Messianic Jewish Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Messianic Jewish Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Sixty years have passed since the official declaration of Israel’s independence and statehood. In these years, the world has watched as a continuous struggle has overwhelmed the lives of those living in Israel and the immediate area. There seems to be no rest in violence; war has continued to wage in the social, political, and religious worlds. The obvious groups in this struggle, the Jews and the Muslims, have been at the center of all conversation in the media and beyond. There are, however, smaller groups that have participated in these conflicts since the very beginning––the Christians being one of these. Within Middle Eastern Christianity there are many faces and perspectives: Catholics and Protestants, Westerners and Easterners, Jews and Arabs. Christian Jews (or Messianic Jews) have held a very unique position among the many groups that have been seen here. They are caught up in two worlds; their ethnic, historical, and religious background come from Judaism, but their identity also comes from being people of Yeshua (Jesus). The Messianic Jews have learned to fuse these two worlds, seeing themselves as the complete expression of their Jewish traditions. The scholar, John Fischer says about this, “Jewish believers––as well as Gentiles who desire to worship in a Jewish context––formed themselves into congregations in Jewish communities, where they express their faith in Jesus and affirm their Jewishness, while being thoroughly biblical. [They] visibly demonstrate that a Jew can commit himself to following Yeshua as the Messiah and strengthen––not dilute––his Jewish identity.”1 There is much debate from the Christian community as to whether this unique group is Christian or Jewish, and many questions of theology have been raised in this discussion. Should Messianic Jews live distinctly as Jews or assimilate into the Christian community? Do Messianic Jews claim identity with Israel or the Church? Are the Jews or the Christians the chosen of God? Many theologians have tackled these questions with great passion and have answered simply, “yes.” David H. Stern, a leading Messianic Jewish voice, is one such scholar.
“The people of God are a chosen people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, witnesses for God, a people with a mission, a people with a Book, and a blessing to the nations. The Bible applies such descriptions to both the Church and the Jewish people. Therefore any proper theology of God’s people must take account of Messianic Jews as being 100% Jewish and 100% New Testament believers.”2

As Jews, Messianic Jews are welcomed into the State of Israel (although once there, they may face discrimination from traditional Jews) and they identity themselves completely with that nationality, however as Christians, they may have more to say than the majority of Israelis regarding the conflicts that have risen there. Presented here is an introduction to some of the Messianic perspectives concerning the problems present in the Middle East. An attempt will be made to enter into the mind and thought-process of those Messianic Christians that are ever increasing around the world. Of course, this presentation does not by any means account for all perspectives, opinions, and views, but generally speaking it gives a good overview. Lisa Loden (a Reconciliation voice among Messianic Christians) has reminded readers, “It has frequently been said that wherever you have two Jews you will have three opinions. Messianic Jews are no exception to this rather humorous indictment.”3 Topics that will be discussed include, Theology: Messianic Jewish hermeneutics, their identity as people of promise, and their eschatology; politics: their views on the State of Israel and it’s relationship with neighboring countries; and their response to the displacement of the Palestinian people. By understanding where Messianic Jews come from and how they think and believe, progress can be made towards peace and reconciliation with other groups of Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Theology

To understand any perspective on Israel and her problems from the Messianic Jewish point-of-view, whether it be political, social, or religious, much attention much be given to the theology and faith of this group. Faith acts as the foundation upon which all views are weighed and measured against. Without a proper understanding of Jewish-Christian beliefs, there will be no understanding of the perspectives given towards the State of Israel. There are three main topics that address these theological foundations: Hermeneutics, Promise, and Eschatology.

A.Hermeneutics
Any theological understanding flows naturally from scripture and how it is read and interpreted. In the Messianic Jewish tradition, the Bible is of utmost importance. Biblical authority centers on any understanding of life––whether it be religious or the “secular” world in general. Such a statement is true of most Christian communities, but something to be understood about this group is the tendency to read scripture as literal as possible. There is much hesitation in any form of historical or textual criticism because it takes away from the inspiration that is believed to be present in the text. Such a tradition can be be paralleled with the evangelicals in the United States. Most Messianic Jewish communities are in fact identified with various evangelical denominations such as Baptists and Pentecostals.
As much as the Messianic Jewish community has in common with the evangelical traditions, one distinct emphasis is on the Old Testament. Because the Jewish scripture is in fact the Christian Old Testament, Messianic Jews also find their home within this section of scripture. Not only that, but this Jewish-oriented perspective carries over with force into the New Testament. Lisa Loden touches on this. “Messianic Jews consistently maintain the Jewishness of the biblical documents (understandably of course the Old Testament but equally the Jewishness of the New Testament is heavily emphasized) and some advocate a use of traditional rabbinic approaches to hermeneutics and exposition.”4 The argument is that the modern Christian church too often neglects the reality of its Jewish roots. Some would say that the church has even been a long-time part of anti-semitism. In today’s culture, the church is losing this prejudice, but has not yet remembered where it came from. The Messianic movement understands the strong Jewishness of the entire biblical text. They also understand how very Jewish Jesus was in his teachings. An important Messianic leader, David Stern, argues in his essay, “The Land from a Messianic Jewish Perspective,” that there must again be a Jewish emphasis on the Bible––both the Old Testament and the New Testament––and the early Christian documents. In his opinion, “[Christian theology] has the tendency to disassociate the Church from its Jewish roots, an essentially antisemitic enterprise.”5 The Jewishness of biblical interpretation and emphasis not only contrasts general western Christianity, but deeply contrasts the theology and understanding of the Arab and Palestinian Christians who live in close contact with those Messianic communities in Israel and the whole of the Middle East. Again Lisa Loden gets to the heart of this issue.
“The theological focus of each group tends to be particular to the needs and life situation of their respective communities. For the Palestinian, issues of justice and righteousness prevail and for the Messianic Jew, promise and prophecy are ascendant. The Palestinian Christian sees in Jesus the one who universalized the story of the chosen people in the chosen land from the particular reference of localized Israel to the wider community of the world and all her peoples, whereas the Messianic Jew sees continuation and fulfillment of the story and destiny of Israel once again in her ancient, promised land.”6

The points Loden brings here––the points of promise and prophesy––are the most crucial aspects of Messianic Jewish theology and are central to understanding its views on the modern State of Israel. Although Loden herself is a Messianic Jew, she offers a strong challenge to the Messianic community.
“Messianic Jews must engage in the struggle to understand what the ‘newness’ of Jesus really meant. Was this ‘newness’ intended to be a radical break with the past and the inauguration of something completely new- for example, the kingdom of God on earth as opposed to the territorial dimension of Israel? As regards the Old Testament, the Messianic Jew should not focus on promise to the exclusion of the ethical message of the prophets, neglecting matters of justice and righteousness as the touch issues of the Land.”7



B.People of Promise

The emphasis on promise in Messianic Jewish theology is two-fold. First is God’s promise that the Jewish nation will be God’s chosen people out of the world; second is God’s promise that he will give his chosen people the land of Israel. In mainstream Christian thought, there is much confusion as to whether the Jews are still considered the people of God, or if that concept has expired and been adapted for the new people of God, the church. The answer to this question also determines a theology of the land, which in turn applies to Messianic Jewish views on the current situation in the land of Israel. A theology of election is most important. David H. Stern has dealt with this question extensively, and has presented three common misunderstood theological notions on this topic contrasting them to his biblical interpretation called “Olive Tree Theology.”
The first of these misguided views is “Two-Covenant Theology.” This rose as a direct response to the Holocaust. As the Christian world soon became embarrassed and full of sympathy for the Jewish people, theological notions supported the Jewish community and eventually came to say that they were still God’s chosen people––even without Jesus. According to this view, the Church is a separate and unrelated people of God. They have come to be in relationship with the Creator through means of Jesus’ death and the new covenant, while the Jews have continued and always have been connected with God through the old covenant. The new did not replace the old; the new simply came along side the old in a parallel way. In this view, there is no need to evangelize in the Jewish world, for they are already in direct contact with God. Stern rejects this view calling it fundamentally unbiblical. Throughout the new testament the early apostles dedicated their entire lives to evangelize the Jewish community and bring them into faith of Yeshua, their Messiah. Without Jesus, the Jewish faith is incomplete.
The more popular belief among Christians is called, “Replacement Theology.” Here it is said that because the Jewish nation rejected Jesus as their Messiah they have forfeited their right to be his chosen people. Because they did not accept him, salvation came to the Gentiles. There is, then, no theology of covenant for the Jews and no promise of a land that is theirs. The “chosen” category has been transferred to a universal, inclusive stance and the promised land is contrasted with the promise of the kingdom of heaven. Stern absolutely rejects this notion as well, calling it pure anti-semitism.
An increasingly popular view––especially among evangelicals––has been “Dispensational Theology.” This view has made an attempt to merge these two extreme views and calls the Jewish nation God’s “earthly” people and the Church God’s “spiritual” people. These beliefs are involved especially within eschatology and end-time discussion. After the Church has been raptured to be with God, it is up to the Jews to be God’s chosen once again on earth until Jesus comes back a third time to wage war against earthly evils. About this Stern says, “This strict separation of roles did not deal with the problem of Messianic Jews––do they ascend at the Rapture with the Church or remain below, loyal to their Jewish people? Either profoundly unsatisfying answer demonstrates the absurdity and inadequacy of this theological solution to the question of God’s people.”8
The view Stern offers in contrast to these is called, “Olive Tree Theology.” The centerpiece scripture is in Romans 11.17-26:
“If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ Granted. But they were broken off because of their unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!”

This scripture passage shows that there is but one tree, one covenant, one people, one God. Because some Jews do not believe in God’s plan in Yeshua they were cut off from the covenant. It is important to understand that the Church did not replace these branches, but instead were included in the already established tree. The Jews may be grafted in at a moments notice provided that they believe again, and the Church can be cut off if they choose to disbelieve. The Messianic Christians then are those branches that remained on the tree, or at the least were grafted back in. The promises of the old covenant remain, and the Jews continue to be God’s chosen. The Church has been adopted in as God’s chosen, but they remain unnaturally so. Stern concludes, “A right theology must clearly show that the Jews are still God’s people––or, more accurately, along with the Church, one of God’s two sub-peoples.”
Menhaim Benhayim is the former Secretary for the International Messianic Jewish Alliance and has been part of the Messianic movement in Israel for well over thirty years. In a collection of essays about Biblical interpretations of the theology of the Land entitled, The Bible and the Land: An Encounter, Benhayim elaborates on the concept of ‘election’ and what it means to many Messianic Jews.
“First of all, it must be constantly stated that biblical election or ‘chosenness’ operates entirely within the sovereign will of God. It gives absolutely no basis for pride or self-satisfaction in one’s election; nor does it justify contempt for others. It has nothing to do with the German concept of the herrnvolk (‘master race’).”

