus’ radicalizing of the law and the difference it showed between Him and the Pharisees. On page 88 he wrote:

Thirdly Jesus radicalizes the law. He makes it even more difficult for the Pharisees to uphold the law. For them it is about the outward upholding of rules, but for Jesus it concerns a radical change of heart. Obedience for Him is equal to new relationships with God and others. (Emphasis added)

If Jesus made it more difficult for the Pharisees to uphold the law it follows that He made the Law more difficult for us as well. It’s a pity that Stephan Joubert never once, in his entire book from pages 1 to 231, explains how hearts are radically changed. Instead he quotes Leonard Sweet who said:

Sin is not a breaking of commands; sin is a breaking of relationships. When we sin we do not break stone-bound laws, but heart-carved love—Leonard Sweet

Well now, that’s just not true! But let’s assume Leonard Sweet is correct. In order to break off a relationship and consequently commit the relational sin you must necessarily already be in a relationship. You cannot commit the relational sin unless you are already in a relationship. By implication it means that anyone who sins (according to Sweet’s estimate of relational sin) he or she must necessarily have been in a relationship with God all along. Therefore everyone is/was in a relationship with God. This is called Universalism, the belief that God’s spirit dwells in all people. But why would it bother Stephan Joubert when one of his closest buddies is an avid Universalist. Listen to his words:

When we start with creation and Genesis 1 we instantly enter into a world where every person has been invested with the image of God, with God-like authority and qualities and mandates. Notice, it is everybody, not just Christians filled with God’s Spirit.
In the Genesis account all humanity has the very breath of God. Everyone finds resonance here because these are things deep within the human psyche that are incontrovertible. They are intuitive soundings that “I am somehow made to be god, or divine or connected to the divine.” The benefit of this starting point for spiritual conversations is it is as universal as the Fall conversation, but it holds one huge advantage; it is the beginning of the story and it is a positive starting point. Is it any wonder people don’t gravitate toward the “You are heading to hell in a handbasket” conversation but do resonate with a “You have been made as the crowning glory of creation (Psalm 8)” conversation? ⁽⁵⁾ – Ron Martoia

Well now, that’s just not true. God Himself said in Genesis 6:3 “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever . . .” the reason being that the sons of God took for themselves wives from amongst the unbelievers and subsequently fell into the idolatrous ways of their spouses. Later Solomon committed the same transgression when he took for himself many wives and concubines from amongst the unbelieving nations who turned away his heart from God to idols (1 Kings 11:3). It is not God’s will for a believer to marry an unbeliever, simply because holy matrimony is a mirror image, if you will, of the relationship between the church (“ekklesia” or “called out ones,” believers) and Jesus Christ — the wife being a representative of the bride and the husband a representative of the Bridegroom and Head of the church (1 Corinthians 11:3). As such their marriage should reflect the holy and mystical bond between Christ and his bride. This mystical and holy bond cannot come to fruition when one of the partners is an unbeliever.

If, according to Martoia, every person and not only Christians filled with God’s Spirit has been invested with God-like authority (could the “God-like authority” be the judger-gene he is referring to?), and qualities and mandates, then Jesus was a liar because He said that unbelievers are dead in their sins even to the degree that the dead must bury their own dead. (Ephesian 2:1; Matthew 8:22). How can unbelievers possibly have God-like qualities when they are spiritually dead in their sins? Stephan Joubert is well aware of the incident in Jesus’ life in Matthew 8 and even refers to it on page 54 of his prizewinning book to prove how radical Jesus really was. And yet he indirectly and radically denies Jesus’ radicalism when he quotes Ron Martoia who categorically and radically rebuffs Jesus’ words in Ephesians 2:1 and Matthew 8.

What are the spiritual implications for the body of Christ when you espouse the same errors as Ron Martoia and Stephan Joubert? If, as they and many others in the emergent fraternity claim, all people have God-like authority, qualities and mandates, equal to Christians who are filled with the Spirit of God irrespective of their spiritual orientation, then they are not only blatantly disobeying Jesus (Romans 8:9), they are making a mockery of the genuine body of Christ (or bride of Christ) who is not supposed to form a spiritual bond or relationship with unbelievers. They are not supposed to regard them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. They cannot possibly be their brothers and sisters because unbelievers are NOT in the Lord, at least not until they are saved and baptized into the body of Christ (Romans 6:3—Please note, I am not referring to water baptism but redemption through the blood of Christ). It is only IN Jesus that anyone has the right to call God their Father. Didn’t Jesus Himself once say, when He was told that his mother and brothers were seeking Him, that only those who do the will of his Father are his mother, his brothers and sisters? Stephan Joubert knows this very well. He even mentions this incident in the life of Jesus on page 54. He writes:  

