Spiritual Warfare and Territorial Spirits (~5.5 MB) - Moriel Ministries

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Continued : Moriel South Africahomiletic midrashim, arranged in topicallyargued pisaqaot. These frequently followa yelammedenu rabbenu format used byJesus in the gospels. Both of these kindsof midrashim are haggadic. There are alsowide bodies of midrashic literature whichare halakik, but these are of less importanceto New Testament scholarship.Unless someone has been educatedin Judaism, Hebrew, or theology, it iseasier to demonstrate midrash than toexplain it. Moriel provides various tapesand videos where midrashic exegesisis practically applied and demonstratedin interpreting Scripture. One examplewould be “The Woman at the Well,” amidrashic interpretation of John chapterfour, used to expound the Scriptures relatingto the subject of Roman Catholicism.If you look at the way the New Testamentquotes the Old Testament, it is clearthat the apostles did not use western Protestantmethods of exegesis or interpretation.Jesus was a rabbi. Paul was a rabbi. Theyinterpreted the Bible in the way other rabbisdid-according to a method called Midrash.Something went wrong in the earlyChurch; it got away from its Jewishroots. And as more Gentiles becameChristians, something that Paul (in Romans11) warned should not happen,happened. People lost sight of the root.Whenever you have a change inworld-view, you’re going to have a changein theology. A positive way to handle thatchange is called recontextualising; a negativeway is called redefining. Recontextualisingthe gospel when Wycliffe Bibletranslators translated Isaiah 1:18, Thoughyour sins are like scarlet, they shall bewhite as snow, for tribal people in equatorialAfrica — a place where the peoplehad never seen snow — they translated itas they shall be white as coconut. That isrecontextualising — taking the same truthand putting it into the context of somebodyelse’s language or culture or world-view.That is perfectly valid; it does no harm tothe message, in contrast to redefinition.Instead of re-explaining what the Biblemeans, redefinition changes what theBible means. That is wrong. And that iswhat happened in the Early Church. AfterConstantine the Great turned Christianityinto the religion of the state, people beganredefining the gospel in increasingly radicalways. Some of the Early Church Fathersbelieved that what was best in Greektheosophy, for example the monotheisticideas of Plato and Socrates, helped to preparethe Greek world for the coming ofJesus, in the same way that the Torah (theOld Testament) prepared the Jewish world.Up to a point, that is a fair statement.There is a Greek (Hellenistic) way34 Moriel Quarterly • June 2007of thinking and there is a Hebrew (Hebraic)way of thinking. Paul used both.When Paul spoke to the Jews he usedthe Hebrew way of thinking, but in Athenswhen he was preaching the gospel tothe Areopagites (Acts 17:22-31), he usedthe Greek way of thinking. Jews seek asign, Greeks seek wisdom. There is validityin both, if they are used biblically.A problem arose when people began toHellenise a Jewish faith. Instead of recontextualisingthe gospel for Greeks, they beganredefining it in Greek terms. This happenedespecially in Alexandria in the timeof Origen, but it became a major problemafter Constantine. With the introduction ofthe teachings of Augustine of Hippo, andthe people who influenced him — Cyprianof Carthage, Ambrose, and others.The Greeks knew many things fromPlato and Socrates that were true such asthe fact that man is made in God’s imageand likeness. Anybody — even peoplewith no Judeo-Christian background andno access to the Bible — can know bynatural reason there is one true God andthat man is sinful (Romans 1:18-20).We can agree with the things in Greektheosophy up to the point they agree withthe Bible. But when people begin reinterpretingand redefining the gospel in thelight of a Greek world-view, we have aproblem. The Greeks believed in Dualism.They thought that everything of theflesh was bad and everything of the spiritwas good. A Greek reading the words,In the beginning was the Word, and theWord was with God, and the Word wasGod (John 1:1), could agree with them.But he could not agree with the statement,The Word became flesh (John 1:14). TheGreeks believed that something physicalwas bad, simply because it was physical.The Bible teaches that the spiritualand the physical were meant to work inharmony with each other. There wasnot to be any contradiction or any conflictbetween the two. The flesh is fallen,that is true, but there is nothing wrongwith the physical elements themselves.When Augustine came along he didnot recontextualise but, rather, redefinedChristianity as a Greek, Platonic religion.Augustine said things like, “Theonly good thing about marriage is havingchildren who will be celibate.” The Manichaeans,who said that the first sin washaving marital relations, introduced theseideas into the Greek world. That is why, tothis day, Roman Catholicism cannot handlesexuality, and why it has so many restrictionsand hang-ups, and why RomanCatholics are even hung about marital sex.People began reinterpreting the Bible,not using the Jewish method of midrash,but using Greek methods. Typology andallegory Midrash uses typology and allegory— symbols — in order to illustrateand illumine doctrine. For instance, Jesusis “the Passover Lamb.” The symbolismof the Jewish Passover perfectly illustratesthe doctrine of atonement, but wenever base the doctrine of atonement onthe symbolism. The symbolism illustratesthe doctrine, which is itself