With this in mind, Benhayim explains that election has been a three-fold process in divine history. The first election took place at the beginning of the world with the choosing of Adam. Adam was set apart from the rest of creation to be God’s chosen. He was crafted in God’s image, and he had a special task to be a good steward of all creation. Later in the biblical narrative, another election was established. This was the special covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 12. The point of the Abrahamic election for the Jewish people was not necessarily to give the children of Abraham a high status or place of privilege among people. Instead, it could be better compared to the choosing of a person for a specific occupation. Israel was always meant to be a blessing to the nations and not necessarily the nation that was to be blessed. Her occupation was to be a kingdom of priests among all other kingdoms of the world. It is important to note that the choosing of Abraham and his family did not some how nullify the previous election of Adam and all of humanity. All people of the world kept their ‘chosenness’ to be stewards of creation and images of God (whether they did or did not enact this purpose). The third election that took place happened in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In this event, God would make a universal invitation for all those to enter in to His special election. The Church is the product of this invitation. Just as the election of Abraham did not nullify the election of humankind, the election of the church did not nullify the election of Abraham. The apostle Paul speaks on this in his letter to the Romans, “I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!”9 and later, “for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”10 The purpose of God’s election of Israel was to enhance his election of humanity, and the purpose of God’s election of the Church was to enhance both the election of humanity and Israel.
The election of the Jewish people is relevant in today’s current situation of middle eastern conflict because of their claim to the geographical land of Israel. With God’s promise of election comes God’s promise of a land for the elect to possess. This concept has been deeply engrained in the identity of the Jews from the moment of their conception at the calling of Abraham. In Genesis 12 God says to Abraham, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you.” When Abraham gets to the land of Canaan God says to him, “To your offspring I will give this land.” From this point on, all of the descendants of Abraham have clung to these words. Throughout history, the people of Israel have gone through rotations of occupation and exile. Abraham lived in the promised land, but later his descendants ended up in Egypt. Moses and Joshua led the people back into Israel, where they enjoyed a time of occupation, but later, because of disobedience, they were exiled to Assyria and Babylon. Later, the Jews enjoyed a partial occupation of Israel during the time of Jesus; but even this was under the oppression and rule of Greek and Roman states. Since that time the Jewish people were spread throughout the nations of the world and became a diaspora, but despite this, they have held onto the promises of God that one day, they will return to their homeland. The present conflict in Israel is the product of the Jewish people attempting to reclaim their home after thousands of years of exile.
The Messianic Jews do not separate from their Jewish heritage in regards to the land. They too feel strongly that the land of Israel/Palestine belongs to them. They come to this conclusion mostly because of their very Jewish hermeneutic, but also their Jewish traditions. One such tradition in Judaism is to make a toast at the yearly passover dinner, “Next year in Jerusalem!” All people groups understand what it means to be connected to a certain land, but with the Jewish people, this connection moves beyond simple love and desire to being the very identity of who they are. The question then for the Messianic Jews is, “Do the promises of the bible regarding the Jewish people and the geographic land of Israel still hold relevance today?” Most Messianic Jews would give an emphatic, “yes!” It is clear that the promise of the Land is biblical, (Genesis 12.1,7; 15.18; 17.8; 28.13; 35.12; Exodus 6.4; 12.25; 13.11; 20.12; 23.30; 34.24; Leviticus 14.44; Numbers 14.8; Deuteronomy 1.8; Joshua 2.24; 1 Kings 9.7; 1 Chronicles 14.18; and virtually every other book of the Bible!); the question is whether this promise continues to be valid today. About this Menhaim Benhayim has responded with a discussion on the ‘forever’ of these promises. Many times when the promise of land is given in the Bible, the promises emphasizes that this pledge will last forever. Genesis 13.15 is one such passage, “All the land that you see I will give you and your offspring forever.” The argument is that the biblical passages clearly stress ‘forever’ when they give the promise. If God has made his promise forever, how can it be void today? And if this forever of the Old Testament is not valid today, how can Christians know the forever of the New Testament will last? Messianic Jews say forever is forever, the promise is still lasting.

C. Eschatology
Although the land of Israel has been a crucial aspect of the Jewish identity since the time of Abraham, the reality is that the majority of Jews have not lived in this land for 2,000 years. Despite this, the Jews have clung to the promises of God in the fulfillment of prophecy and eschatology. According to the Jewish hermeneutic, God has promised that the exile and diaspora will end; the Jews will come back to their homeland. Scriptures used to support this stance include: Ezek. 34.11-31; Hosea 3; Amos 9.11-15; Zech. 12-14; Isa. 11, 43, 54, 60-62, 66; and Romans 11:1-34. Eschatology has come to play a very significant role in the theology and identity of Jewish Christians. Richard C. Nicole writes, “Messianic Judaism has been more than influenced––it has actually defined itself in terms of the end of the End Times.”11 This is especially the case after the events in 1948 and the formation of the modern State of Israel. Messianic Jews have seen this event as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and the beginning of the realized promise of the land of Israel.
This prophetic view of current middle eastern events has been influenced and fueled by recent evangelical eschatologies. There has been a close connection with these various Protestant traditions and the traditions of the Messianic Christian community. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum is one such Messianic Christian scholar who has spent a considerable amount of time studying the eschatology of the Messianic Christian movement. In his essay, “Eschatology and Messianic Jews: A Theological Perspective,” he describes his understanding of the coming of the end times and the role of the “Remnant of Israel”––the Christian Hebrews.12 First, Christ will come back and his Church (comprised of believing Gentiles and Jews) will meet him in the air and return to heaven during the time of the tribulation. The idea of “Rapture” comes from a passage in 1 Thessalonians,
“For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”13

While in heaven, both believing Gentiles and Jews will be judged by God and then participate in the wedding ceremony of the Lamb. While this is happening in heaven, on earth traumatic events take place while the people of God, Israel, begin to return to Him by accepting Yeshua as Messiah. At the end of the seven year tribulation, Christ will return a third time from the clouds of heaven, but this time he will be accompanied by the “saints,” the believing Jews and Gentiles taken up at the Rapture. They will, together, fight the last apocalyptic battle against evil, and rule the earth with Christ for all eternity––the Gentiles throughout the nations, and the Jews in the long-awaited promised home of Israel. This is just one example of the many varying eschatologies present within the Messianic Jewish context. The majority look very similar to the doctrines of the evangelicals; the whole always redeem the Jews back to the land of Israel. With this theological mind set, the formation of the State of Israel is a preparation and precursor to the end time events that will soon take place. After explaining the above eschatology, Fruchtenbaum makes an application for today’s Jewish Christians. “In this present age, this means that Jewish believers should look upon the Land of Israel as being their homeland.”14

Political Views on the State of Israel

If Messianic Jews have varying beliefs and opinions on theology, they have even more varying beliefs and opinions on politics. However, with a theological foundation, 95% of all Messianic Jews living in Israel are for the State of Israel with the understanding that God has promised them the land.15 Lisa Loden writes, “A Messianic Jew who lives in Israel often sees his presence in that land as both fulfillment of prophecy and as an eschatological sign.”16 With such a strong theological claim on the land, it seems that there can be no other political view on the State of Israel. Dan Cohn-Sherbok writes,
“Because of the centrality of Israel in God’s plan for all nations... Messianic Jews are ardent Zionists. They support Israel because the Jewish State is viewed as a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Although Israel is far from perfect, Messianic Jews believe that God is active in the history of the nation and that the Jews will never be driven out of the land again. While God loves the Arabs, he gave the Holy Land to his chosen people.”

The Messianic Jewish Alliance of America has written on its website as part of its Statement of Faith,
“We believe in God's end-time plan for the nation of Israel and for the world. A central part of Messianic Judaism is the belief in the physical and spiritual restoration of Israel, as taught in the Scriptures. The greatest miracle of our day has been the re-establishment or rebirth of the State of Israel according to prophecy (Ezek. 34:11-31; 36-39; Hos. 3; Amos 9:11-15; Zech. 12-14; Isa. 11; 43; 54; 60-62; 66; Rom. 11:1-34)”17

It is important to note, however, that many Messianic Jews do not necessarily agree with the government of the State of Israel; the community faces much persecution and difficulty getting into the land as Christians. Despite this, they believe that God has used the present circumstances and the political zionist movement as His tool to go about His purposes. If God can use the evil, alien nations in ancient times to exile His people from the land of Israel, he can certainly use the Jewish nation today to bring His people back into the land of Israel.
Overall, the Messianic community agrees with the Jewish community at large regarding peace solutions such as the Two-State solution. They tend to believe that because of the passion and commitment of the Muslims and Arab countries to exterminate the Jews, any peace treaty is at risk of being broken. Politically, the most they can ask from the Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries is the right to legitimacy. David Friedman, a Messianic voice, writes about steps toward reconciliation in his essay, “The Political Reality of Living in Israel with a Suggested Path Towards Reconciliation.” In his opinion, there can be no reconciliation if others do not recognize the right of Israel to exist.
“If Palestinians are serious about gaining a Western style of peace for people, the best thing they can do is to convince the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah and Syria to accept my nation. Boycotts, terror, and even non-violent protest will not bring Israel to collapse, for God has promised a future for the Jewish people in Israel. We are here to stay.”18