Jesus does not blindly support traditional family values. His words that biological families are now less important than the spiritual family is a shocking statement that to this day hasn’t been understood correctly. We do not actually want to hear it, including similar words of Jesus such as in Luke 10 (it is actually Matthew 10) that He had come “to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Or his equally disturbing words in Matthew 8 addressed to the man who first wanted to bury his father that the dead must forthwith bury their own dead. New principles are applied by Jesus. No, He is not per se against biological families. But that is no longer the alpha and omega for him. Now it primarily concerns God and his new earthly family of followers of Christ.

From this it is quite evident that Stephan Joubert fully understands the biblical truth that not all who claim to be followers of Christ are necessarily your brothers and sisters. Multitudes followed Jesus for all the wrong reasons (because He had given them bread) but the majority had never done the will of God — to repent and believe the Gospel for their salvation. And yet, despite his exegesis on the true family of Jesus, Joubert speaks very highly of Leonard Sweet and Ron Martoia who believe that the Spirit of God dwells in all people. No wonder a good friend and brother of mine in the Lord recently said that Stephan Joubert is an enigma par excellence.

You may argue that Ron Martoia never said that everyone has the Spirit of God living in his/her innermost being; he merely said that unbelievers have the same God-like authority, qualities and mandates than the Spirit-filled children of God. How can they possibly have these qualities, mandates and authority when it is only the Holy Spirit that gives one these qualities, mandates and authority? Consider Jesus’ words in Luke 10:19 “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.” (Luke 10:19). The mandate to overcome the devil and his wiles is clearly only given to Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit, NOT unbelievers! How do we know? Well, Jesus Himself once said: ” . . . it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons . . .” (Matthew 12:28). If He, the Son of God, cast out demons by the Spirit of God, how much more must mortal men do it through the Spirit of God as well? Stephan Joubert is well aware of this fact and even mentions it in his book. And yet he indirectly and radically denies it by quoting a man who categorically and radically rebuffs Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:19. Stephan Joubert may argue that he does not agree on all the things the theologians whom he quotes in his book have said in the past. So what’s wrong with quoting people with whom you don’t always agree? Well, the Bible very emphatically declares that you cannot walk the talk (journey) with someone else unless you agree with him (Amos 3:3). Are they on the same spiritual journey? You bet!

Furthermore, if it had been true that the Spirit of God is in all people, Paul, who received the Gospel directly from Jesus Christ, would never have written the following statement: “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9). It clearly affirms that many people do NOT have the Spirit of Christ and therefore do NOT belong to or follow Him. Stephan Joubert is obviously a great fan of Ron Martoia, Leonard Sweet and Brian McLaren because he quotes them in his book without refuting them and their heresies in public. Jesus Christ seems to be of lesser importance to him than the lies these top-notch theologians proclaim. Surely, if he loved Jesus as he says, he would do everything possible to refute these liars in public who say and write derogatory things about the Lord Jesus Christ in public.

But let’s get back to Sweet’s relational sin. Lenny and Stephy may argue that the separation spoken of in Isaiah 59:1 and 2 is not the sin of breaking a relationship. In their view relationships are only broken when you inflexibly cling to and uphold biblical doctrines which to them are probably just a lot of antiquated laws. It reminds them too much of the Pharisees and the Jewish hierarchy who murdered Jesus. The pivotal doctrine of the Christian faith is the substitutionary death of God’s only Son on a cross. Here now follows a few quotes from the lips of some of the leading proponents of the emergent church who openly and in the face of the One whom they claim to be following, speak insultingly and disparagingly of his cross.

“How then have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own son? The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse — a vengeful father punishing his son for an offense he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.—Steve Chalke

“I was relaxing in my parents’ swimming pool with my brother…I asked him how the engineering business was going, and he reciprocated: ‘How’s the ministry world going?’ ‘Okay,’ I said, ‘except that a couple of weeks ago I realized that I don’t know why Jesus had to die.’ Then Peter, without skipping a beat, without even a moment’s hesitation, said, ‘Well, neither did Jesus.’”—Brian McLaren

A new world needs a new form of Christianity. Well, we have a new world . . .!—Brian McLaren (Stephan Joubert used this infamous quote on page 186, not to refute or to repudiate Brian McLaren but to endorse him).

