I feel a certain indebtedness to offer a review of this work firstly in service of the truth, and secondly because it was a stream from which I once drank and many of my friends still do.
To be honest, I felt compelled to agree with some of the things the author espoused in the book. I found myself saying, “Hmmn, this makes some sense... What if this is true?”
But the fact that those ideas are mostly novel, not supported by church history, and demand loyalty to a framework for intepreting the scriptures means I'll never interpret a simple text as it is. I'd have to contort and bend and reshape to remain true to that framework. It's just. . .dangerous.
Besides having to uphold tradition, things like this force one to put on that critical thinking hat.
This has been an insightful review; I look forward to the second.
Kai. This can be likened to defamation of character and personality of Jesus. Literally positing that he "role-played" old testamental writings is nothing short of conjectures that aren't biblical. This author's explanation must not leave out the other scenarios that are related but not directly acted out by Jesus himself, which fulfilled old testament scriptures e.g people of Jerusalem hailing Jesus as king on his triumphant entry, the preparation and acquisition of the upper room for the last supper, the under-two children killed by Herod and the horrendous lamentation that followed the massacre. All of these "incidents" are too precise for an ineptitude (though novel) ideology to dissuade men from accepting their divine foretelling. I wouldn't want to believe the author is naive since he once expounded the truth in the past. Perhaps, this kind of error wouldn't surface if one will stay sincere with the tradition of faith and the truth with pure conscience, and constantly resisting the temptation to be "innovative". I'm not surprised as this kind of heresy is in itself a fulfilment (acting out, pardon me 😀) of prophecy (1 Timothy 4:1&2, 2 Timothy 3:1&2)
I pray that he can see the implications of these new lines of thoughts.
Interestingly, concerning your comment proper, I was reading John 19:28 today were it said Jesus knew that all was not finished, but in order to fulfill the scriptures, he said "I thirst". It was so amazing to me that the soldiers gave him a jar of sour wine to drink fulfilling Psalm 69:21. One would have to say that either the soldiers were role-playing along with Jesus or Jesus somehow teleguided them to fulfill the prophecy.
I agree with the author, as I have read this book. It’s critical to note, on the issue of his explanation of the “Two-Yahweh” concept, which he describes as visibility and invisibility, that the visibility does not point to a condescending nature of Christ. Rather, it explains that Yahweh from the Old Testament, who was not seen physically, has now appeared to us—He is visible to the physical eyes. God has become a man (in the sense that He has appeared in the likeness of man). The author did not explain visibility as a reduction in the status (paraphrasing from your write-up) of Christ or suggest that the Son has always been visible physically or humanly Instead, it is the Son, who was previously invisible in the Godhead, that has been made visible to humanity—the synoptic gospels
Secondly, when the author emphasizes Christ as the comforter in the believer, he is not claiming that Christ is the Holy Spirit in personhood. He is teaching what John is teaching in John 14. For example, when John says in verse 22 that Jesus said, “The Father will love him, and we will come to him and make OUR(two) abode with him,” he had already said in verse 20: “I am in the Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” Therefore, the Father is in the believer (not that the Father is the Spirit), and because the Son is in the Father, we can therefore say that the Son and Father are in us—in the sense of union. This is the same application to the Spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son (Christ) identified in themselves, so just as the Spirit is in us, so is Christ in us. The author, like John, is simply emphasizing the union of the Godhead and how that union is present in the man in Christ as a result of redemption. The author has not denied the Trinity in the sense of their distinction and uniqueness but explains how the union of the Godhead dwells in the believer—making him God’s temple, as Paul taught in his epistles.
Thirdly, on the issue of fulfillment, I think your criticism here misses the author’s point. The author never denied that the prophets spoke beyond their immediate context, pointing to Christ or something in the future. The author is simply saying that before we quickly make it about Christ, we should note that the words of the prophets applied to their immediate context. Then, in God’s determinate counsel or will, we can see it fulfilled in Christ or in the future—something futuristic that they pointed to. For example (I can’t remember if the author gave this), consider the betrayal of Jesus. When the apostles wanted to choose another in place of Judas, look at what they said:
“Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.”
Acts 1:16 KJV
You might argue (I don’t know) that the scripture clearly states David spoke beforehand concerning Judas, as though David was specifically predicting that Judas would betray Jesus, or that Judas was designed in God’s foreknowledge to be the betrayer, and David saw that. I don’t agree. Why? Because before pointing it to Jesus (which is right to do), I think we should first ask about the immediate context of David’s story. In David’s experience, a trusted ally betrayed him—yes, Ahitophel. The immediate context of David’s experience now informs us in the prophetic scripture that, in the manifestation of God as man, He would undergo a similar experience. This is because the men God used before His appearance, who were proponents of His will and ways, bore such experiences—betrayal at the hands of their allies. For example, Cain to Abel, Ahitophel to David. By those contexts, we can see that the Messiah would experience this as well.
This further unifies the story of both the text of Old Testament and New. That they are unified doctrine and no contradictions.
I hope you see my point. So, fulfillment is not a denial of a future event. It is to say that if we can see it in the future, there is a precedent in the texts of the Old Testament.
To be honest, I felt compelled to agree with some of the things the author espoused in the book. I found myself saying, “Hmmn, this makes some sense... What if this is true?”
But the fact that those ideas are mostly novel, not supported by church history, and demand loyalty to a framework for intepreting the scriptures means I'll never interpret a simple text as it is. I'd have to contort and bend and reshape to remain true to that framework. It's just. . .dangerous.