Responses to the Displacement of the Palestinians

The biggest reason so much controversy rises in the discussion of the Jewish occupation in the land of Israel is not theological, but experiential. It is not as if the land of Israel remained unoccupied during the time of the Diaspora; no, it was occupied for hundreds of years by the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes and either exiled or moved to special zones such as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank during the Jewish aliyahs. This is the ethical problem. If God has promised his Jewish people the land of Israel, but it is occupied by another nation, what is to be done? There are those Jews and Christians who look to the time of Joshua when the Israelites claimed the promised land by militant force, claiming that the same must be done today, but there are few who are willing to make such a statement. Some Messianic Jews do, however, vocalize that the Palestinian people must learn that this is not their land, and they must leave. Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian Christian, describes an encounter with a woman who asked to speak at an Evangelical Palestinian celebration.
“When the lady took the microphone, no one could believe the words that came out of her mouth. She professed to the Palestinian evangelical Christians assembled there that she had a word from the Lord for them. ‘God,’ she said, ‘wants you all to leave Israel and go to other Arab countries.’ She added that they must leave to make room for God’s chosen people, the Jews. She warned the pastors and the audience that if they did not listen to the instructions, which God had given her, God would pour out his wrath on them.”19

This is an extreme example of what some Messianic Jews would say about the Palestinians, however the majority of Messianic Jews generally do believe that the Palestinians have no right to the land that God has promised them. Lisa Loden has included a quote from a Messianic Journal in 2001 displaying this attitude towards the Palestinians.
“I certainly see what is happening now as the beginning of the end. The Palestinians, in my opinion, are part of the coalition of Gog and Magog...The Palestinians, especially in their struggle for self-determination, are inciting the whole world against Israel and are awakening it to join in a war to liberate Jerusalem. ...This is the last act in the war of Islam against the truth of God. We as believers must see our place in this reality, otherwise our existence has no meaning.”20

There are, however, many other Messianic Christians working towards more loving and peaceful forms of reconciliation. Lisa Loden is involved with a non-profit organization called, Musalaha. The group is intended to rebuild relations between Christian Palestinians and Messianic Jews. Loden leads the women’s portion of this ministry. One activity the group promotes encourages people from each community to meet with one another in something called “Desert Encounters.” There, they learn to hear the voices of opinions, beliefs, and experiences. Organizations such as this have advanced better relations between the Messianic and Palestinian Christian communities, but there continues to be a need for more reconciliation.

Conclusion

Messianic Jews have identified themselves both with Judaism and Christianity. They have fused the worlds of Jewish tradition and Christian theology with an evangelical spin. Hebrew Christians read the Bible with a literal hermeneutic and place much emphasis on Old Testament prophecy and promise. Like the Jews, they firmly believe in the election of the people and the land of Israel, and have confidence that one day all Israel will be restored by the hand of God. Because of this background, their political views on the State of Israel almost completely support its existence and legitimacy. Some reconciliation work is being done to unite these Christian Jews with the land’s native Palestinians, but generally speaking Messianic Jews emphasize that Palestinians must recognize that the land of Israel has been given to the Jews by the hand of God. It is difficult to tell where the future of the Messianic movement will progress, but diversity will almost certainly continue to rise within the community as the situation in Israel becomes more and more heated and complicated with every year. Messianic Christians are a special group today that have a large amount to say to the greater Christian world in general. They speak to the Church reminding her of the strong Jewish heritage from which Jesus and the early Church came. One can only guess as to where this old––yet young––community will progress and mature in the years to come.





















Bibliography
Awad, Mubarak. “Their Theology, Our Nightmare” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Fischer, John. ed. The Enduring Paradox: Exploratory Essays in Messianic Judaism. Baltimore: Lederer Books, 2000.

Friedman, David. “The Political Reality of Living in Israel with a Suggested Path Toward Reconciliation.” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. “Eschatology and Messianic Jews: A Theological Perspective.” in Voices of Messianic Judaism: Confronting Critical Issues for a Maturing Movement, ed. Dan Cohn-Sherbok. Baltimore: Lederer Books, 2001.

Kivun, No.21, Nov./Dec. 2000, p.9 quoted in Lisa Loden “Messianic Jewish Views on Israel’s Rebirth and Survival in the Light of Scripture” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Kjaer-Hansen, Kai and Bodil F. Skjott. Facts and Myths About the Messianic Congregations in Israel. Jerusalem: United Christian Council in Israel, 1999.

Loden, Lisa. “Assessing the Various Hermeneutical Approaches.” in The Bible and the Land: An Encounter, ed. Lisa Loden, Peter Walker, and Michael Wood. Jerusalem: Musalaha, 2000.

Loden, Lisa. “Messianic Jewish Views on Israel’s Rebirth and Survival in Light of Scripture.” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, “Statement of Faith.” MJAA.
http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Spg_About_History_StmFaith (accessed 5/10/10).

Nicole, Richard C. “Are we really at the End of the End Times? A Reappraisal.” in Voices of Messianic Judaism: Confronting Critical Issues Facing a Maturing Movement, ed. Dan Cohn-Sherbok. Baltimore: Lederer Books, 2001.

Stern, David H. “Making the Issues Clear: A Messianic Jewish Perspective.” In The Bible and the Land: An Encounter, ed. Lisa Loden, Peter Walker, and Michael Wood. Jerusalem: Musalaha, 2000.

Stern, David. “The Land From a Messianic Jewish Perspective.” in The Land: An Encounter, ed. Lisa Loden, Peter Walker, and Michael Wood. Jerusalem: Musalaha, 2000.

Tsukahira, Peter. God’s Tsunami: Understanding Israel and End-time Prophecy. Mount Carmel: Peter Tsukahira, 2003.

The Incarnation as a Mystical Reality

The Incarnation as a Mystical Reality

The person of Jesus is the most important and influential historical figure the world has ever known. No other man or woman has left such a great legacy and impact as Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, he began a movement that would grow and evolve to change the face of the entire western world and beyond. Many people of every sex, race, culture, religion, and perspective affirm Jesus in some way. The Jews and Muslims claim him as a prophet, the Hindus deem him as a god, the Buddhists proclaim him as a buddha, and even many atheists see him as a great humanist and moral teacher. Christians, however, view and worship him as a divine reality within the scope of monotheism. To them, he is not just a divine figure or a god; he is the unique manifestation of the one, true, God. How did this group come to such a conclusion? This paper will examine the growth and progression of the early Christian views of the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. When presented through a botanical metaphor, the seed of this thought is planted with the knowledge of Jesus as a prophet teaching the truths of God. This image soon sprouts into the understanding of Jesus’ messianic identity as the savior of Israel. As a young tree, the realization of the messianic identity grows into the understanding of Jesus as the Wisdom of God existing before the beginning of the world; and finally fully grown the Incarnation is viewed as the fullness of God in flesh. In the end, the paper will show the truth of the Incarnation, not as a genetic and literal truth, but as something of more value: a mystical and transcendent reality.

Introduction

Before discussing Jesus as the Incarnation of God, two brief arguments should be raised. First, this paper assumes (based on the majority of scholarly work) that the Incarnation was a developed idea. No reason exists to believe that the direct followers of Jesus and the early Christian community understood right away that Jesus was in fact God. Furthermore, many strong arguments claim that Jesus himself did not fully realize his identity as God. The earliest biblical texts suggest that he knew he was sent by God and that possibly he believed himself to be the Messiah, but they do not show that Jesus thought of himself as the Incarnation of God walking the earth and remembering his days in heaven before he came to earth—remembering the time when he created the world and all the people in it. Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God: the synoptic gospels point to this fact. In Mark 10.18 Jesus asks, “‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good-except God alone’” and in Luke’s gospel in chapter 10 Jesus explains ‘“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.’”1 It is clear that Jesus knew God and even described himself with phrases such as “the Son” of God to show their intimate relationship, but there is no clear reference of himself claiming to be anything more than this.
The Gospel of John is an exception to this: here, there are numerous examples of direct claims that Jesus is in fact God. One such passage, John 8.58, demonstrates this when Jesus claims, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Although this is the case, any serious scholarship shows that these passages in John’s gospel are later developments of the early Christian church. This does not mean John’s gospel is incorrect in projecting ideas of divinity onto Christ, but simply that the ideas are too well developed in church theology to have been historically said by Jesus. The Gospel of John, in its entirety, is a later mystical version of the story of Jesus, and as such must be understood as being further along in the development of Incarnation theology. Marcus Borg discusses this point in his dialogue with N. T. Wright on the subject. He explains this by no means diminishes the reality of these statements; instead brings more value to them. “But if we think of these statements not as self-statements of Jesus but as the voice of the community, they become more powerful. If a community says about someone, ‘We have found in this person the light of the world who has shown us the way out of darkness,’...that is very impressive indeed.”2 The Gospel of John should be taken seriously, but it does not fully testify to the yet-to-be-developed beliefs of Jesus and his early followers: the Incarnation is a processed idea. This paper traces the process in four main steps, Jesus as Prophet, Messiah, the Wisdom of God, and God in flesh.
The second argument assumed holds the view of God as an omnipotent and present being. Much discussion on the theology of the Incarnation seems to assume that God looks down on the earth from some other place and only involves himself in certain events as some external being. Marcus Borg calls this kind of belief “supernatural theism.” “This view sees Jesus as the unique incarnation of an absent interventionist God, an unparalleled divine insertion into the natural order.”3 Opposed to this is what Borg calls “pantheism” or “dialectical theism.” This notion holds that God is a being present everywhere in creation. This God continually involves himself in creation, not as some external force, but as a participant in the life of men and women and all creation. Paul says it best when he quotes the Athenian poets, “For in him we live and move and have our being.4” The Incarnation is the embodiment of that God: the spiritual presence that can be found in all creation.