“Was God so disgusted by our sins that Jesus had to die to take them away? Or was it that God loved us so much that Jesus had to die?” [notice the false antithesis]—Spencer Burke

“I guess if I had to label what I believe, it would fall under the Universalist category…I guess my question to you [Brian McLaren] would be how should I go about this self disclosure? Since you know X [the Evangelical seminary this blogger attends], do you have any insight for me? I am pretty sure X is clearly in the ‘you must be saved to get into heaven’ camp.” Question addressed to Brian McLaren on his website (answered below)

“I’d recommend you serve, keeping potentially divisive opinions to yourself” From Brian McClaren’s answer to the above question.

“What I think I can say is, and this is where I get into trouble, I’m not so sure that when this life is over that all possibilities for salvation are over.”
Tony Campolo

“It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.” Dallas Willard.

“If modern western Christianity has become overly dualistic, might a measured dose of Zenlike monism help correct our hyperdualism?” Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Jerry Haselmayer

“Go to a bookstore and buy several copies of Tricycle magazine, the equivalent of Christianity Today for many American Buddhists. Leaf through the magazines during your gathering and make observations about the articles, graphics and tone of the publication. Feel free to take 10 or 15 minutes to allow participants to read an article silently and then summarize for the group what they have read. Note: For the first 45 minutes, no critical comments are allowed — only observations that are offered without judgment. Dialogue about these questions: What good things in Buddhism are attractive to the readers of this magazine? How do these strengths of Buddhism contrast with weaknesses in our Christian practice?” – Small group activity outlined in A is for Abductive, by Sweet, McLaren and Haselmayer

“We are top-notch theologians.”—Doug Pagitt (Emphasis added throughout)

These are all the top-notch theologians with whom Stephan Joubert likes to be in a relationship ((so as not to break the Law) and with whom he is on a never-ending quest to never-never land. He is breaking at least one command (law) of God.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2Corinthians 6:14-18) If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:10-11).

What saith the Word of God?

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

Ah, but Ron Martoia, Leonard Sweet, Brian MLaren and Rob Bell are not unbelievers; they are the new breed of faithful Christ followers, the new Tribe. Really? Who is this Jesus they are following?

Common sense tells us that if we never had the “antiquated” law of Moses Jesus would never have been able to enhance it by applying even stricter requirements to it. To say, according to Wolfgang Schrage, that Jesus denied the Torah (Pentateuch) is equal to say that Jesus was lawless whilst He Himself said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20) .

Apparently the emergents have taken the liberty to slacken any law in their particular version of the Kingdom of God. As Ron Martoia so wonderfully and succinctly stated:

Notice, it is everybody, not just Christians filled with Gd’s Spirit. In the Genesis account all humanity has the very breath of God. ⁽⁵⁾

Grow the tribe – pass the manifesto you just read to anyone on your mailing list that you think would be interested in this journey. . . . or print it out and give it to them. There has to be at least a dozen you can think of. Their religious or lack of religious affiliation does not matter at all. This tribe will be composed of all sorts of people, many considering themselves spiritual but not religious. ⁽⁶⁾

May God have mercy on their pitiful souls. 

 

---

⁽¹⁾ Stephan Joubert: “”Jesus, a Radical Leap, Kingdom, Church and World: Where do you fit in?” Christelike Uitgewersmaatskappy,, 2009, p. 78  

⁽²⁾ E.P. Sanders, The Question of Uniqueness in the Teaching of Jesus. The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 15 February 1990. London: The University of London, 1990. Pbk. ISBN: 0718709616. pp.27.  

⁽³⁾ Ernst Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (ET London: SCM, 1964), p. 37; ‘Das Problem des historischen Jesus’, repr. in Exegetische Versuche and Bessinnungen I (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,3 1964), pp. 187-214, here p. 206.  

⁽⁴⁾ Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament (ET Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp. 66, 147f. Unfortunately I was unable to find a copy of the original.

⁽⁵⁾ Ron Martoia: Spiritual Conversations: Understanding the Cultural Language.

(6) “The Transformational Trek Tribe”

Who murdered Jesus of Nazareth?

 

Jesus, a radical Leap VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL

Centuries have come and gone since Jesus’ triumphant cry on the cross “it is finished.” In stead of rejoicing in his victory over sin, death, Satan and his host many “Christians,” particularly the Roman Catholic Church whose mystical doctrines have found a comfortable niche in the Emergent Church, have turned on the Jews with vicious malice and hatred, blaming them for the death of Jesus Christ. In his book, “Does Jacob’s Trouble Wear a Cross, The Ancient Legacy of Christian Anti-Semitism” Randall A Weis, describes their hatred as follows:

Christian anti-Semites do not love the Jewish people. This has resulted in the presentation of an image of Christ who does not love the Jewish people. Some Gentile Christians have acted as though Jesus forgives everyone except the Jews. The message heard loud and clear by the Jews has been that “they killed Christ and He is going to pay them back.” J. B. Phillips translation of the New Testament describes in chapter 10 of The Letter to the Jewish Christians (Hebrews), that God alone takes full responsibility for issuing punishment. . . .