stated plainlyelsewhere in Scripture. In the Gnosticworld of Greek thinking, the oppositehappens. Gnostics claim to have receiveda subjective, mystical insight — calleda gnosis — into the symbols. They thenreinterpret the plain meaning of the textin light of the gnosis. For Gnostics, symbolismis the basis for their doctrine,contrary to the ancient Jewish methods.These methods first started to creepinto the Church through people who wereinfluenced by Philo. His teachings progressivelyentered into Roman Catholicism, tothe point where Augustine would say, “IfGod used violence to convert Paul, theChurch can use violence to convert people,”which led to the Crusades, the SpanishInquisition and so on. Instead of recontextualising,they were redefining Scripture.They were reading a Jewish book as if itwere a Greek book. That was a mistake.It started with Origen in the Eastand Augustine in the West, and steadilyworsened over the centuries. It becamemuch worse in the Middle Ages withsomething called Scholasticism. Aristotle’sideas were absorbed into Islam,then the Crusades brought those ideasback to Europe, and into medieval RomanCatholicism. Moses Maimonidesrewrote Judaism as an Aristotelian religion,then Thomas Aquinas rewroteChristianity as an Aristotelian religion.The Reformers came along and triedto correct what had gone wrong in medievalRoman Catholicism. Unfortunately,although the Reformers were dynamicpersonalities, they were not dynamicthinkers. The Reformation was born outof something called Humanism. (Note:the first Humanists were not secular, theywere Christians.) The best of the Humanistswere men like Thomas A Kempis,John Colet, and Jacques Lefèvre. But thegreatest of them all was Erasmus of Rotterdam.Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and mostof the other Reformers got their ideasfrom Erasmus. Erasmus and the other Humanistsattempted to study and teach theBible in its plain literal meaning, in orderto undo the medieval abuses of RomanCatholicism. They placed the emphasison reading the Bible as literature and ashistory, and gave us the system of grammatical-historicalexegesis that has been
used in the Protestant churches ever since.The problem with the Reformers isthat they only went so far. They made rulesgoverning the application of their grammatical-historicalsystem in order to refutemedieval Roman Catholicism, and manyof those rules are still taught in theologicalseminaries today. One such rule is this:There are many applications of a Scripturebut only one interpretation. That is totalrubbish! The Talmud tells us there are multipleinterpretations. Who did Jesus agreewith? The Reformers? Or the other rabbis?Jesus said, A wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign! Butnone will be given it except the sign ofthe prophet Jonah (Matthew 12:39). Whatwas “the sign of the prophet Jonah?” Inone place Jesus says it was this, that “asJonah was three days and nights in thestomach of a huge fish, so the Son of Manwill be three days and three nights in theheart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). But,at the same time, He says that it was thefact that the men of Ninevah repented atthe preaching of Jonah (Luke 11:32). TheGentiles would repent when the Jews didnot, that is also the sign of the prophet Jonah.He gave two equally CO-valid interpretationsof what that sign is. So, whereProtestant hermeneutics say that thereis only one interpretation, all the rest isapplication, it is out of step with Jesus.Another rule of Reformed Hermeneuticssays that, if the plain wordingof Scripture makes sense, seek noother sense. Take it at its face value,full stop. That is also total rubbish!A First or Second Century JewishChristian reading John’s Gospel, chaptersone, two and three, would have said it wasthe new Creation narrative — the story ofthe new Creation. He would have seen thatGod walked the earth in Genesis, and nowGod walked the earth again in the newCreation in John. He would have seen thatthe Spirit moved on the water and broughtforth the Creation in Genesis, and now theSpirit moved on the water and broughtforth the new Creation in John. He wouldhave seen that there was the small light andthe great light in the Creation in Genesis,and now there was the small light — Johnthe Baptist — and the great light — Jesus— in the new Creation in John. The figtree, midrashically, in Jewish metaphor,represents the Tree of Life that we see inthe garden in Genesis, in Ezekiel 47, andin the Book of Revelation. So when Jesustold Nathaniel, “I saw you while you werestill under the fig tree” (John 1:48), Hewas not simply saying to Nathaniel that Hesaw him under a literal fig tree (althoughHe did), He was telling him that He hadseen him from the garden, from the Creation,from the foundation of the world.By reading the Bible as literature andhistory, as the Humanists did, you only seepart of it. The Humanists were reacting tomedieval Scholasticism and the Gnosticismthat much of Roman Catholicism isbased upon. Nonetheless, their approachprevents people from seeing much of thedepth of Scripture. Using the grammaticalhistoricalmethod, the Reformers were ableto discover truths such as Justification byFaith and the Authority of Scripture. Butthat is all they could see; they could not gobeyond it. Martin Luther considered Romansto be the main book of the Bible. Hetotally rejected the Book of Revelation. Yetthe Book of Revelation is the book for theLast Days. Luther admitted that you cannotunderstand it with a Protestant mind.What is wrong? Is the Book of Revelationwrong? Or is the Protestant mindwrong? Be