Clifford Denton continues the study of Acts 15 by considering the context and conclusion of the meeting of apostles and elders in the First Century.

Recap

In the first part of our study, we argued that the Acts 15 meeting of apostles and elders was according to Jewish tradition for settling disputes, whose origin can be traced to the time of Moses. It was perhaps the first council of its kind in the emerging Christian community. We can adopt this view providing we maintain a balanced perspective of continuity from biblical origins rather than a breaking away to form a new religion. The apostles and elders were responsible, as are Church leaders today, to shepherd the body of disciples, including both Jews and Gentiles, to be the authentic manifestation of the covenant community of faith.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit had begun in the Gentile world and the leaders met in Jerusalem to consider together what the God of Israel was now doing, and what he was expecting of his people.

The apostles and elders met in Jerusalem in accordance with Jewish tradition, to consider what God had begun in the Gentile world and what he was expecting of his people."

All this was happening in the context of the Jewish world of the Sanhedrin and the Rabbis, who to that time had interpreted biblical teaching into a set of rules for living. This was the world into which Jesus came, challenging the Rabbis but recognising their authority – that is until the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower his disciples in a new and living way.

Let us consider a little more of the rabbinical teaching of the day to further understand the need for the council of Acts 15.

Rules and Obligations

Jewish tradition has it that there are two aspects to Torah: the Written Torah, recorded by Moses, and the Oral Torah passed on from Moses through reliable men. The Oral Torah was codified (developed in written form) in the Second Century into what is known as the Mishnah. This was some time after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD when concerns arose as to whether oral traditions would be remembered with the Jewish nation scattered throughout the world. Once the teaching was passed on orally, but now it was codified for fear that the teaching would be lost to future generations.

In our own generation, we can read the Mishnah to study these oral traditions. Here we find much of what was taught by the Rabbis at the time of Jesus and his Apostles. A study of the Mishnah gives us information that helps us to understand the basis of Jesus' challenges to the Rabbis. For example there is an incident recorded in Matthew 12 concerning the rabbinic definition of work and its relationship to the Sabbath Day. The disciples of Jesus, in the eyes of the Pharisees, contravened a number of their definitions of the work of harvesting when they ate grain as they walked through the fields. This incident and others are understood most clearly through reference to the Oral Traditions recorded in the Mishnah.

In Jesus' day, to be a Jew implied obedience to the authority of the oral traditions and extra rulings of the Rabbis."

Jews were expected to govern their lives through obedience to oral traditions and other rulings of the religious leaders. The different schools of Rabbis formulated rules by which their disciples were obliged to live – the legal halakhah of the day. To be a Jew implied that such obligations were authoritative. Circumcision for men was the entry point into the Jewish family and everything else followed. This is the background to Acts 15.

The Perceived Authority of the Mishnah

In the introduction to Danby's translation of the Mishnah (OUP, 1933), there is a passage that relates the chain of the Oral Torah's passage down through the centuries. Because the Oral Torah was considered to go back to Moses it was considered just as authoritative as the written Torah.

Recall that Jesus referred to the teaching of the Rabbis sometimes as, "You have read" and sometimes, "You have heard it said", reflecting both the written and oral nature of rabbinic teaching:

The Mishnah's own account of its origin and history of the Oral Law is given in the tractate Aboth. At the same time that the Written Law was given from Sinai, the Oral Law, too, was delivered to Moses, and handed down (orally) in turn to the leaders of successive generations – to Joshua, to the Elders (Joshua 24:31), to the Prophets, to the 'Men of the Great Synagogue' (the body of teachers who administered and taught the Law after the time of Ezra), to Simeon the Just (c.280 or 200 B.C., one of 'the remnants of the men of the Great Synagogue'), to Antigonus of Soko; then, in turn, to the five 'Pairs of leaders' – Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan (c.165 B.C.), Joshua ben Perahyah and Nittai the Arbelite, Judah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Shetach, Shemaiah and Abtalion, and Hillel and Shammai. Thus the chain of tradition was brought to the threshold of the Christian era.

On account of this chain of reliable men it is considered that the Oral Torah is of equal authority to the Written Torah in Judaism. As the Introduction to the translation of the Mishnah states, after the above paragraph:

The Mishnah, in other words, maintains that the authority of those rules, customs, and interpretations which had accumulated around the Jewish system of life and religion was equal to the authority of the Written Law itself, even though they had no place in the Written Law.

Students of the Rabbis

Along with the culture of oral traditions went the zeal for the Scriptures of every student from a Jewish background. The abiding issue was to know just what was expected in how to live in every part of life. The Mitzvot (Commandments) were obligatory and binding and it was a person's duty to apply them into his or her life.

Even though both the Written and Oral Torah were assumed to have been passed on flawlessly they still needed to be interpreted in every generation. Hence the Councils of Elders determined halakhah, whether in the Synagogue Bet Din at local level, or through the Sanhedrin, on more weighty matters, at national level. Though the origin of the term halakhah (also spelled halachah) is to walk out one's duty to God, it became a legal term meaning, to a Jew, those things that were legally binding on his life.

As each generation interpreted the Torah into halakhah, to know just how to live, halakhah became less about relationship with God and more an expression of legal duty."

On matters of Torah, a member of the Jewish community should seek guidance from his Rabbi on matters which needed interpretation. There were also rules for whose interpretations were binding. For example, in Popular Halachah: A Guide to Jewish Living (edited by Avnere Tomaschoff and sponsored by the World Conference of Jewish Organisations, 1985) it states:

The halachic decision of a contemporary Rabbi is binding upon the person who poses the question; he may not attempt to receive a more lenient opinion by bringing the same question to another Rabbi unless he advises the second Rabbi of the opinion that he had previously received.

This was the background to the Jewish world of the Apostles in Jerusalem at the meeting recorded in Acts 15. They met as a Bet Din to discuss how the Gentiles coming to faith should be brought into the community where the laws and traditions of Torah were to be interpreted and it was to be discovered what was obligatory and binding.

This was the background of the Bet Din in Jerusalem in Acts 15: how should Gentiles be brought into the community steeped in the interpreted laws and traditions of the Torah?

The most prominent issue was whether circumcision was necessary for Gentile converts, but implicit in the deliberations was every aspect of the Torah, since to be circumcised in the flesh implied coming under the authority of the teachers of Judaism according to the current traditions.

Freedom to Learn

With these thoughts in the background, we realise that the Acts 15 meeting was simply a meeting in Jerusalem of those with authority from Jesus, guided by God's Spirit (in the continuity of Covenant history and Jewish tradition), to see how Gentile converts should approach Torah. Was there a new way or should Gentile converts come under the authority of the rabbis?

An inspired conclusion was reached. A letter was sent out to new believers in the Gentile world, after which the Gospel continued to go out into the Gentile world with spiritual power. The four things that are mentioned in the letter were not binding in the sense of normal Jewish halakhah, but very important and necessary, nevertheless, for the good of every believer:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law" -- to whom we gave no such commandment -- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. (Acts 15:23-29)

Both the content of the letter and the spirit of the letter are important. The four things mentioned are also known as the Noahide Laws, principles traditionally thought to have been given to Noah after the Flood, and so for all mankind. This does not mean that these are the only four things relevant to believers from the Old Testament. Noah was a man of faith and fellowship with God, just as Abraham was; faith was the major principle of the Old Testament as well as the New. Neither Noah nor Abraham knew the Torah ('Law') in the sense that it was given through Moses, but they both had a heart to walk closely with the living God (the true halakhah, one might say).

In all generations, the one thing of which a person must be careful in seeking to walk with the true God is to avoid those things that might be a seduction towards following false gods. The four injunctions contained in the letter were typical of the traps to avoid if one was to not be seduced into idolatry. Thus the letter, the ruling from the Acts 15 meeting (so to speak), warned new believers to beware of following false gods so that they might learn to walk out their faith in fellowship with the One True God of Israel.

Each of the four Noahic principles given to new believers referred to typical traps which might seduce them into following false gods. They were intended to protect and support their faith and fellowship with the One True God."

Secondly, we see in the spirit of the letter that was foreseen by Jeremiah of the New Covenant:

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more. (Jer 31:33-34)

The reason why other aspects of Torah were not specifically mentioned is that the Holy Spirit inspired the elders in Jerusalem to see that, in future, Torah would be studied in terms of New Covenant revelation, in which the Holy Spirit would be the agent of such revelation. The emphasis was to be on teaching those with a heart to learn more than through externally imposed obligations.

The remainder of God's law would not be externally imposed, but written on the hearts of believers through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, as Jeremiah had previously prophesied. "

Relevance Today

It was not that a new religion was beginning, but that the faith and walk of Abraham was to be brought to the Gentile world by the power of the Holy Spirit. This was nevertheless a continuity of Covenant history within the context of the Jewish traditions of authority and searching out the interpretation of Torah for the emerging sect of the Jews into which Gentile converts were grafted.