When Pope Urban II rallied Christians, he offered an extraordinary reward to those who set out to liberate the land of the Savior’s birth: “All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.”¹

The decree was effective in enlisting soldiers for the battle, but one doubts that forgiveness was immediate or complete. The Pope was extremely generous with the grace of God and the blood of Christ, and the crusaders were generous with the blood of Jews.

Jews in various German towns were “unwillingly forced into baptism” or slaughtered by unruly crusaders in 1096. Here, rather than be converted or killed, the Jews in Worms commit suicide. A Christian chronicler wrote, “It is a sin even to tell how mothers pierced and cut throats of their nursing babes.” Before the pogroms ended, some 5,000 Jews had been killed.² . . .

I will always be forced to deal with words spoken to me by my Jewish parents. They reminded me that I was a traitor. They asked to legally change my name. I was forced to deal with their silence because for several years they refused to speak to me. In all of this, God never permitted me to doubt their love. I realized that their actions were not based upon hatred. They were merely reacting to their pain. Perhaps from their perspective the Gentile Christian Church had simply inflicted one more punishment on the Jewish people. My family could not understand that God was working in my life. They were convinced that I was proselytized by a fast-talking salesmen of the gospel. Painfully, they struggled to understand how I could have aligned myself with people who had hated, persecuted, tortured, and killed Jewish people for centuries. I informed my parents that those people were not really Christians. They merely called themselves Christians. I comforted myself with the presumptive belief that they must have been violent infidels who manipulated society through their hatred, falsely calling themselves Christians. (Emphasis added)

One would have thought, whilst the world is allegedly becoming a better place through the Emergent Church’s incarnational spirituality and high-octane contemplative spirituality, that anti-Semitism would at least have been something of the past. No so! . . . It is escalating at an alarming pace! To my surprise even prize-winning books are perpetuating this heinous crime against the Jews. I am, of course, referring to Stephan Joubert’s book “Jesus, a Radical Leap, Kingdom, Church and World: Where do you fit in?” As you may know by now, he was awarded the prestigious Andrew Murray Prize for the best Afrikaans Christian book in 2010.

In chapter 3 under the heading “The spirituality of Jesus – No wonder he was murdered, p. 73” Stephan Joubert brazenly accuses the religious Jewish hierarchy of murdering Jesus.

Then they murdered Jesus during the Passover just outside Jerusalem. He was too much of a game spoiler. Jesus profaned more or less everything that was holy in the eyes of the religionists: the Sabbath, the temple, the boundaries between holy and unholy – you name it! No, it was consequently not the bad people who murdered Jesus; not the sort against whom the church is so eager to preach. It was not the local boozers, the thieves or the street hooligans who killed Jesus. On the contrary, it was the ordinary good people. It was the highest religious authorities of the Jews: the high priest and the Jewish Council itself; those dignified office bearers and keepers of everything that was holy in Israel. The sentence against Jesus was passed on their own front stoep. (Emphasis added).

I can say with absolute conviction that Jesus was not crucified because his spirituality differed from that of the Jewish hierarchy and neither did He fault them on the keeping of the Law but rather on their reasons for keeping the Law. In fact, Jesus’ spirituality was the perfect embodiment of the Law and everything that was holy. Did He not Himself say “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Mat 5:17-18). Paul unequivocally declares that the law is holy (Romans 7:12). Therefore, I find Joubert’s statement that He “profaned more or less everything that was holy in the eyes of the religionists” an appalling misrepresentation of Jesus Christ whom he claims to be following.

But what about the Jewish Sabbath? Was it not one of the laws that Jesus had come to annul? No! Once again it must be said that He did not come to abolish any of the laws but to fulfill them. If the Law is holy then the Sabbath was also an holy institution which, of course, it was because God Himself said it was holy (Exodus 16:23; 10:8; 31:14, 15; 35:2; Leviticus 23:3; Deuteronomy 5:2; Nehemiah 9:14; 10:31; Isaiah 58:13). But didn’t Jesus desecrate this particular holy law when He healed the sick on the Sabbath? That’s just wholly impossible! How can the fulfillment of the Law desecrate the Law or “profane more or less everything that was holy in the eyes of the religionists?” How did He fulfill the holy law of the Sabbath? Surely you ought to remember that He once said:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30). (Emphasis added)