Besides having to uphold tradition, things like this force one to put on that critical thinking hat.
This has been an insightful review; I look forward to the second.
Wait till part 2 to see how much contortions and bending is required to subscribe to that framework.
that’s the funny thing about his teachings
it may all tend to make sense within a framework he has previously built
and therefore the way to interrogate the works is to challenge the framework itself comparing with established scholarly theological tradition
and if the framework fails in light of all historical precedence(which is usually does): there you have your answer
Kai. This can be likened to defamation of character and personality of Jesus. Literally positing that he "role-played" old testamental writings is nothing short of conjectures that aren't biblical. This author's explanation must not leave out the other scenarios that are related but not directly acted out by Jesus himself, which fulfilled old testament scriptures e.g people of Jerusalem hailing Jesus as king on his triumphant entry, the preparation and acquisition of the upper room for the last supper, the under-two children killed by Herod and the horrendous lamentation that followed the massacre. All of these "incidents" are too precise for an ineptitude (though novel) ideology to dissuade men from accepting their divine foretelling. I wouldn't want to believe the author is naive since he once expounded the truth in the past. Perhaps, this kind of error wouldn't surface if one will stay sincere with the tradition of faith and the truth with pure conscience, and constantly resisting the temptation to be "innovative". I'm not surprised as this kind of heresy is in itself a fulfilment (acting out, pardon me 😀) of prophecy (1 Timothy 4:1&2, 2 Timothy 3:1&2)
Hahaha.
I pray that he can see the implications of these new lines of thoughts.
Interestingly, concerning your comment proper, I was reading John 19:28 today were it said Jesus knew that all was not finished, but in order to fulfill the scriptures, he said "I thirst". It was so amazing to me that the soldiers gave him a jar of sour wine to drink fulfilling Psalm 69:21. One would have to say that either the soldiers were role-playing along with Jesus or Jesus somehow teleguided them to fulfill the prophecy.
*all was now finished*
This is bad, really bad.
I read it and my heart broke.
The nerve to say that Jesus acted on the Scriptures and not fulfill what the prophets wrote about Him.
How can someone say such things like two distinct Yahwehs, where one is visible and invisible?
It doesn't make sense at all. Whatever happened to the verse that says "Hear ye O Israel, the Lord our God is One?"
Awesome work you've done here sir
I agree with the author, as I have read this book. It’s critical to note, on the issue of his explanation of the “Two-Yahweh” concept, which he describes as visibility and invisibility, that the visibility does not point to a condescending nature of Christ. Rather, it explains that Yahweh from the Old Testament, who was not seen physically, has now appeared to us—He is visible to the physical eyes. God has become a man (in the sense that He has appeared in the likeness of man). The author did not explain visibility as a reduction in the status (paraphrasing from your write-up) of Christ or suggest that the Son has always been visible physically or humanly Instead, it is the Son, who was previously invisible in the Godhead, that has been made visible to humanity—the synoptic gospels
Secondly, when the author emphasizes Christ as the comforter in the believer, he is not claiming that Christ is the Holy Spirit in personhood. He is teaching what John is teaching in John 14. For example, when John says in verse 22 that Jesus said, “The Father will love him, and we will come to him and make OUR(two) abode with him,” he had already said in verse 20: “I am in the Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” Therefore, the Father is in the believer (not that the Father is the Spirit), and because the Son is in the Father, we can therefore say that the Son and Father are in us—in the sense of union. This is the same application to the Spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son (Christ) identified in themselves, so just as the Spirit is in us, so is Christ in us. The author, like John, is simply emphasizing the union of the Godhead and how that union is present in the man in Christ as a result of redemption. The author has not denied the Trinity in the sense of their distinction and uniqueness but explains how the union of the Godhead dwells in the believer—making him God’s temple, as Paul taught in his epistles.
Thirdly, on the issue of fulfillment, I think your criticism here misses the author’s point. The author never denied that the prophets spoke beyond their immediate context, pointing to Christ or something in the future. The author is simply saying that before we quickly make it about Christ, we should note that the words of the prophets applied to their immediate context. Then, in God’s determinate counsel or will, we can see it fulfilled in Christ or in the future—something futuristic that they pointed to. For example (I can’t remember if the author gave this), consider the betrayal of Jesus. When the apostles wanted to choose another in place of Judas, look at what they said:
“Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.”
Acts 1:16 KJV
You might argue (I don’t know) that the scripture clearly states David spoke beforehand concerning Judas, as though David was specifically predicting that Judas would betray Jesus, or that Judas was designed in God’s foreknowledge to be the betrayer, and David saw that. I don’t agree. Why? Because before pointing it to Jesus (which is right to do), I think we should first ask about the immediate context of David’s story. In David’s experience, a trusted ally betrayed him—yes, Ahitophel. The immediate context of David’s experience now informs us in the prophetic scripture that, in the manifestation of God as man, He would undergo a similar experience. This is because the men God used before His appearance, who were proponents of His will and ways, bore such experiences—betrayal at the hands of their allies. For example, Cain to Abel, Ahitophel to David. By those contexts, we can see that the Messiah would experience this as well.
This further unifies the story of both the text of Old Testament and New. That they are unified doctrine and no contradictions.
I hope you see my point. So, fulfillment is not a denial of a future event. It is to say that if we can see it in the future, there is a precedent in the texts of the Old Testament.
My case for the author…