We continue to live in the flow of Covenant history. We are connected to our history through the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15. Through this Council, or Bet Din (as we now understand it), we learned not about the departure from the Jewish Roots of our faith but how Torah and halakhah would be taken to the Gentile world by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Through Acts 15, we learn not about departing from the Jewish roots of our faith, but how Torah and halakhah - the faith and walk of Abraham - would be taken to the Gentiles through the power of the Holy Spirit."

With freedom to learn for everyone who is a disciple of Yeshua, our Jewish and Hebraic roots are as secure as for anyone in the Covenant community, right through from Abraham's day to our own.

For Study and Prayer

1. In the light of what we have considered concerning the context and interpretation of Acts 15, how should Christians approach study of the Old Testament?
2. Do you see any parallels with the way the rabbis exercised authority through tradition with what happens in some branches of the Christian Church today?

Next time: Paul and the Torah

These studies are developed from the course Christianity's Relationship with Israel and the Jews, first prepared for Tishrei Bible School.

What is the law of God and how does it relate to prophecy? Edmund Heddle continues his series by unpacking this key topic...

Prophets are people with standards. They believe that certain standards of belief and behaviour have been laid down by Almighty God; standards which they, like the rest of mankind, are duty bound to live up to.

However, as prophets, they have the added responsibility of upholding these standards against a background of universal human rebellion by urging everyone, irrespective of their power or position, to full obedience.

In other words, a prophet is a person commissioned by God to make plain what his laws are, in order that people may comply with his requirements and so escape the otherwise grave consequences of disobedience.

Against a background of human rebellion, prophets have the responsibility to uphold God's standards of belief and behaviour and urge others to do the same."

Prophets' Warning

There is clear evidence from the Old Testament that both rulers and their people were warned by prophets sent by God to obey the laws they had received from Moses.

The prophet Ahijah warned King Jeroboam against following Solomon's bad example and urged him to obey God's laws and to keep his commandments (1 Kings 11:30-38). Another prophet, Azariah, encouraged King Asa to turn from idolatry and to start observing God's law, after a lapse of many years (2 Chron 15:1-15).

A summary passage following Israel's being sent away into exile says:

Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and by every seer, saying: Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets (2 Kings 17:13)

Another passage relates a similar situation when, years later, Judah was also taken away into captivity (Jer 25:4-6).

God's Concern

Jeremiah points out that God's intention in sending prophetic warnings was for their good, that "it might be well with them" (Jer 7:23). That such obedience would be "for their own good, and the good of their children after them" (Jer 32:39). The measure of God's concern is shown in an oft-repeated phrase which occurs nine times in Jeremiah (7:13; 7:25-26; 11:7-8; 25:3-¬4; 26:4-6; 29:19; 32:33; 35:14-15; 44:4): "Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them."

The King James translation preserves the picturesque quality of the phrase by rendering it 'rising up early and sending' (that is, rising up early and speaking/protesting/teaching). This is an attempt to render a Hebrew verb shakam, which means 'to incline the shoulder to take a burden, to load a burden on the back of a man or a beast': because this would be done in the early morning at the beginning of the day's work, it took to itself the significance of 'starting early in the morning'.

Many times in Jeremiah the verb 'shakam' is used: it is a verb which paints a beautiful picture of God getting up early in the morning and taking great care to dispatch his servants on their mission"

This beautiful picture of God getting up early to ensure that his prophets were dispatched on their mission of mercy to his people is not quite so striking when this word is rendered by 'persistently' (RSV), 'day after day, again and again' (NIV) or by 'eagerly and earnestly' (Moffatt). Prophets today need a similar dedication if they are to save others, whether individuals or communities, from the consequences of breaking God's laws. For if they allow people to go on despising God's laws this will inevitably result in a situation for which there is 'no remedy' (2 Chron 36:15-16).

God's Law Different

The Roman empire was held together not primarily by its Emperor as dictator, but by Roman law, that 'lex' which was so highly regarded by all true Roman citizens. But when we speak of the law of Moses, we are referring to something different. It is true that Roman law originally grew out of Roman religion. It was believed that the founders of the Roman state had entered into a pact with certain gods and that they would guard Rome, provided the lex was observed.

But by New Testament times, the religion of Rome had lost its hold on educated men and the lex was no longer vitally connected with religion. The Law of Moses, in contrast, was unchangeably connected with the worship of the one true God.

The Hebrew 'Torah'

The Hebrew word standing for God's law is 'Torah'. The root of this word is the Hebrew word to 'teach' which is a form of the verb 'to shoot', the idea being that a man might shoot an arrow to show direction. This is the word used for the Law of Moses and in contrast with the Roman lex, it conveys the idea of instruction, rather than legalism (the word 'legalism' is connected with 'lex').

At the heart of God's law is not legalism, but principles, revelation and words to govern a personal relationship"

The 'Torah' contains instruction, revelation and 'words', an element not to be found in any modern law book. The Ten Commandments were originally called 'These words' (Deut 5:22). Together these items give the principles that govern Israel's covenant relationship with Jehovah God and they imply a personal relationship between the teacher and the taught.

God's 'Segullah'

The introduction to God's law is a reminder of what he had done to bring Israel into existence as a nation. It was because of what he had done for Israel first that she in turn must obey his commands as the only fitting response to such undeserved kindness:

You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I brought you to myself. Now, therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples... (Ex 19:4-5); literally, you shall be my 'segullah'.

George Knight in his book Law and Grace explains the meaning of segullah: "In olden days a king was the ultimate owner of everything in the land he ruled. He owned every building, every farm...But that kind of 'owning' could give him little personal satisfaction. Consequently in his palace he kept a treasure chest of his 'very own', in which he delighted to store the precious stones and objets d'art which he loved to handle. This treasure box was his 'segullah'. The whole object of God's law is that Israel might be his 'segullah'. All nations belonged to him, but Israel was to be his peculiar treasure (compare 1 Peter 1:9). How strangely does the attitude of the Pharisees of Jesus' day contrast with all this when they tried to deduce from God's law regulations to suit every possible contingency in human life."

Ceremonial Law

We are learning that the voice of the true prophet is always the voice of the law of God, once for all declared through Moses. What then of those passages in the Old Testament where the prophets appear to reject the ceremonial system of blood sacrifices, preferring obedience to ceremony? "To obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam 15:22). "I desire steadfast love, not sacrifice" (Hos 6:6). "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord... I do not delight in the blood of bulls...incense is an abomination to me...your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates" (Isa 1:11, 13-14).

These and other verses like them may seem to indicate a total rejection of religious ceremony on the part of the prophets. In the Isaiah passage the attack on the offering of sacrifices is very strong, but it is no stronger than the prophet's attack on the Sabbath (v13) and on prayer (v15). It cannot be that the prophet is repudiating the Sabbath or prayer. Rather he is saying that unless sacrifice is the expression of the heart's devotion of the worshipper it is of itself not only useless, but very offensive to the Almighty. The keeping of the Sabbath and the offering of prayer is also an offence if it is a cover up for sinful deeds and selfish ways.

Prophetic Theology

In their understanding of God and his ways, the prophets built on the earlier revelation given to Moses and did not question it. Peter Southwell in his book Prophecy (p63) says:

Prophetic theology is parasitic, it stood upon the shoulders of its predecessors and needed the older traditions for its sustenance.

However, having granted that the theology of the prophets is firmly based on the Law of Moses, they did not stop there but went on to speak of a coming king, a suffering servant, a new covenant, an abundant outpouring of God's Spirit and a glorious new age, when nature, as well as people would be totally renewed. They moved on from a law inscribed on tablets of stone to the law of God written in the hearts of His people.

The prophets' theology was firmly based on the Law of Moses; from here they spoke of a coming king, a new covenant, an abundant outpouring of God's Spirit and a glorious new age."

And when eventually Jesus came in fulfilment of the promises they had unveiled, he declared that the teaching of law and prophets would not be abolished - both were equally important and he would himself fulfil both (Matt 5:17). Prophets today must remember that they are responsible to proclaim the total Lord Jesus, who fulfils all that the law and the prophets have said about him.

Prophetic Continuity

As JA Motyer has pointed out in the New Bible Dictionary (p1045):

Prophets and prophecy form the greatest line of continuity between the Old and New Testaments. The prophetic line did not end with Malachi, so to speak, but with John the Baptist. This is the express teaching of our Lord: 'For all the Prophets and the law prophesied until John' (Matthew 11:13).

John continued the pattern of Old Testament prophecy as he insisted upon repentance for disobedience to God's law, and then combined both proclamation (forthtelling) and prediction (foretelling) as he spoke of the wrath to come but also of the grace to come (Luke 3:7, 16). The message that John had for his generation is that which today's prophets must pass on to their generation too.

Prophets to the Nations

The message brought by the prophets of the Old Testament was not delivered only to Israel and Judah. They also had things to say to the nations, small and great, of their day (see Isa 13:1-23:18). In the Book of the Revelation (Ch 10), the angel said to John: "Take the scroll and eat it; it will be bitter to your stomach, but sweet as honey in your mouth..." John was told, "You must again prophesy about many peoples and nations and tongues and kings." There are things to be said not only to the Church of those who believe, but also to the nations.