Like the rest of the Law the Sabbath was a schoolmaster to bring the Jews unto Christ so that they might find eternal rest, tranquility and peace in their innermost being. You see, the Jewish hierarchy and their Jewish followers had it all wrong. They believed that the Law, such as the Sabbath, was an end in itself; that the rigid keeping of the Law was the spiritual fulfillment of all their spiritual needs and that it, per se, was the peace-bringer. It is preposterous to think that the keeping of a Law has the clout to give you rest, peace and tranquility. It is equally preposterous to believe that a rigidly practiced law (discipline) like contemplative prayer can usher you into he very presence of God and fill your soul with restfulness, peace and tranquility. What utter nonsense! The contemplatives in the emergent church are the modern-day Pharisees because they are doing precisely what the Jewish hierarchy had done—practice a given law to find rest for their chaotic and restless lives.

Should Christians keep the Sabbath? Paul addressed this problem in Romans 14.

Who are you to pass judgment on and censure another’s household servant? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he shall stand and be upheld, for the Master (the Lord) is mighty to support him and make him stand. One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike [sacred]. Let everyone be fully convinced (satisfied) in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:4-6; Amplified Bible)

The first Christian churches, having as its members converts from the Jewish and the Gentile communities, obviously had some difficulties in the interpretation of Scripture. You may recall that the Jews demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised, brother Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles and the Sabbath, not the Sunday, was the day to be kept holy if you wanted to please God. Paul didn’t go into a flat spin by telling the Jewish Christians that they should stop their nonsense because Jesus had profaned more or less every conceivable law in their books. No! he was a real gentleman who gently taught them that it was not a particular day or the food on their tables that made the difference in their spiritual lives. Each and everyone, Jews and Gentiles, were now at liberty to honor the day they preferred to keep separate (holy) in their honoring of their Lord. The Christians in Acts were accustomed to come together in the houses of Jewish and Gentile Christians every Sunday because it is the day when our Lord was raised from the dead.

What then was most of the Jews’ (not only the Jewish hierarchy’s) great sin? It was not the fact that they rigidly kept the Law but that they believed they could obtain God’s mercy, kindness and acceptance through their unyielding practice of the Law. They refused to believe that the holy Law was merely their schoolmaster to bring them unto Christ so that they may be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24). Allow me to reiterate: the emergent fraternity are not following in the footsteps of Jesus but in the footsteps of the Pharisees and the Jewish Council because they are doing exactly the same thing they had been guilty of; they are practicing disciplines (meditation, lectio divina, labyrinths, contemplative prayer etc.) that supposedly bring them into the very presence of God. What else are these disciplines than man-made laws they rigidly practice to enter into the presence of God? Like the Jewish Council of old they too are completely disregarding faith, and in particular faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, as the ONLY means to enter into the presence of an awesomely holy God (Hebrews 10:19). This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that they are profaning everything that is holy, including the awesomely holy presence of God and the magnanimous holy shed blood of Jesus Christ which gives us the boldness to enter into the awesomely holy presence of God the Father. Indeed, one of the most profound enigmas of our post modern time is the emergents’ claim that they can enter into the holy presence of God using profane, filthy, unhallowed and demoniac so-called spiritual disciplines (laws).

The shocking reality of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion is that the Jewish hierarchy was an instrument God used to accomplish his ultimate purpose. If you really want to blame someone for Jesus’ murder then you should blame the gentile Roman hierarchy and their soldiers because they were actually the ones who drove the nails through his hands and feet and eventually pierced his side with a spear. What’s more, technically speaking we are all his murderers “for in that he died, he died unto sin once:  . . .” (Romans 6:10) of which we all are guilty (Romans 3:23).  And yet, even the gentile Romans were mere instruments God used to accomplish his ultimate goal. Why didn’t Stephan Joubert quote the well-known verse from Isaiah 53 to show his readers that God the Father was pleased to have his only Son bruised and smitten.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10).

What was God’s ultimate goal with the bruising (death) of his Son. The answer is in the very next verse.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:11-12).

Jesus did not only bear the iniquities of the boozers, thieves and street hooligans; He also bore the sins of the High Priest and members of the Jewish Council who were accomplices in his murder. An yet, it was not the Jewish Council who ultimately decided to have Him killed. The heavenly Council of God had already decided before the foundation of the earth that Jesus Christ would die for the sins of the entire world on a brutally cursed cross.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:22-24).

Stephan Joubert may also have forgotten Jesus Christ’s words in John 10:17-18:

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:17-18).

