Featured Studies

The Five Visions of Daniel



Recent Posts



Archive for the 'The New Hidden in the Old' Category

The God Who Hides Himself

Monday, March 14th, 2011

Thank you (and thank God!) for the piece I just re-read on “The Mystery of the Gospel”. The matter of the gem and its setting explains so succinctly the transition that my wife and I have undergone, as I have tried to express before, in this regard. But, once the gem is appreciated in its […]

The Mystery of the Gospel

Sunday, January 9th, 2011

[…] Before its revelation, the mystery of an anonymous suffering servant (let alone two distinct comings) would only raise such questions as those put by the Ethiopian eunuch, “Of whom does the prophet speak? Of himself or some other man?” Therefore, the church is foolish and perverse to exalt itself over Israel, imputing to the Jew a special stubbornness for not seeing what was plainer than the nose on their face. This is a self righteous presumption that understands nothing of what confronted Israel. It is the same perverse superficiality that prevails in the church’s facile comparison of itself with the stereotype of the Pharisee. When it is seen what the Pharisee actually represented in the context of that generation, a discerning believer would not exalt or glory over them, but cry out, “who is sufficient?!”, But that’s another subject, though not unrelated.

Since Pentecost, the mystery has been openly revealed and made universally available, albeit only in the sense of its outward form. It still takes a miracle of mercy and grace to truly apprehend it in terms of its glorious implications. In this sense, it remains, by its very nature, elusive to pride, even in its revealed form. It was hidden for a twofold purpose: 1). It is hidden so that when it is seen, we may know that it is mercy indeed, and nothing of ourselves that has made us to differ from Israel, or anyone for that matter. […]

“When saw we Thee?”

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

[…] When it comes to Israel’s unbelief, it is amazing to see all that conspires to reinforce it. Not only centuries of “Christian” antisemitic behavior, but even how certain verses are translated, let alone interpreted, compounds the distance between church and synagogue. Take for example the Jewish translation of Zech 12:10. Compare it with most Christian translations and you will see what I mean. Of course, Christian linguists, such as Walter Kaiser in his book, “the Messiah in the Old Testament” argues the translation question with decisive evidence for the messianic interpretation. But the average believer must take considerable pains to be informed. It may be effective on some occasions, but it’s not always quite as easy as quoting Zech 12:10 as proof that the Jewish nation pierced their own Messiah. .

Or take Dan 9:25-26. Our translations stress our Christian conviction that the anointed one that is “cut off” is the Messiah by capitalizing the word for anointed and translating the passage with a definite article, “the Messiah the Prince”. This is all legitimate, but the informed Jewish position sees this as speaking only of “an anointed prince,” which they typically interpret as referring to Onias III, the officiating high priest who was murdered when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Jewish alter in the 2nd century B.C, who, of course, became the great archetype of the Antichrist in later apocalyptic literature. [..]