Prophets were not only sent to Israel and Judah, but also to the nations, small and great."

God said to the young Jeremiah: "I have appointed you a prophet to the nations...I have set you today over nations and kingdoms" (Jer 1:5, 10). This was by no means an easy task and at times it was a bitter one. But, as the angel told John, there is also a sweetness that increases the more we digest the law and the prophets.

There can never have been a time when the nations have so desperately needed to hear what God's prophets are commissioned to say. God's standards apply to all men everywhere. It is part of the prophet's calling to declare what they are and to tell of the grace that can write them on our hearts.

First published in Prophecy Today, Vol 2, No 1, 1986.

In celebrating the 75th anniversary of Dunkirk, Britain has conveniently forgotten that it was God's intervention that saved the day...

In recent days the nation has been celebrating the 75th Anniversary of 'Operation Dynamo', the evacuation of Allied troops from the beaches of Dunkirk between 27 May and 4 June 1940. The emphasis has been, once again, on the "Dunkirk Spirit" – on the sacrifices and heroism, the grit and determination of the British people, on the collaboration between the Navy, the RAF, and (especially) the "little ships". Services have been held in places such as Dover and Ramsgate, Dunkirk and Westminster Abbey, with media reports on these continuing the same emphases. National pride has been on parade again.

Selective National Memory

Conspicuous by their absence have been any substantial element of thanksgiving to Almighty God and any recognition of the role of prayer and the miraculous. This is the result of the secularisation of British society – a process almost unthinkable to most who lived and died in those dark days. In some cases it results from ignorance; in others, the result of wilful attacks upon the testimony of the participants at the time.

In the Dunkirk exhibition in Dover Castle there is no mention of the spiritual dimension of those times. On its website, the word 'miracle' is only used to credit the director of the operation: "Vice-Admiral Bertram Ramsay pulled off a miracle".¹ Furthermore, the BBC website includes an article entitled Spinning Dunkirk,² in which the 'miracle' is attributed to clever manipulation of the media by the politicians, creating a "myth" that the British have preferred to believe. Other authors have also scorned the miracle.

Conspicuous by their absence this memorial year have been any substantial elements of thanksgiving to God, or recognition of the role of prayer."

Call to Prayer

What do the eyewitness accounts have to say? Did you know, for example, that the main operation was preceded by a National Day of Prayer? In a broadcast on 24 May 1940 to the nation and the Empire, King George VI called his people to a day of repentance and prayer on Sunday 26 May.

John Richardson, in Dunkirk Revisited, writes:

It says much about the times, and about Dunkirk, that it had then taken centre stage in the nation's life. Every church and synagogue had been packed. Petticoat Lane's market closed for the only time in its history so that traders could attend church. On the forecourt of Southampton's Guildhall, an overflow of 2,000 had assembled to hear relayed the united service within.³ [emphasis added]

British Pathe's film commentary refers to "the mighty congregation" at the service in Westminster Abbey, at which King George VI, Winston Churchill, members of the Cabinet and Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands participated. The photograph here shows the queue for prayer outside the Abbey. The Daily Sketch, reporting the following day, said "Nothing like it has ever been seen before".

Answered Prayer: Halted Forces

So what followed? Contemporary accounts refer to three or four aspects of the miraculous. First, the Panzer forces were unexpectedly halted for two days on 24 May, enabling the Allies to re-group. Even now, historians puzzle over why this happened; not even the German generals could agree the reason for the call to halt the German armoured divisions.

This clearly preceded the National Day of Prayer – was it a case of "Before they call I will answer" (Isa 65:24)? Perhaps God was blessing the king's very decision to call for prayer, itself a step of faith preceded by several days of debate, commitment and preparation. It is also important to realise that prayer was already well underway. Consider this excerpt from Norman Grubb's 'Rees Howells – Intercessor':

When the war broke out the prayer meetings at Wales Bible College became a daily event...Every week and often for days at a time there were whole days of prayer. It seems that God would lay one or another aspect of the war on the heart of Rees Howells or one of the others praying, and the whole community would intercede...⁴

Dunkirk was bathed in unprecedented levels of prayer all around the country, and then the miraculous happened."

Bad Weather over Flanders

The second miracle of Dunkirk was that within 48 hours of the National Day of Prayer, a great storm broke over Flanders, giving cover to the Allied troops, softening the marshlands which lay before the German armoured divisions and grounding the Luftwaffe for all but 2½ days of the operation. General Halder, head of the German Army General Staff, wrote in his diary on 30 May:

The pocket would have been closed at the coast if only our armour had not been held back. The bad weather has grounded the Luftwaffe, and we must now stand and watch countless thousands of the enemy get away to England right under our noses.⁵

Calm Conditions for the 'Little Ships'

The third miracle was strangely calm conditions in the Channel during much of Operation Dynamo.

German author Hans Frank states that over the 9 days of the operation "the sea was leaden and calm, unusual for the Channel."⁶ Even the rather cynical comedian Spike Milligan was later to write "...the Channel was like a piece of polished steel. I'd never seen the sea so calm. One would say it was miraculous."⁷

The Daily Telegraph wrote on 8 July, 1940:

Those who are accustomed to the Channel testify to the strangeness of this calm; they are deeply impressed by the phenomenon of nature by which it became possible for tiny craft to go back and forth in safety.

This was particularly helpful in evacuating over 98,000 soldiers from the beach zones, as opposed to from the harbour area.

Large-Scale Rescue

By the end of Operation Dynamo on 4 June, a total of over 338,000 troops had been rescued (almost 140,000 of which were French, Belgian, Dutch and Polish). This contrasted greatly with the Admiralty's best estimate in planning – 45,000 over a two-day period.

In the House of Commons on 4 June, Churchill confessed that he had only hoped for 20,000-30,000 successful evacuations: "I feared it would be my hard lot to announce the greatest military disaster in our long history."⁸ The graph to the left shows the unexpectedly miraculous scale of the rescue.

On the same day, the BBC reported: "The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, has described the "miracle of deliverance" from Dunkirk and warned of an impending invasion."

Notable Reactions

Looking back on Operation Dynamo, Vice-Admiral Ramsay wrote to his wife: "The relief is stupendous. The results are beyond belief."⁹ General Pownall, Chief of Staff to the Commander-in-Chief of the BEF, noted in his diary at the time: "The evacuation from Dunkirk was surely a miracle."¹⁰ Admiral Sir William James, who later led the evacuation of remaining Normandy and Brittany ports, was later to exclaim, "Thank God for that miracle at Dunkirk".¹¹

C.B. Mortlock wrote in the Daily Telegraph on 8 June 1940:

...the prayers of the nation were answered...the God of hosts himself had supported the valiant men of the British Expeditionary Force...One thing can be certain about tomorrow's thanksgiving in our churches, from none will the thanks ascend with greater sincerity or deeper fervour than from the officers and men who have seen the hand of God, powerful to save, delivering them from the hands of a mighty foe, who, humanly speaking, had them utterly at his mercy.

When services of national thanksgiving were held in all churches on the following Sunday, it was with great feeling that many a choir and congregation sang the words of Psalm 124, for they were seen to apply to that situation through which the nation had just passed:

If the Lord had not been on our side- let Israel say -if the Lord had not been on our side when people attacked us, they would have swallowed us alive when their anger flared against us; the flood would have engulfed us, the torrent would have swept over us, the raging waters would have swept us away.

Praise be to the Lord, who has not let us be torn by their teeth. We have escaped like a bird from the fowler's snare; the snare has been broken, and we have escaped. Our help is in the name of the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.

No other passage of Scripture could have more aptly described the nation's experience on that day.

In the aftermath of Dunkirk, the nation was awestruck at God's deliverance. Surely 75 years on, it is time to recognise afresh the hand of God in our history, and give him all due worship."

Remembering Today

Surely, it's time for us to recognise anew the hand of God in our history, and to give him all due praise and thanks.

It's time, too, for those of us who are Christians to repent of any national pride and complacency and to intercede on the nation's behalf – that the Almighty will have mercy and by the power of his Holy Spirit bring conviction and conversion once more to this disturbingly secular land.

References

1 English Heritage: Operation Dynamo

2 Spinning Dunkirk. BBC News, 17 February 2011.

3 Dunkirk Revisited, 2008, p139.

4 Chapter 34: Intercession for Dunkirk.

5 Shirer, W L, 1959. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon & Schuster, p883.

6 2007, Seaforth Publishing.

7 Games, A, 2003. The Essential Spike Milligan, p.198.

8 We Shall Fight on the Beaches, Speech to the House of Commons, 4 June 1940.

9 Barnett, C, 2000. Engage the Enemy More Closely. Penguin Books, p161.

10 Lord, W, 2012. The miracle of Dunkirk. Open Road Media.

11 Ibid.

Continuing our celebration of Magna Carta 800, Anthony Busk opens up the story behind the charter's Godly principles, and asks what they mean for us today...