Jesus as Prophet

The earliest and most primitive notions of Jesus saw him as a prophet of God. In the botany analogy presented earlier, the seed of the Incarnation is planted at this step. Before any theology was formed about the function and identity of Jesus, it was obvious that he was a great teacher and prophet of God. The crowds proclaimed this at his triumphant entry into Jerusalem: “When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?" The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."5 In his book, The Christology of the New Testament, Oscar Cullmann argues that the role of the prophet had died by the time of Jesus and had become an idea related to eschatology.6 As John the Baptizer began to teach in the desert, people began to view him as a prophet ushering in the end of the Roman domination of Israel. He preached that one after him was coming that would be still greater than himself. Jesus fulfills this, and people instantaneously see him as a great prophet as he began his public ministry. In a recent publication of collected essays from Southeastern University, Robby Waddell writes on the role of the prophet. He designates four major themes and roles to prophetic persons, Messenger, Minstrel, Madman, and Martyr.7 Every prophet from Israel’s past has fit into these categories and Jesus is no exception. Although Jesus was later understood and recognized as more than a prophet, at the earliest point he was nothing less than a prophet.
Jesus viewed himself as a messenger of God; “Not unlike the OT prophets, Jesus served as an ambassador of the divine message.”8 Indeed, the earliest of Jesus’ teaching demonstrates this: “After John was put into prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”9 All of Jesus’ teachings are summed up in this verse.
The poetic language of Jesus is one of the most striking features of the gospels. Almost everything he says seems to be said with a parable, metaphor, or quotation from Jewish poetic scripture. The prophets were great story tellers. The prophetic story, however, does not mean to entertain, but rather to provoke. In the Old Testament the prophet Nathan tells a story to David about a man who had a number of sheep yet found it necessary to steal the only sheep of a poor household. Only after David became furious and cast his judgement on the character of the story did Nathan reveal to him that the story had been about his affair with Bathsheba.10 Jesus has much the same effect when he tells his parables. People are left perplexed, frustrated, angry, and challenged.
All prophets are “madmen”. They often connect so strongly to the mission of carrying out the messages of God that they use extreme behavior to grab the attention of the people. The prophets were known to strip themselves of their clothes, lay on their side for extreme amounts of time, smash pots, and shave their heads. Jesus also performed extreme acts such as these. In Matthew 21, Jesus enters the temple and sees that it has been turned into a place of buying and selling rather than praise and worship. In a rage he overturns the tables and benches of the market workers and sets up base for a healing station. Just before this event, Jesus rides into Jerusalem not on a horse like any other important figure, but on a humble donkey. One could definitely classify Jesus as one of these “madmen” of prophecy.
The last image Waddell proposes is the Martyr. Almost all the prophets of Israel in the past had been killed. In fact this had become a theme central for Jesus’ criticism of the pharisees and religious leaders of his day. In Matthew 23.29-32 this is demonstrated:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!”

Of course it is quite obvious that the same fate was waiting for him when he said this to them, and later they hung him on the cross.
Jesus was a prophet in every sense of the word, and people understood him to be. It seems by reading the synoptics that a quiet rumor was going around that he could quite possibly be more than this, but on a public level people understood Jesus to be a prophet ushering in a new time when the kingdom of God would appear.

Jesus as the Messiah

While in the public world Jesus was known as a prophet, there came a notion that he could be even more than this. It was apparent that he had come from God and preached God’s message, but in the Jewish mind was an idea of a coming messiah that many had been expecting for some time. Many Jews of Jesus’ time projected their views of this coming figure onto Jesus, just as Peter confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”11 This statement and claim had such significant that the title Peter places on Jesus would later become fused with his name: Jesus Christ.
Popular thought holds the Jewish idea of Messiah as a monolithic expectation, one clear and distinguished view. This however, is not the case. Oscar Cullmann writes, “In general it is true that the Jews expected a savior with certain nationalistic and Jewish characteristics. But this common form could hold the most widely varying content.”12 He goes on to speak about these varying ideas of the Messiah. The word Messiah simply means “anointed one” and was first used to describe anyone who had God’s blessing on them to be his representation to the people—especially the kings. The term was applied to prophets and even occasionally a neighboring country as in the case of King Cyrus in Isaiah 45.1. The concept of “the anointed one” was closely linked with God’s promise to David: that his kingdom would never end.13 When the people of Israel were gradually sent into exile, this promise turned into a promise of eschatological hope. Thus, the people of Jesus’ day were eagerly waiting for an earthly figure to come and restore Israel. Although there were many theories of what this figure would look like, he or she would have the same function. The terms Son of God and Son of David were synonymous with this figure, because the person would be God’s representation—the one who would fulfill the promise made to David.
There is some doubt as to whether Jesus understood himself in this way. Anytime someone refers to him as the Christ, he tells them to keep quiet about it. Even at the questioning of the High Priest after his arrest he seems to be hesitant to make such a claim. “Jesus kept silent And the high priest said to Him, ‘I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.’"14 Here Jesus simply shows that the high priest said he was the Christ, not himself. Jesus is fond of another, parallel title, Son of Man. The Son of Man tradition is closely related to the
Messiah tradition, but they are not synonymous. Cullmann enters this discussion:
“His [Jesus’] saying about the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God and coming again on the clouds of heaven is not derived from the concept of the Messiah we have described in the last section. The Son of Man is a heavenly being, not an earthly king who will conquer the enemies of Israel and exercise an earthly sovereignty. The contrast is clear in the form Matthew reports Jesus’ answer.”

Nearly every time that Jesus is referred to as the Christ in the synoptics, he changes the subject to the Son of Man as if he is correcting his hearers. It is quiet clear that many people of his day understood him to be the coming Messiah (a category that would be completely reinvented after his death and resurrection) but it seems that Jesus was partial to the earthly messiah tradition’s parallel, the divine Son of Man. The Son of Man tradition could quite possibly be the perfect link between Jesus’ identity as a human messiah and his identity as the divine Wisdom of God.

Jesus as the Wisdom of God

In Judaism there is a great tradition of spiritual and practical wisdom. A number of Jewish texts are encompassed within this tradition including Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and portions of the Prophets and other apocalyptic texts. The specific theme within this tradition that should be highlighted is the female personification of the wisdom of God. We see this beginning in Proverbs 8,
“Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
On the heights along the way, 

where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
beside the gates leading into the city, 

at the entrances, she cries aloud:
"To you, O men, I call out; 

I raise my voice to all mankind.
You who are simple, gain prudence; 

you who are foolish, gain understanding.”15
In Proverbs, the role of Lady Wisdom is to call men and women to abandon their foolish lifestyles and take up her ways, the ways of the wise. The unique thing about her is not her teachings, (many prophets and teachers throughout all the world’s religions and traditions have taught very similar concepts) but her claims of identity. Proverbs 8 sheds light on this.
From verse 22: “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old,”
From verse 27: “I was there when he set the heavens in place, before the hills, I was given birth,”
From verse 30: “Then I was the craftsman at his side, I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence.”
These passages give the image that a woman was God’s companion during the creation of the world; of course, it is understood that here personification is a tool of poetry. These passages are not claiming that some feminine deity worked along side of God in the beginning; however, their meaning paints a picture of the Wisdom of God present at all times, calling out to the foolish. This image can be seen in a variety of Jewish wisdom texts as Marcus Borg points out in his book, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time; the most striking of these texts being the Wisdom of Solomon.
“In the Wisdom of Solomon, a book written near the time of Jesus, the divine qualities of Sophia [Lady Wisdom] are most developed. Sophia is the ‘fashioner of all things,’ and the ‘mother’ of all good things. Then, in a remarkable passage, she is spoken of as:
...a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits....
Those are, of course, all attributes of God. Moreover, like God, she is everywhere present: ‘she pervades and penetrates all things.’ Sophia ‘is a breath of the power of God and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty’ and ‘a reflection of eternal light.’ Like God, she is omnipotent and the sustaining source of life.”16
Richard Bauckham picks up on this point as well in the book of 1 Enoch: “The picture is of God’s Wisdom seated beside him as his adviser, constantly present to advise him in all the exercise of his rule.”17 A strong tradition of wisdom and her personification was very present at the time of Jesus and after.
At some point after Easter, the early church began to think of Jesus not just as a prophet or a messiah, but as a pre-existing being, side by side with God in the creation story, much like Lady Wisdom herself. This was probably developed because of the wisdom teachings of Jesus. The writings of Paul hint at this with passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:6. The strongest of these passage is Colossians 1.15-17, “He [Christ] is the image of the Invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” A strong parallel presents itself here between Colossians and the passages within the Wisdom tradition. The author of Hebrews makes the image even stronger, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”18 The most important of these passages is in the Johannine tradition.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it....The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”19
This passage makes three significant connections. First, the “Word” spoken of here in John’s gospel directly links itself to the Proverbs version of Lady Wisdom. The passage does not quote from the Old Testament directly, but it uses enough of the same language to paint the picture in the early Christian and Jewish mind. Second, this passage specifically links the imagery of the preexistent “Word” (and “Wisdom”) to Jesus. “The Word became flesh.” This statement asserts that Jesus is the embodiment of this wisdom. Thirdly, it bluntly states that “the Word” is God. To sum up this connection, Lady Wisdom (or “the Word”) is a personification of God, and Jesus is an embodiment of Lady Wisdom. In the form of a syllogism, it was easy for the early Christians to make the connection that Jesus was in fact the embodiment of God—the Incarnation—thus in the words of the Nicene Creed, a personae (mask or person) of God.

Jesus as God

In conclusion, the understanding of Jesus’ identity being the same as that of God was a developed process that happened much in the way that a tree grows. This process began when a man from Nazareth 2,000 years ago entered the public eye with his great and challenging teachings. He was thought to be a prophet giving the message of God to the people. As this man, Jesus, continued to teach and speak, it became apparent to the people around him that he was much more than simply a prophet: he was the anointed one of God, the Messiah who had come to save Israel and fulfill the Davidic promise. Jesus himself hinted that his identity was hidden in something much more than this as he called himself the Son of Man. As the early Christian community grew, it recognized Jesus’ teachings and actions to be rooted in the Lady Wisdom traditions from the book of Proverbs and elsewhere, and it wasn’t long before they identified Jesus as the embodiment of this power and wisdom of God. Understanding that Lady Wisdom was an aspect and face of God, it was easy at this point for the early Christians to say that Jesus was the incarnation of the wisdom of God, God himself. Of course it took over 300 years to solidify this idea in the Nicene creed, making Jesus the same as God by developing the notion of the Trinity, but even at an early stage before the Bible had even been compiled, the early Christians worshiped Jesus and recognized him as God here on earth.
It is important to recognize that in this process God did not leave heaven and turn himself into a human to walk on the earth for 30 or more years before then going back to heaven where he had always been. Rather, the wisdom of God came down and was made manifest in the person of Jesus. Jesus is the perfect example of what God looks like because he was able to open himself to the will of God in a way that no other human being had ever done. He was the full embodiment of the wisdom of God, and with that, he was the full embodiment of God himself. The scriptures and this development do not indicate that Jesus was in some way physically and genetically different than any other human being. They also do not indicate that Jesus identified himself to be God, as if he remembered when he created the world. N. T. Wright says about this, “I do not think Jesus ‘knew he was God’ in the same sense that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and say to himself, ‘Well I never! I’m the second person of the Trinity!’” But rather Jesus, in his openness to God became a mystical reality of the Divine Presence. The Incarnation, then, is not a physical, genetic and literal fact, but rather a mystical reality that in the person, Jesus, the Wisdom and fullness of God became manifest.















