More Israel Only Nonsense
More Israel Only Nonsense: A Few Simple (Ignored) Questions
On Facebook, there has recently been a discussion about whether or not Paul truly meant to align himself with the Pharisaic view of the resurrection when he affirmed “I am a Pharisee!” All of the IOer’s said Paul was affirming that he likewise believed in a physical resurrection. Now, this is abundantly strange!
So, the IOers affirm that Paul believed in physical resurrection at the end of the age, i.e. in AD 70.
The IOers’ claim to believe that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. That would demand that Paul’s doctrine of a physical resurrection of all of the dead (Israelites) was fulfilled in AD 70!
But, do the IOer’s believe that every single Jew / Israelite / descendant of Abraham who had ever lived was physically raised from the dead in AD 70?? I wonder if any IOer will actually step up and answer this question? Let me express their conundrum like this:
Paul- as the Pharisees did- believed in a physical resurrection of the dead – all of the Abrahamic Seed, that is – at the end of the age (in AD 70), because he was a Pharisee- says IO.
But all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70, says IO.
Therefore, the physical resurrection of the dead – all of the Abrahamic Seed, that is – occurred at the end of the age in AD 70.
I wonder if any IOer will actually step up and answer this issue? We will probably be told that the question is irrelevant, diversionary and obfuscatory. But of course, that is false. It strikes at the very foundation of IO. I expect several snarky, insulting and sarcastic comments, because that is what IOers do. But just remember that ridicule is not refutation.
But, to move on!
In the discussions, I pointed out that Paul, in Acts 23, said “I am a Pharisee!” And that the Pharisees initially said “We find no fault in this man!”, just two weeks later, those same Pharisees wanted Paul dead for his doctrine of the resurrection. The great question is, WHY? Why did the Pharisees go from declaring Paul a fine fellow to wanting his head for his doctrine of the resurrection?
Well, the IOer’s gave a variety of answers:
It wasn’t really Pharisees that wanted him dead. There were all sorts of Jewish groups running around, any one of which might have wanted his head. Of course, this is so patently false that it has never been mentioned in any commentary in history! Paul said he was on trial for his belief in the resurrection– which his opponents agreed to! That was the Pharisees.
It was then suggested that it was not his doctrine of the resurrection that was the problem, but rather that he taught the resurrection through Jesus. But unfortunately for that view, it is not what Paul said. Furthermore, the Sanhedrin was aware, in Acts 23, of Paul being arrested for preaching Christ! Yet, the Pharisees still proclaimed – again- initially- that Paul was a fine fella! But two weeks later, they wanted him dead for his resurrection doctrine (Acts 24:13-15; Acts 26:6f). So, Paul said he was on trial for his doctrine of the resurrection. The IOers deny that. Guess who is right?
I continued to press the point of the change in attitude from the Pharisees, but the IOers simply refused to consider it. That sudden and radical change in attitude from the Pharisees seemed not to be important– but it is important, even if the IOers refuse to see it.
So, I then asked a series of very simple questions that are directly related to the subject at hand. They were questions about Jesus, the Jews, and the Kingdom. Here are those questions:
Did the Jews want the kingdom? Yes or No?
Did Jesus come to offer the Kingdom to the Jews? Yes or No?
Did the Jews offer the kingdom to Jesus? Yes or No?
Did Jesus reject the offer of the kingdom from the Jews? Yes or No?
Did the Jews then reject Jesus’ offer of the kingdom? Yes or No?
Now, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the Bible knows that the Jews wanted the Kingdom.
They know that Jesus came to offer the kingdom.
They know that the Jews wanted to offer Jesus the kingdom.
They know that Jesus rejected the offer of the kingdom!
And they know that the Jews, after Jesus’ rejection of their offer, then rejected Jesus’ offer of the kingdom.
The question of course is WHY?
Why did Jesus reject the Jews’ offer of the kingdom– John 6:15?
And why did the Jews then reject Jesus as king?
If Jesus wanted the KIND of kingdom that the Jews were offering and if the Jews wanted the KIND of kingdom that Jesus was offering, why did they both reject the offer of the kingdom being offered by the other side?
They were, after all, both speaking of the KINGDOM!
The parallels between Jesus’ message and Paul’s are remarkable. In my book, “Paul on Trial: Paul, the Pharisees and the Resurrection,” I have a chart presenting five direct parallels between Jesus and Paul.
Both taught the kingdom.
Both taught the resurrection.
The Jews initially accepted Jesus’ message, just as the Pharisees initially accepted Jesus’ message.
But Jesus rejected the Jews’ offer of the Kingdom and they then accused him of sedition and rejected his offer of the kingdom: “We have no king but Caesar!”
Likewise, the Pharisees initially accepted Paul because he taught the resurrection. But then they turned on him and wanted him dead for his resurrection doctrine.
Jesus rejected the Jews’ offer of the kingdom because he rejected the NATURE of the kingdom that they wanted. And Paul likewise rejected the idea of a physical kingdom and resurrection.
The Kingdom and the resurrection are contemporary events. One enters the kingdom via resurrection (1 Cor. 15:50). The Kingdom would arrive at the time of the parousia (Matthew 16:27-28 / Matthew 25:31ff / 2 Timothy 4:1-2 / Revelation 11:15f). To put this another way, the kingdom and the resurrection are of the same NATURE.
So, again, why did the Jews reject Jesus’ offer of the kingdom, after he rejected their offer of the kingdom? Because although they used the identical terminology, they were each defining those terms in totally different ways!
Did Paul preach the kingdom? Of course. He told the Colossians that they had been “translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear son” (Colossians 1:13– It is to be noted that “darkness” was another term for “death” in Jewish thought. So, Paul was saying that they had been raised out of death– cf. Colossians 2:12-13).
This raises the question: Did Paul have the same concept of THE NATURE OF THE KINGDOM as the Pharisees? Well, remember that the Pharisees had a strictly nationalistic, militaristic, geo-centric kingdom- along with their belief in a physical resurrection. So when Paul said the Colossians had been TRANSLATED INTO THE KINGDOM, (and also that they had been raised from the dead- Colossians 2:13) – was that a Pharisaic kingdom concept that he had in mind?
Remember, all the IOers have told us that Paul was a thorough going Pharisee. Thus, if Paul was, through and through, a Pharisee, then he was not only a believer in a physical resurrection, as the IOers claim, but he was also a believer in a nationalistic, militaristic, geo-centric kingdom. But of course, that is patently false.
All of this totally confirms what I have affirmed on FB discussions. While the Pharisees initially sought to release Paul because he said: “I am a Pharisee” just like in the case of Jesus, when they found out what he actually taught about the resurrection / kingdom, THEY WANTED HIM DEAD.
Paul did NOT preach a future physical resurrection. The Pharisees initially misunderstood Paul’s resurrection doctrine just as they had earlier misunderstood Jesus’ kingdom / resurrection doctrine. And so, they put Paul on trial for his doctrine of the resurrection
The bottom line is that if IOers continue to affirm that Paul believed in physical resurrection, then they must believe that the physical resurrection of all of Abraham’s physical descendants were physically raised in AD 70
Or,
They must simply say that Paul’s expectation failed, thus joining the atheistic and skeptical crowd.
For a more in-depth discussion of the significance of Paul on Trial, get a copy of my book, Paul on Trial: Paul, the Pharisees and the Resurrection