Celebrating 800 Years of Freedom

On 15 June 1215, in a meadow near Windsor, King John had to accept the demands of strife-weary earls and barons, and bring in political reform. It was not an amicable meeting. The king was autocratic and used to overriding justice with lawless, arbitrary judgements. Heavy taxation to pay for his wars in Europe, plus a legacy of debt left by his brother Richard (the 'Lionheart'), were threatening civil war.

King John had also interfered with Church elections by refusing to accept the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton (1150-1228). Instead, he wanted a man more amenable towards his own conduct. This had incurred the wrath of the Church of Rome which, by the 13th Century, claimed to be the supreme monarch over all Christendom- including kings and emperors.

The papal assertion of absolute authority led to power struggles across Western Europe. But there were theologians who disputed it. John of Canterbury (1162-1181) believed there was a biblical basis for a monarch to have direct accountability before God in his own right (Rom 13:1; 1 Pet 2:13-14). John was followed by Stephen Langton, who also concluded that kings should lead a nation in the fear of God. In Langton's view, the Church's role must be limited to providing godly advice, based on the Scriptures –but not political involvement. His attitude would have great significance for the future progress of Magna Carta.

The Legacy of Stephen Langton

When Stephen Langton was eventually accepted as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1213, one of his first acts was to rally the nation's disillusioned barons, leading them in pressuring King John to seal Magna Carta. This limited his powers and provided measures of protection for the English people.

Stephen influenced Magna Carta as both as a peacemaker and an intermediary. For instance, an earlier list of demands to the king from the earls and barons was entirely secular. Stephen's influence meant that the preface to the final draft now commenced: 'Know that before God, for the health of our souls...' It also included the phrase: 'at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury...': the Church was not imposing but advising.

Thanks to Stephen Langton, Magna Carta was re-drafted from an entirely secular document into one infused with reverence for God."

This complemented Magna Carta's assertion that the monarch, as the secular authority, must respect that the Church is to be free from political interference- a very important guide for the future. This principle became accepted within Parliament during the Reformation, with the ascendency of the Church of England, and was eventually granted in law to all Christian denominations.

Christian Wisdom

Thanks to Stephen Langton's influence, Christian wisdom permeated Magna Carta's principles. As these principles became enshrined in English law, government and culture, so Godly values came to underpin the nation.

For instance, through his studies of Scripture, Langton developed the principle of 'due process', where someone cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. This appears in several of Magna Carta's 'chapters'. Ch 39 reads:

No man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised (fined) or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him, save by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the loss of the land.

This is the principle which led to the present day trial by jury. Addressing the vexatious approach by the king to tax with impunity, chapter 12 also points towards a future Parliament of the people: 'No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent...' To assess tax levels there would be individual summons by letter of the good and the great 'to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice should be given) and at a fixed place...' (Ch 14).

The Role of Scripture

Magna Carta's strength down the centuries has lain in its application of Scripture, particularly the Old Testament. Stephen Langton believed that Scripture contained good principles of law that were applicable within any culture– not only Israel. For example, to reduce theft:

Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner (Ch 31/Deut 5:19).

False weights and measures were also condemned:

There shall be one measure of wine throughout all our kingdom...and one measure of corn; and one width of tinted clothes...Moreover for weights it is to be as for measures (Ch 35/Deut 25:13-15).

Magna Carta's strength through the centuries has lain in its application of Scripture."

In Jeremiah 18, we find an explicit illustration of the universal principles of God's governance:

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in my sight, so that it does not obey my voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it (v10).

Here, we find the defining of behaviour as evil or good, which in turn requires a fabric of 'legal' guidance (given in the Ten Commandments). It also makes clear that Almighty God does reveal himself, and if there is no response to his merciful warnings, the nation will break down.

One may summarise this as whether a country – especially its leadership – has a true fear of God, or has contempt for his laws. Romans 1 and 2 demonstrate in New Testament times that there is a 'common law' for all humanity, which when ignored provokes the wrath of God.

Challenges Today

Through Magna Carta, many biblical teachings have become legally embedded within British culture, becoming the law 'common to all'. Today, its legal message and social implications are still highly significant. This year, both the Law Society and the Bar have claimed that the Charter underpins the Rule of Law in England and Wales.¹ They quote Lord Denning, who described it as:

the greatest constitutional document of all times –the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.

In today's culture, however, Magna Carta's principle of the rule of law is being undermined, because the objective template of law itself is being denied. Centuries of commonly-held Judeo-Christian principles, enriched through the influence of Scripture embedded heroically over the years by our forefathers, are being stripped away as a medieval anachronism.

Today Magna Carta's principle of the rule of law is being undermined, as the foundation stones of right and wrong are being replaced with the shifting sands of personal feelings and the barometer of being offended."

The foundation stones of right and wrong are being replaced with the shifting sands of personal feelings, and the barometer of being offended. The legal grounds to determine righteousness from unrighteousness are becoming transient. Justice can now be dependent on where the judge sits within a cacophony of shifting equality and human rights themes. The Church, its institutions and doctrines are under attack because the rule of law, which formerly gave it protection, is itself struggling.

Lessons to Apply

What are the lessons of Magna Carta? Perhaps most important is for the secular authority to recognise it is directly under a higher authority, and must never gravitate into a dictatorship, impervious to the laws of God and arbitrary in judgement. This is precisely summarised in prayers held prior to the sittings of both the Lords and the Commons. The latter includes the words:

Lord, the God of all righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals...Amen.²

Another message is the freedom of the Church, which must protect its integrity and independence from State interference. However, it also has responsibilities towards the State. It must persistently assert the responsibility of politicians and their hierarchy of civil servants to recognise God's sovereignty over nations. The Church must pray hard and speak up, to provide an anchor of righteousness of which politicians and civil servants can grasp hold.

Magna Carta not only affirms the Church's need for freedom from state interference; it also reminds us that the Church has responsibilities: to pray hard, speak up and provide an anchor of righteousness for the nation."

If we abandon Judeo-Christian values, there will be consequences. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Pro 14:34).

Jehovah Nissi

The Church, the people of God redeemed through Christ's sacrifice, has a duty to both teach and encourage those who rule. It was God-fearing Christians 800 years ago who laid down the foundations of our democracy. There is a requirement for this generation to follow their example. New, Holy Spirit-breathed initiatives are required to assist MPs and others in authority to maintain and develop laws relevant to our culture. Individual Christians and churches also need to recognise the great importance of prayer for both national and local government. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 is very clear on this matter.

It is true that radical groups, not fearing the true God, have infiltrated politics at a high level, and are wreaking havoc upon the young and vulnerable. It is also true that through a gross distortion of the biblical principles of equality and respect, the fabric of law and order is being undermined. Unchecked this will lead to anarchy. However, a casual study of history demonstrates that no brutal assault is impossible to conquer, though it may seem it at the time.

800 years go, God-fearing Christians helped lay the foundations of our democracy. This generation must follow their example- we are the living Church for today."

We are the living Church for today, the infantry God wishes to use. His role has not changed, but remains Jehovah Nissi – 'the Lord is our banner'! Christians must follow our forefathers' example, engaging with a broken world, co-operating with the Holy Spirit and particularly blessing those in governance.

About the author: Anthony Busk has a background in ministry and a keen interest in the relationship between the Church and secular government. Through his own journey from secularism to whole-hearted commitment to the authority of Scripture, Anthony is overwhelmed by the real love and compassion Jesus has for a broken world, and of our need to press forward despite the darkness - proclaiming righteousness and reconciliation with God through the empty cross.

References

1 Caplen, A and MacDonald, A, 2014. Magna Carta: The Foundation of Freedom 1215-2015. Joint Law Society/Bar Council Special Edition, Third Millennium Publishing.

2 Parliament prayers.

In the first part of a study of Acts 15, Clifford Denton considers the pivotal moment in the First Century when the apostles and elders met to consider conditions for membership of Gentile converts in the covenant family of Israel.

Acts 15

Acts 15 records a decisive moment in the First Century Church. The gospel was going out into the Gentile world for the first time, and many were coming to faith. The New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit was a new experience. These rapid developments were raising many questions amongst Jewish believers in Messiah: how did they relate to the accepted teaching of 'the Law' according to rabbinic tradition? What were the obligations on new believers in Israel's Messiah?

In Jerusalem, the apostles and elders gathered to consider these questions. Not only was this a significant moment for the Christian Church, but it also marked a point of separation between Jews and Christians. But do we have a clear understanding of what was going on at the so-called 'Council of Jerusalem'?

Councils have played a prominent role in Church history, but what was happening in Acts 15? Was this the first Church Council, or was it a typically Jewish way of resolving disputes? Indeed, was it even a biblical way of resolving disputes? Let us consider how the meeting of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem was an application of an already-existing principle, through which those in authority met to consider issues of importance, leading to rulings on behalf of the community.