Bibliography
Barker, Gregory A.. Jesus in the World’s Faiths. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2005.
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
Borg, Marcus J.. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious
Revolutionary. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press LTD, 1959.
Cupit, Don. The Debate About Christ. London: SCM Press LTD, 1979.
Erickson, Millard J.. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001.
Goulder, Michael. Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Harris, Murray J.. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.
Meeks, Wayne A. Christ is the Question. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation of Criticism of Christian Theology. London: SCM Press LTD, 1974.
Jenson, Robert W.. Systematic Theology: The Triune God vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Kung, Hans. Does God Exist?: An Answer for Today. SOMEWHERE: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1981.
Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). Jesus of Nazareth. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007.
Spong, John Shelby. Jesus for the Non-Religious. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.
Torrance, Thomas F.. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Waddell, Robby. “Prophecy Then and Now: The Role of Prophecy in the Pentecostal Church.” in Transformational Leadership, ed. Peter Althouse, 229-243. Lakeland, FL: Small Dogma Publishing, 2008.
Wright, N. T.. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

The Coming of the Kingdom: Matthew’s Use of the Book of Daniel (An Exploration of Danielic Themes and Motifs in the Language of Jesus)

The Coming of the Kingdom: Matthew’s Use of the Book of Daniel
(An Exploration of Danielic Themes and Motifs in the Language of Jesus)1

The book of Matthew is rich with Old Testament and extra-biblical text quotations, allusions, and echos. It seems that the author intended to show the gospel of Christ in continuity with the work of the Most High through-out the ages, and back his information with the authority of figures, such as the prophets, in order to better validate his message. An example of this comes in the well-known “this was to fulfill” sayings. The author of Matthew was seeking to put Jesus into the spotlight of prophetic culmination and fulfillment. Although much of this intertextual play comes from the narrator, another large part of it looks to have come from Jesus himself. Certain allusions and themes attributed to him come out strong in all four gospels hinting that they are from one, solitary source. One such allusion is Jesus’ identification of himself as the “Son of Man”. It appears he borrowed the term from the book of Daniel where in chapter seven the author describes a figure as “one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven”. Jesus then, adopting and modifying the phrase, uses it through-out the gospels referring to himself. The strongest link associating these sayings with the book of Daniel comes in Matthew 24:30-31, saying:
“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”

This is an obvious reference to Daniel 7:13-14:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

This passage in Daniel is the point of inspiration for this paper. At first glance it seems to be an independent case that alludes to Daniel with no relation to any other part of the gospel, but as one studies Matthew’s writings at a closer, detailed perspective more Danielic images and themes appear and prove to be a great influence on Jesus and the gospel’s writer. If this is the case, Matthew 24 then turns into a stone hitting water causing ripples throughout the text. Although the passage in Matthew 24 is the impact point, many more allusions to Daniel surround it.
The focus here is to capture these themes and discuss their significance in relation to Daniel. Both the authors of Daniel and Matthew had a very similar message and point to their writings. They lived in alike situations, and were addressing nearly identical issues. In order to discuss these themes, a brief study of Daniel is needed and will be included in this paper. Continuing we will take a look at four major themes that are shared between the books, first in Daniel then in Matthew; they are, the universality of God’s kingdom, the everlasting nature of God’s kingdom, the humility required for God’s kingdom, and finally a critique promoting non-violence and loyalty to the ways of God. The message of Daniel and Matthew have to do with the coming of the kingdom of God, a kingdom that is universal, everlasting, and most of all above all other.2
Daniel
The book of Daniel is one of the most captivating texts in the Bible. It’s stories, images, prophecies, and language make it a common topic among readers, and much dispute has risen concerning it’s original date, authorship, message, and setting. The book claims to be written by Daniel, a hebrew living in the time of the Babylonian exile who interpreted kings’ dreams and later had visions of his own. This would place the date of the work to be around the 600’s BCE. Porphyry first called this stance into question in the third century CE.3 He argued that Daniel had predicted the events after the exile all the way up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanies in the 2nd century BCE. In Porphyry’s mind, Daniel could not have known about these events, and so the text was a vaticinium ex eventu, a foretelling after the event, which of course is no foretelling at all. Most scholars today identify with this conclusion saying that the author of Daniel was a Maccabean era, Jewish man, writing to critique fellow Jews about how to respond in the situation that was at hand, the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanies and the domination of the Greek and Roman Empires.4 At this point there are many conservative scholars who object for fear of negating the inspiration of the Bible by denying the possibility of supernatural, predictive prophesy. John Collins responds,
“What is at issue in all this is not the veracity of “the word of God,” as literalists usually construe it, but a question of genre. An assumption that the “word of God” must be factual historical reporting, and cannot be literary fiction, is theologically unwarranted.5”

and later,

“The issue is not ‘a dogmatic rejection of predictive prophecy’ as conservatives like to assert, but a calculation of probability. Everyone recognizes that the predictions of Enoch are after the fact. The same logic holds in the case of Daniel.6”