What an awesomely magnificent revelation. No man had the power to kill Jesus unless He Himself had voluntarily laid it down. This is precisely why they could not kill him on the occasions they plotted to do so, because his time to lay down his own life had not come yet. On page 74 Stephan Joubert graphically describes the horrors of crucifixion as if the cross itself dealt the death blow.

What a terrifying death Jesus died. Crosses were the cruelest possible form of execution in that time. The Romans eagerly reserved it for their greatest enemies. Seneca, the philosopher of Emperor Nero (54-68 AD), once said that crucifixion was such a cruel form of execution that it was better to commit suicide before the time if you were sentenced to a cross-death. Usually the crucified were left on the wooden crosses for days and even weeks to die a slow and painful death. Crosses were often placed in public places to terrify prospective lawbreakers. Passersby had to see how the crucified hung naked on the crosses while they suffocated and bled to death or died of fatigue and pain. Hence no romantic cross was his destiny. It was a stake of shame, a cursed place, loneliness and humiliation.

Yes, it is very true that it sometimes took days and even weeks for a crucified victim to die, but in Jesus’ case it was quite something different. When Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, who also waited for the kingdom of God, asked for the body of Jesus, Pilate marveled (hardly believed) that Jesus was already dead (Mark 15:44). Something very supernatural happened when Jesus died. His death took place much quicker than the normal run of the mill criminals. The answer is simple: He laid down his own life Himself and no man took it from Him.

Why Stephan Joubert needs to tell people in so much graphic detail what they already know from the Bible is somewhat strange. it reminds me of Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” where his suffering at the hands of the Roman soldiers was depicted in the minutest detail as if that was the means whereby He atoned for our sins. If his terrible suffering at the hands of the Roman soldiers and on the cross had been the means of atonement anyone could have done it. Thousands of men and women were crucified in the same horrible way and yet none of their deaths had any spiritual consequences for others. Throughout the Old and the New Testaments the message that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of the blood of an innocent, blameless victim has rung true up until this very day. Couldn’t the shedding of the blood of all the victims who had been crucified in ancient Rome been as potent for the remission of sins as the shedding of Jesus’ blood? It is here where Stephan Joubert and his emergent cohorts fall off the bus altogether—by minimalizing the devastating horrors of sin. In one of his comments on their website Joubert lambasted those who constantly focus on sin and not grace.

Far too many churches focus all their energy on the game plan of the opposition, instead of on spreading God’s amazing grace. In this process many believers have turned into bigger experts on sin than on God. Some church people even have their own list of the ‘Top Ten’ sins of the day. From sunrise till sunset they fight against the latest sins and the most recent signs of moral decay in society. Public outbursts against sin have had limited success throughout history. It probably only appeased the sentiments of the fully convinced, but in terms of life changing impact the results haven’t been promising. It didn’t draw throngs of new converts back to church, or radically change the value systems of society for the good. Isn’t it time then for a new term, one that really aligns with God’s latest moves? In other words, isn’t it time for a grace revival?

The truth is, you cannot appreciate the meaning of the cross of Jesus Christ and God’s magnanimous grace without a biblical understanding of the horrors of sin. Christ’s cross was not only the emblem of God’s love for the world but also of his profound hatred of sin, so much so that John 3:16 may be rendered: “For God so deeply hated sin that He gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him should not perish [in their sins], but have everlasting life.” In order for Him to satisfy his holy demand for the righteous judgment of sin, He gave his only sinless and holy Son as a substitute, a scapegoat as it were, to save the lost, sanctify the unholy and prepare the believers [this side of the grave] for their heavenly and eternal abode with God. Had Jesus “profaned more or less everything that was holy in the eyes of the religionists: the Sabbath, the temple, the boundaries between holy and unholy – you name it!” He would never have been able to present Himself to God as a perfect sin offering. Please bear in mind what I said earlier, i.e. that Jesus did not fault the Jewish hierarchy for their keeping of the Law but rather for their assumption that the keeping of the Law made them righteous in the sight of God. (Romans 2:23). Paul went so far by saying:

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. (Romans 10:1-5) (Emphasis added).

The million dollar question is: Why does Stephan Joubert linger on the terrifying realities of the cross and the Jewish hierarchy’s share in the murder of God’s Son without addressing the real meaning of the cross? Is he intentionally linking the murderous act of the Jewish hierarchy to today’s institutionalized church? Is he saying that the latter are nothing but a a bunch of murderous Pharisees? It reminds of the Amahoro Conference I attended from 8 to 12 June 2009 where Brian McLaren was the key speaker. As a summary of his presentation I wrote the following objectives of the Emergent Chruch.