very careful. Daniel (Daniel12:4) and John (Revelation 10:4) weretold to “seal these things up” until the timeof the end. In the fullness of God’s time,the interpretation of these books will bemanifested to the faithful. When you seepeople writing out diagrams and charts,saying that they have got the whole eschatologicalprogram and all of Revelationfigured out, be very cautious. It is sealedup until the appropriate time. God willunveil it in His way and in His time. Andthat will be done step by step. The firststep is going back to reading the Bible asa Jewish book, instead of as a Greek one.The Epistles are commentary onother Scripture; they tell you what otherScripture means on a very practical level.It is fine to read the Epistles as literatureand history, using grammatical-historicalmethods. But there are different kinds ofliterature in the Bible, different literarygenre that God put in there for different reasons.Psalms (Hebrew poetry), Revelation(apocalyptic literature), the Gospels (narrative),and Proverbs (wisdom literature).You do not read a letter in the sameway as you read poetry. You do not readThe Narnia Chronicles (C.S. Lewis) in thesame way as you would read a letter fromAunt Harriet back in England. If you readthe Epistles, you will see that the apostlesdid not interpret the other books of the Bibleby the grammatical-historical method.The book of Hebrews is a commentaryon the symbolism of the Levitical priesthoodand the Temple. Look at Galatians4:24 onwards, the story of the two women— it is a midrash on the purpose of theLaw. Look at the epistle of Jude, it is midrashicliterature. The apostles did nothandle the Scriptures according to Protestantgrammatical-historical methods.There are different kinds of prophecyContinued: Moriel South Africain the Bible. The two kinds that are importantin understanding the Last Daysare Messianic prophecies and, connectedto those, eschatological prophecies. Whenwe come to consider biblical prophecy,this is very important. Because theWestern mind, with its basis in SixteenthCentury Humanism, says that prophecyconsists of a prediction and a fulfilment.To the ancient Jewish mind, it was not aquestion of something being predicted,then being fulfilled. Rather, to the ancientJewish mind, prophecy was a patternwhich is recapitulated; a prophecy havingmultiple fulfilments. And each fulfilment,each cycle, teaches something aboutthe ultimate fulfilment. For example: In afamine, Abraham went into Egypt (Genesis12:10-20). God judged Pharaoh.Abraham and his descendants came outof Egypt, taking the wealth of Egypt withthem, and went into the Promised Land.Abraham’s descendants replayed the sameexperience. In a famine they went intoEgypt (Genesis 42). God judged Pharaohagain, a wicked king. Abraham’s descendantscame out of Egypt, taking the wealthof Egypt with them (Exodus 12:36),and they went into the Promised Land.What happened to Abraham happenedto his descendants. Then the samething happened with Jesus. When theyhad gone, an angel of the Lord appearedto Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said,“take the child and his mother and escapeto Egypt. Stay there until I tell you,for Herod is going to search for the childto kill him.” So he got up, took the childand his mother during the night and leftfor Egypt, where he stayed until the deathof Herod. And so was fulfilled what theLord had said through the prophet: “Outof Egypt I called my son” (Matthew 2:16).Matthew says that when Jesus cameout of Egypt, after the wicked King Heroddied, that fulfilled the prophecy of Hosea.“When Israel was a child, I loved him, andout of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1-2). Very plainly, Hosea chapter 11 is talkingabout the Exodus, about what happenedwith Moses. In its grammatical-historicalcontext, it is talking about the Exodus, notabout the Messiah. But Matthew appearsto take the passage out of all reasonablecontext and twist it into talking about Jesus.We have to ask, is Matthew wrong?or is there something wrong with ourProtestant way of interpreting the Bible?There is nothing wrong with Matthew,and there is nothing wrong withthe New Testament. But there is somethingwrong with our Protestant mentality.The Jewish idea of prophecy is notprediction, but pattern. Abraham cameout of Egypt, when Pharaoh was judged;June 2007 • Moriel Quarterly 35
Page 3 and 4: when no man can work” (John 9:4).
Page 5 and 6: altars. It was the beginning of the
Page 7 and 8: up to hear John Wimber and Paul Cai
Page 9 and 10: Jackie AlnorLIFESTYLES OF: THEGuest
Page 11 and 12: a sweeping brass and marble stairca
Page 13 and 14: The video is available from Paw Cre
Page 15 and 16: sen people does not necessarily tra
Page 17 and 18: Dr. Thomas Ice CommentaryBy, Dr. Th
Page 19 and 20: [16] Hanegraaff, Apocalypse Code, p
Page 21 and 22: er to God, is not in the Word of Go
Page 23 and 24: Israel Tour - October 2007S P A C E
Page 25 and 26: ularly in Latin America, his major
Page 27 and 28: “Church,” not in His flesh.AN A
Page 29 and 30: nities, and also trials and blessin
Page 31 and 32: Moriel MissionsDear FriendsDavid Ro
Page 33: the pain she was feeling. She thens
Page 37 and 38: ally, and can be used to both grasp
Page 39 and 40: little girl. Over the last three mo
Page 41 and 42: Moriel AustraliaDusty Peterson & El
Page 43 and 44: ComfortingTrust in YHWH with all yo
Page 45 and 46: Letters & CommentsFeedback Australi
Page 47 and 48: Be AlertMINISTRIES“ So Then let u

Spiritual Warfare and Territorial Spirits (~5.5 MB) - Moriel Ministries

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?