Adding to this, the book was written in two different languages. Chapters 1 through 2:4 are in hebrew, chapters 3 through 7 are in aramaic, and chapters 8 through 12 are once again written in hebrew. The majority of the aramaic passages are narratives describing life in exile for Daniel and his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, while the majority of the hebrew portions are the apocalyptic visions ascribed to Daniel. The most probable explanation, is that the aramaic stories had been circulating for many years until the second century BCE when Daniel’s author joint them with his hebrew prophecies. The primary message of the stories was to say that God is ultimately in control over all earthly kings and kingdoms and someday His dominion will be everlasting and universal. A refrain is almost sung throughout the stories starting in 4:17, “so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.” The author’s intention then was to apply this message to his own current situation by ascribing prophecies to the character Daniel about the times between the exile and Antiochus Epiphanies. Through these prophecies he criticized the zealots (wanting to fight the Romans) and also the hellenizers (wanting to join them) to say that God is ultimately in control and the purpose of His people is to be loyal to Him. The aramaic tales were perfect to accomplish this goal because of the common situation in them. In each of the stories the “servants of the Most High” are persecuted under a king until God saves them and humbles that king. The connection is obvious. Antiochus Epiphanies persecuted the jews a great deal and tried to implement a law making them worship the Greek god, Zeus. In 167 BCE he placed a statue of Zeus in the Temple and sacrificed swine upon the altar7. The author of the prophecies most assuredly saw the relation of this event with King Nebuchadnezzar’s image of gold in Daniel 3 where the hebrews in exile were also forced to worship a statue. Through the prophecies, he desired to make these hebrew victims into role models so that his own people would cry out like they did in verse 17, “the God we serve is able to save us [from it], and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”
Since Daniel was already well known for his wisdom and prophecies concerning the kings of the aramaic stories, the second century author placed authority on the entire book by ascribing his prophecies to Daniel as a pseudonym. This was a common practice during the time as shown by the many texts concerning Enoch, another ancient, Godly character who was ascribed prophecies8. If this is the case, were the stories of Daniel and his friends historical and real? There are certain clues within the stories that help answer this question. One of which is the passage’s inaccuracy of history. The way in which Daniel chapters 2 through 6 describe the order of kings and ruling kingdoms goes against factual history. This does not necessarily mean the stories are untrue, but it does make researchers question why. William Sanford Lasor makes an excellent point in his book on this topic, “It is sufficient to say here that Daniel’s main purpose is not to record detailed history but to use stories and symbols to demonstrate God’s control of history9.” Either way, the book of Daniel’s message is strong. God is in control, and he will save his servants by establishing a kingdom that will never end.
There are four themes that help accomplish this task. The first is the universality of the kingdom of God. The theme is by no means bold and apparent, but it is a settle reoccurring point throughout both the earlier stories as well as the later prophecies. Daniel’s author seems very distinct from the other biblical authors as he continually used phrases like, “all nations,” “men of all languages,” “and “the whole earth.” Before Daniel10 even speaks of these phrases, he whispers the idea of universality by applying the number four in various places to convey for the reader an image of the four corners of the world (4 men in 1:6, 4 kingdoms in 2:40, 4 men in a blazing furnace in 3:25, 4 winds of heaven in 7:2, 4 great beasts in 7:3, 4 kingdoms in 7:17, 4 prominent horns in 8:8, 4 kings in 11:2, etc.)11. There are five aramaic stories included in the book of Daniel, and each, at some point, employ the idea of universality. In the first story, King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream and calls on magicians everywhere to interpret it for him. No one but Daniel accomplishes this task, and the king raised him up in a high place and gave him authority over the entire province of Babylon12. In the dream the king saw a statue built into four sections, each section made with a different material. The head was of gold, the chest and arms were of silver, the belly was of bronze, and its legs were partly iron and partly clay. The statue was destroyed, however, by a rock that struck it and grew into an enormous mountain that filled the earth. Daniel interprets each section of the body to represent a kingdom, each in succession to one another. The head kingdom represents King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, and Daniel says it is a reign that reaches all mankind, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air wherever they are. The author is saying that in some way the king’s reign reaches the end of the world and encompasses all life. The other kingdoms that follow are inferior to the king’s reign, but 2:39 states that even the third kingdom will “rule over the whole earth”. After all the kingdoms have had their time, the rock that destroys represents a kingdom established by the God of heaven that will take over and rule the whole earth forever13. The universality in this story is the extent to which the king’s rule was present, and the even superior kingdom that God established. In chapter 3, the same king, Nebuchadnezzar, issues a decree that calls on “peoples, nations, and men of every language” to bow down and worship a ninety-foot tall, gold statue. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah refuse and are thrown into a blazing furnace, but through a supernatural delivery, Nebuchadnezzar is inspired to issue another decree: for all nations and languages to respect the hebrew God. Language for universality continually permeates the book of Daniel in the same way as just seen. Most of the time the people of a kingdom are mentioned, they are described as being widespread. The purpose of this diction finds its place in Daniel 7:14, the same climatic point of the book quoted earlier as the inspiration for this paper. “He [one like a son of man] was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all people, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The verse comes from a passage where Daniel the dream interpreter becomes the dreamer. He envisions a scene in which four beasts rise up and cause havoc in the world. At the point when it seems that there is no hope and the beasts have taken all control, Daniel looks and sees on a throne “the Ancient of Days,” and with him on the clouds is “one like a son of man.” This moment is the establishing of God’s kingdom as mentioned earlier in Nebuchadezzar’s dream. Daniel’s aim is to shift the world’s worship from earthly kings, to the heavenly king. The kingdoms of the world are fleeting and will pass, but the kingdom of God is an everlasting kingdom worthy of everyone’s worship. It is a universal kingdom that encompasses all creation, to the ends of the world.
The second theme is interrelated with the first, that is the everlasting nature of God’s kingdom. Not only was the rock in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream the representation of a universal kingdom from God, but it was said to be an everlasting kingdom. In 2:44, “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” This passage, like the one mentioned earlier, acts as a refrain through the whole book of Daniel. One can imagine that if these stories were orally recited among the community, the group would all join in together at the parts that spoke of God’s everlasting kingdom that would some day come. It was the center point of their hope, especially those who were in such great a persecution as the time during the Maccabean revolt. To be able to look forward at a kingdom that would be presented to the Jewish nation in despite of their current situation, and know that they would never again have to worry about the tyrant that may overcome them, would prove to be the driving force that caused people to continue on in the faith. Even Nebuchadnezzar declares in 4:3 “How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation.” The refrain is then repeated in 4:43 and 6:26, until it’s culmination point that again happens in 7:14. This time however the owner of the everlasting dominion has shifted from God, to the one like a son of man. The phrasing is uniformed perfectly with all of the other instances, but the context in the case is not applied to God. Ultimately the Ancient of Days had ownership of the kingdom, but in this passage He has given all authority and power to the one like a son of man in the clouds. In some way the son of man figure is the leader of the eschatological coming kingdom of God, and becomes the representation of Israel in the spiritual realms. Through these themes, universality and the everlasting, Daniel is emphasizing the nature of a coming kingdom that will encompass all people, and go on forever, never to return back to the ways of this world. An ear should begin perking up at these ideas if they have ever heard the messages of Jesus in the gospels.
A third reoccurring theme that takes place in the writings of Matthew is the requirement for humility in the kingdom of God. A common phrase describing this theme is, “Pride comes before a fall.” Daniel wants the reader to recognize the position and authority God holds in the universe in relation to the small status played by men and women. In each of the aramaic tales, a king grows in power, strength, and status until God is forced to interrupt him of his ruling for a time of humbling and judgement. In one of these instances King Nebuchadnezzar is sent into exile to live among the animals because of the great pride that had infected his soul. He was given a dream that told him he could not leave these circumstances until he recognized that “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.14” The passage is repeated in 4:25, 4:34, and 5:21. When Nebuchadnezzar reached the end of the exile he understood that no matter what happens on earth, and no matter who is in charge on the throne, God is above it all. Chapter 4:37 declares, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble.” This is the point that Daniel wants to establish for the reader, God is in control.
The author who later added the prophesies to the aramaic stories read and understood these important themes. He most likely was deeply influenced and inspired by them, and as so he applied them to the situation that was at hand in ancient Palestine during the persecution and rule of Antiochus Epiphanies. In the formation of his prophecies, as he used the well-known stories, he created an additional theme and position pointed directly at his contemporary Jewish neighbors- do not respond in violence, but rather respond with your loyalty to God and his people. The author performed a number of exegetical works on the traditional stories, and transformed their meanings to take on a new light. One example of this is the adaptation of the humbling refrain spoken by King Nebuchadnezzar. The original stories stated that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms, and that he could give charge of them to whomever he pleases. The Jewish author adapts this passage and says, “But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever - yes for ever and ever.” This is significant because the stories simply said God was in control, but the prophet says that the saints receive the kingdom and possess it forever. Assuming the saints are part of the Jewish nation, the author is making a bold point. God is in control (not Antiochus Epiphanies), he humbles the proud and will eventually humble this ruler too. God can give kingdoms to whomever he chooses, and “Daniel” said he would give it to his saints, who of course is the people of Israel. The story of Daniel is no longer just about morals, theology, and eschatology, it is political. A second example takes place in our favorite passage, 7:14. Here the author applies all of the themes of the stories into one focal point, the son of man figure. He is the one that receives authority from the Most High who is in control of all things. He is also the subject of worship for all people, nations, and men of every language. Instead of the world gathering to worship a gold statue, here they have gathered to worship the initiator of the kingdom of God. Not only is he praised by all nations, his kingdom and dominion will never end. The long-hoped for everlasting kingdom awaited on in the stories becomes that of the son of man figure. He acts as the initiator and ruler over the kingdom.
The author of the prophecies deeply desired his people to be loyal to God and his ways. He addresses this issue in a few different approaches. One is his reference to Jeremiah which inspired Daniel’s prayer in Chapter 9. His reasoning is if people repent and commit to the Lord, He will intercede in the current situation and deliver His people from the hand of their oppressor. The author believes that this is the best response in the current situation. Of course there are those zealots who say that the oppressor should be attacked and killed, but chapter 8 verse 25 says that the wicked ruler will be destroyed, but not by human hands. Some scholars believe that the author’s intention for this statement is to show that the violent responses to oppression will ultimately fail15. Just as the kings in the old stories were humbled by the hand of God and not men, so the Jews should not take up violence but let God’s hand humble the empire. This is again brought up in 11:14 when violent men from Daniel’s own people tried to rebel, but failed. On the other hand, the Jews should neither conform to the empire and benefit from its wickedness. Chapter 11:32 calls these hellenizers corrupt because they have violated the covenant, but there is another group of people who know their God and will firmly resist the assimilation of themselves with a wicked empire16. No doubt these who stand firm are those who prayed like Daniel for repentance and committed their ways to the Lord.
Daniel is a very complicated book. It’s layers make it hard to determine who is writing each passage, and what their intention is. It is easy for the scholar to be caught up in these questions, but despite all of the unknowings, the message of Daniel is very clear. No matter who is in charge or what the circumstances are, God is in control, and He will intercede on behalf of the people loyal to Him. One day His kingdom will end all this misery, pain, and oppression, and will become the universal and everlasting place for his saints to live in peace.
Matthew
The book of Matthew is deeply influenced by the message and themes of Daniel. There are a number of times that Jesus specifically alluded to the book, one of which (24:15) he directly mentioned Daniel. Matthew is built on thousands of influences coming from many texts of course, but Daniel’s messages and themes seem to be strongly uniform (more so than others) with Matthew’s. Each of the books were written in a unique time and circumstance for different purposes, but both were able to use the same themes to convey a similar message that could be applied in both situations. Jesus’ primary point was to spread the good news of the kingdom of heaven. Just as there were strong ideas about God’s kingdom in Daniel, Matthew is full of images and and speech about God’s kingdom as well. Jesus describes this kingdom using the same four themes written by the author of the Old Testament apocalypse. Here we will spend time discussing these correlations and intertextual play.
The first theme, universality, has a significant part to play in the book of Matthew. Throughout the text there are instances, mostly eschatological, that speak of the kingdom of heaven reaching the nations or people across the earth. An example of this is found in Matthew 24 just a few verses before our well-known Son of Man passage. “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (v. 14). When the Son of Man comes, verse 31 says in the same chapter, “And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” Chapter 25 contains a parable of the judgement identifying the good and the bad as sheep and goats from all the nations. Perhaps the most insightful passage containing the universal theme is the great commission in Matthew 28:19. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” This passage is an allusion to the coming of one like a son of man excerpt in Daniel. In the Danielic passage the Ancient of Days gave all authority, glory, and power to the figure, and here in Matthew Jesus is applying the event to himself. Just as all the nations worship the figure in Daniel, Jesus is now calling his disciples to spread the word through the nations so that that same Danielic event may find it’s fulfillment in Jesus. More light will be shed on this passage later.
The everlasting nature of God’s kingdom is a common notion in the words of Jesus as well. By this time in history there is already a longing for eternal life and a hope for the ending resurrection. We see this in Matthew 19:16 when a rich man asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. When he is unable to sell all he has to follow Jesus, the rabbi applies the question of eternal life to the kingdom of heaven by saying that it is difficult for the rich to enter in. The sadducees also question Jesus about the eventual resurrection in chapter 22. At the end of the parallel passage of the Son of Man in 24:30 Jesus asserts, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” This also correlates to the dominion of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7, and the great commission in Matthew 28. “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age17.”
Humility is another major aspect having to do with the kingdom of heaven. Though the kings in Daniel prided themselves with their great kingdoms, God humbled them; and God desires the same type of humility in Matthew. Even Jesus is subject to this humility. In Chapter 22 of Matthew the mother of James and John comes to Jesus asking if her sons can sit at Christ’s side when he comes into the kingdom. Jesus replies,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must become your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