The 'council' held in Acts 15 was a significant moment for the early Church. But was it a point of separation and departure, or unity and continuity?

A Church Council?

In Our Father Abraham (Eerdmans, 1989), Dr Wilson describes the Council of Jerusalem as "the watershed for the entire book of Acts" (p48). He continues:

The council handed down its decision: Non-Jews entering the Church should not have the Jewish rite of circumcision imposed on them. In its decision the council emphasized the principle of God's free grace in Christ. Gentiles were to know that to stand in the liberty of Christ meant no preconditions or potentially entangling qualifications. So stated, the council ruled out any theological necessity of circumcision for righteousness.

Gentiles should be clear on this point: salvation was a gift of God; one could not procure or obtain it by mere conformity to any ceremonial ritual. [emphasis added]

Separation or Continuity?

What was the background to this meeting of the leaders in Jerusalem? Was this a new thing breaking out to launch the principles by which a fledgling Christian Church was to live? Were the implications that Jewish law was now replaced? It is possible to read this chapter of Acts and filter it through a mind-set that the Christian Church was a completely new thing separate from Judaism. It is therefore possible to fuel the view that grace now replaced law and that the Church replaced Israel.

However, with careful consideration, we see that there is continuity and not separation. Indeed, what was happening goes back to the time of Moses. When we look at it this way we might even challenge the traditional terminology that Acts 15 was a Church Council. This is particularly so when the idea of a 'Church Council' has generally been applied to later meetings of Church leaders which led to much greater and unnecessary separation from Jewish roots. One such council was the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, at the time when Christianity was being merged into the Roman Empire!

It is easy to filter Acts 15 through a mind-set that the Church was a completely new thing, separate from Judaism and replacing Israel. However, more careful consideration shows continuity in Acts 15, not separation."

The Tradition of Elders

It can be argued that the tradition that led to the coming together of apostles and elders in Acts 15 had its origin with Moses. This goes back to the time when Jethro, his father-in-law, gave him some sound advice:

Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God, and you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do.

Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. (Ex 18:19-22)

This appointment of elders is comparable to the instruction that Paul gave to Titus:

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you - if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)

From the time of Moses, authority for giving rulings on how to apply Torah was delegated to reliable leaders of the community – the older and wiser men. Up to the time of Jesus this authority was with the Sanhedrin for the major decisions, and the local synagogue would have its own elders who 'sat in Moses' seat'. Thus when Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders it was from this tradition that he was drawing.

The tradition of appointing elders to judge how God's law should be applied in different circumstances goes back to the time of Moses."

In this regard, one of the functions of the elders in the Synagogue was to hold a 'Bet Din' ('House of Ruling') on new issues that came up for decision. This was a place of authority comparable with law courts today. The Bet Din took Torah as the foundation of all ruling and interpreted the principles into 'halakhah' for the people (rulings on the way they should walk/live their lives).

Acts 15: a 'Bet Din'

Thus, when we come to Acts 15, it may be seen as a Bet Din, where those in a position of authority met to discuss a new issue that had arisen among believers. The new issue was that many were becoming believers from among the Gentiles by the power of the Holy Spirit, but without any particular knowledge of the Torah and the way it was being taught by the Rabbis of the day. So a Bet Din was formed in Jerusalem.

The Council of Jerusalem was a 'Bet Din', a traditional meeting of those in authority to discuss a new issue that had arisen among believers. It was not a new thing- simply the first major one since the beginning of the Gentile harvest."

This must be seen as the natural thing for the apostles to do, going back to the time of Moses, rather than as a new thing in the Christian Church. It would not have been the first time these leaders met to discuss matters of Torah and halakhah, but it was the first major meeting regarding the role of Torah among those converted from a Gentile background. Unlike most Church Councils in later centuries, when Christianity had largely separated from its Jewish roots, this Bet Din was embedded in, and flowed out of, its Jewish heritage.

New Authority Structure

Whilst the Bet Din recorded in Acts 15 was not a unique concept, it was unique in its being led by the new Church leaders- the apostles and elders –rather than by the traditional Rabbinical hierarchy of Judaism. As the only 'Church Council' recorded in Scripture, in it we see a new authority structure coming into being for the New Covenant community, instituted by Jesus.

Jesus entered a world in which, through Moses, God had already delegated authority to community leaders. Jesus did not challenge the delegated authority, though he did challenge the leaders' interpretation of the Torah, especially in their own lifestyles:

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (Matt 23:1-3)

After recognising the delegated authority of the existing leaders, Jesus later confirmed that as the Son of God, all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him (Matt 28:18). Before his ascension into heaven, he then gave authority to his apostles to minister in his name on earth. He also told them:

Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them. (Matt 18:18-20)

"In my name", in this sense, can be understood as being according to Jesus' authority. Jesus confirmed that he would uphold the decisions of those in authority and also be among them, by the presence of his Spirit, as they sought agreement in his name.

The Bet Din in Acts 15 displays the new authority structure of the New Covenant Church, being led by elders and apostles, not the traditional Rabbinic hierarchy.

The Fig Tree: a Symbol of Authority to Interpret Scripture

Another relevant symbol here is the cursing of the fig tree, when Jesus spoke to a fruitless fig tree and caused it to wither (Matt 23:21-23):

And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither away so soon?" So Jesus answered and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done. "And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?"

Why did Jesus respond in this way towards a fig tree? Under the shade of a fig tree was a common location for Torah students to study and pray. Hence, the fig tree had become symbolic of sitting under the authoritative teaching of the Rabbis, and therefore the authority of the Rabbis to interpret Torah. By cursing the fig tree, Jesus was hinting about the removal of authority to teach from those who were not interpreting God's word correctly. This can be tied in with Matthew 21:43:

Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Here the word 'nation' is the Greek 'ethnos'. This has a range of meanings but from the context, we can say that it means another group of people, implying that authority would be taken from those presently interpreting Torah to another group whom Jesus would designate.

New Authority Structure

This does not mean that Israel would now be cast out as a whole and the Church in the Gentile world take over with a new plan, but that a new authority structure would be defined among God's people. This authority was given to Jesus' disciples, as already promised in Matthew 16:19:

And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Thus, when the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, we see the new authority structure coming into being for the Covenant Community. The Holy Spirit was among them to confirm what Jesus had promised and the phrase, 'it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' (Acts 15:28), is significant in this respect. It is a confirmation that authority to interpret the teaching of God (Torah) had been passed on to the leaders of the New Covenant community.

At the Jerusalem council, the elders and apostles of the New Covenant community led under the guidance and confirmation of the Holy Spirit."

That new authority structure was operating at the Jewish elders meeting in Jerusalem. It was a continuity of the authority structure first given through Moses by God, now confirmed through Jesus for the new move of his Spirit into the Gentile world.

For Study and Prayer

If the meeting of the apostles and elders in Acts 15 is a continuation of the traditions handed down from the time of Moses, does this have implications for meetings of church elders today, and for the relationship between Jews and Christians in the New Covenant community?

Next time: We will continue to consider the meeting of Acts 15.

These studies are developed from the course 'Christianity's Relationship with Israel and the Jews', first prepared for Tishrei Bible School.

Continuing our series on the question 'What is a prophet?', Edmund Heddle unpacks the idea of prophetic anointing.

No one knows the origin of the custom of anointing with oil or for how long it has been practised. It is claimed that the oldest prescription for an anointing oil dates from about 4200 BC, so it is certainly an age-old practice. Anointing is mentioned in the Scriptures over one hundred times and in all periods of biblical history.

Anointing a Pillar

Genesis 28:18 records the first occurrence in the Bible when early one morning Jacob poured oil on the stone on which he had rested his head, as he set it up as a lasting memorial of his experiences. His action gives then impression of being the normal thing to do, rather than the introduction of a new custom. By pouring oil on the stone he sanctified it, in the sense of setting it apart for God, a meaning that is common to all Biblical anointings.

Secular Anointings

The Bible in Old and New Testaments refers to various secular uses of anointing. Part of an Israelite's daily toilet was to anoint oneself with oil, thus causing their faces to shine (Psalm 104:15)! This custom was only omitted during mourning (2 Sam 12:20, 14:2).

The anointing of the heads of guests was a courtesy that Simon the Pharisee neglected when he entertained Jesus to a meal. It is significant from the words used in Greek that whereas Simon did not get around to anointing Jesus with common olive oil, the sinful woman was not content with anything less that an expensively perfumed oil to pour on Jesus' feet.

In biblical times, anointing with oil was a daily activity, with uses ranging from personal vanity to social courtesy, to medicine."

The third use of oil was a medicinal one, in the story of the Good Samaritan, who poured on oil and wine (Luke 10:34, also Isa 1:6, Eze 16:9). From the story of the women at the Garden Tomb, we see it was a custom to anoint the bodies of the dead (Mark 16:1).

