Apocalyptic, Messianic, and Israelitic

Standard

This was part of the intro to my blogpost on Leap Day 2016…

In the New Testament, what divided Jews who believed in Jesus from Jews who did not was the atonemental suffering of the Messiah, not differing views of Jewish election, the kingdom, the temple, Jerusalem, etc. The spiritual realization, transformation, and supersession of these things are simply baseless. Can we not accept the straightforward, face-value teaching of the Old Testament? As a whole, it is clearly apocalyptic, messianic, and Israelitic…

The various Christoplatonic eschatologies held throughout the church’s history inherently contradict the Old Testament’s unequivocal vision of divine glory. Conversely, the New Testament affirms the hope of the Old Testament, arguing simply that God sent his Messiah first as a sacrifice for the sin of humanity before sending his Messiah again to execute judgment upon the sin of humanity (cf. Acts 3: 18– 26; Rom. 5: 1– 9; Heb. 10: 12– 13). Therefore Jew and Gentile alike must repent of their sins, accept God’s predetermined atonement as the means of escaping divine wrath, and thus together inherit the glory of eternal life. Though lacking the theological sophistication of the modern academy and its inaugurational refinement, I find this to be the common-sense approach to the Scriptures that most reasonably corresponds to the apostolic witness in its premodern, first-century Jewish context. – John P. Harrigan, The Gospel of Christ Crucified: A Theology of Suffering before Glory

Source: I Kings 16