By the use of “Son of Man” in this passage, Jesus is pointing to the book of Daniel. He is showing the opposition of his rule to those of the gentile rulers of his time and the kings of the time of Daniel. Where they messed up and prided themselves, Jesus got it right by humbling himself to serve others. Later in 23 he says, “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.18”
The theme regarding anti-violence and loyalty to the ways of God is a given in Matthew. Although many of the writings here are not allusions or echos to Daniel, I am convinced that Jesus himself was in some way influenced by the position that the ancient Jewish author of Daniel took. The beatitudes say bless the peacemaker, the sermon on the mount says love the enemy, and Jesus said “father forgive them,” as he hung on the cross from the brutality of those he loved. In addition, neither did Jesus conform in any way to the empire in power at the time. Instead he set aside the ways of the world, and took up a kingdom from God that was different than any other way of living.
The coming of the kingdom is the primary message in both the books of Daniel and Matthew. Through interrelated themes, both authors are able to convey a message of hope and call on their people to repent and commit their ways to God and his kingdom. This kingdom is a universal, everlasting kingdom that humbles the proud and lifts up the humble. It is a kingdom that forms not through the violence or compromise of men, but rather through the relationship of God and his authority with his people and their humble embrace of the kingdom. Jesus did an amazing job applying these Danielic themes to himself and the situation of his time. The greatest part of this message is its continuing potential for reapplication in the lives of contemporary people today. We can all embrace the coming of the kingdom and join with it to accomplish Christ’s great commission: actualize the prophecy in Daniel and spread the word throughout the nations. Let men of every language come to worship him.
“Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:9-11
Bibliography
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination., 2nd edition., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.
Hare, Douglas R. A. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress Point, 1990.
Higgins, A. J. B. The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Kim, Seyoon. The Son of Man as the Son of God. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.
LaCocque, Andre. Daniel in His Time. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1998.
Lasor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Lindars, Barnabas. Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.
Smith, David C. Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Young, Edward J. “Daniel.” The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Edited by Donald Guthrie and Alec Motyer., 3rd edition. New York: Guideposts, 1970. 695.
Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Pentecostalism and the Church of the Nazarene

Pentecostalism and the Church of the Nazarene

For one hundred years the Church of the Nazarene has grown and expanded all over the world. Preaching a message of holiness and sanctification they have come to exist in over 140 countries on all six of the major continents. In North American alone the Church of the Nazarene Website stated that there are at least 600,000 members and close to 5,000 different churches. Growing up in this tradition I was taught about the salvation message of Jesus, the Bible, the soon coming of Jesus, and the second grace of sanctification. I participated in services with passionate testimonies, prayers for healing and guidance, and great musical worship. I witnessed people crying, praising, and lifting their hands. Occasionally I even watched as a joyful saint danced through the aisle. It came as no surprise then, that my pentecostal friends and I related and identified with one another rather easily. I would even say that I was able to get along with them more so than most of my baptist brothers and sisters. The only differences (and an intriguing ones at that) were the stories I had heard about the pentecostals speaking in ‘tongues’ and casting out demons. I wondered why no one in our church spoke in tongues and what made demons inclined to visit the pentecostal churches over our Nazarene congregations. Despite these few contrasts in tradition there seemed to be virtually no disagreements between me and my pentecostal friends, and I found that they soon became my closest friends.
This paper intends to show the extremely close relationship the Church of the Nazarene and many of the pentecostal traditions share by focusing on a few major similarities including their formative histories, their emphasis on holiness and missions, and their use of homogenous diction. Continuing, a brief look at the differences in doctrine and methodology will be included. The aim, then, is to show that perhaps the Church of the Nazarene could be seen as a close cousin, or even brother, to many pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God.
History
When inspecting the similarities of the Nazarene church to many of the Pentecostal denominations, the most obvious connection is the formative and historical background of the traditions. Each came about around the same time period being influenced by the great holiness revival of the later 1800’s. The primary religious river flowing through the United States during this time was Methodism. Flowing out of this river were various streams and tributaries that ended up forming the holiness churches as well as those that later became Pentecostal. In the mid 1800’s a large revival broke out across the nation, especially in these Methodist churches. People began holding prayer meetings and special services in their homes and churches bringing many to repentance. Timothy L. Smith (a Nazarene historian) says about the occasion, “A half million persons were converted. The deepening conviction hardened resistance against the sin of slavery, soon to be done away with by the Civil War, and rejuvenated as well the crusades against intemperance, Sabbath desecration, and neglect of the poor” (Smith 1962, 11)1. Within this revival, certain preachers arose teaching with an emphasis on John Wesley’s idea of sanctification and John Fletcher’s interpretation of it being an experience of Holy Spirit baptism. Phoebe Palmer, belonging to this group of preachers, published a journal called ‘Guide to Holiness’, in which she taught that every Christian can experience an instantaneous event of Christian perfection (Anderson 2004, 26)2. As the doctrine of sanctification became more prominent in the revival, more people also began to speak of the baptism of the Spirit until the two phrases became synonymous. Sanctification brought with it an idea of true perfection of purity in heart while Spirit baptism took with it the image of power that was seen at Pentecost. Thus the “developments within the Holiness movement itself resulted in it becoming less Methodist and Wesleyan in orientation in the late nineteenth century, and the term ‘Pentecostal’ became more prominent” (ibid). It is at this point that we begin to see the formation of the Nazarene church.
The Church of the Nazarene traces its history to three main organizations that in 1908 joined to form the ‘Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene.’ The first was Phineas F. Bresee’s ‘Church of the Nazarene’ in Los Angeles, California. The evangelist had started his ministry as a part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but eventually, because of the controversy of entire sanctification and Bresee’s strong conviction to it, was forced to work outside the denomination. In 1985 under Bresee’s leadership 86 people joined to start the Nazarene church, “with the declared purpose of preaching holiness and carrying the gospel to the poor” (Redford 1948, 30)3. The congregation’s first meeting place was a simple structure in the center of the city that many called ‘the Glory Barn.’ It was a place full of joy and ecstatic worship, and became somewhat of a tourist attraction to many who visited the Los Angeles area. Dr. B. Edgar Johnson wrote a fun story about the ‘Glory Barn’ and the early years of the Nazarenes through the perspective of a chair. “All of these services had a spirit of exuberance and joy in the Lord that attracted many people. There was a hunger for ‘heart felt’ salvation and it seemed to our laps that people almost lived at the ‘Glory Barn’” (Johnson 2008)4. Although the time of the ‘Glory Barn’ ended in 1903, there is an obvious connection between its services and that of the Azusa Street revival that began just three years later in 1906 a few blocks away. No doubt the same spirit was at work with the two revivals and many others that had taken Los Angeles like a wildfire. As the Nazarene church began to grow it also spread more congregations throughout the Nation until by 1906 it had 45 churches, an official paper (The Nazarene Messenger), and a Bible college (Redford 1948, 48)5.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the nation in Brooklyn, also in 1895, another organization was coming together that would prove essential to the forming of the Nazarene church. All over New England Holiness churches were springing up teaching the doctrine of entire sanctification. A number of these joined to form the Association of Pentecostal Churches of America. It must be understood here that at this time the term ‘pentecostal’ had less to do with practices such as tongues and other more extreme forms of worship and more to do with holiness through the power of the Holy Spirit. M. E. Redford refers to Herman Weber concerning this point.
“Within the holiness movement two distinct groups were formed which became known as the right and left wings. In his Yearbook of American Churches, 1933 edition, Herman Weber stated, ‘The left wing is represented by Pentecostal groups sometimes referred to as “ecstatic,” and the right wing, exemplified by the Church of the Nazarene, has approached the Methodist type of body’” (Redford 1948, 25)6
Redford goes on to say that Wesley warned people against the more “ecstatic” groups and condemned the phenomenon of speaking in tongues. The Pentecostal Churches of America continued to reach many in the east for the cause of holiness, and even extended its reach to foreign missions. By 1907, when the group merged with Bresee’s churches, the association had 48 churches and 4 mission stations throughout the world (Redford 1948, 64).
The third participating group was from the South. Very similarly to the east and west, a group of holiness churches had emerged and united for the purpose of spreading the message of sanctification and Spirit baptism. Among them were the New Testament Church of Christ in Milan, TN, the Independent Holiness Church in Van Alstyne, TX, and the Holiness Church of Christ in Rising Star, TX. After attending the 1907 assembly of the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene where the churches in the east and west united, the south decided to join the new denomination the following year in 1908 at the next assembly that was held in Pilot Point, TX. It was here that the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene officially came to be. Through the years many other churches and organizations joined with the denomination such as the Pentecostal Church of Scotland, and J. O. McClurkan’s Pentecostal Mission in Nashville, Tennessee which founded Trevecca Nazarene University. In the 1919 general assembly the denomination felt the need to discuss dropping the word ‘pentecostal’ from the official name as it had become associated with the more so called ‘fanatic’ pentecostal denominations that we know of today, and after a winning vote the movement took on the shortened and current name ‘The Church of the Nazarene’.
This brief historical reflection shows that in the past the Nazarene church has been a Pentecostal group. Although it does not classify itself in the left wing of the holiness movement (Assemblies of God, Church of God, Church of God in Christ, etc.) it took on many of the characteristics of a pentecostal church. It began around the same time the other denominations were being formed, in the same places, using the same words, and stressing the same principles while being deriving from the same influences.
Emphasis on Holiness
After looking at the history of the Nazarene church, it is easy to see that the major emphasis of the denomination has always been holy living. While attending a Nazarene church, the word ‘holiness’ will probably be the most heard word during the experience. We will discuss this point with two considerations: orthodoxy and orthopraxy, what was believed about holiness and what holy living actually entailed.
In 1948 H. E. Jessop published a short book called “We - The Holiness People”. In it he discusses the workings and beliefs of the Nazarene church, and clarifies many of the doctrines by explaining them in further detail. In the introduction to the book he declares, “ We begin by making the broad and challenging statement that the entire Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, has one outstanding theme, namely, the Divine purpose to make men holy” (Jessop 1948, 24)7. Jessop then begins to explain that in the Old Testament God called the tribe of Israel to a holy and set-apart life style. In the New Testament this calling is furthered and intensified to not only holy living, but becoming holy and pure in heart and motives. Jesus shows us in the Sermon on the Mount that it has always been a rule to not commit adultery, but the very thing that makes adultery wrong is also in our lustful gazes. Holiness, then, becomes more about the essence of a person rather than his deeds. It is what is in the heart that matters. This point is what the Nazarene people seek to teach, live, and spread. In fact Jessop says this, “ The Commission of the Holiness People is clearly defined. They have been raised up to spread Scriptural Holiness” (28). Entire Sanctification is the application that John Wesley and his followers made of this observation. The current edition of the Nazarene manual says this:
“We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and holy obedience of love made perfect. It is wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding, indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for life and service” (Belvins 2005, 34)8.
Entire Sanctification is used synonymously with ‘Christian Perfection’. Nazarenes do not believe in perfection in the greek sense of the finished product, but rather a pure and holy state of one’s mind and heart. Those that are sanctified can still sin, make mistakes, and be tempted, but they no longer perform these actions with evil intentions or ill-mannered thoughts. ‘Christian Perfection’ is pure love.
Pentecostals tend to believe almost the same things about holiness and sanctification. The Assemblies of God website affirms, “Sanctification is realized in the believer by recognizing his identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and by the faith reckoning daily upon the fact of that union, and by offering every faculty continually to the dominion of the Holy Spirit.” The major difference is that many of the pentecostal groups believe that Holy Spirit baptism is a third work of grace and separate from entire sanctification. Others believe that sanctification is an event that takes place right away at justification and the second blessing is Spirit Baptism. Generally, those denominations that birthed from the Holiness Movement agree on the significance of holiness and place of sanctification in the Christian life. All other differences can be seen as minor in a large scope of things.
Most early pentecostals were known for their brutal standards of living. They abided by many rules and neglected many comforts in order to focus on holiness and be participants of a kingdom not of this earth. Grant Wacker gives many examples of these characteristics in his book, ‘Heaven Below’. He discusses the taboos that were put on drinking, smoking, profanity, sex, and many others. Much of the time these standards were taken to the extreme so that one could barely speak without breaking some of them (Wacker 2001, 133)9. The Nazarenes also tend to fit into this category. They held great standards for the up-keeping of holiness. One such standard was the sin of wearing jewelry. R. L. Harris, a southern forerunner of the Nazarene Church, taught that “worldly amusement was sinful; extravagance in dress and the wearing of jewelry were condemned by the Bible; and the use of opium, morphine, tobacco, and intoxicating drinks was unchristian” (Redford 1948, 68)10. It is interesting to see something as common place as jewelry to be included in this list. Many held revivals where repenting persons laid their jewelry at the alter, abandoning a life of sin. In a 1908 edition of the Nazarene Messenger a district superintendent, Wm. E. Fisher, praises his congregations by saying,
“There is not one of our members that we know of who use or sells tobacco, goes to theaters or plays cards at home. There is not a Church in our district that has Church shows or suppers. There is not a member but will pray and testify in public. There is not a member but works and prays for prohibition, and the men all vote it at the ballot box. Every preacher preaches the second blessing. Nearly the entire membership testifies to the experience. It is indeed a fine district” (Fisher 1908, 7)11.
Amusement was never something to be sought after, but instead holiness. One should not play cards or even have Church shows. Such things are only of this world and not of the kingdom of heaven.
Emphasis on Missions
Allan Anderson stated in his book ‘An Introduction to Pentecostalism’ that “Pentecostalism is notorious for its sometimes aggressive forms of evangelism, and from its beginning was characterized by an emphasis on evangelistic outreach, its highest priority in mission strategy” (Anderson 2004, 206)12. This same statement could also be applied to the Nazarenes. If ‘holiness’ is the most heard word among Nazarene congregations, ‘missions’ is at its heals. From even before the beginning of the church the founding groups had already placed a high priority on reaching the lost world. The east association was especially zealous in this ministry. Before the churches had even merged the group had missionaries in India and the Cape Verde Islands. The Pentecostals felt an urgency for missions, because they believed that God had poured out his Spirit signifying the last days had come. The clock was ticking and they wanted to reach as many people around the world as they possibly could before it was too late. Speaking in tongues had a major impact on this thought process because the Pentecostals believed that that was the last outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting then to notice that while the Nazarenes did not practice or embrace tongues they did uphold the last days mind set. By 1933, less then 3 decades after the denomination’s start, there were Nazarene missionaries, churches, schools, hospitals, and care centers in India, the Cape Verde Islands, Guatemala, Belize, Mexico, Japan, Africa, Argentina, China, Peru, West Indies, Syria, and Jerusalem (Pukiser 1983, 38)13.
The Church of the Nazarene also placed their identity close to the poor and oppressed. The name ‘Nazarene’ was chosen because it was the place of the nobodies in Jesus’ time. On the initiation day of the western Church of the Nazarene the church declared its purpose was to “preach holiness and carry the gospel to the poor” (Redford 1948, 30)14. Their purpose was not only to save souls like many other denominations, but to also love and care for the needy as demonstrated by the Nazarene hospitals and care centers around the world.
Diction
Historically, one of the most fascinating similarities between pentecostals and Nazarenes is the language they used. The words and descriptions employed by both holiness peoples to tell of events are so homogenous that there are virtually no differences. An example of this is the popularity of fire imagery, no doubt taken from the book of Acts. Revivals were described as a burning and spreading flame that could not be quenched. In regards to the glory barn and the first Nazarene congregation Phineas F. Bresee said “It had been my long-cherished desire to have a place in the heart of the city, which could be made the center of holy fire, and where the gospel would be preached to the poor” (Redford 1948, 29). Another image employed was that of a battle. Christians advance upon the evils of the world with a strong force. Much however had to do with the Spirit: ‘Spirit baptism’, ‘Spirit’s leading’, ‘Spirit possession’, and Spirit’s voice were common place. The testimonies of radical, spiritual experiences were quite identical as well. The following quote was taken from Grant Wacker’s study on early pentecostalism while the one proceeding it is from Timothy L. Smith’s study on the early Nazarenes. Notice certain key words and images employed by both.
“One Harriet Gravelle of London, Ontario, remembered the night that a fire - a real flame - entered her window and filled her soul with warmth and joy. Later Gravelle saw stripes of fire and the Holy Spirit as a dove descending upon her. ‘The fire went through me,’ she exulted, ‘the Spirit of the Lord filled my tabernacle’” (Wacker 2001, 64)15.
And from Smith (spoken by Phineas F. Bresee himself):
“As I waited and waited, and continued in prayer, looking up it seemed to me as if from the azure there came a meteor, an indescribable ball of condensed light, descending rapidly toward me. As I gazed upon it, it was soon within a few score feet, when I seemed distinctly to hear a voice saying, as my face was upturned towards it: ‘Swallow it; swallow it,’ and in an instant it fell upon my lips and face. I attempted to obey the injunction. It seemed to me, however, that I swallowed only a little of it, although it felt like fire on my lips, and the burning sensation did not leave for several days” ( Smith 1962, 97)16.
In both scenarios a flame or ball of light was seen descending from heaven and was implied to be the Spirit. Testimonies like this alone show the great connection between pentecostalism and the Nazarenes.
Differences in Doctrine and Methodology
Of course there are many differences between these two traditions. Primary emphasis points, doctrines of Spirit Baptism, and common practices in services to name just a few. These points will be briefly discussed here.
While the Church of the Nazarene’s major emphasis is holiness, most pentecostal groups focus much more on the power and gifts of the Spirit. Healing, prophecy, tongues, and ecstatic joy are all part of this stressing point. Also many of the pentecostals embrace the four fold gospel: Salvation, Healing, Spirit Baptism, and the soon coming of Christ. The Nazarene church believes in all of these things, but do not focus nearly as much on healing or Spirit Baptism.
Early on in the holiness movement a schism took place about Spirit baptism. Anderson points out, “Towards the end of the century prominent Holiness teachers began to say that spiritual gifts were connected to the power of the Spirit and should still be in operation, and some spoke of Spirit baptism as a ‘third blessing’ to be sought, separating Spirit baptism from sanctification - this idea was rejected by most Holiness leaders” (Anderson 2004, 27)17. Yet later pentecostal denominations adopted it, and now it is a very common doctrine among them. A person first gets saved, then sanctified (made holy), and finally Spirit Baptized (evidenced by the speaking in tongues). There are some variations to the order of these experiences, but in any case Nazarene’s believe in only two experiences. First justification, then sanctification (synonymous with Spirit Baptism) without tongues.
Lastly, the methodology employed especially during worship is similar yet very different. Pentecostals are referred to as the more ‘ecstatic’ group over the more conservative Nazarenes. They are more often identified with forms of praise by speaking in tongues, running the aisles, laying prostrate, or being ‘slain’ in the Spirit. Although in my own personal experience I have not seen such things necessarily as commonplace in pentecostal churches, I have noticed the higher emotional level over the Nazarenes. While Nazarenes love to raise their hands, kneel at the alter, and testify to God’s work, they tend to be much more reserved during worship.
In Conclusion
There are certainly differences the Church of the Nazarene holds in opposition to pentecostalism, but there are many more similarities that should be held in agreement. Indeed they are from the same river, the same family: the holiness movement. The grew and developed side by side, forming and shaping their identity as believers. They focused greatly on holy living and spreading the gospel to the ends of the earth. The two groups even exerted the same words, phrases, metaphors, and images. While perhaps they contradict one another in a few manners, Nazarenes and pentecostals should be able to work together and embrace one another as brothers. Perhaps taking the word ‘pentecostal’ out of the Nazarene name should be reversed. Perhaps then we would see that we are all family, all children of God.