Priest's Anointing

Turning to the biblical accounts of sacred anointings, we note that priests were anointed into office by the pouring on of oil. In the Pentateuch there are some thirty references to anointings; all of these refer to the anointing of the High Priest and his sons, the tabernacle and its furniture (Ex 40:9-15). This act was in fact their ordination and accreditation, giving them authority to minister to both God and man (Lev 8:12).

Priests were anointed into office, giving them authority to minister to both God and man."

Special Formula Oil

The oil used in their consecration had to be made to a special prescription laid down by God himself. (Ex 30:32). The four spices were liquid myrrh, sweet-smelling cinnamon, aromatic cane and cassia. These were to be blended with olive oil by a perfumer. Two of these spices were rare and only obtainable from India and the Far-East.

This was to be the oil used for anointing the priests and the kings of Israel down the generations. It was forbidden to use this oil on the bodies of ordinary men (Ex 30:32) and it was forbidden to make up any oil to the same formula, on pain of exclusion from the people of God. This special oil was kept in a holy place (1 Kings 1:39) and in the care of the son of the High Priest (Num 4:16).

The oil used in the priestly anointing was made of a unique formula, written by God himself and forbidden for use on ordinary men."

Such careful regulations made this oil special and therefore an appropriate symbol of the Holy Spirit, throughout Scripture typified by oil and which cannot be poured out on those who are unredeemed.

Aaron's Anointing

Looking back over the centuries, the writer of Psalm 133 describes the precious oil poured on Aaron's head in such abundance that it ran down on to his beard and the collar of his robes (v2). So generously is the Spirit poured out, bringing the fragrance of Christ, the blessing of life and the brotherly unity of all who share the divine anointing.

In connection with his anointing, a gold plate was placed on Aaron's turban. The Hebrew word for this gold diadem is closely connected with the word for the Nazirite vow of separation (Num 6:21). By his anointing the High Priest was forbidden to leave the sanctuary and was not permitted to come into contact with the dead, even to attend the funeral of a close relative. All of this teaches us that alongside blessings of the divine anointing, stringent demands of holy separation are imposed on all upon whom the holy oil has been poured.

As with the priestly oil, so the Holy Spirit is poured out generously on believers, bringing the fragrance of Christ, brotherly unity and the blessing of life- but also the call to be holy and separate for the Lord."

Anointing of Kings

In the historical books of the Old Testament (Judges through 2 Chronicles), there are more than fifty references to anointing, and all but few are concerned with the coronation of kings. Saul and David, Absalom and Solomon and others after them received the 'coronation' of holy anointing oil. Very little is said about placing a crown on their heads, the vitally important thing was the anointing they received.

Holy anointing oil was also used at the coronation of kings; what mattered wasn't the crown placed on their heads, but the anointing they received."

This anointing resulted in their being described as 'the Lord's Anointed'. This term, which occurs a dozen times in the Book of Psalms, has an original reference to the kings of Israel and in a fuller, prophetic sense to the Messiah.

Kings were anointed over an area or kingdom (1 Sam 15:17); David was first anointed king over Lawrence OP / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 / see Photo CreditsJudah (2 Sam 2:4), and subsequently over Israel as a whole (2 Sam 5:3). Early on he had received a prospective anointing as the God-appointed successor to King Saul, whilst still a young lad (though no mention was made then of the territory over which he was to reign). Then, during the waiting period whilst Saul was still king, that David on two occasions had the opportunity to kill him. But this David refused to do because Saul was 'the Lord's Anointed' (1 Sam 24:6, 26:9-11).

When news came to him that Saul was dead, David discovered that his informant had dealt the final blow and for such a crime he was immediately put to death (2 Sam 1:14-16)- so heinous did David regard the crime of taking the life of the Lord's Anointed. From the anointings of kings we see the dignity and authority bestowed on them by the sacred anointing they had received. We should also note that charismatic gifts also resulted from the same anointing (1 Sam 10:6-13, 16:13).

Kingly anointing bestowed dignity and authority, and often resulted in charismatic gifts."

Were Prophets Anointed?

In spite of the fact that a number of Bible dictionaries state that priests, kings and prophets were anointed, there is no record in Scripture of any prophet ever being anointed with oil. It is true that Elijah was ordered to anoint Elisha as his successor in the prophetic office. But it was Elijah's mantle, rather than any oil, that came down on Elisha (1 Kings 19:16-19).

Alan Cole in his commentary on Exodus (p203) says: "the word (anointing) is used only in a metaphysical sense of the appointment of prophets". Psalm 105:15 describes the patriarchs as prophets, and God calls them 'my anointed ones', yet there is no suggestion that they had ever been anointed with oil. The prophet's anointing was and always will be 'with the Holy Spirit'; of which in the anointing of priests and kings the oil was the symbol.

Prophetic anointing was and always will be with the Holy Spirit."

Christ the Anointed

Jesus is 'the Anointed One'; priest, king and prophet, and for this we call him 'Christ', from the Greek word 'christos' meaning anointed. We also call him 'Messiah' or Messias, the Latin form of the Hebrew word 'mashiach', also meaning 'the anointed'. Isaiah's prophecy had been fulfilled in him and he could say: the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has anointed me' (Isa 61:1). It is important to notice that Jesus was not anointed 'by' the Spirit, but 'with' the Spirit. J Elder Cumming in his 'Through the Eternal Spirit' (p154) says:

The thought conveyed in these passages is that the anointing is the Holy Spirit himself. It is not that he is the agent in giving it, nor that he gives something that belongs to him which he makes over in the sense of a blessing or power. It is that he comes to be the anointing oil. Jesus of Nazareth was anointed not by him, but with him. The anointing is not a blessing, a gift such as grace, peace or power, but is a person, the Holy Spirit himself...

Peter explained to the Roman Centurion Cornelius that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, that he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil (Acts 10:38). Jesus' earthly ministry was made possible by his having been anointed with the Holy Spirit.

This anointing of Jesus had taken place immediately after his baptism by John in the Jordan, when the Spirit descended like a dove (Mark 1:9-10). The tempter immediately challenged this anointing, but Jesus stood firm against him and so returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:14).

The Christian Anointing

There is no anointing for the believer to claim before he can rightly use the name 'Christian' (Greek christianos), meaning follower of Christ the anointed one. As Aaron and his sons were unfit to minister until the holy oil had been poured upon them, so Christians are unfit to discharge their office as priests, prophets and kings until they are anointed with the Holy Spirit, of whom the holy oil was the type.

Christians are unfit to discharge their office without the Holy Spirit, of whom the holy oil was a type. When we accept God's gift of the Spirit by faith, we receive an abiding anointing."

According to Paul's words to the church at Corinth (2 Cor 1:21), and John's letter (1 John 2:20, 27), Christians have been anointed, and the tense of the verbs they use indicates that this anointing is something which happens once and for all: it refers to a definite moment in the life of the disciple. It would seem, therefore, that the habit, prevalent in some circles, of referring to 'an anointing coming upon me time and time again' obscures the fact that what we receive when we by faith accept God's gift of the Spirit (Luke 11:13, Gal 3:14) is an abiding anointing.

Part of the answer to the question 'What is a prophet?' must be this: a prophet is someone who is aware that the Spirit has been poured out upon him and as a result he is enabled and impelled to speak the words of God. Without that experience, no man could ever be a prophet.

Meaning of Anointing

• To be set apart from unholy things;
• To be given authority to act as a crowned king;
• To be able to speak God's words and have those words confirmed by charismatic gifts;
• To spread abroad the fragrance of Christ;
• To be a unifying influence, and
• To promote spiritual life and vitality.

These are the characteristics of those prophets who have received the abiding anointing of the Holy Spirit himself.

First published in Prophecy Today, Vol 1, No 5, 1985.

'Out of the Desert' by Mike Dwight (New Wine Press, 2015, 79 pages, £5.99, available from Roperpenberthy for £5)

Mike has served as a missionary with WEC International for over 35 years in Europe and Asia. His ministry has involved church planting and leadership training, most recently with WEC Betel International. This book, his first, is based on the talks he gave at their 2013 conference, which centred on Exodus 33 and God's planned journey for Moses and the people of Israel. Drawing lessons from this passage, Mike brings a powerful encouragement to all involved in mission or ministry: to get closer to God in order to serve him more effectively.

Personal Witness

It is soon apparent that God has been speaking to Mike very powerfully in recent times, showing him new things that would change his ministry even after years of experience and success. As the author tells us towards the end, "What I have shared in this book is not the product of study so much as an opening of my heart to what God has personally been doing in me over these last few years" (p77).

Stories and testimonies from Mike's life and ministry flow naturally and regularly as he takes us through the scriptural passages and key points. But these are not mere anecdotes; they enhance his message like lights on an airport runway, guiding us along the path he wants us to share. As his own personal pilgrimage unfolds, his integrity and honesty encourage us to reflect on our own journeys and where we are with God at present. Do we hear the call, as Moses did, to "leave this place" and "go up to the land I promised" (Ex 33:1)?

