Wednesday, April 27, 2011

The Rise of Matriarchal Power

"Where women are concerned about their defense, it means normally that either a fearful outside invader is threatening the society, or else within the social order men are ceasing to function as men." - Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p203.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Inherited Skepticism

"The overall reception of Jesus among those who knew of him - doubt turning to outright hostility - was only in keeping with a general Jewish tendency evident in the nation's past. The Jews are an acidic people, inclined to debate and question. Their inherent, inherited skepticism may account for the fact that among ancient peoples they were the first to successfully critique and forever pull away from the dominant polytheists of their world." - Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, Klinghoffer, p.13

I have no idea (yet) what Klinghoffer's view of the miracles of the Old Testament is, but he is clearly unimpressed with the idea that such miracles (Abraham's visions, Jacob's wrestling, the plagues upon Egypt, and on and on) might have resulted in a people worshipping the God who did and spoke these things. Secondly, while his characterization of the Jews as an "acidic people, inclined to debate and question" may or may not be true, the notion that they "forever" pulled away from "dominant polytheists of their world" is not true at all. This is the issue that Yahweh has with Israel - they continue to return to the gods of Eqypt, the gods of the Canaanites, and the worshipping practices of the polytheists all around them.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

What if the Jews Had Accepted Jesus as Messiah?

This is the question Klinghoffer asks in the introduction to his book, "Why the Jesus Rejected Jesus." His point is to say that it is actually in Christianity's favor that the Jews didn't accept Christ.

He sets up the arguments betweent the Lord's brother, James, and Paul, as recorded in the book of Acts. But he misunderstands what happened. He treats Paul's rejection of the Jews rejecting him and his claim to turn to the Gentiles as though it only happened because the Jews rejected him (like a salesman moving to another location to sell his wares - my metaphor).

"Had the Jews embraced Jesus, therefore, followers of the church of James would have continued to be obligated in the biblical commandments of circumcision, Sabbath, kashrut (eating only kosher food), family purity...and so on. Thus, in every key respect, the Jesus movement might have remained a Jewish sect" - Klinghoffer, p7.

But Klinghoffer misses the point of Galatians and the whole New Covenant under Jesus in this consideration. James, or at least those who considered themselves "of James" were in error. They were in error of what the ceremonial law was pointing to and they were in error of the correct teaching of Paul - and Jesus. If the Jews (as many actually did) had come to Christ, they would have heard the good news of the gospel and within a generation, rituals like circumcision would have been subsumed in the fulfilled work of Jesus Christ, the Messiah who would come and make all things new.

This looks to be a good, irenic, and helpful debate with a Jew who wishes to make his case without the shrill. However, from the start, he is missing the point of the gospel, the shadows of the law and temple, and the fulfilment of Jesus not only to the Jews, but to the whole Adamic race.