Bibliography
Anderson, Allan. 2004. An Introduction to Pentecostalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Belvins, Dean G. ed. 2005. Manual Church of the Nazarene 2005-2009. Kansas City, Missouri: Nazarene Publishing House.
Bresee, Phineas F. “The Doctrines of the Church.” The Nazarene Messenger 13 (1908): 5.
Benson, John T. 1976. The Trevecca Story: 75 years of Christian Service. Nashville: Trevecca Press.
Fisher, Wm. E. “Abilene District” The Nazarene Messenger 13 (1908): 7.
Jessop, H. E. 1948. We- The Holiness People. Chicago: Chicago Evangelistic Institute.
Johnson, B. Edgar. 2008. Just an Old Wooden Chair. Olathe, Kansas: The Center for LifeStory Writing.
Merrill, Bryan. “The Rise of the Church of the Nazarene Schematic.” Nazarene Archives (1992).
Purkiser, W. T. 1983. Called Unto Holiness The Story of the Nazarenes: The Second Twenty-Five Years, 1933-58. Kansas City, Missouri: Nazarene Publishing House.
Redford, M. E. 1948. The Rise of the Church of the Nazarene. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press.
Smith, Timothy L. 1962. Called Unto Holiness The Story of the Nazarenes: The Formative Years. Kansas City, Missouri: Nazarene Publishing House.
Wacker, Grant. 2001. Heaven Below. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.