Condition mankind to abhor his past, and especially the atrocities of his religious past, and it will be so much easier to manipulate his thoughts and actions while you set him on a path of an endless quest for something better, something that allegedly translates into peace, harmony, love, compassion, tolerance and prosperity. By keeping mankind locked in a position where he is constantly looking back over his shoulder towards his past you will keep him yearning for a brighter future without really knowing where he is headed.

To substantiate my observation I quoted Brian McLaren who said the following:

I’d like to suggest that we need a new quest because one of the things that needs to be changed is the assumption that the Christian faith is primarily something that’s handed to us from the past. I’d like to suggest that the journey of following Jesus is primarily something that is given to us from the future; its an invitation to move into the future. Its God out ahead of us saying, move toward the future I have for you. Its God inviting us towards God’s own way, and inviting us in God’s own path. Now we do this always remembering the past but God doesn’t simply live in the past. God is with us in the present and God beckons us into a good future, and of course we have to think of this in terms of Africa. (Emphasis and remarks between brackets added)

. . . sometimes religious debate creates hate and that leads to violence and guess what violence in the name of religion leads to, among other things, atheism because good people, moral people say, it would be better not to believe in God than to believe in a God who makes you kill people. So, what I’d like to suggest, is that five hundred years ago we had the Great Reformation and if we’re in the early stages of what some people are calling the great emergence, something that an African reformation would be a major player in, I’d like to suggest what we need for the next leg of the journey; the last thing we need is 95 new theses, the last things we need is 95 new debates, the last thing we need is having even more violence among people who call themselves Christians.

I’d like to suggest that what we need are questions. If statements can bring you to a new state, only questions can bring you on a new quest. Do you see the difference between a new state and a new quest? In a new state you say we’ve arrived and we can lay out the dimensions, and we could create the new box, but in a quest you say no, we’re searching for something; we’re on a journey, and in stead of ever allowing hate to be part of this quest we have to say this is a quest of love; that we have to love one another, no matter what. (Emphasis added)

Stephan Joubert seems to foster the same idea when he wrote in a commentary on on Dries Lombaard’s blog:

The strange thing about Christian one liners/slogans is that you often find the words “turn back…” in them.

“Turn back to God.”

“Turn back to the Bible.”

It makes me wonder why: turn back?

Shouldn’t it rather be: “Go forward?”

Leonard Sweet, world renowned futurist, theologian, author, speaker and the guru of those who seek God’s plans in new, meaningful ways, including myself, refuses to use the term retraite or retreat. He’ll immediately tell you that Christians never retreat. We advance. Therefore, the gatherings that he hosts at his island and mountain homes are called advances!

Christians shouldn’t turn back to the Bible or the [institutionalized] church. Then we’re heading in the wrong direction. We move forward to God. We advance. (Emphasis added)

All these clever slogans are used to degrade and humiliate the institutionalized church. I am not too much of a fan of the institutionalized church myself but does the Emergent Church have a better alternative? Roger Oakland gives the answer in his book “Faith Undone.”

Ironically, the emerging church who says its main goal is to help the suffering and to help eradicate the world’s problems, is not pointing the world to Jesus Christ and His body. Rather it is rejecting the atonement, locking arms with a religion (Catholicism) that teaches we are justified by works rather than by grace alone, embracing mystical practices and altered states of consciousness, and pulling these suffering lost souls further and further away from the only thing that will ever help them-—a personal one-on-one relationship with Jesus Christ, who explains very clearly who He is.

–Roger Oakland (Faith Undone, p. 220) (Emphasis added)

Who murdered Jesus of Nazareth? Think again before you blame the Jews.

 

 

---

¹Kevin A. Miller, Editor, “The Crusades,” Christian History, Issue 90, Volume XII, Number 4, 1993, p. 6.

²Ibid., p. 43.

Death, where is your sting?

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (1 Corinthians 15:55).

Someone once asked a man of God: “How would you describe the death of a child of God, a believer in Jesus Christ?”

Imagine sitting in your lounge with your wife and kids before a crackling fire during a cold winder’s evening. The children run and play with boisterous joy, giggling and jostling as they go about their fun and games. Soon they grow tired and lay themselves down to sleep on the spot with not a single care in the world, knowing that mom and dad are nearby to watch over therm. Daddy gets up, gently takes them one by one in his arms and carries them to their rooms. The next morning, when they open their eyes, they are greeted by a brilliant shining sun and a new day. So also it is with the children of God. They grow weary of the cares and cold realities of this world and progressively long to be with their LORD. Soon they fall asleep in death. At that very moment, when the saint breathes his/her last breath Jesus carries him/her to His home where they open their eyes to a new life, the real life, where a light a trillion times brighter than the sun greets them with great joy.