Mike testifies through his own journey that God is more important than any ministry or calling: we cannot go out of the desert without him."

A Fresh Revelation

But as Mike explains clearly and passionately, you cannot begin this new journey without a fresh encounter with God and revelation of him, otherwise "I will not go with you" (Ex 33:2). Mere gifting and experience is not enough. God himself needs to be at the centre of any ministry and in the heart of anyone desiring to serve him.

We are repeatedly warned that "we cannot drift casually into the purposes, calling and future plans of God, no matter how able and capable we think we may be." (p22). Time has to be spent in God's presence, listening and seeing before speaking and doing. We must rest in God before we can journey with him, allowing him to move our hearts before we move our lips or feet. This is what makes a ministry truly prophetic, one which is alive to the next stage of the journey and aware of what the world most needs from God. It is no surprise that Mike's Biblical hero is Enoch, more renowned for walking with God than doing anything else!

We must rest in God before we can journey with him, allowing him to move our hearts before we move our lips or feet."

New Impetus

The book is both hard-hitting and gently persuasive, a sure sign of being Spirit-inspired. In his foreword, Jim Graham sums it up as "not so much a book to be enjoyed as to be experienced" (p.ix). Yet, it is also an enjoyable read. The spoken word has been expertly transferred into the written word, and the resulting volume, although slim, is packed with help for those setting out in ministry as well as for those who have been in ministry for years but seeking a fresh impetus and greater fulfilment.

Here is a message from someone with a clear call on his life and who has resolutely followed it, but who has also discovered that God himself is more important than any ministry or calling. We cannot go out of the desert without him.

As we approach the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, Lynda Rose asks: how real are its freedoms for us today?

On 15 June 1215, with England on the brink of civil war, King John met with the barons at Runnymede and put his seal to what was in effect a peace treaty: Magna Carta. Today, that Charter has become one of the most celebrated and influential documents in history, rightly seen as the foundation for Democracy worldwide. Lord Denning described it as "...the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot."¹

But just how real are those freedoms in 21st century Britain? Does the spirit of Magna Carta live on...or has it been destroyed by secular totalitarianism?

Rights for all?

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations calls 'a Magna Carta for all humanity', human rights are:

rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.²

Those rights include: freedom of belief and religion, the right to life, the right to be treated equally before the law, the right to freedom without imprisonment for just cause, the right to marry and have a family, and the right to education.

Globally, we talk a lot about 'rights' these days. In fact, "It's my right!" has become almost a mantra, justifying any and every imaginable behavior in the worldwide quest for self-fulfillment. But the reality in present-day secular and multicultural Britain is that 'rights' are extremely selectively applied, and increasingly Christians are finding themselves not just marginalized, but no longer allowed to speak in public about their faith.

Ideological war

What many do not realize is that the situation today is the direct result of an ideological war; between Christians on the one hand, and Secularism on the other. It is a war that will allow no quarter, and that has as its goal the complete annihilation of Christianity.

The ideological war being waged by Secularism will allow no quarter: its goal is the complete annihilation of Christianity."

Moral rebranding in the name of tolerance and diversity is part of a much larger strategy that started at around the beginning of the last century, when the Soviet Institute for Social Research – later rebranded the Frankfurt School - identified the Judeo-Christian legacy (seen as both the foundation and buttress of Western society) as the reason why the revolution had not spread, as expected, across Europe. Based on this analysis, they devised a complex strategy aimed at completely destroying the beliefs and institutions on which Western society rested. As well as religion, in particular they targeted the Family, which they identified as one of the main building blocks.

It was a strategy designed to produce mass hopelessness and alienation, destroying faith in God and any idea of transcendent purpose that might provide some sort of unifying force for the common man. In the words of Muzenburg, one of the founders of the movement, "We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks."

In 1969, following the Stonewall riots, this same strategy was taken over and developed by the Gay rights movement, brought to a peak in 1989 by Kirk and Madsen. In their book 'After the Ball: How America will Conquer Its Hatred and Fear of Gays in the '90s', the pair devised a strategy designed to rebrand morality. Their express aim was to recast gays as victims – where necessary rewriting history – to achieve not just acceptance, but to make homosexuality the norm. So began the demolition of the establishment from within.

Moral rebranding in the name of tolerance and diversity is part of a much larger strategy that has been going on for over a century."

A carefully orchestrated strategy

This is not to say that everyone who embraces secularist, humanist or LGBT ideas today is signed up to the Frankfurt School or is deliberately attacking Christianity, but this actually is the agenda that, consciously or unconsciously, such people have been seduced into following. It is an organised and carefully orchestrated strategy for totalitarianism, which wants at base the complete overthrow of Christianity and Western society. Hardly surprising then that freedom of speech is being re-cast to demonise anything that implies criticism of the new dogma, with anything outside of that – whether personal opinion or a quotation from the Bible - being re-cast as hate speech.

It is important that we understand this, because we too, in the name of 'tolerance' and love, have been subjected to psychological conditioning. And, sad to say, many in the Church have succumbed. This is why the Church is weak – because we have lost our way. But endorsement of behaviours prohibited in the Bible, far from demonstrating Christian love, makes us complicit in sin.

Freedom of speech is being re-cast to demonise anything which criticizes the new dogma, re-positioning it as hate speech."

So, what can we do?

First, and most obviously, we have to start by recovering the truths of our faith. Which means that we need to go back and read the Bible. Carefully. And we need to repent where we've gone astray. Because only then will we have the clarity to understand our spiritual heritage, and what God has done for us uniquely in Christ. Only then will we be able to stand against the lies!

Second, we need to fear God rather than man, and to stand up for our faith. Because if we don't, then not only do we betray the One who died for us, but we condemn our fellow human beings to unimaginable torment that will last forever. This is the truth for which we stand guardian.

We need to recover the truths of our faith, reclaiming what has been stolen from us, and standing up for it!

Third, we need to reclaim the language that has been stolen, and refuse to be cowed into accepting the lies and misinformation put about by those who want to drive Christianity from the public arena. Whatever we tell ourselves, we will not remain 'relevant' or retain influence by adapting our message. No, God did not get it wrong, and times have not 'moved on'! The Bible is expression of eternal and transcendent truth, and only by following its precepts will men and women be free and find true fulfillment.

In the words of Jeremiah (6:16):

Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.

In the current ideological struggle, there is no such thing as a safe middle ground where we can remain neutral. Let us make no mistake, this is a spiritual war, and we are either on one side or the other. It's as stark as that. We either defend our rights and our faith – which, as seen in Magna Carta, has made Western society what it is – or we lose those rights altogether, and see a different, intolerant and harsh value system come into force: a system that will only allow the expression of views that validate itself, with everything else suppressed!

In this struggle, there is no such thing as a safe, neutral middle ground. Make no mistake, this is a spiritual war- we are either on one side or the other."

On 15 June, to commemorate the 800th anniversary of the actual signing of Magna Carta, VfJUK is organizing a Rally outside Parliament. We are asking a question: How free are YOU today? And, based on Magna Carta, we are saying enough is enough. Please join us in defending the Christian foundation of this country and our Christian freedoms, as we call for 'real' freedom of speech and of belief. Come yourself, and bring along ten friends – and ask them to invite ten more!

It's time to make a stand for our faith. Together we can make a difference.

For details of the rally, visit the Voice for Justice website, or register to come on Facebook.

References

1 Magna Carta and the Law Society and Bar Council

2 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Monica Hill begins a new series on the spiritual gifts.

An Overview of the Biblical Gifts

The New Testament gives four different lists of what are commonly known as 'Gifts of the Spirit'.

1. The Nine Manifestations, in 1 Corinthians 12:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. (vv7-10)

2. The Seven Natural Talents found in Romans 12:

We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. (vv6-8)

3. The Five Roles or Ministries found in Ephesians 4:

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (vv11-13).

4. The Two Methods found in 1 Peter 4:

Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. (vv 10-11)

Differences?

These listings each have a different emphasis. The Spiritual Manifestations are not really gifts as possessions. They are not permanently owned by any individual, but rather given for a specific purpose when they are needed. They can come through any believer who is listening to God.

The Natural Talents are gifts we are born with – but they can become Spiritual Gifts if they are handled rightly. The Roles have a specific purpose to build up the body of believers, both to sustain them and to help them grow and exercise their ministries with others. The Methods relate to, and underpin, all the gifts.

Some gifts are given for a particular purpose and moment- others develop over a lifetime. Some are natural talents, whilst others are supernaturally given. Some are given as ministries to specific individuals, whilst many more are available to all believers."

Repetition?

In the four lists above 'prophecy' appears in three - but this is not repetition, as each mention has a different emphasis. The Manifestation of prophecy is the prophetic word given by God to an individual for a specific situation, the Natural Gift of prophecy is the natural gift of oratory including the ability to perceive the relevance of Biblical texts so that they can be proclaimed with understanding to others.