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Revelation 21:23)

In this life there is nothing so near to man than death. We are all going to die some time; exactly when we do not know. However, the question is not when you are going to die but how you are going to die. There are only two alternative ways of dying – IN Christ or IN your sins. Jesus once told the Pharisees: “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24). How devastatingly horrible and fearful it must be to die in your sins and yet many people persist in their unbelief. They refuse to embrace the cross of Christ and his shed blood as the only means for their salvation (1 Corinthians 1:18). They pursue other ways and means which seem to be right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12). No wonder the Bible calls such stubbornness and unbelief the mystery of iniquity (2 Thessalonians 2:7) as opposed to the mystery of godliness (1 Timothy 3:16).

Do you long to be with Jesus Christ? Paul of Tarsus longed to be with Him and yet there was a single reason he put forward to remain alive on this earth.

For me to live is Christ [His life in me], and to die is gain [the gain of the glory of eternity]. If, however, it is to be life in the flesh and I am to live on here, that means fruitful service for me; so I can say nothing as to my personal preference [I cannot choose], But I am hard pressed between the two. My yearning desire is to depart (to be free of this world, to set forth) and be with Christ, for that is far, far better; But to remain in my body is more needful and essential for your sake. (Philippians 1:21-24: Amplified Bible)

The only reason for a child of God to remain on this earth a little longer, even though he may yearn to be with his LORD, is for the sake of those who need to hear the Gospel so that they may be saved. God is presently delaying the promise of the return of His Son, Jesus Christ, so that you who are procrastinating may still have some time to repent and receive Jesus Christ as your only Savior (2 Peter 3:9).

May I ask you? Have you received forgiveness for your sins? Do you have the assurance that when you die you will be dying IN Christ Jesus and not IN your sins?

O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? Now sin is the sting of death, and sin exercises its power [upon the soul] through [the abuse of] the Law. But thanks be to God, Who gives us the victory [making us conquerors] through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be firm (steadfast), immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord [always being superior, excelling, doing more than enough in the service of the Lord], knowing and being continually aware that your labor in the Lord is not futile [it is never wasted or to no purpose]. (1 Corinthians 15:55-58).

Doctrines of demons

How do you prove that the Bible is the inerrant, immutable and infallible word of God and that everything written in it is the truth and nothing but the truth? The first thing you can do, of course, is to quote from the Bible itself, for example:-

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

OK! that seems to be a good option, but what do you do when post modern skeptics begin to chant their abominable mantra in your sensitive ears: “The Bible is not the Word of God but a book written about God by mortal human beings. In our post modern worldview we can no longer take it literally.” OK! that seems to put the lid on the “inerrancy, immutable and infallible” argument. But what about PROPHECY? Some of the most amazing prophecies concern the last days and particularly with regard to the great apostasy that is presently coming upon the church? Can you argue with events that have been predicted thousands of years in advance and are now being fulfilled before our eyes? Consider the following prophecy.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1).

If this doesn’t blow a hole as big as a mountain in the post modern argument that the Bible is not the word of God but a book written about God by mortal men, then I don’t know what will. Notice carefully that it is the Spirit of God and not man who speaks here and He does not only speak but He speaks “rhētōs” (very distinctly).  Who can argue with that and anyone who dares to argue against it is nothing but a fool (Psalm 14:1). Ironically the gainsayers are living monuments who attest to the veracity of these prophecies because they are doing exactly what the Spirit said they would do – depart from the faith and heed doctrines of devils.

---

You may now download PDF files from my Google docs account. Please note that all  these files have been thoroughly checked for viruses and I can assure you that they are all clean.

The first PDF file is called “Doctrines of Demons-E-church heresies” in which I discuss the e-church’s fondness to speak highly of God’s enemies and to promote their heretical books. Listen very carefully to Luther’s words in the embedded YouTube clip:

“. . . who have afflicted the Christian world and ruined the bodies and souls of other men. If I were to retract those I shall be like a cloak that covers evil.”

There are many so-called men of God who think it a minor thing to set aside biblical doctrines for the sake of peace and harmony whilst they indifferently don cloaks that cover evil and in doing so ruin the bodies and souls of men, women and children.

Please note that you will need the latest Adobe Reader which you can download for free here.

Please follow the links to my Google docs. account.

Doctrines of Demons – E-church heresies (70 MB)