Since the coming of Christ and the Great Commission, the church has become the prophet to the world, so the Ministry of prophecy (to which only some individuals are called) is now to alert and guide the church to carry out its prophetic task and to ensure that it does not deviate from scripture. Similarly, having the Natural gift of teaching is not identical with the Ministry of a Teacher.

What About Today?

These gifts were given to the Early Church, but it is a misconception to say that they are no longer valid today. We will unpack the biblical references and evidence of how they can operate today in future instalments of this series.

1. The Spiritual Manifestations are still a new phenomenon to many and in recent years their use has been expanded - sometimes rather inappropriately.
2. The Natural Gifts have been largely accepted in the church (and society) for many years and although they are much more understandable, they also need to be unpacked. I was brought up to believe and accept these gifts as the basis of both the church and a good society. In most societies they are still valued today - though the Giver is often forgotten.
3. The Roles or Ministries should be present in every church. Although many churches highlight the Pastor / Teacher role in their leadership, all the Ministries are needed and have a rightful place.
4. The Two Methods need to be re-emphasised today. Peter highlighted them at the time of the persecution of the Early Church and they helped them at that time. Today they can help us bring everything into a right perspective.

It is a common misconception that the spiritual gifts are no longer valid today. In this series we will unpack the evidence to the contrary, and look at God's intention for the best use of his wonderful gifts."

Are there any other Gifts?

It is unlikely that the Gifts listed in the New Testament are the only ones given to us by the Holy Spirit. For example, martyrdom and self-sacrifice figured largely in the Early Church as a gift of God, enabling many to come through victoriously in a time of persecution. Another example is the gift of music, which many use in the Lord's service.
Gifts and the Body of Christ

God gives all believers gifts which will enable them to grow stronger in their faith BUT it is not expected that any believer will have all the gifts - this is where the body comes in. We need each other and belong to each other: as the gifts are given for the building up of the Body, they cannot be used in isolation. A single stick on its own can be easily broken but many sticks bound together are much more difficult to break - and a bundle of sticks can also be much more effective in standing firm.

Always bear in mind that the Spiritual Gifts are given to build up the Body - not to divide it. The body is built up so that it can go beyond itself and be a witness in the neighbourhood or social group - and in the world. It should be a witness to God's love and desire that all will come to know him and honour and serve him.

Spiritual gifts are given to build up the Body of Christ- not to divide it. Often individuals can best discover, develop and use their giftings in a small group setting."

Discovering and Affirming Gifts

Small groups are helpful in discovering and affirming gifts. There is a strength and solidarity in a small group which is not there for an individual on his or her own. In these groups, the Scriptures can be studied together so that all can contribute to a common understanding. Believers can be affirmed and supported, and gifts can be used with each other and in outreach.

Small groups can also be vital places where believers help each other recognise where they are gifted, and where they are not! Remember that if other members of your group cannot recognise the gift God has given you (without you telling them you have it!), you may be 'thinking too highly of yourself' and may need to think again on how you are using the gifts God has given you.

This series will develop in many ways as we look in more detail at each of the gifts from a Biblical standpoint and how they can be used today.

Please do comment from your own experience.

Background to the series

In the 1980s, Prophecy Today was at the forefront of the fresh wave of spiritual growth and neo-Pentecostalism sweeping the nation. It researched and promoted the modern day usage of the gifts of the Spirit from a Biblical standpoint, producing many mini-books which still have value today.

This researching and production of resources has carried on since then and Issachar Ministries has built up a 'Resourcing for Prayer' network which explores these issues from the perspective of prayer groups. Some of that material will be made more widely available in this series.

Please feel free to comment on these articles and add from your own perspective.

The family in Britain has undergone a revolutionary change since the beginning of last century, and is weaker than ever before. Clifford Hill discusses what we can learn from the early days of Christianity.

The family in Britain has undergone a revolutionary change since the beginning of last century. In the Victorian era the family was large and consisted of several generations. Children usually had a number of siblings as well as cousins and second cousins and aunties and uncles as well as parents and grandparents. The family was a community that gave identity, support and security to both children and adults.

Family life in Britain today has probably never been weaker. Many children do not even know their own grandparents and many could not name their cousins or second cousins. We are rapidly becoming a nation of individuals who lack identity and security, partly accounting for high levels of depression in British society.

Family life in Britain today has probably never been weaker. There is much we can learn from the early days of the Church, when people from all walks of life were drawn together as a family."

There is much that we can learn from the development of Christianity in its earliest days when people from all walks of life and from different ethnic communities shared a common experience of Jesus which drew them together as a family where they felt loved and valued.

Time of Transition

Roman society in the first century AD was in transition from a Republic to an Empire: from being governed by an elected Senate to coming under the control of an Emperor (a dictator). It was a time of social turmoil in which the one constant factor was the family. It was the family unit that gave stability to the whole Greco-Roman world in a time of great uncertainty.

The family at that time of transition was nothing like the family we know today in our Western civilisation. It was also nothing like the extended family in Victorian England or in African society. The family in Greco-Roman society was a household consisting of blood relatives, adopted children, servants and slaves. The larger households also included wage labourers at one end of the social scale and 'friends' at the other end.

Friends

The 'friends' were extremely high status, enjoying great prestige due to their close and intimate relationship with the head of the family, to whom they acted as counsellors and advisers. When Jesus conferred this title upon his disciples, he was paying them the highest tribute possible. He was sharing his inner thoughts with them; taking them fully into his confidence:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. (John 15:15)

Clearly, Jesus was fully familiar with the household structure of Roman society in making this statement. He knew that the highest status in Rome was to be called a 'Friend of Caesar'.

In Roman households, 'friends' enjoyed extremely high status, close intimacy with the head of the family and full confidence."

Adopted Children

The adoption of children played a large part in Greco-Roman society. The adopted child also enjoyed a privileged position within the family and a high status in society. There were six principles of adoption in Greek and Roman society, all of which have spiritual significance for us today (see also Paul's teaching in Galatians). These six principles are:

• The adopted child is considered a true son or daughter– as true as one born by blood
• The adoptive father promises to support the child and provide their daily necessities
• The adopted child cannot be repudiated by the adoptive father
• The adopted child cannot be reduced to slavery
• The adopted child cannot be reclaimed by his natural father
• By the adoption the child is constituted an heir of the adoptive father

Adopted children in Greco-Roman society were immensely privileged. They were considered true sons and daughters- true heirs –secure and provided for, and unable to be reclaimed by their natural father."

Paul had all of these principles in his mind when he declared to the Gentile Christians "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). He reinforced this with the statement "So you are no longer a slave, but a son: and since you are son, God has made you also an heir" (Gal 4:7). For a Jew to make this statement to the Gentiles was of huge significance! Paul was saying that because God had adopted them, they were actually more secure in the love of the Father than if they had been born Jews! What a wonderful re-assurance this is! God has actually chosen us and adopted us into his family!

Pater Familias

In Roman society the 'Pater Familias' (head of the family) was the ruler of his household. In large households he had enormous power. This was necessary in order to preserve unity within the family and to ensure its smooth working. Jesus was quite familiar with this kind of household, as is seen in his parable of the 'Unmerciful Servant' where the householder exercised absolute power (Matt 18:21-35). The unity of the household-family was essential for its survival which is reflected in Jesus' statement, "Every household divided against itself will not stand" (Matt 12:25).

The unity of the household-family was essential for its survival. Members had to be totally committed and share everything with each other, including their faith."

Family Unity

In order to preserve the unity of the family it was essential that they should share a common faith or religious commitment. When the head of the household became a Christian it was expected that the whole family would adopt the same faith, as when the Philippian jailer was converted. Luke's account of Paul and Silas praying and singing in prison that led to the jailer's conversion says "At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds: then immediately he and all his family were baptised" (Acts 16:33).

Early Church Model

It was this large household-family that became the model for the Early Church in New Testament times and for several centuries beyond. Jesus was the Head and all the members shared a common belief. They met in one another's homes and shared their food at a 'common meal' as they would in any family home, and there was love, loyalty, and commitment to each other.

Community of Believers

Since they were all adopted children, they were all of the same status in the family. There was no 'one-upmanship'. Their loyalty to the Head of the family – to Jesus, who had rescued them from a crooked generation steeped in the evil practices of darkness - had brought them into the kingdom of light. When they came together their joy overflowed in praise and thanksgiving. The risen Jesus was the Head of the family, the leader of the community. "Jesus is Lord!" was constantly upon their lips.

They were a community of believers; they were family- what a model for us! It would seem that in Britain today, everything conspires against this sort of living. Faith is lived out privately, behind closed doors. Lives are too busy to be deeply shared. Families are broken, far-flung and fluid. But where there is challenge, there is also opportunity for the light of the Gospel to shine- and shine it will, if we let it, in the growing darkness. This doesn't mean that Christians need to have 'perfect' nuclear families (indeed, the early Church model wasn't 'nuclear' at all). It means opening our doors wide to share our lives and our faith with others, in the love of Christ and the unifying power of the Holy Spirit.